The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Vox Day Archive
Interviewing Moshe Feiglin
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Moshe Feiglin, Jerusalem, 2009.  Credit: David Rabkin/Wikimedia Commons
Moshe Feiglin, Jerusalem, 2009. Credit: David Rabkin/Wikimedia Commons
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Moshe Feiglin is the former Deputy Speaker of the Knesset and the head of Zehut, an Israeli political party formed in 2015. Zehut advocates the return of Israel to the Jewish people and leading the State of Israel through authentic Jewish values. Feiglin was interviewed by Vox Day on January 24, 2017.

VOX DAY: There are a lot of political parties in Israel. Why was another one necessary? What does Zehut offer the Israeli voter that Likud and Labor do not?

MOSHE FEIGLIN: Both sides, Likud and Labor, do not focus on the basic Jewish concept, which is liberty. The basic message of Judaism is liberty. As we know, the Founding Fathers of the United States based their deepest concepts on the Bible and the Jewish prophets. This message is very much needed in Israel. It is needed for Israel to become, not just another state, but a real Jewish state that brings to the world those old/new concepts. Otherwise, Israel will lose its identity and the meaning for its existence, and it will also start to lose its legitimacy. I believe the international community is actually waiting, longing, for some kind of a serious message that will come out from this wonderful, unusual experience where the oldest nation in the world is coming back to its homeland. The entire world is supposed to benefit from this, to achieve something from this beyond just another state in the world that is modern and democratic. Humanity is waiting for something deeper than that from us.

VD: You’re often described as being liberty-minded, even as a libertarian. What does that mean in a historically socialist state such as Israel?

MF: That’s exactly the point! The social concepts that were the basic roadmap of Israel’s founders in 1948, in the three first decades of Israel, those concepts are not Jewish concepts. With all due respect to the kibbutz and all the socialists’ ideas, these are not Jewish ideas. The basic Jewish ideas are freedom and liberty. There is also the frame of the Jewish values of mercy, and taking care of each other, and responsibility to society, but these should not be state regulations. They should be more of a national culture that has to be developed in the community. We know that in states that are more free and more capitalist, the situation of the poor is much better than in socialist states. So, there is no contradiction between freedom and humanity.

VD: What is the most serious challenge facing Israel today, and what is your plan for addressing that challenge?

SJWsAlwaysLie MF: I think the most serious and important challenge, the crucial challenge, I would say, is to connect between Jewish identity and Israeli identity. Despite being very strong today, Israel must meet that important challenge or risk losing its legitimacy and ability to continue. The challenge is to create a modern state in a modern world, very technological, very democratic, and very open-minded on one hand, and very connected to Jewish identity and Jewish culture on the other hand. And I think the only way to do it is to take the state out of the picture as much as we can. The state should be as small as can be and leave an open space without interfering with the synergy between the population, the interaction between religious and non-religious, the synergy between Jews who came from the East and Jews who came from the West. Something big is going on, through which the whole world will enjoy the cultural and spiritual fruits. We have much more to give the world than just technology and medicine. This will only happen if the state will stop interfering, if the gun of the State will be taken off the middle of the table and Israelis will be free to develop their culture with free interactions with each other. And, of course, it also goes to the economy. Israel can be very successful, the richest country in the world, in my opinion, but the involvement of the government in the economy is still one of the worst in the OECD. We’re very far away from a free economy. There are so many regulations. The size of the government is enormous.

VD: You talked about the division between Israeli identity and Jewish identity, and the need to bring those two concepts together? Do you see any potential problem in the way Jews are perceived to be pro-immigration and anti-identity in the West while being anti-immigration and pro-identity in Israel?

MF: Look, Israel is probably the most open state to immigration to ever exist, maybe even more than America. I think Israel is the only state in the history in the world that sends its troops to Africa to bring black people to be its citizens instead of being its slaves. I’m speaking of the Jews from Ethiopia. We’re definitely not racist and we’re definitely a great example of a state that has opened its doors to immigration in a very successful way. However, this is a Jewish state and we have to maintain its identity, not lose it. Therefore, being that Israel is based on the Jewish identity – it’s a Jewish state, it’s not a state of all its citizens – we have to be very careful when we’re dealing with those questions of immigration.

VD: What would a long-term peace in the Middle East look like? Is there any possibility for genuine peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, or is this a situation more akin to the Cold War, which only time can resolve in its own fashion.

MF: You may be surprised, but I’m very optimistic. The reason for the conflict is that Israeli society did not make clear to itself what is our identity. I know for a fact, from talking to Arab members of the Knesset about the situation here in the Middle East that the reason why the Arabs do not accept the Israeli state is that they don’t see the new Israelis, the Zionists, those who are trying to create a new identity instead of the Jewish identity, they don’t see them as real Jews who belong to the region. Therefore they don’t accept them. I was talking to an Arab Knesset member once, and he told me, “with you, I will manage, because you belong here.” It’s not a territorial conflict, it’s a cultural conflict. I think that the wars we have around us, and against us, are a reflection of the identity war we have inside Israeli society. Once that inner war is settled, we’ll be able to make peace with our neighbors. It’s just like somebody who is fighting with himself all the time, he will also fight with his neighbors. It’s true for individuals and it’s true for nations. There was never a Palestinian nation, there was never a Palestinian state. That’s all one big lie. If, God forbid, Israel would disappear one day, immediately, the word “Palestinian” would disappear as well. When the Gaza Strip, or Judea-Samaria, or parts of the land of Israel were held by the Egyptian army, or by the Jordanian army, you never heard any voices calling for those pieces of land to be given back to the so-called Palestinians. They will always fight for a Palestinian state on the square inch where the Jew is standing. In order to solve the conflict, we need to start saying the truth. The truth is that the land of Israel is a Jewish land, it belongs to the Jews more than any piece of land on Earth belongs to any other nation, and they have more historical right to it than any other nation. We have to be ourselves. When we hide from our identity, we open the door to these demands and these wars.

VD: What should Israel’s position on Syria be? Was overturning the Assad government a legitimate and reasonable objective for the Obama administration? Should the West be involving itself in regime change in the Middle East?

MF: Israel is the strongest state in the region. When a humanitarian crisis, like what’s taken place in Syria, is happening right on our border, I don’t think Israel, as a Jewish state representing moral values, can stand aside and see vast massacres taking place. I don’t want our soldiers going in and getting involved with that war, of course. However, I think that a long time ago, Israel should have set up a safe zone, protected by the air force and artillery, where citizens running away from murderers, whether it is Assad, ISIS, DAESH, or whoever, can be safe. There should have been that kind of humanitarian involvement from Israel. Because Israel did not do that, we saw other forces come into the vaccuum, and they only escalated the violence.

VD: Is Iran a significant threat to Israel? Why should the various threats made by Iranian officials from time to time be taken any more seriously than, for example, Saddam Hussein’s threats preceding Desert Storm?

MF: I think that 70 years after the Holocaust, we should take very, very seriously every big state with a leader saying “I want to kill the Jews.” Today, the Jews are represented by the State of Israel. When you say you want to destroy Israel, you want to destroy the Jews. So we’re talking about a new Hitler. Was it good that the original Hitler was not taken seriously in the mid-1930s? So, yes. The answer is yes, the Iranian regime should be taken seriously. I think what Obama did was not any different than what Chamberlain did in the Munich agreement. The horrendous results of that are still ahead of us. I expected Netanyahu to deal with Iran exactly how Begin did with Iraq. Unfortunately, he did not have the courage to do so, and he got America involved. He transferred responsibility to the Americans, and that’s why we got this horrible agreement. And that’s why we are going to need to deal with the results of that later on.

VD: Jews are often, understandably, concerned about the Holocaust. But do you think there is a diminishing effect of appealing to the Holocaust, considering that it is beyond the living memory of most people today? How can anyone expect the Holocaust to make any difference to, say, the Chinese, who killed 50 million of their own people? Why would they care more about an order of magnitude fewer Jews being killed 70 years ago than they do about themselves?

MF: It’s a very important question. I agree with you 100 percent. When I’m talking about the Holocaust, I don’t think that it is something Israel needs to wave before the entire world, not at all. I don’t like that every VIP who comes to Israel is taken to Yad Vashem. Not at all! I’m not looking to embarrass anyone about the Holocaust and I don’t base Israel’s right to exist on the Holocaust. When I bring it up, I am saying that we, Israel, have to remember our own experience. When the head of a serious state, 60 million civilians, a member of the UN, with a serious army, talks about destroying Israel, we should believe him. I’m not turning to the Americans, or the Russians, or anyone else, to help me. I’m reminding myself that I should learn from my own experience. The right of Israel to exist is not Yad Vashem. The right of Israel to exist is not the recent past. The right to exist, and to flourish, is the message that the Jewish nation still needs to enlighten the entire world, and to help it flourish from Zion. This is our point. It is a positive point, not a negative one.

Vox Day is the best-selling author of SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police and blogs at Vox Populi.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Israel, Judaism, Middle East 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Alden says:

    From his face to every word he is the absolute epitome of an anti Semitic stereotype. Yuck!!!!!!!

    Read More
    • Troll: TWS
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/interviewing-moshe-feiglin/#comment-1741052
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. LarryS says:

    When will Israel define its border? Is it Genesis 15:18 from the river in Egypt to the Euphrates river in Iraq? Didn’t God make His covenant conditional on the obedience of Abraham’s offspring? Deuteronomy 28. Does the modern, secular state called Israel have a living prophet telling the Jews to take the land away from the people living there? The 10 tribes of the Kingdom of Israel were conquered and assimilated in 722 BC leaving the southern Kingdom of Judah (and the tribe of Benjamin). They were conquered in 586 BC. Later Judeans (Jews) returned to Judea. The land today should rightfully be called Judea, not Israel, and of course Jews should be allowed to live there. But I disagree that it should be a solely Jewish state. Also, I do not believe that the modern, secular state called Israel has anything to do with the Second Coming of Christ. Modern Israel was created by the UN in 1948 and is not the Israel of the Bible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    God is not a real estate agent. The concept of Israel is of the mind and NOT a piece of land...
  3. macilrae says:

    We’re definitely not racist and we’re definitely a great example of a state that has opened its doors to immigration in a very successful way.

    Give me a break!

    In truth we are all racist – including the most liberal Africa-loving suburban English Guardian-reader who will definitely cross to the other side of the road when she encounters a group of young blacks approaching on a dark night. Certainly including the Africans themselves.

    As for all the Jews I ever met personally and got to know, they are among the most racist of people: is not Obama’s derogatory nickname “Der Shvarzer”?

    But of course I see that this has to be be denied at all cost – but come on, Moshe, lighten up and have a beer: you can tell me!

    Read More
    • Agree: Druid
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Saying "we are all racist" is an abuse of language which destroys meaning and therefore debate. If you went for the non pejorative "we all have elements of tribalism in us" you wouldn't deny the chance to argue - as far as I can tell quite plausibly that Israel, and a large proportion of its citizens, make a bigger deliberate effort to avoid practical racism than most countries. (Not to attempt a whitewash like the author).

    They have done a big if less than wholly successful job of integrating immigrants from very different backgrounds and cultures, including black Falasha, and regardless of whether they believe in God. Of course the abuse of language is incipient when the word "racism" is raised at all. What the hell does it mean in clear rational discourse? It has been contaminated by having all sorts of aspects of culture and even religion attached to it. In fact the primacy of Jewishness by matrilineal descent does make it hard to get away from the notion of race which Jews cringe at when used since the 1930s. That splendid Jewish Anglican (?atheist) Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli had a great old Jew in one of his novels say "all is race".

    Am I in the end disagreeing with you? I don't know by now.

    , @Wally
    "We’re definitely not racist and we’re definitely a great example of a state that has opened its doors to immigration in a very successful way. "

    Laughable.

    Israeli immigration laws specify Jews Only, while those same Jews demand mass 3rd world immigration into the US & Europe.
    , @woodNfish

    In truth we are all racist
     
    You are confusing the natural desire to be with one's own kind with disliking a person simply because of their race. They are not the same.
    , @Dumbo
    Well, he wants it both ways. "Not racist" because Jews are not a "race", but still exclusionary because it is a "religion" -- for it is not a universal religion but a religion with some kind of race-like (i.e. ethnicity) principles.

    In fact, as I understand, to migrate to Israel you do not need to practice the religion (you can be an atheist Jew), but you need to have "Jewish origins".

    So in the end, being "Jewish" is not so different from being "Italian" or being "Turkish". (Some Italians and Turks are also darker than others).

    Anyway, I'm getting to the point that I wonder if it is possible at all for Jews to be straight and direct about what they "really" think and feel.

    I mean, many people here have this idea of Jews as being duplicitous, but I am beginning to think that they really think what they say, that they really believe that they are not "racist", and that many of them, even in the elite, really believe the dumb progressive ideas that they promote. They are just unable to see beyond certain limits. I don't know, but that's what it seems.
  4. I believe the international community is actually waiting, longing, for some kind of a serious message that will come out from this wonderful, unusual experience where the oldest nation in the world is coming back to its homeland.

    Oldest nation in the world?

    I stopped reading right there. Obviously the guy is as ignorant as he is nuts. Who do these clowns think they’re bullshitting, anyway?

    I know that we goyim are ignorant, stupid, contemptible saps, but there are limits to our gullibility.

    And if these cloacas think they’re sooo smart, then why can’t they understand the basic concept that if you lie long enough, at least a few will catch on? Oh, I guess if yer special, the rules don’t apply.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Oldest nation in the world?
    I stopped reading right there. Obviously the guy is as ignorant as he is nuts. Who do these clowns think they’re bullshitting, anyway?
     
    "Ignorant and nuts" is not unique to this individual.

    Yossi Alpher, former Mossad agent and a career at Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, told Bruce Reidel of Brookings Institute, that the notion is widespread across "most Israelis."

    Alpher's words:


    "We Israelis . . . Israelis, to this day, have a need to -- a deep need to be recognized and accepted by the region.
    You see, Bibi’s demand, which is supported by most Israelis, that the Palestinians recognize us as a Jewish state, or the state of the Jewish people -- the nation-state of the Jewish people -- this goes way back, this need to be recognized.
    . . . there’s this sense that the ancient peoples of the Middle East have created an alliance, the people who precede the Arabs, okay. We go back with Iran, we just celebrated Purim, all right, we go back 2,600 years with Iran. The Egyptian, the Ethiopian national narrative is King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. So, this is almost a biblical -- a new biblical chapter.
    This is how many people in Israel felt. "
     
    In other words, Israelis are convinced that they are of the same stature, as an empire-building people, as the Persian empire, based on Esther and Mordechai's subversion of the Persian king, generations after the Persians had established that monarchy.

    Israeli Jews are orgasmic to destroy Iran because they genuinely think that they ARE Iran, they ARE the rightful heirs of the ancient Persian empire.

    Incredibly, in Alpher's estimation, Iranians, Egyptians and Ethiopians did not agree.
    Alpher explained:


    There were also some people who were just cynical, practitioners of realpolitik. Everybody in Tehran and in Addis and in Ankara were cynical practitioners of realpolitik.
    They did not reciprocate.
    They said, we kidded ourselves that they did.
    But we still do to this day, because if you believe that this is -- we are somehow Middle Eastern, ancient blood brothers, then who’s Khomeini? This wasn’t meant to be.
     
    You got that?
    Jews from Lithuania and Poland are "blood brothers" to the Persian royal family, but Khomeini, whose ancestors were from Naishapour, in Iran's Khorasan province, is an interloper!

    Alpher's -- and Feiglin's fever-dreams have origins in the even more feverish writing of proto-zionist Moses Hess, especially his Rome and Jerusalem, A Study in Jewish Nationalism, written in 1862 and published, in English, in 1918. https://www.marxists.org/subject/jewish/rome-jerusalem.pdf

    Hitler was born in 1889. He (supposedly) wrote Mein Kampf in 1924; the first complete English translation of MK was published in the USA by Jewish Communists in 1939.

    A side-by-side, topic-for-topic comparison of Hess's "Rome and Jerusalem" with "Mein Kampf" would make for absolutely fascinating reading: from a quick survey, my sense is that Hitler took great pains to tone down the racist and ethnic supremacist ideology that permeates Hess's work.

    That's why I wrote that Hitler "supposedly" wrote Mein Kampf: I think the narratives of Hitler's rise and rule, and of course the holy holocaust, are dramatically different from the narratives we have been force-fed for the better part of a century.

    It's past time we plunged a knife in the heart of that narrative, split it open and autopsy the offal. I suspect Feiglin -- and Netanyahu pere and fil, and Herzl and Ben Gurion, Weizmann and Jabotinsky -- will be observed squirming around in there.

    , @Chu
    'Oldest nation in the world?'

    I laughed at the same part. Realize though that these people are enamored in their fantasy myth collective about the nation called Israel. To us it looks like a crooked 70 year occupation swindle, but to them it's Shangri-La.

    We happen to live in the same worlds, but they are in a delusional reality about getting a 'nation' back. The US Congress likely supports these nuts, because they realize they need a mental asylum for their collective neurosis. Maybe it's better to build that collective asylum in the middle east than in their own backyard.
    , @Talha
    Hey JS,

    You stopped way too early, bro - it was just getting good!

    But he does get an applaud for being up front and frank on this point:
    "However, this is a Jewish state and we have to maintain its identity, not lose it. Therefore, being that Israel is based on the Jewish identity – it’s a Jewish state, it’s not a state of all its citizens – we have to be very careful when we’re dealing with those questions of immigration."

    I wish more people were more honest on this point.

    Peace.
    , @Druid
    Agree. However, most of us are that stupid.
    , @Dean
    Every 6-year-old Jewish child (at least in Israel) can read stories off the bible in its original language.
    What other people can read 3,000 years old text?

    If rabbi Akiva, who lived in Israel almost 2,000 years ago, woke up from his grave today most Jews could easily converse with him about current affairs, relating to things he said and done in his time and dilemmas he had which are not much different than those Israeli Jews deal with today.
    Can you say the same thing about, for instance, Confucius and the Chinese? I don't think so.
  5. @macilrae

    We’re definitely not racist and we’re definitely a great example of a state that has opened its doors to immigration in a very successful way.
     
    Give me a break!

    In truth we are all racist - including the most liberal Africa-loving suburban English Guardian-reader who will definitely cross to the other side of the road when she encounters a group of young blacks approaching on a dark night. Certainly including the Africans themselves.

    As for all the Jews I ever met personally and got to know, they are among the most racist of people: is not Obama's derogatory nickname "Der Shvarzer"?

    But of course I see that this has to be be denied at all cost - but come on, Moshe, lighten up and have a beer: you can tell me!

    Saying “we are all racist” is an abuse of language which destroys meaning and therefore debate. If you went for the non pejorative “we all have elements of tribalism in us” you wouldn’t deny the chance to argue – as far as I can tell quite plausibly that Israel, and a large proportion of its citizens, make a bigger deliberate effort to avoid practical racism than most countries. (Not to attempt a whitewash like the author).

    They have done a big if less than wholly successful job of integrating immigrants from very different backgrounds and cultures, including black Falasha, and regardless of whether they believe in God. Of course the abuse of language is incipient when the word “racism” is raised at all. What the hell does it mean in clear rational discourse? It has been contaminated by having all sorts of aspects of culture and even religion attached to it. In fact the primacy of Jewishness by matrilineal descent does make it hard to get away from the notion of race which Jews cringe at when used since the 1930s. That splendid Jewish Anglican (?atheist) Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli had a great old Jew in one of his novels say “all is race”.

    Am I in the end disagreeing with you? I don’t know by now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    Saying all people are tribal is not nearly as semantically loaded as saying they're all racist.

    Tattooing others with Scarlet Letter R, H(omophobe), T(ransphobe), etc. weaponized some English words. Such words are used to incite lynch mobs and increasingly are seen as "fighting words" in a near-legal sense.

    We Are the World inclusiveness was the peak of a cycle, and it occurred 17 years ago. The entire world is well on its way toward the opposite of that inclusiveness. The Muddy Middle is splintering, and its former residents are shifting into intensely held, mutually incompatible belief systems. When the markets finally turn down in earnest (later this year, following bonds?) we'll fast approach conditions where major wars break out.

    One of those camps already laughs at being called racist, and in coming years will define their mortal enemies as those who enjoy hurling it. We're heading to a time when insulting a man on the street will get you in a life-and-death fight, the kind of thing now common in urban underclass ghettos but like Rap music soon to be adopted by those not now associated with it.
    , @macilrae
    Let me start by qualifying my statement that "we are all racist" by stating what I understand a racist to be; in the sense that Mr. Feiglin used the term. It is intrinsically human to take notice of the fact that different races exhibit not only a different appearance but also different characteristics which are both culturally and genetically acquired - we all apply a statistical analysis to this and generate a stereotype. The more we hang out with them the more accurate our stereotype becomes. A "racist" is a person whose attitude to or actions towards a specific individual are modified by their stereotype. Usually we associate this with a negative attitude and consequent hostile actions such as Greg Dyke's statement that "the BBC is hideously white" (and by golly didn't they turn that around!) but it could also include affirmative action or the Guardian reader whom I had mentioned, broadcasting how utterly delighted she was that her son had married an African (and not just a nice person!).

    Anyhow, in western countries we hardly dare open our mouth these days on the subject of race - try asking an Asian-looking job applicant where he came from! Other cultures are more forthright: for example we may remember when Japanese PM Nakasone said words to the effect that "The level of Japanese society far surpasses that of the United States. There are many blacks, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans in the United States whose average level is extremely low." In Japan few people turned a hair - they mostly all agree - but this fell rather poorly on American ears. Similarly, when Jews and Israelis speak informally (settlers in particular) their opinions of "Arabs" and "blacks" are, shall we say, unpromising: the term "cockroaches" crops up a lot. Hence I found myself taking issue with Mr Feiglin's claim.
  6. Ronnie says:

    This article is irrational rubbish. Unz.com is usually more discriminating in what they publish.

    As someone recently Tweated “Israel as a nation state is something akin to Scientology”.

    I just returned from six days all over the West Bank. I can tell you with great certainty that Israel is the most racist country in the world. In all respects they treat the Palestinians in a way that shows little concern for the minimum standards of liberal decency. Most Israelis and illegal settlers I spoke to were racists by any definition. Hundreds of children as young as 14 go to jail for months when it is alleged that they threw a rock. The evidence is usually flimsy or from an unreliable source and the sentence is based on a plea-bargaining system that uses intimidation, fear and brute force to get a 99.7% conviction rate. I even attended the Army court for processing such victims. It reminded me of a dog pound in a very poor country. The judge was a IDF officer who was also an illegal settler.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pandos
    Rubbish - exactly.
    , @TWS
    The people in that part of the world have been trading absentee masters for a loong time. I do not care, no I welcome a group that not only has a historic claim but is willing to put themselves on the ground to run the place.

    Would there be less violence if the Israelis all just died, because that is clearly what you want. Would there be fewer thugocracies and cleptocracies? No. Whomever was running the place it would look like any other part of NAME world.
    , @another fred

    This article is irrational rubbish. Unz.com is usually more discriminating in what they publish.
     
    Personally, I found it quite illuminating. Perhaps your problem is in looking for rationality.

    Humans are more animals that rationalize their feelings rather than rational animals. Most of what you hear from people on any existential subject is rationalization, not rational.

    All articles about how peace is going to be made between these people are irrational to me. The Muslims are bent on the destruction of Israel and the Jews are determined to remain in control of their homeland, however defined. People who expect much rationality from either side in that circumstance are bound to be disappointed.

    Stripped of all the morally charged attitude, your description of the West Bank is what one should expect, if one accepts humans for what they are.

    , @Sheeple Believe NGO-Islamic Axis Lies

    "I just returned from six days all over the West Bank."
     
    LOL you went on one of those special tours the NGOs (funded by hostile terror-sympathizing foreign govt's) and terrorist organizations jointly arrange for gullible westerners to be duped by the phony Fakestinian "narrative" of oppression and victimhood by the evil joo occupier. They are the SJWist of SJWs and the same axis pushing 3rd wave feminism, "islamophobia narrative," BLM etc on american college campuses. CAIR and MSA and Hamas are very proud that they can propagandize you with ease.
  7. However, I think that a long time ago, Israel should have set up a safe zone, protected by the air force and artillery, where citizens running away from murderers, whether it is Assad, ISIS, DAESH, or whoever, can be safe. There should have been that kind of humanitarian involvement from Israel.

    Welfare, delivered by remote military might, is still welfare and obeys 100% of its axioms (not the least of which is dependence and expanding numbers of the dependent.)

    Israelis are, like most of the rest of the world’s populace, clannish people. One of the goals when such people interact with others is to “get over on them.”

    This is why, when a clannish person parrots the “Inside the Hajnal Line” openness of Westerners, he’s just telling the marks what they want to hear so they won’t notice he’s robbing them blind, deaf and dumb.

    It’s long past time People of Mostly Northern European Ancestry (POMNEA) realized that when someone who is NOT POMNEA sounds like they are, they’re lying.

    Read More
  8. @Wizard of Oz
    Saying "we are all racist" is an abuse of language which destroys meaning and therefore debate. If you went for the non pejorative "we all have elements of tribalism in us" you wouldn't deny the chance to argue - as far as I can tell quite plausibly that Israel, and a large proportion of its citizens, make a bigger deliberate effort to avoid practical racism than most countries. (Not to attempt a whitewash like the author).

    They have done a big if less than wholly successful job of integrating immigrants from very different backgrounds and cultures, including black Falasha, and regardless of whether they believe in God. Of course the abuse of language is incipient when the word "racism" is raised at all. What the hell does it mean in clear rational discourse? It has been contaminated by having all sorts of aspects of culture and even religion attached to it. In fact the primacy of Jewishness by matrilineal descent does make it hard to get away from the notion of race which Jews cringe at when used since the 1930s. That splendid Jewish Anglican (?atheist) Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli had a great old Jew in one of his novels say "all is race".

    Am I in the end disagreeing with you? I don't know by now.

    Saying all people are tribal is not nearly as semantically loaded as saying they’re all racist.

    Tattooing others with Scarlet Letter R, H(omophobe), T(ransphobe), etc. weaponized some English words. Such words are used to incite lynch mobs and increasingly are seen as “fighting words” in a near-legal sense.

    We Are the World inclusiveness was the peak of a cycle, and it occurred 17 years ago. The entire world is well on its way toward the opposite of that inclusiveness. The Muddy Middle is splintering, and its former residents are shifting into intensely held, mutually incompatible belief systems. When the markets finally turn down in earnest (later this year, following bonds?) we’ll fast approach conditions where major wars break out.

    One of those camps already laughs at being called racist, and in coming years will define their mortal enemies as those who enjoy hurling it. We’re heading to a time when insulting a man on the street will get you in a life-and-death fight, the kind of thing now common in urban underclass ghettos but like Rap music soon to be adopted by those not now associated with it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TWS
    Rap music and the culture are a minstrel show. The sad part is that it has been adopted wholesale as a legitimate culture. Ali -G and Jamie Kennedy's movies were no more outlandish and ridiculous than the life promoted by the entertainment industries.

    It's as if Stepin Fetchit was a role model for an entire generation rather than a caricature that was abandon when it was no longer funny.
  9. Sherman says:

    Interesting interview. Thanks for publishing it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Interesting interview. Thanks for publishing it.
     
    While I agree with the thanks because it helps display what's out there, I'm interested in what you found interesting about it.
  10. AaronB says:

    The Hajnal line – a fiction of the scientistic mind (I mean, the way it is used to explain supposed innate non-racism of Europeans).

    In reality, until quite recently Europeans were more racist and exclusivist than other peoples, and were often reproached with this (as far back as the crusades, Europeans were reproached for being unusually racist and exclucivist by the Arabs they fought. Lots of other examples, also) Europeans gave the world its most extreme example of a racist mentality in WW2 – this didn’t come from nowhere.

    What changed is that the overwhelming nature of European success led to a feeling of such security that Europeans felt they could “disarm”, so to speak, and attempt to practice a kind of global noblesse noblige.

    But this attitude was always predicated on Europeans being utterly secure in their position as top dog – now that that’s eroding, we are seeing a return to tribalism for whites.

    As for Feiglin and his idiotic “light unto the nations” Jewish supremacism, what a joke, but is it any worse than the retarded American “city on a hill” nonsense? Or the European conceit that they were on a “civilizing mission” to Asia during colonial times? Or China’s “middle kingdom” mentality when India was by far the pivotal cultural influence in Asia?

    The problem with nationalism is the laughable self-conceit it inevitably engenders.

    I am curious that Vox Day, a supporter of white tribalism, would post this – in a zero sum world, all nationalistic countries are inevitably rivals, and any alliance can only be ephemeral. Surely, Vox Day should support tribalism for whites, but seek to undermine tribalism for Jews. Isn’t that the way tribal fighting works? Perhpas Vox seeks to use Jewish tribalism to legitimize white tribalism, then turn on Jews and seek to undermine their tribalism once his own position is secured.

    Probably.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    ...in a zero sum world, all nationalistic countries are inevitably rivals,
     
    Bingo!

    The nationalists think they're protecting themselves yet seem oblivious to what they're setting themselves up for.

    When will we ever learn?
    , @Ingot9455
    When you debate someone's ideas, it's best not to to make up what their ideas are.

    Vox Day is too much the economist to consider the world a zero sum world.

    So your suggestion about how he 'should' think is about as dumb as thinking Trump hired the best Russian prostitutes to pee on a hotel bed.

    , @TWS
    Dang, I wasted my 'Troll' tag on someone else. What brings folks like you to comment. Lies, obvious lies that only the most liberal, ignorant or 'educated' could swallow whole come spewing out on the page. This is what you do while you drink your morning coffee?

    Watch some old Marx brothers. You'll laugh and be happier the rest of the day and the rest of us won't be bothered with something that any vapid celebrity could have regurgitated.
    , @dc.sunsets
    Attacking HBD and reciting the "We Are the World, Nationalism is for Losers" Universalist catechism all in one comment.

    Kudos. But what will you do when your dopamine surge of "look, I'm virtuous" feelz wears off? Take another hit on the Comment Pipe? Isn't tolerance beginning to set in?

    May I suggest an evening stroll though Chicago's Englewood neighborhood on the first warm Friday of the year? We're always open to awarding a new Biehl Cup or Ruenzel Prize (by definition, posthumously.)
    , @SolontoCroesus

    Europeans gave the world its most extreme example of a racist mentality in WW2 – this didn’t come from nowhere.
     
    Strenuously disagree, on at least three counts:

    1. The extent to which the 20th century wars in Europe concerned a "racist mentality," you're correct, it "didn’t come from nowhere," it came from Jews -- see Moses Hess, above and below. In 1862 when Hess wrote Rome and Jerusalem, he was fanatically committed to the ideology of Jewish supremacy and world dominance.

    2. WW2 was a geopolitical war among the British, the Americans, the Russians, and the Germans over who would dominate, primarily, the European continent and the "world island," and also who would dominate colonized areas of Asia and Africa. Jews, as interstitial people, provoked the wars; set about getting the various factions involved, financed/invested in both/all sides, and emerged the victors. Again, to the extent it was a racial war, the locus of racism was mostly in the Jewish contingent.

    3. If by "most extreme" you mean longest, WW2 was a relatively brief event. If you mean "most extreme" in terms of civilians killed and civilian infrastructure destroyed, then the destruction of Germany and the deliberate incineration then rape then ethnic transfer of German people might meet that definition. Once again, Jews were at the vanguard of envisioning, inciting, and perpetrating those acts of "most extreme" violence against the German people.

    I was going to select a few pithy passages from Moses Hess's book, but I couldn't stop --

    "Providence would not have prolonged your existence until today, had it not reserved for you the holiest of missions. The hour has struck for the resettlement of the banks of the Jordan. The historical books of the royal prophets can, perhaps, be written again only by you.

    A great calling is reserved for you: to be a living channel of communication between three continents. You should be the bearers of civilization to the primitive people of Asia, and the teachers of the European sciences to which your race has contributed so much. You should be the mediators between Europe and far Asia, open the roads that lead to India and Chin a -- this unknown regions which must ultimately be thrown open to civilization. You will come to the land of your fathers crowned with the crown of long martyrdom, and there, finally, sou will be completely healed from all your ills! Your capital will again bring the wide stretches of barren land under cultivation; your labor and industry will once more turn the ancient soil into fruitful valleys, reclaim the flat lands from the encroaching sands of the desert, and the world will again pay homage to the oldest of people.

    The time has arrived for you to reclaim, either by way of compensation or by other means, your ancient fatherland from Turkey, which has devastated it for ages. You have contributed enough to the cause of civilization and have helped Europe on the path of progress, to make revolutions and carry them out successfully. You must henceforth think of yourselves, of the valleys of Lebanon and the plains of Gennasareth.

    March forward! . . .

    March forward! . . .

    March forward, Jews of all lands! . . .

    March forward, ye sons of the martyrs! . . . bring again to Israel the splendor of the Davidic days and rewrite that part of history of which the monoliths of Semiramis are the only witness.

    March forward, ye noble hearts! The day on which the Jewish tribes return to their fatherland will be epoch-making in the history of humanity. Oh, how will the East tremble at your coming! How quickly, under the influence of labor and industry, will the enervation of the people vanish, in the land where voluptuousness, idleness and robbery have held sway for thousands of years.

    You will be the moral stay of the East. You have written the Book of books. Become, then, the educators of the wild Arabian hordes and the African peoples. Let the ancient wisdom of the East, the revelations of the Zend, the Vedas, as well as the more modern Koran and the Gospels, group themselves around your Bible. They will all become purified from every superstition and all will proclaim alike the principles of freedom, humanity, peace and unity. You are the triumphal arch of the future historical epoch, under which the great covenant of humanity will be written and sealed in your presence as the witnesses of the past and future. The Biblical traditions which you will revive, will also sanctify anew our Occidental society and destroy the weed of materialism together with its roots."
     
    This guy just doesn't quit! and so it's hard to stop reading and reporting, and formulating refuting commentary.

    One thought that occurred to me while I was basting a pork roast (it's SWMBO's birthday; hope she'll appreciate the marinade of grape jam (home made) with basil and garlic. Maybe that's a disgusting combination? We shall see.) -- Anyway -- it occurs to me that, as Israel Shahak has informed readers, Jews were strictly ghettoized by their own rabbis and leaders. To the extent they were literate (H. Abramson says that in the early 20th century 40% of Eastern European Jews were illiterate), Jews were forbidden to read secular material until emancipation in France in 1789. It was as much as 50 years later until the Haskalah movement opened up secular study among East European Jews. Jews who were literate and did study, read only Torah and Jewish works.
    Thus, Jews have deep, deep muscle-memory of Jewish literature, and even their sense of secular Jewish history is limited: Heinrich Gratz wrote the first, comprehensive history of the Jewish people as late as the mid-1870s (Hitler STILL not born), and Graetz's history has serious distortions, focusing as it does on Jewish victimhood and reinforcing what Moses Hess established as an article of faith, that Jews had been persecuted always and forever. Even more than non-Jews, Jews have spent centuries of their lives imbibing brainwashing.

    Hess, and his vision of the Jewish community everywhere, is solipsistic; in his muscle-memory, no Persians traded with Chinese and with Milanese along the Silk Road; no Moors created AlHambra; no Africans established great centers of learning at Timbuktu; no Confucius developed great practical philosophies; Machiavelli, who travelled to and admired the organizational skills of the German principalities, is invisible to Hess's ghetto-bound brain; Virgil never wrote, Cicero never spoke, da Vinci never sculpted and Michelangelo never drew. Jews and only Jews inform Hess's crusted lobes.
    It's sad, but such a diagnosis offers a ray of optimism and of resolution: Brain transplant!

    (Or at very least, an "Israel Reset" -- I come from a Catholic background, so the process of Confessing and Repenting come to mind --
    ~ Confess your sins
    ~ Do penance / make reparations
    ~ Repent -- that means, think again -- re-think the way you look at the world, and reformat a program that is obviously not functioning properly

    In Rwanda, the people engaged a Truth and Reconciliation process.

    Whatever -- the present system is not sustainable. Israel has got to stop living in its fictional past.
  11. Pandos says:
    @Ronnie
    This article is irrational rubbish. Unz.com is usually more discriminating in what they publish.

    As someone recently Tweated "Israel as a nation state is something akin to Scientology".

    I just returned from six days all over the West Bank. I can tell you with great certainty that Israel is the most racist country in the world. In all respects they treat the Palestinians in a way that shows little concern for the minimum standards of liberal decency. Most Israelis and illegal settlers I spoke to were racists by any definition. Hundreds of children as young as 14 go to jail for months when it is alleged that they threw a rock. The evidence is usually flimsy or from an unreliable source and the sentence is based on a plea-bargaining system that uses intimidation, fear and brute force to get a 99.7% conviction rate. I even attended the Army court for processing such victims. It reminded me of a dog pound in a very poor country. The judge was a IDF officer who was also an illegal settler.

    Rubbish – exactly.

    Read More
  12. @Sherman
    Interesting interview. Thanks for publishing it.

    Interesting interview. Thanks for publishing it.

    While I agree with the thanks because it helps display what’s out there, I’m interested in what you found interesting about it.

    Read More
  13. @AaronB
    The Hajnal line - a fiction of the scientistic mind (I mean, the way it is used to explain supposed innate non-racism of Europeans).

    In reality, until quite recently Europeans were more racist and exclusivist than other peoples, and were often reproached with this (as far back as the crusades, Europeans were reproached for being unusually racist and exclucivist by the Arabs they fought. Lots of other examples, also) Europeans gave the world its most extreme example of a racist mentality in WW2 - this didn't come from nowhere.

    What changed is that the overwhelming nature of European success led to a feeling of such security that Europeans felt they could "disarm", so to speak, and attempt to practice a kind of global noblesse noblige.

    But this attitude was always predicated on Europeans being utterly secure in their position as top dog - now that that's eroding, we are seeing a return to tribalism for whites.

    As for Feiglin and his idiotic "light unto the nations" Jewish supremacism, what a joke, but is it any worse than the retarded American "city on a hill" nonsense? Or the European conceit that they were on a "civilizing mission" to Asia during colonial times? Or China's "middle kingdom" mentality when India was by far the pivotal cultural influence in Asia?

    The problem with nationalism is the laughable self-conceit it inevitably engenders.

    I am curious that Vox Day, a supporter of white tribalism, would post this - in a zero sum world, all nationalistic countries are inevitably rivals, and any alliance can only be ephemeral. Surely, Vox Day should support tribalism for whites, but seek to undermine tribalism for Jews. Isn't that the way tribal fighting works? Perhpas Vox seeks to use Jewish tribalism to legitimize white tribalism, then turn on Jews and seek to undermine their tribalism once his own position is secured.

    Probably.

    …in a zero sum world, all nationalistic countries are inevitably rivals,

    Bingo!

    The nationalists think they’re protecting themselves yet seem oblivious to what they’re setting themselves up for.

    When will we ever learn?

    Read More
  14. @jacques sheete

    I believe the international community is actually waiting, longing, for some kind of a serious message that will come out from this wonderful, unusual experience where the oldest nation in the world is coming back to its homeland.
     
    Oldest nation in the world?

    I stopped reading right there. Obviously the guy is as ignorant as he is nuts. Who do these clowns think they're bullshitting, anyway?

    I know that we goyim are ignorant, stupid, contemptible saps, but there are limits to our gullibility.

    And if these cloacas think they're sooo smart, then why can't they understand the basic concept that if you lie long enough, at least a few will catch on? Oh, I guess if yer special, the rules don't apply.

    Oldest nation in the world?
    I stopped reading right there. Obviously the guy is as ignorant as he is nuts. Who do these clowns think they’re bullshitting, anyway?

    “Ignorant and nuts” is not unique to this individual.

    Yossi Alpher, former Mossad agent and a career at Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, told Bruce Reidel of Brookings Institute, that the notion is widespread across “most Israelis.”

    Alpher’s words:

    “We Israelis . . . Israelis, to this day, have a need to — a deep need to be recognized and accepted by the region.
    You see, Bibi’s demand, which is supported by most Israelis, that the Palestinians recognize us as a Jewish state, or the state of the Jewish people — the nation-state of the Jewish people — this goes way back, this need to be recognized.
    . . . there’s this sense that the ancient peoples of the Middle East have created an alliance, the people who precede the Arabs, okay. We go back with Iran, we just celebrated Purim, all right, we go back 2,600 years with Iran. The Egyptian, the Ethiopian national narrative is King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. So, this is almost a biblical — a new biblical chapter.
    This is how many people in Israel felt. “

    In other words, Israelis are convinced that they are of the same stature, as an empire-building people, as the Persian empire, based on Esther and Mordechai’s subversion of the Persian king, generations after the Persians had established that monarchy.

    Israeli Jews are orgasmic to destroy Iran because they genuinely think that they ARE Iran, they ARE the rightful heirs of the ancient Persian empire.

    Incredibly, in Alpher’s estimation, Iranians, Egyptians and Ethiopians did not agree.
    Alpher explained:

    There were also some people who were just cynical, practitioners of realpolitik. Everybody in Tehran and in Addis and in Ankara were cynical practitioners of realpolitik.
    They did not reciprocate.
    They said, we kidded ourselves that they did.
    But we still do to this day, because if you believe that this is — we are somehow Middle Eastern, ancient blood brothers, then who’s Khomeini? This wasn’t meant to be.

    You got that?
    Jews from Lithuania and Poland are “blood brothers” to the Persian royal family, but Khomeini, whose ancestors were from Naishapour, in Iran’s Khorasan province, is an interloper!

    Alpher’s — and Feiglin’s fever-dreams have origins in the even more feverish writing of proto-zionist Moses Hess, especially his Rome and Jerusalem, A Study in Jewish Nationalism, written in 1862 and published, in English, in 1918. https://www.marxists.org/subject/jewish/rome-jerusalem.pdf

    Hitler was born in 1889. He (supposedly) wrote Mein Kampf in 1924; the first complete English translation of MK was published in the USA by Jewish Communists in 1939.

    A side-by-side, topic-for-topic comparison of Hess’s “Rome and Jerusalem” with “Mein Kampf” would make for absolutely fascinating reading: from a quick survey, my sense is that Hitler took great pains to tone down the racist and ethnic supremacist ideology that permeates Hess’s work.

    That’s why I wrote that Hitler “supposedly” wrote Mein Kampf: I think the narratives of Hitler’s rise and rule, and of course the holy holocaust, are dramatically different from the narratives we have been force-fed for the better part of a century.

    It’s past time we plunged a knife in the heart of that narrative, split it open and autopsy the offal. I suspect Feiglin — and Netanyahu pere and fil, and Herzl and Ben Gurion, Weizmann and Jabotinsky — will be observed squirming around in there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Excellent comment, good Sir!

    I have long had suspicions about Hitler's Mein Kampf, (the publicity as well as the hysteria alone are enough to make one suspicious) and it's interesting that you mentioned Netanyahu.

    I do hope that UNZ sees fit to expose that psychopath as well, and as far as I'm concerned, there's been way too little mention of that monster on these pages.


    It’s past time we plunged a knife in the heart of that narrative, split it open and autopsy the offal.

     

    Agree and would add that it's way overdue, in fact. And we could say the same about a ton of other narratives out there. Whoever does the autopsies will need a respirator and a hazmat outfit for sure.
    , @Sherman
    Hey Charles

    Interesting analysis.

    Sherm
    , @Wally
    Time to grow up about the Hitler nonsense.

    There was Hitler with the mythological '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' and there was Hitler without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    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

    We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.
     
    , @DaveE
    Nice writing and analysis...... I'm jealous. The part about the "brothers" of Khazaria and Persia cracked me up, too.

    Thanks for the chuckle AND a great takedown AND not taking 500+words to do it!
  15. Ingot9455 says:
    @AaronB
    The Hajnal line - a fiction of the scientistic mind (I mean, the way it is used to explain supposed innate non-racism of Europeans).

    In reality, until quite recently Europeans were more racist and exclusivist than other peoples, and were often reproached with this (as far back as the crusades, Europeans were reproached for being unusually racist and exclucivist by the Arabs they fought. Lots of other examples, also) Europeans gave the world its most extreme example of a racist mentality in WW2 - this didn't come from nowhere.

    What changed is that the overwhelming nature of European success led to a feeling of such security that Europeans felt they could "disarm", so to speak, and attempt to practice a kind of global noblesse noblige.

    But this attitude was always predicated on Europeans being utterly secure in their position as top dog - now that that's eroding, we are seeing a return to tribalism for whites.

    As for Feiglin and his idiotic "light unto the nations" Jewish supremacism, what a joke, but is it any worse than the retarded American "city on a hill" nonsense? Or the European conceit that they were on a "civilizing mission" to Asia during colonial times? Or China's "middle kingdom" mentality when India was by far the pivotal cultural influence in Asia?

    The problem with nationalism is the laughable self-conceit it inevitably engenders.

    I am curious that Vox Day, a supporter of white tribalism, would post this - in a zero sum world, all nationalistic countries are inevitably rivals, and any alliance can only be ephemeral. Surely, Vox Day should support tribalism for whites, but seek to undermine tribalism for Jews. Isn't that the way tribal fighting works? Perhpas Vox seeks to use Jewish tribalism to legitimize white tribalism, then turn on Jews and seek to undermine their tribalism once his own position is secured.

    Probably.

    When you debate someone’s ideas, it’s best not to to make up what their ideas are.

    Vox Day is too much the economist to consider the world a zero sum world.

    So your suggestion about how he ‘should’ think is about as dumb as thinking Trump hired the best Russian prostitutes to pee on a hotel bed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Forgive me, I was merely trying to tease out the implications of the nationalistic position. I don't, of course, know if Vox understands the implications of his own positions. He may not.

    We live, of course, on a finite planet, with finite resources, and finite land - so the world is, I'm afraid, a zero sum game. If China wants more of the worlds crude oil, America is gonna get less of it, and our oil prices will go up. That's just how it works, unfortunately.

    Now, maybe Vox is one of those techno-optimists who think technology will solve all our problems before they become serious. Even so, any nation that invents a particular technology will gain a huge advantage and won't want to share it, which will set the stage for rivalry.

    So yes, in the world we live in, nationalistic countries are inevitable rivals, and alliances will be shifting and opportunistic - its the result of the "me, me, me" philosophy, and it may be the best option facing humanity at this moment, but lets not kid ourselves.
  16. TWS says:
    @Ronnie
    This article is irrational rubbish. Unz.com is usually more discriminating in what they publish.

    As someone recently Tweated "Israel as a nation state is something akin to Scientology".

    I just returned from six days all over the West Bank. I can tell you with great certainty that Israel is the most racist country in the world. In all respects they treat the Palestinians in a way that shows little concern for the minimum standards of liberal decency. Most Israelis and illegal settlers I spoke to were racists by any definition. Hundreds of children as young as 14 go to jail for months when it is alleged that they threw a rock. The evidence is usually flimsy or from an unreliable source and the sentence is based on a plea-bargaining system that uses intimidation, fear and brute force to get a 99.7% conviction rate. I even attended the Army court for processing such victims. It reminded me of a dog pound in a very poor country. The judge was a IDF officer who was also an illegal settler.

    The people in that part of the world have been trading absentee masters for a loong time. I do not care, no I welcome a group that not only has a historic claim but is willing to put themselves on the ground to run the place.

    Would there be less violence if the Israelis all just died, because that is clearly what you want. Would there be fewer thugocracies and cleptocracies? No. Whomever was running the place it would look like any other part of NAME world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Your implied 'want to kill all Jews' strawman aside, there would definitely be less violence & misery if Zionists had no power.
    , @Alden
    But Israel isn't running that part of the world very well. Not only has it been in turmoil since 1948 but the great powers have been heavily involved There were times when Russia backed Egypt and US backed Israel could went to war. Remember the 1973 war? Nixon and Kissebger airlifted every American tank in Europe to Israel while Russian trainers and support troops helped the Egyptians.

    The ME was very stable under the caliphs and later the Turks. Morocco has always been stable and has excellent relations with Europe.

    The ME might have been unstable without Israel but since 1948 it's been a mess. And let's not forget the Samson option of Israeli nuclear warheads aimed at everybcapitol and major city in Europe.

  17. TWS says:
    @AaronB
    The Hajnal line - a fiction of the scientistic mind (I mean, the way it is used to explain supposed innate non-racism of Europeans).

    In reality, until quite recently Europeans were more racist and exclusivist than other peoples, and were often reproached with this (as far back as the crusades, Europeans were reproached for being unusually racist and exclucivist by the Arabs they fought. Lots of other examples, also) Europeans gave the world its most extreme example of a racist mentality in WW2 - this didn't come from nowhere.

    What changed is that the overwhelming nature of European success led to a feeling of such security that Europeans felt they could "disarm", so to speak, and attempt to practice a kind of global noblesse noblige.

    But this attitude was always predicated on Europeans being utterly secure in their position as top dog - now that that's eroding, we are seeing a return to tribalism for whites.

    As for Feiglin and his idiotic "light unto the nations" Jewish supremacism, what a joke, but is it any worse than the retarded American "city on a hill" nonsense? Or the European conceit that they were on a "civilizing mission" to Asia during colonial times? Or China's "middle kingdom" mentality when India was by far the pivotal cultural influence in Asia?

    The problem with nationalism is the laughable self-conceit it inevitably engenders.

    I am curious that Vox Day, a supporter of white tribalism, would post this - in a zero sum world, all nationalistic countries are inevitably rivals, and any alliance can only be ephemeral. Surely, Vox Day should support tribalism for whites, but seek to undermine tribalism for Jews. Isn't that the way tribal fighting works? Perhpas Vox seeks to use Jewish tribalism to legitimize white tribalism, then turn on Jews and seek to undermine their tribalism once his own position is secured.

    Probably.

    Dang, I wasted my ‘Troll’ tag on someone else. What brings folks like you to comment. Lies, obvious lies that only the most liberal, ignorant or ‘educated’ could swallow whole come spewing out on the page. This is what you do while you drink your morning coffee?

    Watch some old Marx brothers. You’ll laugh and be happier the rest of the day and the rest of us won’t be bothered with something that any vapid celebrity could have regurgitated.

    Read More
  18. TWS says:
    @dc.sunsets
    Saying all people are tribal is not nearly as semantically loaded as saying they're all racist.

    Tattooing others with Scarlet Letter R, H(omophobe), T(ransphobe), etc. weaponized some English words. Such words are used to incite lynch mobs and increasingly are seen as "fighting words" in a near-legal sense.

    We Are the World inclusiveness was the peak of a cycle, and it occurred 17 years ago. The entire world is well on its way toward the opposite of that inclusiveness. The Muddy Middle is splintering, and its former residents are shifting into intensely held, mutually incompatible belief systems. When the markets finally turn down in earnest (later this year, following bonds?) we'll fast approach conditions where major wars break out.

    One of those camps already laughs at being called racist, and in coming years will define their mortal enemies as those who enjoy hurling it. We're heading to a time when insulting a man on the street will get you in a life-and-death fight, the kind of thing now common in urban underclass ghettos but like Rap music soon to be adopted by those not now associated with it.

    Rap music and the culture are a minstrel show. The sad part is that it has been adopted wholesale as a legitimate culture. Ali -G and Jamie Kennedy’s movies were no more outlandish and ridiculous than the life promoted by the entertainment industries.

    It’s as if Stepin Fetchit was a role model for an entire generation rather than a caricature that was abandon when it was no longer funny.

    Read More
  19. @SolontoCroesus

    Oldest nation in the world?
    I stopped reading right there. Obviously the guy is as ignorant as he is nuts. Who do these clowns think they’re bullshitting, anyway?
     
    "Ignorant and nuts" is not unique to this individual.

    Yossi Alpher, former Mossad agent and a career at Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, told Bruce Reidel of Brookings Institute, that the notion is widespread across "most Israelis."

    Alpher's words:


    "We Israelis . . . Israelis, to this day, have a need to -- a deep need to be recognized and accepted by the region.
    You see, Bibi’s demand, which is supported by most Israelis, that the Palestinians recognize us as a Jewish state, or the state of the Jewish people -- the nation-state of the Jewish people -- this goes way back, this need to be recognized.
    . . . there’s this sense that the ancient peoples of the Middle East have created an alliance, the people who precede the Arabs, okay. We go back with Iran, we just celebrated Purim, all right, we go back 2,600 years with Iran. The Egyptian, the Ethiopian national narrative is King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. So, this is almost a biblical -- a new biblical chapter.
    This is how many people in Israel felt. "
     
    In other words, Israelis are convinced that they are of the same stature, as an empire-building people, as the Persian empire, based on Esther and Mordechai's subversion of the Persian king, generations after the Persians had established that monarchy.

    Israeli Jews are orgasmic to destroy Iran because they genuinely think that they ARE Iran, they ARE the rightful heirs of the ancient Persian empire.

    Incredibly, in Alpher's estimation, Iranians, Egyptians and Ethiopians did not agree.
    Alpher explained:


    There were also some people who were just cynical, practitioners of realpolitik. Everybody in Tehran and in Addis and in Ankara were cynical practitioners of realpolitik.
    They did not reciprocate.
    They said, we kidded ourselves that they did.
    But we still do to this day, because if you believe that this is -- we are somehow Middle Eastern, ancient blood brothers, then who’s Khomeini? This wasn’t meant to be.
     
    You got that?
    Jews from Lithuania and Poland are "blood brothers" to the Persian royal family, but Khomeini, whose ancestors were from Naishapour, in Iran's Khorasan province, is an interloper!

    Alpher's -- and Feiglin's fever-dreams have origins in the even more feverish writing of proto-zionist Moses Hess, especially his Rome and Jerusalem, A Study in Jewish Nationalism, written in 1862 and published, in English, in 1918. https://www.marxists.org/subject/jewish/rome-jerusalem.pdf

    Hitler was born in 1889. He (supposedly) wrote Mein Kampf in 1924; the first complete English translation of MK was published in the USA by Jewish Communists in 1939.

    A side-by-side, topic-for-topic comparison of Hess's "Rome and Jerusalem" with "Mein Kampf" would make for absolutely fascinating reading: from a quick survey, my sense is that Hitler took great pains to tone down the racist and ethnic supremacist ideology that permeates Hess's work.

    That's why I wrote that Hitler "supposedly" wrote Mein Kampf: I think the narratives of Hitler's rise and rule, and of course the holy holocaust, are dramatically different from the narratives we have been force-fed for the better part of a century.

    It's past time we plunged a knife in the heart of that narrative, split it open and autopsy the offal. I suspect Feiglin -- and Netanyahu pere and fil, and Herzl and Ben Gurion, Weizmann and Jabotinsky -- will be observed squirming around in there.

    Excellent comment, good Sir!

    I have long had suspicions about Hitler’s Mein Kampf, (the publicity as well as the hysteria alone are enough to make one suspicious) and it’s interesting that you mentioned Netanyahu.

    I do hope that UNZ sees fit to expose that psychopath as well, and as far as I’m concerned, there’s been way too little mention of that monster on these pages.

    It’s past time we plunged a knife in the heart of that narrative, split it open and autopsy the offal.

    Agree and would add that it’s way overdue, in fact. And we could say the same about a ton of other narratives out there. Whoever does the autopsies will need a respirator and a hazmat outfit for sure.

    Read More
  20. Durruti says:

    Ron Unz:

    You know that I would vote for you whenever and wherever you run for political office (only exception is if you would ever oppose Ron Paul – which would never happen).

    I like/love you soo much, I would willingly have your baby, if that were medically possible.

    Your decision to allow this article was, (as with all you do), sheer genius. The readers and commenters on this website (I refuse to use the accepted “commentaters” – sounds like a brand of potatoes), need, every so often,to read a clear succinct listing of the Fascist rationale behind the ongoing Ethnic Cleansing of the Palestinian People.

    This Feiglin, piece of shit Land Thieving politician, is spewing a line I heard as a child in the Ocean Avenue Jewish Center (Brooklyn). Portions of my family, land thieves currently residing in Palestine also heard, and spew this line. They should return to Germany,or to America, and do the morally correct thing.

    “There was never a Palestinian nation, there was never a Palestinian state. That’s all one big lie.” The dis informing agent, actually wrote this, but after he gets the reader leaning, he cuts off his head with, “If, God forbid, Israel would disappear one day, immediately, the word “Palestinian” would disappear as well.”

    Hmm! so without the presence of the Occupier, there would be no Palestinians? This Land Thief is utilizing a brainwashing technique known as doublespeak. “Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the ….. Beyond 1984: Doublespeak in a Post-Orwellian Age.” A link here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjht4GYneDRAhWFOiYKHXbnB0gQFggaMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDoublespeak&usg=AFQjCNH-SCOm8AArkI-UT1_7gMKjFsmiIA&sig2=roixUwxOgmcNN49kvaAuUg&bvm=bv.145063293,d.eWE

    There are other useful links on the same page.

    One final mention of the Old Testament (sometimes called the Jewish Bible), The Talmud, and Jericho:

    Jericho is either a History of one of the first (possibly the first) Holocaust committed. This early, possible first Holocaust was committed by the Hebrews. Agent Hitler was not yet born. The inhabitants of Jericho were exterminated (every man, woman, elderly, and child) by the Hebrews. And they and most Christian Churches are proud of this deed, and celebrate it in their places of worship, in History Brainwashing Books, and in song.

    Here is a nice rendition by Elvis.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiTiJvEoODRAhUHVyYKHaLjCgIQ3ywIHDAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D0ftahXv0KIU&usg=AFQjCNEOtBPUFGowrUbLXjB6uoSMzFNYsA&sig2=r0ZyMfQ7fbVCpELGZC33Cg&bvm=bv.145063293,d.eWE

    Some may say the Old Testament is not accurate History, or any History. However, the story, the fable of Jericho is celebrated far and wide. I remember my mother playing (on the Piano), and singing the song. Genocide celebrated by song, and praised in Religious Establishments (do I need a verb?)!!!

    “6:20 The rams’ horns sounded and when the army heard the signal, they gave a loud battle cry. The wall collapsed and the warriors charged straight ahead into the city and captured it. 6:21 They annihilated with the sword everything that breathed in the city, including men and women, young and old, as well as cattle, sheep, and donkeys.”

    The Palestinians are the actual, and/or spiritual descendants of the original inhabitants of the land of Canaan. The Palestinians are there/here Canaan-Palestine, and are being Ethnically Cleansed – Brutalized – Robbed, now, in 2017. To see a crime being committed, and do nothing…

    Ron Unz, and good people everywhere.

    The Republic is dead! Long Live the Republic!

    Read More
    • Replies: @mcohen
    Nice try mondoavian bird shit eater.....the Palestinians so named by yasser arafart are not Canaanites but in fact Camelbites from Saudi Arabia.hence they speak arabic.tell me Mr astute historian what language did the Canaanites speak.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_languages

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Canaanite-languages

    It has been proved beyond all doubt of which I have no doubt that hebrew has a direct link to the hebrewherbalites who were also called Israelites.
    Long live the israelites
    , @Art
    This Feiglin guy is incapable of honest thinking when it comes to Jew matters. All one must do is see what Israel does to the Palestinians, and all his words and arguments are laughable. Immoral Israel is Judaism. He hopes and describes something that can NEVER be – the Jew character will not let it happen.

    What is scary is that our president has a Feiglin type Jew looking over his shoulder 24/7. Jared the Gawker is there looking over daddy all the time. The most dangerous thing in human history is the mix of “power and family.”

    Pray!

    Peace --- Art
    , @Druid
    Well said!
    , @Sheeple Believe NGO-Islamic Axis Lies

    The Palestinians are the actual, and/or spiritual descendants of the original inhabitants
     
    LOL
    "and/or spiritual"

    wtf? hahahahahahahah.
    "palestinians" are mostly syrians, egyptians, turks, bedouins and others who flooded into a certain land area and mixed together when zionists created opportunity and an economic boom through their enterprising and land development. Nice try.
  21. The people in that part of the world have been trading absentee masters for a loong time. I do not care, no I welcome a group that not only has a historic claim but is willing to put themselves on the ground to run the place.

    I’d like to read your version of that supposed “historic claim.” It sounds more like a hysterical claim to me.

    Those who are willing to put themselves on the ground to run the place? Even if they are violent parasites living off the blood and treasure of the huge sappy nation a half a a world away?

    So as long as they’re willing to put themselves on the ground to run the place, they are justified in running rampant? If you think so, then I got news for ya, and so does a lot of the rest of the world.

    Here’s why the BS from that bunch has been tolerated for so long.:

    …all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object…

    Does that need to be explained or elaborated upon?

    Read More
    • Replies: @TWS
    Jack, I didn't say anything about the validity or strength of the claim. I don't care whose running the show over there except as it effects me. I know for a fact that they are not worse than the other options so I just don't care.
  22. @AaronB
    The Hajnal line - a fiction of the scientistic mind (I mean, the way it is used to explain supposed innate non-racism of Europeans).

    In reality, until quite recently Europeans were more racist and exclusivist than other peoples, and were often reproached with this (as far back as the crusades, Europeans were reproached for being unusually racist and exclucivist by the Arabs they fought. Lots of other examples, also) Europeans gave the world its most extreme example of a racist mentality in WW2 - this didn't come from nowhere.

    What changed is that the overwhelming nature of European success led to a feeling of such security that Europeans felt they could "disarm", so to speak, and attempt to practice a kind of global noblesse noblige.

    But this attitude was always predicated on Europeans being utterly secure in their position as top dog - now that that's eroding, we are seeing a return to tribalism for whites.

    As for Feiglin and his idiotic "light unto the nations" Jewish supremacism, what a joke, but is it any worse than the retarded American "city on a hill" nonsense? Or the European conceit that they were on a "civilizing mission" to Asia during colonial times? Or China's "middle kingdom" mentality when India was by far the pivotal cultural influence in Asia?

    The problem with nationalism is the laughable self-conceit it inevitably engenders.

    I am curious that Vox Day, a supporter of white tribalism, would post this - in a zero sum world, all nationalistic countries are inevitably rivals, and any alliance can only be ephemeral. Surely, Vox Day should support tribalism for whites, but seek to undermine tribalism for Jews. Isn't that the way tribal fighting works? Perhpas Vox seeks to use Jewish tribalism to legitimize white tribalism, then turn on Jews and seek to undermine their tribalism once his own position is secured.

    Probably.

    Attacking HBD and reciting the “We Are the World, Nationalism is for Losers” Universalist catechism all in one comment.

    Kudos. But what will you do when your dopamine surge of “look, I’m virtuous” feelz wears off? Take another hit on the Comment Pipe? Isn’t tolerance beginning to set in?

    May I suggest an evening stroll though Chicago’s Englewood neighborhood on the first warm Friday of the year? We’re always open to awarding a new Biehl Cup or Ruenzel Prize (by definition, posthumously.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Spare me. I'm not virtue-signalling or closing my eyes to the realities of tribal conflicts that are being forced on whites.

    If anything, I'm sympathetic to whites organizing as a tribe, and I understand its in response to a leftist coalition of tribes that took advantage of whites "disarming" to make a naked, and extremely vicious, power grab.

    But its the wrong way - tactics are not neutral and you don't become a monster to fight monsters. Vox Day, who styles himself Dark Lord and his followers Dread Ilk, clearly believes that becoming a monster is the right way to fight monsters. He is unabashed about that.

    For myself, if all I have in life is a choice between monsters, I will retreat to the woods and while the merry time away, thank you.

    But there is a third way, and always has been - have no fantasies about the world or your enemies, understand you have enemies, don't fall for their tricks and wiles, but remain true to yourself. Be gentle as doves, but wise as serpents.

    Its a choice that requires wisdom and self-discipline, and doesn't have the satisfaction of giving in to rage and hatred, but is really the only way to remain sane and healthy in a world riven by hatred and conflict.

  23. Rap music and the culture are a minstrel show.

    A minstrel show with jacketed hollow points. I wonder if violence is the leading cause of deaths among African Americans yet? If so, will the Supreme Court be offered a case to punish ammunition manufacturers over “Disparate Imapact?”

    (pun intended, laughing uproariously.)

    Read More
  24. AaronB says:
    @Ingot9455
    When you debate someone's ideas, it's best not to to make up what their ideas are.

    Vox Day is too much the economist to consider the world a zero sum world.

    So your suggestion about how he 'should' think is about as dumb as thinking Trump hired the best Russian prostitutes to pee on a hotel bed.

    Forgive me, I was merely trying to tease out the implications of the nationalistic position. I don’t, of course, know if Vox understands the implications of his own positions. He may not.

    We live, of course, on a finite planet, with finite resources, and finite land – so the world is, I’m afraid, a zero sum game. If China wants more of the worlds crude oil, America is gonna get less of it, and our oil prices will go up. That’s just how it works, unfortunately.

    Now, maybe Vox is one of those techno-optimists who think technology will solve all our problems before they become serious. Even so, any nation that invents a particular technology will gain a huge advantage and won’t want to share it, which will set the stage for rivalry.

    So yes, in the world we live in, nationalistic countries are inevitable rivals, and alliances will be shifting and opportunistic – its the result of the “me, me, me” philosophy, and it may be the best option facing humanity at this moment, but lets not kid ourselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ingot9455
    And yet, technology radically changes, from moment to moment, what resources we can access and what we can get out of them. Fracking+horizontal drilling radically changed our level of global oil resources. Thorium-based nuclear reactors radically change our electrical energy generation resources, to say nothing of what's coming down the pike with fusion. And these are the most basic examples.

    The size of the pie changes, and that means it's not a zero sum game. If China wants more oil, it doesn't mean America gets less, it means we figure out a way for both of us to have what we need at an acceptable price.

    This is why Trump said, "America first. ... We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world -- but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first. ... We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones."

    Zero sum thinking means you're a crappy negotiator. Fortunately, you have someone in the White House to learn from. I suggest you also read Art of the Deal - it's quick and fun.
    , @newrouter
    "We live, of course, on a finite planet, with finite resources, and finite land "

    we can fit everyone on the planet in the State of Texas goofball
  25. Qasim says:

    Mr. Unz:

    The articles you pick for your webzine never cease to amaze me. Like the first Rebecca Gordon article, this offers fascinating insights into the deranged minds of the sorts of people whose work I would hardly ever otherwise read.

    I believe the international community is actually waiting, longing, for some kind of a serious message that will come out from this wonderful, unusual experience where the oldest nation in the world is coming back to its homeland. The entire world is supposed to benefit from this, to achieve something from this beyond just another state in the world that is modern and democratic. Humanity is waiting for something deeper than that from us.

    I mean, what can you even say?? The solipsistic narcissism inherent in these sentences can’t even be described in words. I wonder, does he really think people in say, Mongolia or Uruguay are waiting, nay longing for Israel to uplift them in some way? He can’t actually believe that, can he? Does he actually believe that the Israeli/Arab conflict is “not a territorial conflict”, but arises from a “cultural conflict” amongst Jews themselves?? I think he really does believe it! How can a brain steeped in such astronomical levels of self-deception even continue to function?

    I wonder if Mr. Feiglin has ever read Vox Day’s blog. If he had, he might have realized what he was up to. Vox likes to toot his own horn as a super-genius; articles like these show his high opinion of himself has a large basis in fact. By simply offering up seemingly softball questions, he let Feiglin do all the work in exposing himself as a balls-out Jewish nationalist, thereby furthering Vox’s contention that Christian Whites need to adopt similar tactics in a multicultural world or face civilizational extinction.

    Mr. Unz, I hope one day you will address why you allow so many articles on this website that portray Jews in such a negative light. Are you under the impression that exposing the ugly aspects of Jewish ethnic activism, while potentially painful in the short-term, is necessary to avoid a catastrophic recrudescence of anti-Semitism in the future?

    Read More
    • Replies: @mcohen
    Qasim

    I agree wholeheartedly.not only do they believe but they back up there belief with missiles named David's sling and Moses's mazooka.
    , @Qasim
    To my point about Vox's motivations for this interview, this is his latest blogpost...

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/01/jews-are-enemy-of-old-europe.html

    "We see ourselves together, fighting together, with our Muslim brothers," said the rabbi. "They are our natural allies."

    That simply could not be more clear. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, is absolutely correct. Europe's Jews belong in Israel, not in Europe. They certainly deserve absolutely no protection from "their Muslim brothers" with whom they are "fighting alongside", or from anyone else, for that matter. They are, by their own declaration, the enemy of Old Europe. They hope to establish "a New Europe" with their "Muslim brothers".

    There is no "Jewish question" here because there is nothing to question. To paraphrase Moshe Feiglin, if someone declares himself to be your enemy, one should do him the courtesy of taking him seriously.

    I'm pro-Israel, and pro-Israeli nationalism, and I rather like Zehut's focus on identity in Israeli politics, but I am first and foremost on the side of Old Europe, America, and Western Civilization. If that makes me an enemy, so be it. Whether you are Jewish, or Israeli, or just a conservative subscriber to the mythical Judeo-Christian values, how can you possibly align yourself with these people and still consider yourself to be on the side of America, Christianity, or the West?

    Whose side are you on? The Alt-Right knows. We stand for the survival of Christendom, the European nations, and the West.

    This Alt-Right embrace of Zionism is really slick, if you think about it. It is going to be really hard to make the anti-Semitic charge stick on a bunch of people claiming they want to be just like Israelis are. Of course, establishing the precedent that the pursuit of the ethnic and religious interests of the majority is legitimate is not something Diaspora Jews will be too keen about. It is like the Alt-Right (or Trump) has offered a tempting gambit in a chess game, it will be interesting to see whether Jews as a whole accept the gambit or not.
  26. AaronB says:
    @dc.sunsets
    Attacking HBD and reciting the "We Are the World, Nationalism is for Losers" Universalist catechism all in one comment.

    Kudos. But what will you do when your dopamine surge of "look, I'm virtuous" feelz wears off? Take another hit on the Comment Pipe? Isn't tolerance beginning to set in?

    May I suggest an evening stroll though Chicago's Englewood neighborhood on the first warm Friday of the year? We're always open to awarding a new Biehl Cup or Ruenzel Prize (by definition, posthumously.)

    Spare me. I’m not virtue-signalling or closing my eyes to the realities of tribal conflicts that are being forced on whites.

    If anything, I’m sympathetic to whites organizing as a tribe, and I understand its in response to a leftist coalition of tribes that took advantage of whites “disarming” to make a naked, and extremely vicious, power grab.

    But its the wrong way – tactics are not neutral and you don’t become a monster to fight monsters. Vox Day, who styles himself Dark Lord and his followers Dread Ilk, clearly believes that becoming a monster is the right way to fight monsters. He is unabashed about that.

    For myself, if all I have in life is a choice between monsters, I will retreat to the woods and while the merry time away, thank you.

    But there is a third way, and always has been – have no fantasies about the world or your enemies, understand you have enemies, don’t fall for their tricks and wiles, but remain true to yourself. Be gentle as doves, but wise as serpents.

    Its a choice that requires wisdom and self-discipline, and doesn’t have the satisfaction of giving in to rage and hatred, but is really the only way to remain sane and healthy in a world riven by hatred and conflict.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets

    But its the wrong way – tactics are not neutral and you don’t become a monster to fight monsters.
     
    Ah, the "I don't eat lions so lions should not eat me" theory. GLWT.

    This is akin to the "Women, if faced with rape, don't resist; your odds of being seriously injured or killed are lower if you give the rapist what he wants" theory of crime control. I truly LOATHE people who think like this.

    Spare me your virtue-signaling "Its a choice that requires wisdom and self-discipline, and doesn’t have the satisfaction of giving in to rage and hatred, but is really the only way to remain sane and healthy in a world riven by hatred and conflict" So I'm neither wise nor self-disciplined, huh? In what dictionary is that not crowing a false sense of moral superiority?

    I've heard one clown after another tell me that the "high road" is negotiation, peace, understanding, being "gentle as doves, wise as serpents." Take that in hand and walk through Chicago's Englewood this coming Friday evening, will you? I'll pay for your travel if you let me video the action.

    You are like Amy Biehl and David Ruenzel, and like them will cease to be a factor the moment this Civil War gets ugly.

    Throughout the history of Man, those who welcomed their invaders were wiped away. You don't own anything you will not defend by force, and that includes your being alive tomorrow.

    I can only imagine you have neither children nor grandchildren. Trust me when I say that those of us who do, grasp the contest in play right now a whole hell of a lot better than do you.

    , @Talha
    Hey AaronB,

    Good stuff.

    But its the wrong way – tactics are not neutral and you don’t become a monster to fight monsters.
     
    On point - fight the good fight - that is always commendable. Ends-justify-the-means is completely divorced from any spiritual understanding. Gain the world - lose your soul - which is more precious?

    "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into you." - Nietzsche (and that dude didn't even believe in God)

    If you haven't come across him before, this is a man who fought the good fight - I live half a day's drive from a town named after him in Iowa:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3708678/

    Peace.
    , @another fred

    Its a choice that requires wisdom and self-discipline, and doesn’t have the satisfaction of giving in to rage and hatred,
     
    But sometimes...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yid-CW-O9Qw
    , @SFG
    Don't you think the Dark Lord thing is at least in part more of a rage-against-the-machine choice, kind of like saying, 'I know you all think I'm the height of evil, so I'm going to embrace it'?
  27. Wally says:
    @macilrae

    We’re definitely not racist and we’re definitely a great example of a state that has opened its doors to immigration in a very successful way.
     
    Give me a break!

    In truth we are all racist - including the most liberal Africa-loving suburban English Guardian-reader who will definitely cross to the other side of the road when she encounters a group of young blacks approaching on a dark night. Certainly including the Africans themselves.

    As for all the Jews I ever met personally and got to know, they are among the most racist of people: is not Obama's derogatory nickname "Der Shvarzer"?

    But of course I see that this has to be be denied at all cost - but come on, Moshe, lighten up and have a beer: you can tell me!

    “We’re definitely not racist and we’re definitely a great example of a state that has opened its doors to immigration in a very successful way. ”

    Laughable.

    Israeli immigration laws specify Jews Only, while those same Jews demand mass 3rd world immigration into the US & Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    27 Wally > Israeli immigration laws specify Jews Only


    not true. Absolutely not true.

    If you have one Jewish grandparent, you are in a special category. About 30 countries have the same rule - for example if you have an Irish grandparent, you can get an Irish citizenship - in addition to whatever you already have.

    A little ways back, when it looked like there was a real danger of Obama's Third Term actually being elected, Michelle Bachmann signed up for Swiss citizenship, off of one grandparent. Michelle Bachmann is a dual-citizen.

    In fact, the Israel Interior Ministry just made it a LOT easier for skilled workers of any background, to get a work visa with indefinitely-renewable Temporary Residence papers.

    Most westerners can stay here quasi-indefinitely merely by doing a "visa run" once per six months. You can fly to Cyprus in an hour, stay overnight for some shopping, then come back the next day and start the clock all over again.

  28. Wally says:
    @TWS
    The people in that part of the world have been trading absentee masters for a loong time. I do not care, no I welcome a group that not only has a historic claim but is willing to put themselves on the ground to run the place.

    Would there be less violence if the Israelis all just died, because that is clearly what you want. Would there be fewer thugocracies and cleptocracies? No. Whomever was running the place it would look like any other part of NAME world.

    Your implied ‘want to kill all Jews’ strawman aside, there would definitely be less violence & misery if Zionists had no power.

    Read More
  29. @AaronB
    The Hajnal line - a fiction of the scientistic mind (I mean, the way it is used to explain supposed innate non-racism of Europeans).

    In reality, until quite recently Europeans were more racist and exclusivist than other peoples, and were often reproached with this (as far back as the crusades, Europeans were reproached for being unusually racist and exclucivist by the Arabs they fought. Lots of other examples, also) Europeans gave the world its most extreme example of a racist mentality in WW2 - this didn't come from nowhere.

    What changed is that the overwhelming nature of European success led to a feeling of such security that Europeans felt they could "disarm", so to speak, and attempt to practice a kind of global noblesse noblige.

    But this attitude was always predicated on Europeans being utterly secure in their position as top dog - now that that's eroding, we are seeing a return to tribalism for whites.

    As for Feiglin and his idiotic "light unto the nations" Jewish supremacism, what a joke, but is it any worse than the retarded American "city on a hill" nonsense? Or the European conceit that they were on a "civilizing mission" to Asia during colonial times? Or China's "middle kingdom" mentality when India was by far the pivotal cultural influence in Asia?

    The problem with nationalism is the laughable self-conceit it inevitably engenders.

    I am curious that Vox Day, a supporter of white tribalism, would post this - in a zero sum world, all nationalistic countries are inevitably rivals, and any alliance can only be ephemeral. Surely, Vox Day should support tribalism for whites, but seek to undermine tribalism for Jews. Isn't that the way tribal fighting works? Perhpas Vox seeks to use Jewish tribalism to legitimize white tribalism, then turn on Jews and seek to undermine their tribalism once his own position is secured.

    Probably.

    Europeans gave the world its most extreme example of a racist mentality in WW2 – this didn’t come from nowhere.

    Strenuously disagree, on at least three counts:

    1. The extent to which the 20th century wars in Europe concerned a “racist mentality,” you’re correct, it “didn’t come from nowhere,” it came from Jews — see Moses Hess, above and below. In 1862 when Hess wrote Rome and Jerusalem, he was fanatically committed to the ideology of Jewish supremacy and world dominance.

    2. WW2 was a geopolitical war among the British, the Americans, the Russians, and the Germans over who would dominate, primarily, the European continent and the “world island,” and also who would dominate colonized areas of Asia and Africa. Jews, as interstitial people, provoked the wars; set about getting the various factions involved, financed/invested in both/all sides, and emerged the victors. Again, to the extent it was a racial war, the locus of racism was mostly in the Jewish contingent.

    3. If by “most extreme” you mean longest, WW2 was a relatively brief event. If you mean “most extreme” in terms of civilians killed and civilian infrastructure destroyed, then the destruction of Germany and the deliberate incineration then rape then ethnic transfer of German people might meet that definition. Once again, Jews were at the vanguard of envisioning, inciting, and perpetrating those acts of “most extreme” violence against the German people.

    I was going to select a few pithy passages from Moses Hess’s book, but I couldn’t stop —

    “Providence would not have prolonged your existence until today, had it not reserved for you the holiest of missions. The hour has struck for the resettlement of the banks of the Jordan. The historical books of the royal prophets can, perhaps, be written again only by you.

    A great calling is reserved for you: to be a living channel of communication between three continents. You should be the bearers of civilization to the primitive people of Asia, and the teachers of the European sciences to which your race has contributed so much. You should be the mediators between Europe and far Asia, open the roads that lead to India and Chin a — this unknown regions which must ultimately be thrown open to civilization. You will come to the land of your fathers crowned with the crown of long martyrdom, and there, finally, sou will be completely healed from all your ills! Your capital will again bring the wide stretches of barren land under cultivation; your labor and industry will once more turn the ancient soil into fruitful valleys, reclaim the flat lands from the encroaching sands of the desert, and the world will again pay homage to the oldest of people.

    The time has arrived for you to reclaim, either by way of compensation or by other means, your ancient fatherland from Turkey, which has devastated it for ages. You have contributed enough to the cause of civilization and have helped Europe on the path of progress, to make revolutions and carry them out successfully. You must henceforth think of yourselves, of the valleys of Lebanon and the plains of Gennasareth.

    March forward! . . .

    March forward! . . .

    March forward, Jews of all lands! . . .

    March forward, ye sons of the martyrs! . . . bring again to Israel the splendor of the Davidic days and rewrite that part of history of which the monoliths of Semiramis are the only witness.

    March forward, ye noble hearts! The day on which the Jewish tribes return to their fatherland will be epoch-making in the history of humanity. Oh, how will the East tremble at your coming! How quickly, under the influence of labor and industry, will the enervation of the people vanish, in the land where voluptuousness, idleness and robbery have held sway for thousands of years.

    You will be the moral stay of the East. You have written the Book of books. Become, then, the educators of the wild Arabian hordes and the African peoples. Let the ancient wisdom of the East, the revelations of the Zend, the Vedas, as well as the more modern Koran and the Gospels, group themselves around your Bible. They will all become purified from every superstition and all will proclaim alike the principles of freedom, humanity, peace and unity. You are the triumphal arch of the future historical epoch, under which the great covenant of humanity will be written and sealed in your presence as the witnesses of the past and future. The Biblical traditions which you will revive, will also sanctify anew our Occidental society and destroy the weed of materialism together with its roots.”

    This guy just doesn’t quit! and so it’s hard to stop reading and reporting, and formulating refuting commentary.

    One thought that occurred to me while I was basting a pork roast (it’s SWMBO’s birthday; hope she’ll appreciate the marinade of grape jam (home made) with basil and garlic. Maybe that’s a disgusting combination? We shall see.) — Anyway — it occurs to me that, as Israel Shahak has informed readers, Jews were strictly ghettoized by their own rabbis and leaders. To the extent they were literate (H. Abramson says that in the early 20th century 40% of Eastern European Jews were illiterate), Jews were forbidden to read secular material until emancipation in France in 1789. It was as much as 50 years later until the Haskalah movement opened up secular study among East European Jews. Jews who were literate and did study, read only Torah and Jewish works.
    Thus, Jews have deep, deep muscle-memory of Jewish literature, and even their sense of secular Jewish history is limited: Heinrich Gratz wrote the first, comprehensive history of the Jewish people as late as the mid-1870s (Hitler STILL not born), and Graetz’s history has serious distortions, focusing as it does on Jewish victimhood and reinforcing what Moses Hess established as an article of faith, that Jews had been persecuted always and forever. Even more than non-Jews, Jews have spent centuries of their lives imbibing brainwashing.

    Hess, and his vision of the Jewish community everywhere, is solipsistic; in his muscle-memory, no Persians traded with Chinese and with Milanese along the Silk Road; no Moors created AlHambra; no Africans established great centers of learning at Timbuktu; no Confucius developed great practical philosophies; Machiavelli, who travelled to and admired the organizational skills of the German principalities, is invisible to Hess’s ghetto-bound brain; Virgil never wrote, Cicero never spoke, da Vinci never sculpted and Michelangelo never drew. Jews and only Jews inform Hess’s crusted lobes.
    It’s sad, but such a diagnosis offers a ray of optimism and of resolution: Brain transplant!

    (Or at very least, an “Israel Reset” — I come from a Catholic background, so the process of Confessing and Repenting come to mind —
    ~ Confess your sins
    ~ Do penance / make reparations
    ~ Repent — that means, think again — re-think the way you look at the world, and reformat a program that is obviously not functioning properly

    In Rwanda, the people engaged a Truth and Reconciliation process.

    Whatever — the present system is not sustainable. Israel has got to stop living in its fictional past.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    PS

    Europeans gave the world its most extreme example of a racist mentality in WW2 – this didn’t come from nowhere.
     
    Actually, Charles Lindbergh and the America Firsters were the American racists: Anglos and Germans were kin, so for British to do battle w/ Germany was intrafamily warfare. The British are just as "Aryan" as Germans.
    Ethnic Germans comprised a large share of the American population -- German could have been USA's native language.
    Lindbergh argued that USA should NOT fight against Germany because they were Caucasian, or white, in today's (misguided, imo) designation.
    On the other hand, Lindy said, the Russians were Slavs -- NOT like Us, not of the same "race" as Americans, so they should be the enemy.
  30. biz says:

    I love the heads exploding.

    Feiglin is wrong about at least one thing though. Muslim hatred of Israel is not due to Israel abandoning its “true” or “authentic” Jewish mission or whatever. That’s ridiculous. Muslim hatred of Israel ultimately comes from the notion that a formerly subject people, known as dhimmis in Muslim legal parlance, now rule a small portion of what was formerly dar al Islam. According to the tenets of Islam this is simply not acceptable and must be opposed at all costs.

    This opposition is operable whether Israel would be secular, socialist, nationalist, theocratic, or even if she installed some king and named him David. The opposition is operable as along as a dhimmi people live under their own rule.

    Read More
  31. mcohen says:
    @Durruti
    Ron Unz:

    You know that I would vote for you whenever and wherever you run for political office (only exception is if you would ever oppose Ron Paul - which would never happen).

    I like/love you soo much, I would willingly have your baby, if that were medically possible.

    Your decision to allow this article was, (as with all you do), sheer genius. The readers and commenters on this website (I refuse to use the accepted "commentaters" - sounds like a brand of potatoes), need, every so often,to read a clear succinct listing of the Fascist rationale behind the ongoing Ethnic Cleansing of the Palestinian People.

    This Feiglin, piece of shit Land Thieving politician, is spewing a line I heard as a child in the Ocean Avenue Jewish Center (Brooklyn). Portions of my family, land thieves currently residing in Palestine also heard, and spew this line. They should return to Germany,or to America, and do the morally correct thing.

    "There was never a Palestinian nation, there was never a Palestinian state. That’s all one big lie." The dis informing agent, actually wrote this, but after he gets the reader leaning, he cuts off his head with, "If, God forbid, Israel would disappear one day, immediately, the word “Palestinian” would disappear as well."

    Hmm! so without the presence of the Occupier, there would be no Palestinians? This Land Thief is utilizing a brainwashing technique known as doublespeak. "Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the ..... Beyond 1984: Doublespeak in a Post-Orwellian Age." A link here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjht4GYneDRAhWFOiYKHXbnB0gQFggaMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDoublespeak&usg=AFQjCNH-SCOm8AArkI-UT1_7gMKjFsmiIA&sig2=roixUwxOgmcNN49kvaAuUg&bvm=bv.145063293,d.eWE

    There are other useful links on the same page.

    One final mention of the Old Testament (sometimes called the Jewish Bible), The Talmud, and Jericho:

    Jericho is either a History of one of the first (possibly the first) Holocaust committed. This early, possible first Holocaust was committed by the Hebrews. Agent Hitler was not yet born. The inhabitants of Jericho were exterminated (every man, woman, elderly, and child) by the Hebrews. And they and most Christian Churches are proud of this deed, and celebrate it in their places of worship, in History Brainwashing Books, and in song.

    Here is a nice rendition by Elvis.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiTiJvEoODRAhUHVyYKHaLjCgIQ3ywIHDAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D0ftahXv0KIU&usg=AFQjCNEOtBPUFGowrUbLXjB6uoSMzFNYsA&sig2=r0ZyMfQ7fbVCpELGZC33Cg&bvm=bv.145063293,d.eWE

    Some may say the Old Testament is not accurate History, or any History. However, the story, the fable of Jericho is celebrated far and wide. I remember my mother playing (on the Piano), and singing the song. Genocide celebrated by song, and praised in Religious Establishments (do I need a verb?)!!!

    "6:20 The rams’ horns sounded and when the army heard the signal, they gave a loud battle cry. The wall collapsed and the warriors charged straight ahead into the city and captured it. 6:21 They annihilated with the sword everything that breathed in the city, including men and women, young and old, as well as cattle, sheep, and donkeys."

    The Palestinians are the actual, and/or spiritual descendants of the original inhabitants of the land of Canaan. The Palestinians are there/here Canaan-Palestine, and are being Ethnically Cleansed - Brutalized - Robbed, now, in 2017. To see a crime being committed, and do nothing...

    Ron Unz, and good people everywhere.

    The Republic is dead! Long Live the Republic!

    Nice try mondoavian bird shit eater…..the Palestinians so named by yasser arafart are not Canaanites but in fact Camelbites from Saudi Arabia.hence they speak arabic.tell me Mr astute historian what language did the Canaanites speak.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_languages

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Canaanite-languages

    It has been proved beyond all doubt of which I have no doubt that hebrew has a direct link to the hebrewherbalites who were also called Israelites.
    Long live the israelites

    Read More
    • Replies: @Durruti
    Nice Try - you Coward.

    "Nice try mondoavian bird shit eater….."

    followed by:

    "the Palestinians so named by yasser arafart "

    Who/whatever you are; you are a racist (anti semite - Arabs are Semites; most Jews are not). My German Jewish (mother's side) family are not, never were, and never will be - Semites.

    Nice Try. Say that to my face; give me an address.

    I notice you chose not to comment on the Zionist Holocaust against the inhabitants of Jericho.

    The residents of Jericho were living in a walled city. They were settled, farmed, produced, had children and livestock; and they were Liquidated by the first Zionist Nazis. All their women and children were massacred. Their property was then stolen, and their history obfuscated.

    It is obvious that you are a moral coward, as well as a physical one.

    I will not respond to you again if you do not produce an address - where we can meet, face to face. Then you may repeat your insults. If you are not a coward, prove me wrong.

    All the commenters are watching for your response.

  32. Sherman says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Oldest nation in the world?
    I stopped reading right there. Obviously the guy is as ignorant as he is nuts. Who do these clowns think they’re bullshitting, anyway?
     
    "Ignorant and nuts" is not unique to this individual.

    Yossi Alpher, former Mossad agent and a career at Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, told Bruce Reidel of Brookings Institute, that the notion is widespread across "most Israelis."

    Alpher's words:


    "We Israelis . . . Israelis, to this day, have a need to -- a deep need to be recognized and accepted by the region.
    You see, Bibi’s demand, which is supported by most Israelis, that the Palestinians recognize us as a Jewish state, or the state of the Jewish people -- the nation-state of the Jewish people -- this goes way back, this need to be recognized.
    . . . there’s this sense that the ancient peoples of the Middle East have created an alliance, the people who precede the Arabs, okay. We go back with Iran, we just celebrated Purim, all right, we go back 2,600 years with Iran. The Egyptian, the Ethiopian national narrative is King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. So, this is almost a biblical -- a new biblical chapter.
    This is how many people in Israel felt. "
     
    In other words, Israelis are convinced that they are of the same stature, as an empire-building people, as the Persian empire, based on Esther and Mordechai's subversion of the Persian king, generations after the Persians had established that monarchy.

    Israeli Jews are orgasmic to destroy Iran because they genuinely think that they ARE Iran, they ARE the rightful heirs of the ancient Persian empire.

    Incredibly, in Alpher's estimation, Iranians, Egyptians and Ethiopians did not agree.
    Alpher explained:


    There were also some people who were just cynical, practitioners of realpolitik. Everybody in Tehran and in Addis and in Ankara were cynical practitioners of realpolitik.
    They did not reciprocate.
    They said, we kidded ourselves that they did.
    But we still do to this day, because if you believe that this is -- we are somehow Middle Eastern, ancient blood brothers, then who’s Khomeini? This wasn’t meant to be.
     
    You got that?
    Jews from Lithuania and Poland are "blood brothers" to the Persian royal family, but Khomeini, whose ancestors were from Naishapour, in Iran's Khorasan province, is an interloper!

    Alpher's -- and Feiglin's fever-dreams have origins in the even more feverish writing of proto-zionist Moses Hess, especially his Rome and Jerusalem, A Study in Jewish Nationalism, written in 1862 and published, in English, in 1918. https://www.marxists.org/subject/jewish/rome-jerusalem.pdf

    Hitler was born in 1889. He (supposedly) wrote Mein Kampf in 1924; the first complete English translation of MK was published in the USA by Jewish Communists in 1939.

    A side-by-side, topic-for-topic comparison of Hess's "Rome and Jerusalem" with "Mein Kampf" would make for absolutely fascinating reading: from a quick survey, my sense is that Hitler took great pains to tone down the racist and ethnic supremacist ideology that permeates Hess's work.

    That's why I wrote that Hitler "supposedly" wrote Mein Kampf: I think the narratives of Hitler's rise and rule, and of course the holy holocaust, are dramatically different from the narratives we have been force-fed for the better part of a century.

    It's past time we plunged a knife in the heart of that narrative, split it open and autopsy the offal. I suspect Feiglin -- and Netanyahu pere and fil, and Herzl and Ben Gurion, Weizmann and Jabotinsky -- will be observed squirming around in there.

    Hey Charles

    Interesting analysis.

    Sherm

    Read More
  33. mcohen says:
    @Qasim
    Mr. Unz:

    The articles you pick for your webzine never cease to amaze me. Like the first Rebecca Gordon article, this offers fascinating insights into the deranged minds of the sorts of people whose work I would hardly ever otherwise read.

    I believe the international community is actually waiting, longing, for some kind of a serious message that will come out from this wonderful, unusual experience where the oldest nation in the world is coming back to its homeland. The entire world is supposed to benefit from this, to achieve something from this beyond just another state in the world that is modern and democratic. Humanity is waiting for something deeper than that from us.

    I mean, what can you even say?? The solipsistic narcissism inherent in these sentences can't even be described in words. I wonder, does he really think people in say, Mongolia or Uruguay are waiting, nay longing for Israel to uplift them in some way? He can't actually believe that, can he? Does he actually believe that the Israeli/Arab conflict is "not a territorial conflict", but arises from a "cultural conflict" amongst Jews themselves?? I think he really does believe it! How can a brain steeped in such astronomical levels of self-deception even continue to function?

    I wonder if Mr. Feiglin has ever read Vox Day's blog. If he had, he might have realized what he was up to. Vox likes to toot his own horn as a super-genius; articles like these show his high opinion of himself has a large basis in fact. By simply offering up seemingly softball questions, he let Feiglin do all the work in exposing himself as a balls-out Jewish nationalist, thereby furthering Vox's contention that Christian Whites need to adopt similar tactics in a multicultural world or face civilizational extinction.

    Mr. Unz, I hope one day you will address why you allow so many articles on this website that portray Jews in such a negative light. Are you under the impression that exposing the ugly aspects of Jewish ethnic activism, while potentially painful in the short-term, is necessary to avoid a catastrophic recrudescence of anti-Semitism in the future?

    Qasim

    I agree wholeheartedly.not only do they believe but they back up there belief with missiles named David’s sling and Moses’s mazooka.

    Read More
  34. macilrae says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Saying "we are all racist" is an abuse of language which destroys meaning and therefore debate. If you went for the non pejorative "we all have elements of tribalism in us" you wouldn't deny the chance to argue - as far as I can tell quite plausibly that Israel, and a large proportion of its citizens, make a bigger deliberate effort to avoid practical racism than most countries. (Not to attempt a whitewash like the author).

    They have done a big if less than wholly successful job of integrating immigrants from very different backgrounds and cultures, including black Falasha, and regardless of whether they believe in God. Of course the abuse of language is incipient when the word "racism" is raised at all. What the hell does it mean in clear rational discourse? It has been contaminated by having all sorts of aspects of culture and even religion attached to it. In fact the primacy of Jewishness by matrilineal descent does make it hard to get away from the notion of race which Jews cringe at when used since the 1930s. That splendid Jewish Anglican (?atheist) Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli had a great old Jew in one of his novels say "all is race".

    Am I in the end disagreeing with you? I don't know by now.

    Let me start by qualifying my statement that “we are all racist” by stating what I understand a racist to be; in the sense that Mr. Feiglin used the term. It is intrinsically human to take notice of the fact that different races exhibit not only a different appearance but also different characteristics which are both culturally and genetically acquired – we all apply a statistical analysis to this and generate a stereotype. The more we hang out with them the more accurate our stereotype becomes. A “racist” is a person whose attitude to or actions towards a specific individual are modified by their stereotype. Usually we associate this with a negative attitude and consequent hostile actions such as Greg Dyke’s statement that “the BBC is hideously white” (and by golly didn’t they turn that around!) but it could also include affirmative action or the Guardian reader whom I had mentioned, broadcasting how utterly delighted she was that her son had married an African (and not just a nice person!).

    Anyhow, in western countries we hardly dare open our mouth these days on the subject of race – try asking an Asian-looking job applicant where he came from! Other cultures are more forthright: for example we may remember when Japanese PM Nakasone said words to the effect that “The level of Japanese society far surpasses that of the United States. There are many blacks, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans in the United States whose average level is extremely low.” In Japan few people turned a hair – they mostly all agree – but this fell rather poorly on American ears. Similarly, when Jews and Israelis speak informally (settlers in particular) their opinions of “Arabs” and “blacks” are, shall we say, unpromising: the term “cockroaches” crops up a lot. Hence I found myself taking issue with Mr Feiglin’s claim.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks for that clear and cogent essay. I've got a bit of a hangover. Can I pass it off as mine?
  35. Durruti says:
    @mcohen
    Nice try mondoavian bird shit eater.....the Palestinians so named by yasser arafart are not Canaanites but in fact Camelbites from Saudi Arabia.hence they speak arabic.tell me Mr astute historian what language did the Canaanites speak.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_languages

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Canaanite-languages

    It has been proved beyond all doubt of which I have no doubt that hebrew has a direct link to the hebrewherbalites who were also called Israelites.
    Long live the israelites

    Nice Try – you Coward.

    “Nice try mondoavian bird shit eater…..”

    followed by:

    “the Palestinians so named by yasser arafart ”

    Who/whatever you are; you are a racist (anti semite – Arabs are Semites; most Jews are not). My German Jewish (mother’s side) family are not, never were, and never will be – Semites.

    Nice Try. Say that to my face; give me an address.

    I notice you chose not to comment on the Zionist Holocaust against the inhabitants of Jericho.

    The residents of Jericho were living in a walled city. They were settled, farmed, produced, had children and livestock; and they were Liquidated by the first Zionist Nazis. All their women and children were massacred. Their property was then stolen, and their history obfuscated.

    It is obvious that you are a moral coward, as well as a physical one.

    I will not respond to you again if you do not produce an address – where we can meet, face to face. Then you may repeat your insults. If you are not a coward, prove me wrong.

    All the commenters are watching for your response.

    Read More
  36. @SolontoCroesus

    Europeans gave the world its most extreme example of a racist mentality in WW2 – this didn’t come from nowhere.
     
    Strenuously disagree, on at least three counts:

    1. The extent to which the 20th century wars in Europe concerned a "racist mentality," you're correct, it "didn’t come from nowhere," it came from Jews -- see Moses Hess, above and below. In 1862 when Hess wrote Rome and Jerusalem, he was fanatically committed to the ideology of Jewish supremacy and world dominance.

    2. WW2 was a geopolitical war among the British, the Americans, the Russians, and the Germans over who would dominate, primarily, the European continent and the "world island," and also who would dominate colonized areas of Asia and Africa. Jews, as interstitial people, provoked the wars; set about getting the various factions involved, financed/invested in both/all sides, and emerged the victors. Again, to the extent it was a racial war, the locus of racism was mostly in the Jewish contingent.

    3. If by "most extreme" you mean longest, WW2 was a relatively brief event. If you mean "most extreme" in terms of civilians killed and civilian infrastructure destroyed, then the destruction of Germany and the deliberate incineration then rape then ethnic transfer of German people might meet that definition. Once again, Jews were at the vanguard of envisioning, inciting, and perpetrating those acts of "most extreme" violence against the German people.

    I was going to select a few pithy passages from Moses Hess's book, but I couldn't stop --

    "Providence would not have prolonged your existence until today, had it not reserved for you the holiest of missions. The hour has struck for the resettlement of the banks of the Jordan. The historical books of the royal prophets can, perhaps, be written again only by you.

    A great calling is reserved for you: to be a living channel of communication between three continents. You should be the bearers of civilization to the primitive people of Asia, and the teachers of the European sciences to which your race has contributed so much. You should be the mediators between Europe and far Asia, open the roads that lead to India and Chin a -- this unknown regions which must ultimately be thrown open to civilization. You will come to the land of your fathers crowned with the crown of long martyrdom, and there, finally, sou will be completely healed from all your ills! Your capital will again bring the wide stretches of barren land under cultivation; your labor and industry will once more turn the ancient soil into fruitful valleys, reclaim the flat lands from the encroaching sands of the desert, and the world will again pay homage to the oldest of people.

    The time has arrived for you to reclaim, either by way of compensation or by other means, your ancient fatherland from Turkey, which has devastated it for ages. You have contributed enough to the cause of civilization and have helped Europe on the path of progress, to make revolutions and carry them out successfully. You must henceforth think of yourselves, of the valleys of Lebanon and the plains of Gennasareth.

    March forward! . . .

    March forward! . . .

    March forward, Jews of all lands! . . .

    March forward, ye sons of the martyrs! . . . bring again to Israel the splendor of the Davidic days and rewrite that part of history of which the monoliths of Semiramis are the only witness.

    March forward, ye noble hearts! The day on which the Jewish tribes return to their fatherland will be epoch-making in the history of humanity. Oh, how will the East tremble at your coming! How quickly, under the influence of labor and industry, will the enervation of the people vanish, in the land where voluptuousness, idleness and robbery have held sway for thousands of years.

    You will be the moral stay of the East. You have written the Book of books. Become, then, the educators of the wild Arabian hordes and the African peoples. Let the ancient wisdom of the East, the revelations of the Zend, the Vedas, as well as the more modern Koran and the Gospels, group themselves around your Bible. They will all become purified from every superstition and all will proclaim alike the principles of freedom, humanity, peace and unity. You are the triumphal arch of the future historical epoch, under which the great covenant of humanity will be written and sealed in your presence as the witnesses of the past and future. The Biblical traditions which you will revive, will also sanctify anew our Occidental society and destroy the weed of materialism together with its roots."
     
    This guy just doesn't quit! and so it's hard to stop reading and reporting, and formulating refuting commentary.

    One thought that occurred to me while I was basting a pork roast (it's SWMBO's birthday; hope she'll appreciate the marinade of grape jam (home made) with basil and garlic. Maybe that's a disgusting combination? We shall see.) -- Anyway -- it occurs to me that, as Israel Shahak has informed readers, Jews were strictly ghettoized by their own rabbis and leaders. To the extent they were literate (H. Abramson says that in the early 20th century 40% of Eastern European Jews were illiterate), Jews were forbidden to read secular material until emancipation in France in 1789. It was as much as 50 years later until the Haskalah movement opened up secular study among East European Jews. Jews who were literate and did study, read only Torah and Jewish works.
    Thus, Jews have deep, deep muscle-memory of Jewish literature, and even their sense of secular Jewish history is limited: Heinrich Gratz wrote the first, comprehensive history of the Jewish people as late as the mid-1870s (Hitler STILL not born), and Graetz's history has serious distortions, focusing as it does on Jewish victimhood and reinforcing what Moses Hess established as an article of faith, that Jews had been persecuted always and forever. Even more than non-Jews, Jews have spent centuries of their lives imbibing brainwashing.

    Hess, and his vision of the Jewish community everywhere, is solipsistic; in his muscle-memory, no Persians traded with Chinese and with Milanese along the Silk Road; no Moors created AlHambra; no Africans established great centers of learning at Timbuktu; no Confucius developed great practical philosophies; Machiavelli, who travelled to and admired the organizational skills of the German principalities, is invisible to Hess's ghetto-bound brain; Virgil never wrote, Cicero never spoke, da Vinci never sculpted and Michelangelo never drew. Jews and only Jews inform Hess's crusted lobes.
    It's sad, but such a diagnosis offers a ray of optimism and of resolution: Brain transplant!

    (Or at very least, an "Israel Reset" -- I come from a Catholic background, so the process of Confessing and Repenting come to mind --
    ~ Confess your sins
    ~ Do penance / make reparations
    ~ Repent -- that means, think again -- re-think the way you look at the world, and reformat a program that is obviously not functioning properly

    In Rwanda, the people engaged a Truth and Reconciliation process.

    Whatever -- the present system is not sustainable. Israel has got to stop living in its fictional past.

    PS

    Europeans gave the world its most extreme example of a racist mentality in WW2 – this didn’t come from nowhere.

    Actually, Charles Lindbergh and the America Firsters were the American racists: Anglos and Germans were kin, so for British to do battle w/ Germany was intrafamily warfare. The British are just as “Aryan” as Germans.
    Ethnic Germans comprised a large share of the American population — German could have been USA’s native language.
    Lindbergh argued that USA should NOT fight against Germany because they were Caucasian, or white, in today’s (misguided, imo) designation.
    On the other hand, Lindy said, the Russians were Slavs — NOT like Us, not of the same “race” as Americans, so they should be the enemy.

    Read More
  37. @AaronB
    Spare me. I'm not virtue-signalling or closing my eyes to the realities of tribal conflicts that are being forced on whites.

    If anything, I'm sympathetic to whites organizing as a tribe, and I understand its in response to a leftist coalition of tribes that took advantage of whites "disarming" to make a naked, and extremely vicious, power grab.

    But its the wrong way - tactics are not neutral and you don't become a monster to fight monsters. Vox Day, who styles himself Dark Lord and his followers Dread Ilk, clearly believes that becoming a monster is the right way to fight monsters. He is unabashed about that.

    For myself, if all I have in life is a choice between monsters, I will retreat to the woods and while the merry time away, thank you.

    But there is a third way, and always has been - have no fantasies about the world or your enemies, understand you have enemies, don't fall for their tricks and wiles, but remain true to yourself. Be gentle as doves, but wise as serpents.

    Its a choice that requires wisdom and self-discipline, and doesn't have the satisfaction of giving in to rage and hatred, but is really the only way to remain sane and healthy in a world riven by hatred and conflict.

    But its the wrong way – tactics are not neutral and you don’t become a monster to fight monsters.

    Ah, the “I don’t eat lions so lions should not eat me” theory. GLWT.

    This is akin to the “Women, if faced with rape, don’t resist; your odds of being seriously injured or killed are lower if you give the rapist what he wants” theory of crime control. I truly LOATHE people who think like this.

    Spare me your virtue-signaling “Its a choice that requires wisdom and self-discipline, and doesn’t have the satisfaction of giving in to rage and hatred, but is really the only way to remain sane and healthy in a world riven by hatred and conflict” So I’m neither wise nor self-disciplined, huh? In what dictionary is that not crowing a false sense of moral superiority?

    I’ve heard one clown after another tell me that the “high road” is negotiation, peace, understanding, being “gentle as doves, wise as serpents.” Take that in hand and walk through Chicago’s Englewood this coming Friday evening, will you? I’ll pay for your travel if you let me video the action.

    You are like Amy Biehl and David Ruenzel, and like them will cease to be a factor the moment this Civil War gets ugly.

    Throughout the history of Man, those who welcomed their invaders were wiped away. You don’t own anything you will not defend by force, and that includes your being alive tomorrow.

    I can only imagine you have neither children nor grandchildren. Trust me when I say that those of us who do, grasp the contest in play right now a whole hell of a lot better than do you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    This is akin to the “Women, if faced with rape, don’t resist; your odds of being seriously injured or killed are lower if you give the rapist what he wants
     
    I mean, deplorable as it might seem, it does have factual utility. However, while its useful as an individual coping mechanism if a girl was attacked and wanted to survive, as a group coping mechanism, it would simply encourage further indiscretion.

    I think the same of Aaron's strategy - like mimicry, useful on an individual level, but not on a societal scale.
    , @AaronB
    You're trapped in your categories - a rigid dualistic thinking.

    I'm not at all suggesting you don't resist the rape - I made it clear you shouldn't be naive about your enemies. Don't allow yourself to be destroyed. Of course not.

    But what you want is to do to your enemy what he wished to do to you - you want to crush him under your heel. You want far more than not to get raped - because we live in a world of rapists, you want to become a rapist.

    Ultimately, you want to "win", to be on top. Your agenda is, ultimately, defined by your enemies. Don't kid yourself - you want far more than not to be raped.

    You don't just want to walk through the Chicago ghetto unmolested, you want to the top gangster in the hood.

    You see, I don't want to "win". Winning creates hatred in the vanquished, and the desire for revenge. It also wont give you the pleasure you expect. It's why all empires inevitably decline. Winning is ultimately boring.

    You are trapped in an eternal cycle that you can't see. Right now, Trump and the alt-right will win - they will be top dog. In 20 or 30 years, in ways no one can see right now, you will be facing an enemy of your own making that will crush you like you crushed others. And so it goes.

    It's ultimately boring, and stupid, and not what life is about.

    In the end, the verdict of humanity is that winning is boring - it's why all empires suffer a collapse in morale when they are at the top of their game, and there is nowhere else to go. So if my only options are to be a winner or a loser, life would be pretty meaningless.

    Thankfully, there is more.
  38. @Ronnie
    This article is irrational rubbish. Unz.com is usually more discriminating in what they publish.

    As someone recently Tweated "Israel as a nation state is something akin to Scientology".

    I just returned from six days all over the West Bank. I can tell you with great certainty that Israel is the most racist country in the world. In all respects they treat the Palestinians in a way that shows little concern for the minimum standards of liberal decency. Most Israelis and illegal settlers I spoke to were racists by any definition. Hundreds of children as young as 14 go to jail for months when it is alleged that they threw a rock. The evidence is usually flimsy or from an unreliable source and the sentence is based on a plea-bargaining system that uses intimidation, fear and brute force to get a 99.7% conviction rate. I even attended the Army court for processing such victims. It reminded me of a dog pound in a very poor country. The judge was a IDF officer who was also an illegal settler.

    This article is irrational rubbish. Unz.com is usually more discriminating in what they publish.

    Personally, I found it quite illuminating. Perhaps your problem is in looking for rationality.

    Humans are more animals that rationalize their feelings rather than rational animals. Most of what you hear from people on any existential subject is rationalization, not rational.

    All articles about how peace is going to be made between these people are irrational to me. The Muslims are bent on the destruction of Israel and the Jews are determined to remain in control of their homeland, however defined. People who expect much rationality from either side in that circumstance are bound to be disappointed.

    Stripped of all the morally charged attitude, your description of the West Bank is what one should expect, if one accepts humans for what they are.

    Read More
  39. TWS says:
    @jacques sheete

    The people in that part of the world have been trading absentee masters for a loong time. I do not care, no I welcome a group that not only has a historic claim but is willing to put themselves on the ground to run the place.
     
    I'd like to read your version of that supposed "historic claim." It sounds more like a hysterical claim to me.

    Those who are willing to put themselves on the ground to run the place? Even if they are violent parasites living off the blood and treasure of the huge sappy nation a half a a world away?

    So as long as they're willing to put themselves on the ground to run the place, they are justified in running rampant? If you think so, then I got news for ya, and so does a lot of the rest of the world.

    Here's why the BS from that bunch has been tolerated for so long.:


    ...all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object...
     
    Does that need to be explained or elaborated upon?

    Jack, I didn’t say anything about the validity or strength of the claim. I don’t care whose running the show over there except as it effects me. I know for a fact that they are not worse than the other options so I just don’t care.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Jack, I didn’t say anything about the validity or strength of the claim.
     
    Well then, why even make it?
  40. Z-man says:

    Blaa blaa blaa, a Zionist by any other name. One State Now, Palestine!!

    Read More
  41. @macilrae
    Let me start by qualifying my statement that "we are all racist" by stating what I understand a racist to be; in the sense that Mr. Feiglin used the term. It is intrinsically human to take notice of the fact that different races exhibit not only a different appearance but also different characteristics which are both culturally and genetically acquired - we all apply a statistical analysis to this and generate a stereotype. The more we hang out with them the more accurate our stereotype becomes. A "racist" is a person whose attitude to or actions towards a specific individual are modified by their stereotype. Usually we associate this with a negative attitude and consequent hostile actions such as Greg Dyke's statement that "the BBC is hideously white" (and by golly didn't they turn that around!) but it could also include affirmative action or the Guardian reader whom I had mentioned, broadcasting how utterly delighted she was that her son had married an African (and not just a nice person!).

    Anyhow, in western countries we hardly dare open our mouth these days on the subject of race - try asking an Asian-looking job applicant where he came from! Other cultures are more forthright: for example we may remember when Japanese PM Nakasone said words to the effect that "The level of Japanese society far surpasses that of the United States. There are many blacks, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans in the United States whose average level is extremely low." In Japan few people turned a hair - they mostly all agree - but this fell rather poorly on American ears. Similarly, when Jews and Israelis speak informally (settlers in particular) their opinions of "Arabs" and "blacks" are, shall we say, unpromising: the term "cockroaches" crops up a lot. Hence I found myself taking issue with Mr Feiglin's claim.

    Thanks for that clear and cogent essay. I’ve got a bit of a hangover. Can I pass it off as mine?

    Read More
  42. woodNfish says:
    @macilrae

    We’re definitely not racist and we’re definitely a great example of a state that has opened its doors to immigration in a very successful way.
     
    Give me a break!

    In truth we are all racist - including the most liberal Africa-loving suburban English Guardian-reader who will definitely cross to the other side of the road when she encounters a group of young blacks approaching on a dark night. Certainly including the Africans themselves.

    As for all the Jews I ever met personally and got to know, they are among the most racist of people: is not Obama's derogatory nickname "Der Shvarzer"?

    But of course I see that this has to be be denied at all cost - but come on, Moshe, lighten up and have a beer: you can tell me!

    In truth we are all racist

    You are confusing the natural desire to be with one’s own kind with disliking a person simply because of their race. They are not the same.

    Read More
    • Replies: @macilrae
    How about if I say that we all modify our behaviour to differing degrees when interacting with those of an evidently different race - whether it is to talk extra loud or in pidgin or bowing profusely - begging them to join the BBC/marry our daughter - or crossing over when a bunch of them approach us on a dark night ...
  43. Art says:
    @Durruti
    Ron Unz:

    You know that I would vote for you whenever and wherever you run for political office (only exception is if you would ever oppose Ron Paul - which would never happen).

    I like/love you soo much, I would willingly have your baby, if that were medically possible.

    Your decision to allow this article was, (as with all you do), sheer genius. The readers and commenters on this website (I refuse to use the accepted "commentaters" - sounds like a brand of potatoes), need, every so often,to read a clear succinct listing of the Fascist rationale behind the ongoing Ethnic Cleansing of the Palestinian People.

    This Feiglin, piece of shit Land Thieving politician, is spewing a line I heard as a child in the Ocean Avenue Jewish Center (Brooklyn). Portions of my family, land thieves currently residing in Palestine also heard, and spew this line. They should return to Germany,or to America, and do the morally correct thing.

    "There was never a Palestinian nation, there was never a Palestinian state. That’s all one big lie." The dis informing agent, actually wrote this, but after he gets the reader leaning, he cuts off his head with, "If, God forbid, Israel would disappear one day, immediately, the word “Palestinian” would disappear as well."

    Hmm! so without the presence of the Occupier, there would be no Palestinians? This Land Thief is utilizing a brainwashing technique known as doublespeak. "Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the ..... Beyond 1984: Doublespeak in a Post-Orwellian Age." A link here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjht4GYneDRAhWFOiYKHXbnB0gQFggaMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDoublespeak&usg=AFQjCNH-SCOm8AArkI-UT1_7gMKjFsmiIA&sig2=roixUwxOgmcNN49kvaAuUg&bvm=bv.145063293,d.eWE

    There are other useful links on the same page.

    One final mention of the Old Testament (sometimes called the Jewish Bible), The Talmud, and Jericho:

    Jericho is either a History of one of the first (possibly the first) Holocaust committed. This early, possible first Holocaust was committed by the Hebrews. Agent Hitler was not yet born. The inhabitants of Jericho were exterminated (every man, woman, elderly, and child) by the Hebrews. And they and most Christian Churches are proud of this deed, and celebrate it in their places of worship, in History Brainwashing Books, and in song.

    Here is a nice rendition by Elvis.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiTiJvEoODRAhUHVyYKHaLjCgIQ3ywIHDAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D0ftahXv0KIU&usg=AFQjCNEOtBPUFGowrUbLXjB6uoSMzFNYsA&sig2=r0ZyMfQ7fbVCpELGZC33Cg&bvm=bv.145063293,d.eWE

    Some may say the Old Testament is not accurate History, or any History. However, the story, the fable of Jericho is celebrated far and wide. I remember my mother playing (on the Piano), and singing the song. Genocide celebrated by song, and praised in Religious Establishments (do I need a verb?)!!!

    "6:20 The rams’ horns sounded and when the army heard the signal, they gave a loud battle cry. The wall collapsed and the warriors charged straight ahead into the city and captured it. 6:21 They annihilated with the sword everything that breathed in the city, including men and women, young and old, as well as cattle, sheep, and donkeys."

    The Palestinians are the actual, and/or spiritual descendants of the original inhabitants of the land of Canaan. The Palestinians are there/here Canaan-Palestine, and are being Ethnically Cleansed - Brutalized - Robbed, now, in 2017. To see a crime being committed, and do nothing...

    Ron Unz, and good people everywhere.

    The Republic is dead! Long Live the Republic!

    This Feiglin guy is incapable of honest thinking when it comes to Jew matters. All one must do is see what Israel does to the Palestinians, and all his words and arguments are laughable. Immoral Israel is Judaism. He hopes and describes something that can NEVER be – the Jew character will not let it happen.

    What is scary is that our president has a Feiglin type Jew looking over his shoulder 24/7. Jared the Gawker is there looking over daddy all the time. The most dangerous thing in human history is the mix of “power and family.”

    Pray!

    Peace — Art

    Read More
  44. @dc.sunsets

    But its the wrong way – tactics are not neutral and you don’t become a monster to fight monsters.
     
    Ah, the "I don't eat lions so lions should not eat me" theory. GLWT.

    This is akin to the "Women, if faced with rape, don't resist; your odds of being seriously injured or killed are lower if you give the rapist what he wants" theory of crime control. I truly LOATHE people who think like this.

    Spare me your virtue-signaling "Its a choice that requires wisdom and self-discipline, and doesn’t have the satisfaction of giving in to rage and hatred, but is really the only way to remain sane and healthy in a world riven by hatred and conflict" So I'm neither wise nor self-disciplined, huh? In what dictionary is that not crowing a false sense of moral superiority?

    I've heard one clown after another tell me that the "high road" is negotiation, peace, understanding, being "gentle as doves, wise as serpents." Take that in hand and walk through Chicago's Englewood this coming Friday evening, will you? I'll pay for your travel if you let me video the action.

    You are like Amy Biehl and David Ruenzel, and like them will cease to be a factor the moment this Civil War gets ugly.

    Throughout the history of Man, those who welcomed their invaders were wiped away. You don't own anything you will not defend by force, and that includes your being alive tomorrow.

    I can only imagine you have neither children nor grandchildren. Trust me when I say that those of us who do, grasp the contest in play right now a whole hell of a lot better than do you.

    This is akin to the “Women, if faced with rape, don’t resist; your odds of being seriously injured or killed are lower if you give the rapist what he wants

    I mean, deplorable as it might seem, it does have factual utility. However, while its useful as an individual coping mechanism if a girl was attacked and wanted to survive, as a group coping mechanism, it would simply encourage further indiscretion.

    I think the same of Aaron’s strategy – like mimicry, useful on an individual level, but not on a societal scale.

    Read More
  45. Chu says:
    @jacques sheete

    I believe the international community is actually waiting, longing, for some kind of a serious message that will come out from this wonderful, unusual experience where the oldest nation in the world is coming back to its homeland.
     
    Oldest nation in the world?

    I stopped reading right there. Obviously the guy is as ignorant as he is nuts. Who do these clowns think they're bullshitting, anyway?

    I know that we goyim are ignorant, stupid, contemptible saps, but there are limits to our gullibility.

    And if these cloacas think they're sooo smart, then why can't they understand the basic concept that if you lie long enough, at least a few will catch on? Oh, I guess if yer special, the rules don't apply.

    ‘Oldest nation in the world?’

    I laughed at the same part. Realize though that these people are enamored in their fantasy myth collective about the nation called Israel. To us it looks like a crooked 70 year occupation swindle, but to them it’s Shangri-La.

    We happen to live in the same worlds, but they are in a delusional reality about getting a ‘nation’ back. The US Congress likely supports these nuts, because they realize they need a mental asylum for their collective neurosis. Maybe it’s better to build that collective asylum in the middle east than in their own backyard.

    Read More
  46. Shabbos Shalom,

    Its a great big achievement ,that what Moshe Feiglin is decided to do their good services for the betterment of Yisrael, its going to be come true and success on their way.
    HaShem bless him with H’is endless love and also all the ZEHUT international member’s.
    (Mr’s Farah Sajid)

    Read More
  47. TigerJ says:

    The Feiglins in America have done to Americans what the Feiglins in the Middle East have done to Palestinians. Occupy, exploit embezzle and loot. Is that not what this election was about: to break the stranglehold the Feiglins have on America?

    Read More
  48. macilrae says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks for that clear and cogent essay. I've got a bit of a hangover. Can I pass it off as mine?

    No worries, mate. It was the least I could do.

    Read More
  49. Anon says:

    I have read elsewhere by Jewish and non-Jewish writers that Israeli Jews have been molded into psychotic automatons where they are incapable of deciphering reality from fantasy. This guy is the perfect example. Whereas in reality, Israel is the most hated country in the world, he believes that it is a shining example to the world. It is cruel to wish him upon the Palestinians, but I certainly don’t want him anywhere else.

    Read More
  50. Alden says:
    @TWS
    The people in that part of the world have been trading absentee masters for a loong time. I do not care, no I welcome a group that not only has a historic claim but is willing to put themselves on the ground to run the place.

    Would there be less violence if the Israelis all just died, because that is clearly what you want. Would there be fewer thugocracies and cleptocracies? No. Whomever was running the place it would look like any other part of NAME world.

    But Israel isn’t running that part of the world very well. Not only has it been in turmoil since 1948 but the great powers have been heavily involved There were times when Russia backed Egypt and US backed Israel could went to war. Remember the 1973 war? Nixon and Kissebger airlifted every American tank in Europe to Israel while Russian trainers and support troops helped the Egyptians.

    The ME was very stable under the caliphs and later the Turks. Morocco has always been stable and has excellent relations with Europe.

    The ME might have been unstable without Israel but since 1948 it’s been a mess. And let’s not forget the Samson option of Israeli nuclear warheads aimed at everybcapitol and major city in Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    > The ME was very stable under the caliphs and later the Turks


    plenty of blood flowed. It appears that you haven't studied the history in much detail....
  51. Ingot9455 says:
    @AaronB
    Forgive me, I was merely trying to tease out the implications of the nationalistic position. I don't, of course, know if Vox understands the implications of his own positions. He may not.

    We live, of course, on a finite planet, with finite resources, and finite land - so the world is, I'm afraid, a zero sum game. If China wants more of the worlds crude oil, America is gonna get less of it, and our oil prices will go up. That's just how it works, unfortunately.

    Now, maybe Vox is one of those techno-optimists who think technology will solve all our problems before they become serious. Even so, any nation that invents a particular technology will gain a huge advantage and won't want to share it, which will set the stage for rivalry.

    So yes, in the world we live in, nationalistic countries are inevitable rivals, and alliances will be shifting and opportunistic - its the result of the "me, me, me" philosophy, and it may be the best option facing humanity at this moment, but lets not kid ourselves.

    And yet, technology radically changes, from moment to moment, what resources we can access and what we can get out of them. Fracking+horizontal drilling radically changed our level of global oil resources. Thorium-based nuclear reactors radically change our electrical energy generation resources, to say nothing of what’s coming down the pike with fusion. And these are the most basic examples.

    The size of the pie changes, and that means it’s not a zero sum game. If China wants more oil, it doesn’t mean America gets less, it means we figure out a way for both of us to have what we need at an acceptable price.

    This is why Trump said, “America first. … We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world — but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first. … We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones.”

    Zero sum thinking means you’re a crappy negotiator. Fortunately, you have someone in the White House to learn from. I suggest you also read Art of the Deal – it’s quick and fun.

    Read More
  52. Wally says: • Website
    @SolontoCroesus

    Oldest nation in the world?
    I stopped reading right there. Obviously the guy is as ignorant as he is nuts. Who do these clowns think they’re bullshitting, anyway?
     
    "Ignorant and nuts" is not unique to this individual.

    Yossi Alpher, former Mossad agent and a career at Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, told Bruce Reidel of Brookings Institute, that the notion is widespread across "most Israelis."

    Alpher's words:


    "We Israelis . . . Israelis, to this day, have a need to -- a deep need to be recognized and accepted by the region.
    You see, Bibi’s demand, which is supported by most Israelis, that the Palestinians recognize us as a Jewish state, or the state of the Jewish people -- the nation-state of the Jewish people -- this goes way back, this need to be recognized.
    . . . there’s this sense that the ancient peoples of the Middle East have created an alliance, the people who precede the Arabs, okay. We go back with Iran, we just celebrated Purim, all right, we go back 2,600 years with Iran. The Egyptian, the Ethiopian national narrative is King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. So, this is almost a biblical -- a new biblical chapter.
    This is how many people in Israel felt. "
     
    In other words, Israelis are convinced that they are of the same stature, as an empire-building people, as the Persian empire, based on Esther and Mordechai's subversion of the Persian king, generations after the Persians had established that monarchy.

    Israeli Jews are orgasmic to destroy Iran because they genuinely think that they ARE Iran, they ARE the rightful heirs of the ancient Persian empire.

    Incredibly, in Alpher's estimation, Iranians, Egyptians and Ethiopians did not agree.
    Alpher explained:


    There were also some people who were just cynical, practitioners of realpolitik. Everybody in Tehran and in Addis and in Ankara were cynical practitioners of realpolitik.
    They did not reciprocate.
    They said, we kidded ourselves that they did.
    But we still do to this day, because if you believe that this is -- we are somehow Middle Eastern, ancient blood brothers, then who’s Khomeini? This wasn’t meant to be.
     
    You got that?
    Jews from Lithuania and Poland are "blood brothers" to the Persian royal family, but Khomeini, whose ancestors were from Naishapour, in Iran's Khorasan province, is an interloper!

    Alpher's -- and Feiglin's fever-dreams have origins in the even more feverish writing of proto-zionist Moses Hess, especially his Rome and Jerusalem, A Study in Jewish Nationalism, written in 1862 and published, in English, in 1918. https://www.marxists.org/subject/jewish/rome-jerusalem.pdf

    Hitler was born in 1889. He (supposedly) wrote Mein Kampf in 1924; the first complete English translation of MK was published in the USA by Jewish Communists in 1939.

    A side-by-side, topic-for-topic comparison of Hess's "Rome and Jerusalem" with "Mein Kampf" would make for absolutely fascinating reading: from a quick survey, my sense is that Hitler took great pains to tone down the racist and ethnic supremacist ideology that permeates Hess's work.

    That's why I wrote that Hitler "supposedly" wrote Mein Kampf: I think the narratives of Hitler's rise and rule, and of course the holy holocaust, are dramatically different from the narratives we have been force-fed for the better part of a century.

    It's past time we plunged a knife in the heart of that narrative, split it open and autopsy the offal. I suspect Feiglin -- and Netanyahu pere and fil, and Herzl and Ben Gurion, Weizmann and Jabotinsky -- will be observed squirming around in there.

    Time to grow up about the Hitler nonsense.

    There was Hitler with the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ and there was Hitler without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    [MORE]

    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

    We’re talking about an alleged ’6M Jews & 5M others’ … 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

    Read More
  53. Talha says:
    @jacques sheete

    I believe the international community is actually waiting, longing, for some kind of a serious message that will come out from this wonderful, unusual experience where the oldest nation in the world is coming back to its homeland.
     
    Oldest nation in the world?

    I stopped reading right there. Obviously the guy is as ignorant as he is nuts. Who do these clowns think they're bullshitting, anyway?

    I know that we goyim are ignorant, stupid, contemptible saps, but there are limits to our gullibility.

    And if these cloacas think they're sooo smart, then why can't they understand the basic concept that if you lie long enough, at least a few will catch on? Oh, I guess if yer special, the rules don't apply.

    Hey JS,

    You stopped way too early, bro – it was just getting good!

    But he does get an applaud for being up front and frank on this point:
    “However, this is a Jewish state and we have to maintain its identity, not lose it. Therefore, being that Israel is based on the Jewish identity – it’s a Jewish state, it’s not a state of all its citizens – we have to be very careful when we’re dealing with those questions of immigration.”

    I wish more people were more honest on this point.

    Peace.

    Read More
  54. Talha says:
    @AaronB
    Spare me. I'm not virtue-signalling or closing my eyes to the realities of tribal conflicts that are being forced on whites.

    If anything, I'm sympathetic to whites organizing as a tribe, and I understand its in response to a leftist coalition of tribes that took advantage of whites "disarming" to make a naked, and extremely vicious, power grab.

    But its the wrong way - tactics are not neutral and you don't become a monster to fight monsters. Vox Day, who styles himself Dark Lord and his followers Dread Ilk, clearly believes that becoming a monster is the right way to fight monsters. He is unabashed about that.

    For myself, if all I have in life is a choice between monsters, I will retreat to the woods and while the merry time away, thank you.

    But there is a third way, and always has been - have no fantasies about the world or your enemies, understand you have enemies, don't fall for their tricks and wiles, but remain true to yourself. Be gentle as doves, but wise as serpents.

    Its a choice that requires wisdom and self-discipline, and doesn't have the satisfaction of giving in to rage and hatred, but is really the only way to remain sane and healthy in a world riven by hatred and conflict.

    Hey AaronB,

    Good stuff.

    But its the wrong way – tactics are not neutral and you don’t become a monster to fight monsters.

    On point – fight the good fight – that is always commendable. Ends-justify-the-means is completely divorced from any spiritual understanding. Gain the world – lose your soul – which is more precious?

    “He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into you.” – Nietzsche (and that dude didn’t even believe in God)

    If you haven’t come across him before, this is a man who fought the good fight – I live half a day’s drive from a town named after him in Iowa:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3708678/

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Thanks for the link, Talha. What a wonderful man! I'm gonna look more into him. I love reading about these fine old chivalrous warriors. Reminds me of Saladin, from what little I know of him. Really makes a mockery of the ridiculous "hajnal line" scientistic theorists solemnly assuring us that non-Northern Europeans are simply doomed to be treacherous knaves with only clan based loyalty. A curious feature of the scentistic mind - a complete ignorance of history! Do they even read history? I guess, who needs history when you have "science"? Ahh, the intellectual poverty of our times!

    The Muslim world is also struggling with this issue - "winning" vs living unmolested in peace according to divine values, as are the Chinese, and really the whole world, at the moment - and its great that you have such wonderful old characters to serve as guideposts.

    We in the West need to tap into our own tradition of saints and chivalrous warriors, who fought the good fight and stayed true to themselves. But its a steep uphill climb - many on the alt-right explicitly mock "nobility". They're quite honest about this. Perhaps similarly to the Muslim world, we have reached a point where our worst elements have come to the fore. And the Chinese seem to be in the same state - just look at Xi Jinping, what can you expect from a man who looks like that!?

    This is why I think hope at the moment prevails only the fringes of "civilization" - I was passing through Thailand recently, and there was barely any reporting on Trump. It was wonderful. Other, local issues dominated. They just didn't seem to be caught up in the "great" issues of our day. Now that is sanity.

  55. @TWS
    Jack, I didn't say anything about the validity or strength of the claim. I don't care whose running the show over there except as it effects me. I know for a fact that they are not worse than the other options so I just don't care.

    Jack, I didn’t say anything about the validity or strength of the claim.

    Well then, why even make it?

    Read More
  56. DaveE says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Oldest nation in the world?
    I stopped reading right there. Obviously the guy is as ignorant as he is nuts. Who do these clowns think they’re bullshitting, anyway?
     
    "Ignorant and nuts" is not unique to this individual.

    Yossi Alpher, former Mossad agent and a career at Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, told Bruce Reidel of Brookings Institute, that the notion is widespread across "most Israelis."

    Alpher's words:


    "We Israelis . . . Israelis, to this day, have a need to -- a deep need to be recognized and accepted by the region.
    You see, Bibi’s demand, which is supported by most Israelis, that the Palestinians recognize us as a Jewish state, or the state of the Jewish people -- the nation-state of the Jewish people -- this goes way back, this need to be recognized.
    . . . there’s this sense that the ancient peoples of the Middle East have created an alliance, the people who precede the Arabs, okay. We go back with Iran, we just celebrated Purim, all right, we go back 2,600 years with Iran. The Egyptian, the Ethiopian national narrative is King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. So, this is almost a biblical -- a new biblical chapter.
    This is how many people in Israel felt. "
     
    In other words, Israelis are convinced that they are of the same stature, as an empire-building people, as the Persian empire, based on Esther and Mordechai's subversion of the Persian king, generations after the Persians had established that monarchy.

    Israeli Jews are orgasmic to destroy Iran because they genuinely think that they ARE Iran, they ARE the rightful heirs of the ancient Persian empire.

    Incredibly, in Alpher's estimation, Iranians, Egyptians and Ethiopians did not agree.
    Alpher explained:


    There were also some people who were just cynical, practitioners of realpolitik. Everybody in Tehran and in Addis and in Ankara were cynical practitioners of realpolitik.
    They did not reciprocate.
    They said, we kidded ourselves that they did.
    But we still do to this day, because if you believe that this is -- we are somehow Middle Eastern, ancient blood brothers, then who’s Khomeini? This wasn’t meant to be.
     
    You got that?
    Jews from Lithuania and Poland are "blood brothers" to the Persian royal family, but Khomeini, whose ancestors were from Naishapour, in Iran's Khorasan province, is an interloper!

    Alpher's -- and Feiglin's fever-dreams have origins in the even more feverish writing of proto-zionist Moses Hess, especially his Rome and Jerusalem, A Study in Jewish Nationalism, written in 1862 and published, in English, in 1918. https://www.marxists.org/subject/jewish/rome-jerusalem.pdf

    Hitler was born in 1889. He (supposedly) wrote Mein Kampf in 1924; the first complete English translation of MK was published in the USA by Jewish Communists in 1939.

    A side-by-side, topic-for-topic comparison of Hess's "Rome and Jerusalem" with "Mein Kampf" would make for absolutely fascinating reading: from a quick survey, my sense is that Hitler took great pains to tone down the racist and ethnic supremacist ideology that permeates Hess's work.

    That's why I wrote that Hitler "supposedly" wrote Mein Kampf: I think the narratives of Hitler's rise and rule, and of course the holy holocaust, are dramatically different from the narratives we have been force-fed for the better part of a century.

    It's past time we plunged a knife in the heart of that narrative, split it open and autopsy the offal. I suspect Feiglin -- and Netanyahu pere and fil, and Herzl and Ben Gurion, Weizmann and Jabotinsky -- will be observed squirming around in there.

    Nice writing and analysis…… I’m jealous. The part about the “brothers” of Khazaria and Persia cracked me up, too.

    Thanks for the chuckle AND a great takedown AND not taking 500+words to do it!

    Read More
  57. @AaronB
    Spare me. I'm not virtue-signalling or closing my eyes to the realities of tribal conflicts that are being forced on whites.

    If anything, I'm sympathetic to whites organizing as a tribe, and I understand its in response to a leftist coalition of tribes that took advantage of whites "disarming" to make a naked, and extremely vicious, power grab.

    But its the wrong way - tactics are not neutral and you don't become a monster to fight monsters. Vox Day, who styles himself Dark Lord and his followers Dread Ilk, clearly believes that becoming a monster is the right way to fight monsters. He is unabashed about that.

    For myself, if all I have in life is a choice between monsters, I will retreat to the woods and while the merry time away, thank you.

    But there is a third way, and always has been - have no fantasies about the world or your enemies, understand you have enemies, don't fall for their tricks and wiles, but remain true to yourself. Be gentle as doves, but wise as serpents.

    Its a choice that requires wisdom and self-discipline, and doesn't have the satisfaction of giving in to rage and hatred, but is really the only way to remain sane and healthy in a world riven by hatred and conflict.

    Its a choice that requires wisdom and self-discipline, and doesn’t have the satisfaction of giving in to rage and hatred,

    But sometimes…

    Read More
  58. SFG says:

    Vox Day has never been as anti-Jewish as most of his fans–he’s promoted van Creveld’s work, for example.

    I suspect he may be trolling everyone.

    Read More
  59. Karl says:
    @Wally
    "We’re definitely not racist and we’re definitely a great example of a state that has opened its doors to immigration in a very successful way. "

    Laughable.

    Israeli immigration laws specify Jews Only, while those same Jews demand mass 3rd world immigration into the US & Europe.

    27 Wally > Israeli immigration laws specify Jews Only

    not true. Absolutely not true.

    If you have one Jewish grandparent, you are in a special category. About 30 countries have the same rule – for example if you have an Irish grandparent, you can get an Irish citizenship – in addition to whatever you already have.

    A little ways back, when it looked like there was a real danger of Obama’s Third Term actually being elected, Michelle Bachmann signed up for Swiss citizenship, off of one grandparent. Michelle Bachmann is a dual-citizen.

    In fact, the Israel Interior Ministry just made it a LOT easier for skilled workers of any background, to get a work visa with indefinitely-renewable Temporary Residence papers.

    Most westerners can stay here quasi-indefinitely merely by doing a “visa run” once per six months. You can fly to Cyprus in an hour, stay overnight for some shopping, then come back the next day and start the clock all over again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Most westerners can stay here quasi-indefinitely merely by doing a “visa run” once per six months. You can fly to Cyprus in an hour, stay overnight for some shopping, then come back the next day and start the clock all over again.
     
    Why not just cross over to Jordan or Lebanon and return?
  60. SFG says:
    @AaronB
    Spare me. I'm not virtue-signalling or closing my eyes to the realities of tribal conflicts that are being forced on whites.

    If anything, I'm sympathetic to whites organizing as a tribe, and I understand its in response to a leftist coalition of tribes that took advantage of whites "disarming" to make a naked, and extremely vicious, power grab.

    But its the wrong way - tactics are not neutral and you don't become a monster to fight monsters. Vox Day, who styles himself Dark Lord and his followers Dread Ilk, clearly believes that becoming a monster is the right way to fight monsters. He is unabashed about that.

    For myself, if all I have in life is a choice between monsters, I will retreat to the woods and while the merry time away, thank you.

    But there is a third way, and always has been - have no fantasies about the world or your enemies, understand you have enemies, don't fall for their tricks and wiles, but remain true to yourself. Be gentle as doves, but wise as serpents.

    Its a choice that requires wisdom and self-discipline, and doesn't have the satisfaction of giving in to rage and hatred, but is really the only way to remain sane and healthy in a world riven by hatred and conflict.

    Don’t you think the Dark Lord thing is at least in part more of a rage-against-the-machine choice, kind of like saying, ‘I know you all think I’m the height of evil, so I’m going to embrace it’?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    That's what I thought at first, but if you read Vox, it's quite clear that he rejects what has traditionally been defined as "good", and embraced "evil" tactics, because they are effective and help you "win". And he's quite right about that. To be top dog in the world, you can't be good.

    He's quite candid that he believes ends justify means. He's not shy about it.

    So the Dark Lord thing has an ironic level, but is also much more than that. It's also an actual description of intent, and a mockery of concern with morality.
    , @dc.sunsets
    Vox Day's detractors are a lot like today's MSM with Trump.

    Both Day and Trump know exactly how to get them frothing at the mouth in outrage while the former two walk away laughing.

    It's actually quite entertaining to watch both of them in their own spheres operate on this level. I mean, "munching popcorn and spitting out your drink, you laughed so hard" entertaining.
  61. Druid says:
    @jacques sheete

    I believe the international community is actually waiting, longing, for some kind of a serious message that will come out from this wonderful, unusual experience where the oldest nation in the world is coming back to its homeland.
     
    Oldest nation in the world?

    I stopped reading right there. Obviously the guy is as ignorant as he is nuts. Who do these clowns think they're bullshitting, anyway?

    I know that we goyim are ignorant, stupid, contemptible saps, but there are limits to our gullibility.

    And if these cloacas think they're sooo smart, then why can't they understand the basic concept that if you lie long enough, at least a few will catch on? Oh, I guess if yer special, the rules don't apply.

    Agree. However, most of us are that stupid.

    Read More
  62. newrouter says:
    @AaronB
    Forgive me, I was merely trying to tease out the implications of the nationalistic position. I don't, of course, know if Vox understands the implications of his own positions. He may not.

    We live, of course, on a finite planet, with finite resources, and finite land - so the world is, I'm afraid, a zero sum game. If China wants more of the worlds crude oil, America is gonna get less of it, and our oil prices will go up. That's just how it works, unfortunately.

    Now, maybe Vox is one of those techno-optimists who think technology will solve all our problems before they become serious. Even so, any nation that invents a particular technology will gain a huge advantage and won't want to share it, which will set the stage for rivalry.

    So yes, in the world we live in, nationalistic countries are inevitable rivals, and alliances will be shifting and opportunistic - its the result of the "me, me, me" philosophy, and it may be the best option facing humanity at this moment, but lets not kid ourselves.

    “We live, of course, on a finite planet, with finite resources, and finite land ”

    we can fit everyone on the planet in the State of Texas goofball

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    Yeah, but it wouldn't be fair to the Texans.
    , @SolontoCroesus


    "finite resources, and finite land ”
     
    we can fit everyone on the planet in the State of Texas goofball
     
    Texas had a drought a couple years ago, not enough water to keep cattle alive, much less billions of people.

    Are you aware that the Bush family owns the largest aquifer in South America,

    ". . .Bush family dynasty, whose purchases of 121,407 hectares of land just happen to be located on part of the Guarani Aquifer System. The groundwater reservoir is the largest [renewable freshwater] resource in the world, with an expanse of more than 1.2 million square kilometers and a volume of 40,000 cubic kilometers of water.
    . . . a subterranean reservoir of such proportions could supply the world with drinking water for 200 years
     
    and that part of Hillary's agenda in the conquest of Libya was for USA to take control of that state's aquifer?

    [That] aquifer is outstripped by the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System, which covers 2 million square kilometers and is estimated to contain 150,000 cubic kilometers of subterranean [nonrenewable fossil] water. According to Bloomberg, the greater part of this vast, transboundary geological reserve is situated beneath Libya and was one of the factors that motivated the United States, the United Kingdom and France to their tripartite invasion. The rest of the aquifer lies beneath Egypt, Chad and Sudan.
     
    http://watchingamerica.com/WA/2015/06/18/bush-family-buy-up-guarani-aquifer/
    , @dc.sunsets

    we can fit everyone on the planet in the State of Texas goofball
     
    Really? Kumbaya, and all that, too?

    You couldn't even have Hutu's and Tutsi's sharing geography, and you think all the world's disparate people can get along, share resources equally, turn Texas (or the planet) into one big commons?

    (facepalm.)
  63. Druid says:
    @Durruti
    Ron Unz:

    You know that I would vote for you whenever and wherever you run for political office (only exception is if you would ever oppose Ron Paul - which would never happen).

    I like/love you soo much, I would willingly have your baby, if that were medically possible.

    Your decision to allow this article was, (as with all you do), sheer genius. The readers and commenters on this website (I refuse to use the accepted "commentaters" - sounds like a brand of potatoes), need, every so often,to read a clear succinct listing of the Fascist rationale behind the ongoing Ethnic Cleansing of the Palestinian People.

    This Feiglin, piece of shit Land Thieving politician, is spewing a line I heard as a child in the Ocean Avenue Jewish Center (Brooklyn). Portions of my family, land thieves currently residing in Palestine also heard, and spew this line. They should return to Germany,or to America, and do the morally correct thing.

    "There was never a Palestinian nation, there was never a Palestinian state. That’s all one big lie." The dis informing agent, actually wrote this, but after he gets the reader leaning, he cuts off his head with, "If, God forbid, Israel would disappear one day, immediately, the word “Palestinian” would disappear as well."

    Hmm! so without the presence of the Occupier, there would be no Palestinians? This Land Thief is utilizing a brainwashing technique known as doublespeak. "Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the ..... Beyond 1984: Doublespeak in a Post-Orwellian Age." A link here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjht4GYneDRAhWFOiYKHXbnB0gQFggaMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDoublespeak&usg=AFQjCNH-SCOm8AArkI-UT1_7gMKjFsmiIA&sig2=roixUwxOgmcNN49kvaAuUg&bvm=bv.145063293,d.eWE

    There are other useful links on the same page.

    One final mention of the Old Testament (sometimes called the Jewish Bible), The Talmud, and Jericho:

    Jericho is either a History of one of the first (possibly the first) Holocaust committed. This early, possible first Holocaust was committed by the Hebrews. Agent Hitler was not yet born. The inhabitants of Jericho were exterminated (every man, woman, elderly, and child) by the Hebrews. And they and most Christian Churches are proud of this deed, and celebrate it in their places of worship, in History Brainwashing Books, and in song.

    Here is a nice rendition by Elvis.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiTiJvEoODRAhUHVyYKHaLjCgIQ3ywIHDAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D0ftahXv0KIU&usg=AFQjCNEOtBPUFGowrUbLXjB6uoSMzFNYsA&sig2=r0ZyMfQ7fbVCpELGZC33Cg&bvm=bv.145063293,d.eWE

    Some may say the Old Testament is not accurate History, or any History. However, the story, the fable of Jericho is celebrated far and wide. I remember my mother playing (on the Piano), and singing the song. Genocide celebrated by song, and praised in Religious Establishments (do I need a verb?)!!!

    "6:20 The rams’ horns sounded and when the army heard the signal, they gave a loud battle cry. The wall collapsed and the warriors charged straight ahead into the city and captured it. 6:21 They annihilated with the sword everything that breathed in the city, including men and women, young and old, as well as cattle, sheep, and donkeys."

    The Palestinians are the actual, and/or spiritual descendants of the original inhabitants of the land of Canaan. The Palestinians are there/here Canaan-Palestine, and are being Ethnically Cleansed - Brutalized - Robbed, now, in 2017. To see a crime being committed, and do nothing...

    Ron Unz, and good people everywhere.

    The Republic is dead! Long Live the Republic!

    Well said!

    Read More
  64. Karl says:
    @Alden
    But Israel isn't running that part of the world very well. Not only has it been in turmoil since 1948 but the great powers have been heavily involved There were times when Russia backed Egypt and US backed Israel could went to war. Remember the 1973 war? Nixon and Kissebger airlifted every American tank in Europe to Israel while Russian trainers and support troops helped the Egyptians.

    The ME was very stable under the caliphs and later the Turks. Morocco has always been stable and has excellent relations with Europe.

    The ME might have been unstable without Israel but since 1948 it's been a mess. And let's not forget the Samson option of Israeli nuclear warheads aimed at everybcapitol and major city in Europe.

    > The ME was very stable under the caliphs and later the Turks

    plenty of blood flowed. It appears that you haven’t studied the history in much detail….

    Read More
    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Alden
    You're right, plenty of blood flowed, but especially under the Turks and since 1500 or so things were much more stable than they are now.
  65. Druid says:
    @mcohen
    Qasim

    I agree wholeheartedly.not only do they believe but they back up there belief with missiles named David's sling and Moses's mazooka.

    You’re a typical Ziofascist name-calling bum!

    Read More
    • Replies: @mcohen
    Why did you leave south Africa.....keep it short
  66. Druid says:
    @TigerJ
    The Feiglins in America have done to Americans what the Feiglins in the Middle East have done to Palestinians. Occupy, exploit embezzle and loot. Is that not what this election was about: to break the stranglehold the Feiglins have on America?

    Absolutely!

    Read More
  67. @Karl
    27 Wally > Israeli immigration laws specify Jews Only


    not true. Absolutely not true.

    If you have one Jewish grandparent, you are in a special category. About 30 countries have the same rule - for example if you have an Irish grandparent, you can get an Irish citizenship - in addition to whatever you already have.

    A little ways back, when it looked like there was a real danger of Obama's Third Term actually being elected, Michelle Bachmann signed up for Swiss citizenship, off of one grandparent. Michelle Bachmann is a dual-citizen.

    In fact, the Israel Interior Ministry just made it a LOT easier for skilled workers of any background, to get a work visa with indefinitely-renewable Temporary Residence papers.

    Most westerners can stay here quasi-indefinitely merely by doing a "visa run" once per six months. You can fly to Cyprus in an hour, stay overnight for some shopping, then come back the next day and start the clock all over again.

    Most westerners can stay here quasi-indefinitely merely by doing a “visa run” once per six months. You can fly to Cyprus in an hour, stay overnight for some shopping, then come back the next day and start the clock all over again.

    Why not just cross over to Jordan or Lebanon and return?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    > Why not just cross over to Jordan or Lebanon and return?

    well, yes you could go to Jordan. But it is actually faster & cheaper to fly to Cyprus. Also, in Jordan, (I am told, I can't vouch for it) you can only enter after you can show that you already booked hotel/etc arrangements which guarantee that you will leave behind some minimum amount of hard currency.

    And, Cyprus has much better/cheaper shopping....

    The border with Lebanon is not [routinely] open, as they never signed a treaty with us.

    Just like Jordan did it immediately after Egypt did, Lebanon will do it the day after Syria does.
  68. SFG says:
    @newrouter
    "We live, of course, on a finite planet, with finite resources, and finite land "

    we can fit everyone on the planet in the State of Texas goofball

    Yeah, but it wouldn’t be fair to the Texans.

    Read More
  69. Alden says:
    @Karl
    > The ME was very stable under the caliphs and later the Turks


    plenty of blood flowed. It appears that you haven't studied the history in much detail....

    You’re right, plenty of blood flowed, but especially under the Turks and since 1500 or so things were much more stable than they are now.

    Read More
  70. AaronB says:
    @dc.sunsets

    But its the wrong way – tactics are not neutral and you don’t become a monster to fight monsters.
     
    Ah, the "I don't eat lions so lions should not eat me" theory. GLWT.

    This is akin to the "Women, if faced with rape, don't resist; your odds of being seriously injured or killed are lower if you give the rapist what he wants" theory of crime control. I truly LOATHE people who think like this.

    Spare me your virtue-signaling "Its a choice that requires wisdom and self-discipline, and doesn’t have the satisfaction of giving in to rage and hatred, but is really the only way to remain sane and healthy in a world riven by hatred and conflict" So I'm neither wise nor self-disciplined, huh? In what dictionary is that not crowing a false sense of moral superiority?

    I've heard one clown after another tell me that the "high road" is negotiation, peace, understanding, being "gentle as doves, wise as serpents." Take that in hand and walk through Chicago's Englewood this coming Friday evening, will you? I'll pay for your travel if you let me video the action.

    You are like Amy Biehl and David Ruenzel, and like them will cease to be a factor the moment this Civil War gets ugly.

    Throughout the history of Man, those who welcomed their invaders were wiped away. You don't own anything you will not defend by force, and that includes your being alive tomorrow.

    I can only imagine you have neither children nor grandchildren. Trust me when I say that those of us who do, grasp the contest in play right now a whole hell of a lot better than do you.

    You’re trapped in your categories – a rigid dualistic thinking.

    I’m not at all suggesting you don’t resist the rape – I made it clear you shouldn’t be naive about your enemies. Don’t allow yourself to be destroyed. Of course not.

    But what you want is to do to your enemy what he wished to do to you – you want to crush him under your heel. You want far more than not to get raped – because we live in a world of rapists, you want to become a rapist.

    Ultimately, you want to “win”, to be on top. Your agenda is, ultimately, defined by your enemies. Don’t kid yourself – you want far more than not to be raped.

    You don’t just want to walk through the Chicago ghetto unmolested, you want to the top gangster in the hood.

    You see, I don’t want to “win”. Winning creates hatred in the vanquished, and the desire for revenge. It also wont give you the pleasure you expect. It’s why all empires inevitably decline. Winning is ultimately boring.

    You are trapped in an eternal cycle that you can’t see. Right now, Trump and the alt-right will win – they will be top dog. In 20 or 30 years, in ways no one can see right now, you will be facing an enemy of your own making that will crush you like you crushed others. And so it goes.

    It’s ultimately boring, and stupid, and not what life is about.

    In the end, the verdict of humanity is that winning is boring – it’s why all empires suffer a collapse in morale when they are at the top of their game, and there is nowhere else to go. So if my only options are to be a winner or a loser, life would be pretty meaningless.

    Thankfully, there is more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Just a friendly note - you keep getting into these exchanges with people that are declared materialists. I don't know if there is much room for congruence on these kinds of matters. Still... liking your input though.

    About Vox, I've enjoyed some of his stuff on atheism to be honest, but I see some strains of what you are talking about in his writings. Not very becoming for a publicly Christian person - in my opinion.

    Peace.

    , @dc.sunsets
    What is it about Eastern mystic religions that brings out the smug superiority in people?

    Winning is leaving descendants, period.

    BTW, you misunderstand my perspective. It is premised on Socionomic theory, something that is as foreign to your 360-degree (aka non-dualist) perspective as anything.

    It is a model of human social behavior that explains why elements of that behavior exhibit strong correlation across the "highs and lows" of history, and bases it on neuroanatomy and neurobiology in general.

    History plays out in a patterned fractal, this is quite clear if you have the chart in front of you. Cycles of peace and war, fads in fashion, fiction, music and all other human endeavors assort in very predictable ways, and are easily inferred by looking at a chart of stock prices, interestingly enough.

    This perspective, elucidated by Robert Prechter, Jr., informs me that the peace, Utopian social projects and inclusivity of the last 50 years was simply the final wave of rising social mood within an Elliott Wave pattern begun in the late 1700's. It crested in 1999 with "We Are The World," and the gathering storm of a natural "corrective" period these past 17 years was hidden by credit inflation never before recorded.

    Trees don't grow to the sky. Yin has yang, right? Well, take all the Universalism, the Utopian "we can create the Garden of Eden, or the Kingdom of Heaven, on Earth" public policies (capped by open invitation to replacement-level immigration) and imagine the sentiments that animated it are REVERSED.

    Pathological trust? Try pathological suspicion, distrust and rage borne of losing what you thought you had. This is the stuff that causes societies to go to war.

    Unless you think history has ended, and warfare is no more, and unless you really don't care whether your progeny live or die, then you have to accept that the tide will change and you'd better not be on the wrong side of it when it does.

    There's a time to prepare for peace, there's a time to prepare for war. This isn't the former.

    In the meantime, I still admonish you to walk your talk. We can chat in 20 or 30 years and compare notes on how well it works to be the white-robed, prayer-bead-carrying guy full of understanding as he walks in No Man's Land between the two warring sides, asking both of them "Why do you fight? We're all fellowmen."
  71. mcohen says:
    @Druid
    You're a typical Ziofascist name-calling bum!

    Why did you leave south Africa…..keep it short

    Read More
  72. AaronB says:
    @SFG
    Don't you think the Dark Lord thing is at least in part more of a rage-against-the-machine choice, kind of like saying, 'I know you all think I'm the height of evil, so I'm going to embrace it'?

    That’s what I thought at first, but if you read Vox, it’s quite clear that he rejects what has traditionally been defined as “good”, and embraced “evil” tactics, because they are effective and help you “win”. And he’s quite right about that. To be top dog in the world, you can’t be good.

    He’s quite candid that he believes ends justify means. He’s not shy about it.

    So the Dark Lord thing has an ironic level, but is also much more than that. It’s also an actual description of intent, and a mockery of concern with morality.

    Read More
  73. AaronB says:
    @Talha
    Hey AaronB,

    Good stuff.

    But its the wrong way – tactics are not neutral and you don’t become a monster to fight monsters.
     
    On point - fight the good fight - that is always commendable. Ends-justify-the-means is completely divorced from any spiritual understanding. Gain the world - lose your soul - which is more precious?

    "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into you." - Nietzsche (and that dude didn't even believe in God)

    If you haven't come across him before, this is a man who fought the good fight - I live half a day's drive from a town named after him in Iowa:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3708678/

    Peace.

    Thanks for the link, Talha. What a wonderful man! I’m gonna look more into him. I love reading about these fine old chivalrous warriors. Reminds me of Saladin, from what little I know of him. Really makes a mockery of the ridiculous “hajnal line” scientistic theorists solemnly assuring us that non-Northern Europeans are simply doomed to be treacherous knaves with only clan based loyalty. A curious feature of the scentistic mind – a complete ignorance of history! Do they even read history? I guess, who needs history when you have “science”? Ahh, the intellectual poverty of our times!

    The Muslim world is also struggling with this issue – “winning” vs living unmolested in peace according to divine values, as are the Chinese, and really the whole world, at the moment – and its great that you have such wonderful old characters to serve as guideposts.

    We in the West need to tap into our own tradition of saints and chivalrous warriors, who fought the good fight and stayed true to themselves. But its a steep uphill climb – many on the alt-right explicitly mock “nobility”. They’re quite honest about this. Perhaps similarly to the Muslim world, we have reached a point where our worst elements have come to the fore. And the Chinese seem to be in the same state – just look at Xi Jinping, what can you expect from a man who looks like that!?

    This is why I think hope at the moment prevails only the fringes of “civilization” – I was passing through Thailand recently, and there was barely any reporting on Trump. It was wonderful. Other, local issues dominated. They just didn’t seem to be caught up in the “great” issues of our day. Now that is sanity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey AaronB,

    Do they even read history?
     
    Not sure. One thing I've noticed about current STEM minds is a lack of civilizing disciplines. Do they (can they) appreciate poetry? I honestly don't give a whole lot of credence to these theories; are Scots Northern Europeans? Didn't they operate on clan basis until relatively recently?

    The Muslim world is also struggling with this issue
     
    Yes, some have broken from our tradition and buy into 'ends justify the means'. This has brought us nothing but more suffering. As our scholars teach us; the ends must be sound and noble and the means must be sound and noble. They also teach; it is always better to be the oppressed than the oppressor. If one is oppressed, it is a means to gain proximity to God - one can exercise patient, one can forgive, etc. Oppressing however can never, in anyway, bring one closer to God.

    many on the alt-right explicitly mock “nobility”
     
    Part and parcel of 'ends justify the means'. C.S. Lewis mentions this in the wonderful 'Screwtape Letters":
    "(Humor) is an invaluable as a means of destroying shame. If a man simply lets others pay for him, he is ‘mean’; if he boasts of it in a jocular manner and twits his fellows with having been scored off, he is no longer ‘mean’ but a comical fellow…Cruelty is shameful - unless the cruel man can represent it as a practical joke. A thousand bawdy, or even blasphemous, jokes do not help towards a man’s damnation so much as his discovery that almost anything he wants to do can be done, not only without the disapproval but with the admiration of his fellows, if only it can get itself treated as a joke."

    They just didn’t seem to be caught up in the “great” issues of our day. Now that is sanity.
     
    Indeed. Good for them, it is a sound way to operate. God will ask you about how you treated your neighbor and parents far more than what is happening in the halls of power in DC.

    Peace.
  74. Talha says:
    @AaronB
    You're trapped in your categories - a rigid dualistic thinking.

    I'm not at all suggesting you don't resist the rape - I made it clear you shouldn't be naive about your enemies. Don't allow yourself to be destroyed. Of course not.

    But what you want is to do to your enemy what he wished to do to you - you want to crush him under your heel. You want far more than not to get raped - because we live in a world of rapists, you want to become a rapist.

    Ultimately, you want to "win", to be on top. Your agenda is, ultimately, defined by your enemies. Don't kid yourself - you want far more than not to be raped.

    You don't just want to walk through the Chicago ghetto unmolested, you want to the top gangster in the hood.

    You see, I don't want to "win". Winning creates hatred in the vanquished, and the desire for revenge. It also wont give you the pleasure you expect. It's why all empires inevitably decline. Winning is ultimately boring.

    You are trapped in an eternal cycle that you can't see. Right now, Trump and the alt-right will win - they will be top dog. In 20 or 30 years, in ways no one can see right now, you will be facing an enemy of your own making that will crush you like you crushed others. And so it goes.

    It's ultimately boring, and stupid, and not what life is about.

    In the end, the verdict of humanity is that winning is boring - it's why all empires suffer a collapse in morale when they are at the top of their game, and there is nowhere else to go. So if my only options are to be a winner or a loser, life would be pretty meaningless.

    Thankfully, there is more.

    Just a friendly note – you keep getting into these exchanges with people that are declared materialists. I don’t know if there is much room for congruence on these kinds of matters. Still… liking your input though.

    About Vox, I’ve enjoyed some of his stuff on atheism to be honest, but I see some strains of what you are talking about in his writings. Not very becoming for a publicly Christian person – in my opinion.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    I know, Talha, I often feel I'm being quite ridiculous with my posts. Obviously I'm not convincing the materialists. On the one hand its just ego-fighting, which is the most retarded thing you can do, but on the other hand maybe its good to have this perspective out there.

    Vox Day has some good insights, there is no doubt - his rhetoric vs dialectic distinction is very important and very good, and should receive widespread attention, even if he doesn't understand Aristotle very well and commits certain lapses in logic - but to call Vox a Christian is really pretty laughable. I think of him more as a "lower pagan" in the mold of Thor - not the Hellenistic pagans who were quite close to early Christianity and Buddhism.
  75. Abraham says:

    Relocating the American Embassy to Jerusalem, as President Donald Trump has pledged to do, is more than symbolic. It’s what Christians should be praying for if they value celebrating future Easter Holy Weeks, in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, located in Jerusalem’s Old City. With such a forceful gesture, the Trump Administration will be affirming, for once and for all, the undivided Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish State.

    There’s a reason Muslims living in Israel proper—1.5 million of them—don’t migrate to the adjacent Palestinian Authority. They’re better off in Israel. Should Jerusalem, East and West, be recognized formally as the capital of Israel only, under Jewish control alone; Christianity’s holiest sites will be better off. Judaism’s holy sites will be safer. And so will Islam’s.

    Jerusalem is no settlement to be haggled over; it’s the capital of the Jewish State. King David conquered it 1000 years Before Christ. The city’s “Muslim Period” began only in the year 638 of the Common Era. “Yerushalaim,” and not Al Quds, is the name of the city that was sacred to Jews for nearly two thousand years before Muhammad. Not once is Jerusalem mentioned in the Quran. And while Muhammad was said to have departed to the heavens from the Al Aksa Mosque, there was no mosque in Jerusalem. The Dome of the Rock and the Al Aksa Mosque were built upon the Jewish Temple Mount. Muslim theologians subsequently justified this usurpation by superimposing their own chronology—and relatively recent fondness for Jerusalem—upon the existing, ancient sanctity of the place to Jews.Essentially, this amounts to historical identity theft.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "...it’s the capital of the Jewish State. King David conquered it 1000 years Before Christ."
    Agree that currently, the shrines will be better cared and protected under Israelis. But please be honest about the conquest of "1000 years Before Christ:" it was a local holocaust, a wholesale slaughter of the indigenous people (children, women, elderly, men) by the ruthless invaders that did the "usurpation by superimposing their own chronology" on the canaanites and by creating the "historical identity theft." The Israelis are not indigenous to the ancient civilization of Canaan.

    "There’s a reason Muslims living in Israel proper—1.5 million of them—don’t migrate to the adjacent Palestinian Authority."
    Is this because Israelis have made a ghetto/prison on the "adjacent" land of the proper owners of the land? By following your logic, one could ask why Jews in Europe and US "don’t migrate" to Israel? Would not it be a proper way to avoid the alleged antisemitism there? Particularly the growing "antisemtism" related to the bloody unsavory activity of Friends of Israel in UK and EU re Middle east (the Libyan and Syrian tragedies?) and the ziocons' activities in the US (the whole Middle East debacle plus the $15 billions/per year to Israel from the US taxpayers pockets). Would you support an idea that Spain should be for Spaniards only (no Jews and other ethnic groups) and the UK should be for Brits only (no Friends of Israel and such)?
    The world would have been a much better place if the US were not captured by the Jewish Lobby, this openly subversive organization the members of which, for some reason, do not want to "migrate" to Israel but instead prefer to live as "usurpers" in the US.

    , @anon
    i'm agnostic on who has what capital in jerusalem. jews call israel their state, and want jerusalem to be their capital because it has been their place for fill-in-the-blank years.
    fine.

    Washington DC has been the capital of the USA for 226 years.
    Washington DC should remain the home and center of the American people, not of any other people.
    the holocaust museum in US capital is an abomination, a trojan horse.
    it has nothing to do with celebrating the american people.
    it should be removed.

    Make Washington Safe Again
    America First!
    Get the holocaust museum out of the capital of the USA.
  76. I was very surprised that “UNZ” published such a racist rubbish. His thinking is fascist and expansionist. Feiglin boasted about that Israel apparently takes more immigrants than the US, he just forgot to mention “only Jewish ones”! Israel is the racist state par excellence. Feiglin wants to establish a “pure” Jewish state that’s why he sees a gap between “Jewish” and “Israeli identity”.

    In July 2015, after Feiglin lost the nomination of the Likud Party for the Knesset, he left the party in order to look for a more attractive alternative, which he seems to have created for himself. It was at the same time, that journalist Sharon Gal was elected to the Knesset. He is a proponent of the death penalty for terrorists. Right away, Feilgin joined his fan club. In a short TV spot, Feiglin declared his readiness to “volunteer as an executioner” and to execute the “executions himself”. Prime Minister Netanyahu responded promptly and forbade any Likud member to advocate publicly for the death penalty.

    It was the same time when Saudi Arabia where looking for hangmen, so I suggested that Feiglin should apply for this job and wished him good luck.

    http://between-the-lines-ludwig-watzal.blogspot.de/2015/07/moshe-feiglin-israels-new-hengmen.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    I was very surprised that “UNZ” published such a racist rubbish.
     
    LOL. You must be new around here!
  77. Karl says:
    @Johann Ricke

    Most westerners can stay here quasi-indefinitely merely by doing a “visa run” once per six months. You can fly to Cyprus in an hour, stay overnight for some shopping, then come back the next day and start the clock all over again.
     
    Why not just cross over to Jordan or Lebanon and return?

    > Why not just cross over to Jordan or Lebanon and return?

    well, yes you could go to Jordan. But it is actually faster & cheaper to fly to Cyprus. Also, in Jordan, (I am told, I can’t vouch for it) you can only enter after you can show that you already booked hotel/etc arrangements which guarantee that you will leave behind some minimum amount of hard currency.

    And, Cyprus has much better/cheaper shopping….

    The border with Lebanon is not [routinely] open, as they never signed a treaty with us.

    Just like Jordan did it immediately after Egypt did, Lebanon will do it the day after Syria does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Also true that many interfaith marriages are conducted in Cyprus, isn't it?
    , @Johann Ricke

    The border with Lebanon is not [routinely] open, as they never signed a treaty with us.

    Just like Jordan did it immediately after Egypt did, Lebanon will do it the day after Syria does.
     
    Forgive my Down Syndrome moment. In a word, Hezbollah.
  78. @newrouter
    "We live, of course, on a finite planet, with finite resources, and finite land "

    we can fit everyone on the planet in the State of Texas goofball

    “finite resources, and finite land ”

    we can fit everyone on the planet in the State of Texas goofball

    Texas had a drought a couple years ago, not enough water to keep cattle alive, much less billions of people.

    Are you aware that the Bush family owns the largest aquifer in South America,

    “. . .Bush family dynasty, whose purchases of 121,407 hectares of land just happen to be located on part of the Guarani Aquifer System. The groundwater reservoir is the largest [renewable freshwater] resource in the world, with an expanse of more than 1.2 million square kilometers and a volume of 40,000 cubic kilometers of water.
    . . . a subterranean reservoir of such proportions could supply the world with drinking water for 200 years

    and that part of Hillary’s agenda in the conquest of Libya was for USA to take control of that state’s aquifer?

    [That] aquifer is outstripped by the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System, which covers 2 million square kilometers and is estimated to contain 150,000 cubic kilometers of subterranean [nonrenewable fossil] water. According to Bloomberg, the greater part of this vast, transboundary geological reserve is situated beneath Libya and was one of the factors that motivated the United States, the United Kingdom and France to their tripartite invasion. The rest of the aquifer lies beneath Egypt, Chad and Sudan.

    http://watchingamerica.com/WA/2015/06/18/bush-family-buy-up-guarani-aquifer/

    Read More
  79. macilrae says:
    @woodNfish

    In truth we are all racist
     
    You are confusing the natural desire to be with one's own kind with disliking a person simply because of their race. They are not the same.

    How about if I say that we all modify our behaviour to differing degrees when interacting with those of an evidently different race – whether it is to talk extra loud or in pidgin or bowing profusely – begging them to join the BBC/marry our daughter – or crossing over when a bunch of them approach us on a dark night …

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    If you want to pander that is our business. I'm not having any of it. The effeminate race-baiting plantation nigger is no longer in office. Fuck him/her/it and everyone like him/her/it.
  80. AaronB says:
    @Talha
    Just a friendly note - you keep getting into these exchanges with people that are declared materialists. I don't know if there is much room for congruence on these kinds of matters. Still... liking your input though.

    About Vox, I've enjoyed some of his stuff on atheism to be honest, but I see some strains of what you are talking about in his writings. Not very becoming for a publicly Christian person - in my opinion.

    Peace.

    I know, Talha, I often feel I’m being quite ridiculous with my posts. Obviously I’m not convincing the materialists. On the one hand its just ego-fighting, which is the most retarded thing you can do, but on the other hand maybe its good to have this perspective out there.

    Vox Day has some good insights, there is no doubt – his rhetoric vs dialectic distinction is very important and very good, and should receive widespread attention, even if he doesn’t understand Aristotle very well and commits certain lapses in logic – but to call Vox a Christian is really pretty laughable. I think of him more as a “lower pagan” in the mold of Thor – not the Hellenistic pagans who were quite close to early Christianity and Buddhism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey AaronB,

    I thought Vox was publicly Christian - maybe I'm wrong and he simply defends 'Christendom' as a culture.

    Peace.
  81. annamaria says:
    @Abraham
    Relocating the American Embassy to Jerusalem, as President Donald Trump has pledged to do, is more than symbolic. It’s what Christians should be praying for if they value celebrating future Easter Holy Weeks, in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, located in Jerusalem’s Old City. With such a forceful gesture, the Trump Administration will be affirming, for once and for all, the undivided Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish State.

    There’s a reason Muslims living in Israel proper—1.5 million of them—don’t migrate to the adjacent Palestinian Authority. They’re better off in Israel. Should Jerusalem, East and West, be recognized formally as the capital of Israel only, under Jewish control alone; Christianity’s holiest sites will be better off. Judaism’s holy sites will be safer. And so will Islam’s.

    Jerusalem is no settlement to be haggled over; it’s the capital of the Jewish State. King David conquered it 1000 years Before Christ. The city’s “Muslim Period” began only in the year 638 of the Common Era. “Yerushalaim,” and not Al Quds, is the name of the city that was sacred to Jews for nearly two thousand years before Muhammad. Not once is Jerusalem mentioned in the Quran. And while Muhammad was said to have departed to the heavens from the Al Aksa Mosque, there was no mosque in Jerusalem. The Dome of the Rock and the Al Aksa Mosque were built upon the Jewish Temple Mount. Muslim theologians subsequently justified this usurpation by superimposing their own chronology—and relatively recent fondness for Jerusalem—upon the existing, ancient sanctity of the place to Jews.Essentially, this amounts to historical identity theft.

    “…it’s the capital of the Jewish State. King David conquered it 1000 years Before Christ.”
    Agree that currently, the shrines will be better cared and protected under Israelis. But please be honest about the conquest of “1000 years Before Christ:” it was a local holocaust, a wholesale slaughter of the indigenous people (children, women, elderly, men) by the ruthless invaders that did the “usurpation by superimposing their own chronology” on the canaanites and by creating the “historical identity theft.” The Israelis are not indigenous to the ancient civilization of Canaan.

    “There’s a reason Muslims living in Israel proper—1.5 million of them—don’t migrate to the adjacent Palestinian Authority.”
    Is this because Israelis have made a ghetto/prison on the “adjacent” land of the proper owners of the land? By following your logic, one could ask why Jews in Europe and US “don’t migrate” to Israel? Would not it be a proper way to avoid the alleged antisemitism there? Particularly the growing “antisemtism” related to the bloody unsavory activity of Friends of Israel in UK and EU re Middle east (the Libyan and Syrian tragedies?) and the ziocons’ activities in the US (the whole Middle East debacle plus the $15 billions/per year to Israel from the US taxpayers pockets). Would you support an idea that Spain should be for Spaniards only (no Jews and other ethnic groups) and the UK should be for Brits only (no Friends of Israel and such)?
    The world would have been a much better place if the US were not captured by the Jewish Lobby, this openly subversive organization the members of which, for some reason, do not want to “migrate” to Israel but instead prefer to live as “usurpers” in the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    > The Israelis are not indigenous to the ancient civilization of Canaan.

    We speak the same language they did. And we did not that leanguage in Khazaria, my friend.

    The bible DOES record that David left the Jebusites be after he grabbed Jerusalem from their king.
  82. @SFG
    Don't you think the Dark Lord thing is at least in part more of a rage-against-the-machine choice, kind of like saying, 'I know you all think I'm the height of evil, so I'm going to embrace it'?

    Vox Day’s detractors are a lot like today’s MSM with Trump.

    Both Day and Trump know exactly how to get them frothing at the mouth in outrage while the former two walk away laughing.

    It’s actually quite entertaining to watch both of them in their own spheres operate on this level. I mean, “munching popcorn and spitting out your drink, you laughed so hard” entertaining.

    Read More
  83. woodNfish says:
    @macilrae
    How about if I say that we all modify our behaviour to differing degrees when interacting with those of an evidently different race - whether it is to talk extra loud or in pidgin or bowing profusely - begging them to join the BBC/marry our daughter - or crossing over when a bunch of them approach us on a dark night ...

    If you want to pander that is our business. I’m not having any of it. The effeminate race-baiting plantation nigger is no longer in office. Fuck him/her/it and everyone like him/her/it.

    Read More
  84. @AaronB
    You're trapped in your categories - a rigid dualistic thinking.

    I'm not at all suggesting you don't resist the rape - I made it clear you shouldn't be naive about your enemies. Don't allow yourself to be destroyed. Of course not.

    But what you want is to do to your enemy what he wished to do to you - you want to crush him under your heel. You want far more than not to get raped - because we live in a world of rapists, you want to become a rapist.

    Ultimately, you want to "win", to be on top. Your agenda is, ultimately, defined by your enemies. Don't kid yourself - you want far more than not to be raped.

    You don't just want to walk through the Chicago ghetto unmolested, you want to the top gangster in the hood.

    You see, I don't want to "win". Winning creates hatred in the vanquished, and the desire for revenge. It also wont give you the pleasure you expect. It's why all empires inevitably decline. Winning is ultimately boring.

    You are trapped in an eternal cycle that you can't see. Right now, Trump and the alt-right will win - they will be top dog. In 20 or 30 years, in ways no one can see right now, you will be facing an enemy of your own making that will crush you like you crushed others. And so it goes.

    It's ultimately boring, and stupid, and not what life is about.

    In the end, the verdict of humanity is that winning is boring - it's why all empires suffer a collapse in morale when they are at the top of their game, and there is nowhere else to go. So if my only options are to be a winner or a loser, life would be pretty meaningless.

    Thankfully, there is more.

    What is it about Eastern mystic religions that brings out the smug superiority in people?

    Winning is leaving descendants, period.

    BTW, you misunderstand my perspective. It is premised on Socionomic theory, something that is as foreign to your 360-degree (aka non-dualist) perspective as anything.

    It is a model of human social behavior that explains why elements of that behavior exhibit strong correlation across the “highs and lows” of history, and bases it on neuroanatomy and neurobiology in general.

    History plays out in a patterned fractal, this is quite clear if you have the chart in front of you. Cycles of peace and war, fads in fashion, fiction, music and all other human endeavors assort in very predictable ways, and are easily inferred by looking at a chart of stock prices, interestingly enough.

    This perspective, elucidated by Robert Prechter, Jr., informs me that the peace, Utopian social projects and inclusivity of the last 50 years was simply the final wave of rising social mood within an Elliott Wave pattern begun in the late 1700′s. It crested in 1999 with “We Are The World,” and the gathering storm of a natural “corrective” period these past 17 years was hidden by credit inflation never before recorded.

    Trees don’t grow to the sky. Yin has yang, right? Well, take all the Universalism, the Utopian “we can create the Garden of Eden, or the Kingdom of Heaven, on Earth” public policies (capped by open invitation to replacement-level immigration) and imagine the sentiments that animated it are REVERSED.

    Pathological trust? Try pathological suspicion, distrust and rage borne of losing what you thought you had. This is the stuff that causes societies to go to war.

    Unless you think history has ended, and warfare is no more, and unless you really don’t care whether your progeny live or die, then you have to accept that the tide will change and you’d better not be on the wrong side of it when it does.

    There’s a time to prepare for peace, there’s a time to prepare for war. This isn’t the former.

    In the meantime, I still admonish you to walk your talk. We can chat in 20 or 30 years and compare notes on how well it works to be the white-robed, prayer-bead-carrying guy full of understanding as he walks in No Man’s Land between the two warring sides, asking both of them “Why do you fight? We’re all fellowmen.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    I apologize for my tone. I do have a problem with tone, I'll admit, which I need to work on. I know a scornful superior tone is supposed to be good rhetoric, but I'm against rhetoric, for the genuine and real, and not interested in power. As you say, I should walk the talk.

    My perspective is informed at least as much by Christianity - the real thing, not the version where aggression, hatred, mockery, and cruelty are legitimate Christian tactics - as it is by Eastern religions, although they are part of it as well.

    You seem to recognize that these are cycles, and they are interminable. That's good. But you respond to that differently. You want to ride the crest, I want to step off the merry go round. I don't think your path will make you happy, but you'll have to find that out for yourself. As I said in another thread, I can't understand how people can see through the power game - as you clearly do - and not start searching for a way to get out of the game.

    If you read my comments, you'll see that I agree that now is a time for "war", broadly speaking - I don't support letting the lions eat us, or the girl letting herself get raped, and clearly things were coming to a head, and something needed to be done. But I don't want to eat the lions, or become a rapist. You do (figuratively speaking, of course).

    Like I said - you are pretending that you only want self-defense, but you want to be top dog. You're kidding yourself, which surprises me. Vox Day is quite honest about his desire for power, victory, and being top dog. Its one of his good points, this honesty.

    I'm not in favor of earthly utopias, either, and as I said, I don't think the options are exhausted by your categories.

    Good luck.

  85. @newrouter
    "We live, of course, on a finite planet, with finite resources, and finite land "

    we can fit everyone on the planet in the State of Texas goofball

    we can fit everyone on the planet in the State of Texas goofball

    Really? Kumbaya, and all that, too?

    You couldn’t even have Hutu’s and Tutsi’s sharing geography, and you think all the world’s disparate people can get along, share resources equally, turn Texas (or the planet) into one big commons?

    (facepalm.)

    Read More
  86. AaronB says:
    @dc.sunsets
    What is it about Eastern mystic religions that brings out the smug superiority in people?

    Winning is leaving descendants, period.

    BTW, you misunderstand my perspective. It is premised on Socionomic theory, something that is as foreign to your 360-degree (aka non-dualist) perspective as anything.

    It is a model of human social behavior that explains why elements of that behavior exhibit strong correlation across the "highs and lows" of history, and bases it on neuroanatomy and neurobiology in general.

    History plays out in a patterned fractal, this is quite clear if you have the chart in front of you. Cycles of peace and war, fads in fashion, fiction, music and all other human endeavors assort in very predictable ways, and are easily inferred by looking at a chart of stock prices, interestingly enough.

    This perspective, elucidated by Robert Prechter, Jr., informs me that the peace, Utopian social projects and inclusivity of the last 50 years was simply the final wave of rising social mood within an Elliott Wave pattern begun in the late 1700's. It crested in 1999 with "We Are The World," and the gathering storm of a natural "corrective" period these past 17 years was hidden by credit inflation never before recorded.

    Trees don't grow to the sky. Yin has yang, right? Well, take all the Universalism, the Utopian "we can create the Garden of Eden, or the Kingdom of Heaven, on Earth" public policies (capped by open invitation to replacement-level immigration) and imagine the sentiments that animated it are REVERSED.

    Pathological trust? Try pathological suspicion, distrust and rage borne of losing what you thought you had. This is the stuff that causes societies to go to war.

    Unless you think history has ended, and warfare is no more, and unless you really don't care whether your progeny live or die, then you have to accept that the tide will change and you'd better not be on the wrong side of it when it does.

    There's a time to prepare for peace, there's a time to prepare for war. This isn't the former.

    In the meantime, I still admonish you to walk your talk. We can chat in 20 or 30 years and compare notes on how well it works to be the white-robed, prayer-bead-carrying guy full of understanding as he walks in No Man's Land between the two warring sides, asking both of them "Why do you fight? We're all fellowmen."

    I apologize for my tone. I do have a problem with tone, I’ll admit, which I need to work on. I know a scornful superior tone is supposed to be good rhetoric, but I’m against rhetoric, for the genuine and real, and not interested in power. As you say, I should walk the talk.

    My perspective is informed at least as much by Christianity – the real thing, not the version where aggression, hatred, mockery, and cruelty are legitimate Christian tactics – as it is by Eastern religions, although they are part of it as well.

    You seem to recognize that these are cycles, and they are interminable. That’s good. But you respond to that differently. You want to ride the crest, I want to step off the merry go round. I don’t think your path will make you happy, but you’ll have to find that out for yourself. As I said in another thread, I can’t understand how people can see through the power game – as you clearly do – and not start searching for a way to get out of the game.

    If you read my comments, you’ll see that I agree that now is a time for “war”, broadly speaking – I don’t support letting the lions eat us, or the girl letting herself get raped, and clearly things were coming to a head, and something needed to be done. But I don’t want to eat the lions, or become a rapist. You do (figuratively speaking, of course).

    Like I said – you are pretending that you only want self-defense, but you want to be top dog. You’re kidding yourself, which surprises me. Vox Day is quite honest about his desire for power, victory, and being top dog. Its one of his good points, this honesty.

    I’m not in favor of earthly utopias, either, and as I said, I don’t think the options are exhausted by your categories.

    Good luck.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    Aaron, I am top dog (excepting, of course, the political structure.)

    I'm smarter than at least 199 out of 200 people. Among other things, the proof is in my kids; they're running rings around their Millennial cohorts. Those are simple facts, not boasts.

    If you look back to the Middle Ages in Europe, life was so "nasty, brutish and short" that the lower classes simply didn't make it. They didn't leave surviving descendants. The artisans, the tradesmen, the capable people of that time survived, as did the aristocracy. My line is analogous to those tradesmen, actually productive in the context of this world.

    The reality is that the percentage of people who fit into that is shrinking rapidly. Not everyone will be an engineer or systems analyst. In fact, my middle son is a great example: he got ONE "B" in his whole life--7th grade advanced English. All the rest, through 7 semesters to obtain a B.S. in Mech. Eng., was all "A's." He is working as an engineer. Not all of his classmates, even the ones who finished their engineering degrees, are so fortunate. What fraction of people is capable of this?

    This is the problem. If 99 people in the room cannot cut that high a bar, and one does, who will "vote" to rob that one blind, deaf and dumb? We already have more people consuming what is produced than we do people doing the production. All roads lead to a cataclysm in this regard.

    So yes, I see this choice as quite stark. When I see youtubes of underclass blacks who state that "all whites are devils" and the comments are overwhelmingly in agreement, I don't see your peaceful, understanding path. I see that as The PAST, and this is where it got us, with millions of disaffected people who think all of their difficulties are the fault of ME AND MINE.

    The "understanding, caring" system turned humans into pets, into spoiled brats with muscles as large as mine and willing to kill those they hate for a pair of shoes.

    I used to think like you (sort of.) I used to think mankind could transcend these limits. Then I watched my wife, a teacher, deal with increasingly barbaric 9 year olds. I watched these kids' parents use "medical diagonses" as an excuse, insuring that no correctives could be applied. I watch the Left blame the very people who keep their lights on and food on their store shelves for all the troubles in the world.

    I watch people who couldn't design or build a PC keyboard in the next 10,000 years use one to hammer out how much they want to kill YT (me, my kids & my grandkids.)

    I just want to be left alone a bit more. Since the 1970's it has been public policy to square the circle of race disparities by coercing the haves in favor of the have-nots. It hasn't narrowed that gap one bit beyond the Affirmative Action set-aside effects. The fix for this embarrassment is "White Privilege."

    Do you know what White Privilege really is? Deoxyribonucleic Acid. It is
    -relatively high IQ
    -low time preference
    -low propensity to impulsivity
    -high investment parenting

    The proponents of this are metaphorically demanding one of two things: either my grandchildren be stripped of the very DNA in their cells, or they be made permanent slaves, tithing an ever-growing share of their product to a growing legion of parasites, parasites who VOTE.

    Yes, this is very bimodal. I'm really rather shocked you don't realize the gravity of this, given that it has been coming to a head for almost FIFTY YEARS. It's not like it sprang up last week.

    You seem like a reasonably bright person, but as I've said, you don't write like you have skin in the game in the form of descendants.

    I do. Look up r/K selection to put in perspective this statement: There is no equivalence to me between my grandchildren and any other people. Anyone who, by intent or simple folly threatens the well-being of my grandchildren merits the same treatment from me as if they were threatened by a stray dog. I like dogs, but that would be an easy call for me to make.

    If you interpret that as meaning I want to be "top dog," maybe that's so. My family matters more to me. The mistake people make is in thinking this means I want to eliminate others. High fences make good neighbors.

    I want those who are streaming (and have streamed here for 50 years) here from places Not Like Here (because of the people that populate them) to GO HOME. I don't want to live like people live in Honduras, or Somalia, or Albania, Syria, Peru, Vietnam, China, Japan, or anywhere else. I didn't invite them, I don't believe in political "commons," and I regard my fellow citizens who DO invite them as trespassers and litterers, people dumping their crap on my property and not observing the first rule of good neighborly relations.

    Africa for Africans. Russia for Russians, Israel for Ashkenazim, Mexico for Mexicans and stay there.

    How is that "top dog?"
  87. anon says:
    @Abraham
    Relocating the American Embassy to Jerusalem, as President Donald Trump has pledged to do, is more than symbolic. It’s what Christians should be praying for if they value celebrating future Easter Holy Weeks, in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, located in Jerusalem’s Old City. With such a forceful gesture, the Trump Administration will be affirming, for once and for all, the undivided Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish State.

    There’s a reason Muslims living in Israel proper—1.5 million of them—don’t migrate to the adjacent Palestinian Authority. They’re better off in Israel. Should Jerusalem, East and West, be recognized formally as the capital of Israel only, under Jewish control alone; Christianity’s holiest sites will be better off. Judaism’s holy sites will be safer. And so will Islam’s.

    Jerusalem is no settlement to be haggled over; it’s the capital of the Jewish State. King David conquered it 1000 years Before Christ. The city’s “Muslim Period” began only in the year 638 of the Common Era. “Yerushalaim,” and not Al Quds, is the name of the city that was sacred to Jews for nearly two thousand years before Muhammad. Not once is Jerusalem mentioned in the Quran. And while Muhammad was said to have departed to the heavens from the Al Aksa Mosque, there was no mosque in Jerusalem. The Dome of the Rock and the Al Aksa Mosque were built upon the Jewish Temple Mount. Muslim theologians subsequently justified this usurpation by superimposing their own chronology—and relatively recent fondness for Jerusalem—upon the existing, ancient sanctity of the place to Jews.Essentially, this amounts to historical identity theft.

    i’m agnostic on who has what capital in jerusalem. jews call israel their state, and want jerusalem to be their capital because it has been their place for fill-in-the-blank years.
    fine.

    Washington DC has been the capital of the USA for 226 years.
    Washington DC should remain the home and center of the American people, not of any other people.
    the holocaust museum in US capital is an abomination, a trojan horse.
    it has nothing to do with celebrating the american people.
    it should be removed.

    Make Washington Safe Again
    America First!
    Get the holocaust museum out of the capital of the USA.

    Read More
  88. @Ludwig Watzal
    I was very surprised that "UNZ" published such a racist rubbish. His thinking is fascist and expansionist. Feiglin boasted about that Israel apparently takes more immigrants than the US, he just forgot to mention "only Jewish ones"! Israel is the racist state par excellence. Feiglin wants to establish a "pure" Jewish state that's why he sees a gap between "Jewish" and "Israeli identity".

    In July 2015, after Feiglin lost the nomination of the Likud Party for the Knesset, he left the party in order to look for a more attractive alternative, which he seems to have created for himself. It was at the same time, that journalist Sharon Gal was elected to the Knesset. He is a proponent of the death penalty for terrorists. Right away, Feilgin joined his fan club. In a short TV spot, Feiglin declared his readiness to "volunteer as an executioner" and to execute the "executions himself". Prime Minister Netanyahu responded promptly and forbade any Likud member to advocate publicly for the death penalty.

    It was the same time when Saudi Arabia where looking for hangmen, so I suggested that Feiglin should apply for this job and wished him good luck.
    http://between-the-lines-ludwig-watzal.blogspot.de/2015/07/moshe-feiglin-israels-new-hengmen.html

    I was very surprised that “UNZ” published such a racist rubbish.

    LOL. You must be new around here!

    Read More
  89. Agent76 says:

    Jan 5, 2017 Chanukah Under Zionist Oppression

    On December 27, 2016, Moshe Chaim Weissfish, age 10, describes how his father Shlomo Zalmen lit Chanukah candles in an Israeli prison, where he is serving time for protesting against the recently enacted Israeli forced draft.

    Read More
  90. macilrae says:
    @woodNfish
    If you want to pander that is our business. I'm not having any of it. The effeminate race-baiting plantation nigger is no longer in office. Fuck him/her/it and everyone like him/her/it.

    There you go!

    Read More
  91. @AaronB
    I apologize for my tone. I do have a problem with tone, I'll admit, which I need to work on. I know a scornful superior tone is supposed to be good rhetoric, but I'm against rhetoric, for the genuine and real, and not interested in power. As you say, I should walk the talk.

    My perspective is informed at least as much by Christianity - the real thing, not the version where aggression, hatred, mockery, and cruelty are legitimate Christian tactics - as it is by Eastern religions, although they are part of it as well.

    You seem to recognize that these are cycles, and they are interminable. That's good. But you respond to that differently. You want to ride the crest, I want to step off the merry go round. I don't think your path will make you happy, but you'll have to find that out for yourself. As I said in another thread, I can't understand how people can see through the power game - as you clearly do - and not start searching for a way to get out of the game.

    If you read my comments, you'll see that I agree that now is a time for "war", broadly speaking - I don't support letting the lions eat us, or the girl letting herself get raped, and clearly things were coming to a head, and something needed to be done. But I don't want to eat the lions, or become a rapist. You do (figuratively speaking, of course).

    Like I said - you are pretending that you only want self-defense, but you want to be top dog. You're kidding yourself, which surprises me. Vox Day is quite honest about his desire for power, victory, and being top dog. Its one of his good points, this honesty.

    I'm not in favor of earthly utopias, either, and as I said, I don't think the options are exhausted by your categories.

    Good luck.

    Aaron, I am top dog (excepting, of course, the political structure.)

    I’m smarter than at least 199 out of 200 people. Among other things, the proof is in my kids; they’re running rings around their Millennial cohorts. Those are simple facts, not boasts.

    If you look back to the Middle Ages in Europe, life was so “nasty, brutish and short” that the lower classes simply didn’t make it. They didn’t leave surviving descendants. The artisans, the tradesmen, the capable people of that time survived, as did the aristocracy. My line is analogous to those tradesmen, actually productive in the context of this world.

    The reality is that the percentage of people who fit into that is shrinking rapidly. Not everyone will be an engineer or systems analyst. In fact, my middle son is a great example: he got ONE “B” in his whole life–7th grade advanced English. All the rest, through 7 semesters to obtain a B.S. in Mech. Eng., was all “A’s.” He is working as an engineer. Not all of his classmates, even the ones who finished their engineering degrees, are so fortunate. What fraction of people is capable of this?

    This is the problem. If 99 people in the room cannot cut that high a bar, and one does, who will “vote” to rob that one blind, deaf and dumb? We already have more people consuming what is produced than we do people doing the production. All roads lead to a cataclysm in this regard.

    So yes, I see this choice as quite stark. When I see youtubes of underclass blacks who state that “all whites are devils” and the comments are overwhelmingly in agreement, I don’t see your peaceful, understanding path. I see that as The PAST, and this is where it got us, with millions of disaffected people who think all of their difficulties are the fault of ME AND MINE.

    The “understanding, caring” system turned humans into pets, into spoiled brats with muscles as large as mine and willing to kill those they hate for a pair of shoes.

    I used to think like you (sort of.) I used to think mankind could transcend these limits. Then I watched my wife, a teacher, deal with increasingly barbaric 9 year olds. I watched these kids’ parents use “medical diagonses” as an excuse, insuring that no correctives could be applied. I watch the Left blame the very people who keep their lights on and food on their store shelves for all the troubles in the world.

    I watch people who couldn’t design or build a PC keyboard in the next 10,000 years use one to hammer out how much they want to kill YT (me, my kids & my grandkids.)

    I just want to be left alone a bit more. Since the 1970′s it has been public policy to square the circle of race disparities by coercing the haves in favor of the have-nots. It hasn’t narrowed that gap one bit beyond the Affirmative Action set-aside effects. The fix for this embarrassment is “White Privilege.”

    Do you know what White Privilege really is? Deoxyribonucleic Acid. It is
    -relatively high IQ
    -low time preference
    -low propensity to impulsivity
    -high investment parenting

    The proponents of this are metaphorically demanding one of two things: either my grandchildren be stripped of the very DNA in their cells, or they be made permanent slaves, tithing an ever-growing share of their product to a growing legion of parasites, parasites who VOTE.

    Yes, this is very bimodal. I’m really rather shocked you don’t realize the gravity of this, given that it has been coming to a head for almost FIFTY YEARS. It’s not like it sprang up last week.

    You seem like a reasonably bright person, but as I’ve said, you don’t write like you have skin in the game in the form of descendants.

    I do. Look up r/K selection to put in perspective this statement: There is no equivalence to me between my grandchildren and any other people. Anyone who, by intent or simple folly threatens the well-being of my grandchildren merits the same treatment from me as if they were threatened by a stray dog. I like dogs, but that would be an easy call for me to make.

    If you interpret that as meaning I want to be “top dog,” maybe that’s so. My family matters more to me. The mistake people make is in thinking this means I want to eliminate others. High fences make good neighbors.

    I want those who are streaming (and have streamed here for 50 years) here from places Not Like Here (because of the people that populate them) to GO HOME. I don’t want to live like people live in Honduras, or Somalia, or Albania, Syria, Peru, Vietnam, China, Japan, or anywhere else. I didn’t invite them, I don’t believe in political “commons,” and I regard my fellow citizens who DO invite them as trespassers and litterers, people dumping their crap on my property and not observing the first rule of good neighborly relations.

    Africa for Africans. Russia for Russians, Israel for Ashkenazim, Mexico for Mexicans and stay there.

    How is that “top dog?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    tl;dr version: It's not paranoia if everyone really is out to get you and yours.

    Keep beating your sword into a plowshare. I'm happier with my sword, though, and learned a long, long time ago that if you want people to stop hitting you, hit them so hard they never consider doing so again.

    If you look like prey you will attract predators; those who act like food will be eaten.

  92. Anon says:
    @Karl
    > Why not just cross over to Jordan or Lebanon and return?

    well, yes you could go to Jordan. But it is actually faster & cheaper to fly to Cyprus. Also, in Jordan, (I am told, I can't vouch for it) you can only enter after you can show that you already booked hotel/etc arrangements which guarantee that you will leave behind some minimum amount of hard currency.

    And, Cyprus has much better/cheaper shopping....

    The border with Lebanon is not [routinely] open, as they never signed a treaty with us.

    Just like Jordan did it immediately after Egypt did, Lebanon will do it the day after Syria does.

    Also true that many interfaith marriages are conducted in Cyprus, isn’t it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    > Also true that many interfaith marriages are conducted in Cyprus, isn’t it?

    yes, and on top of that, you have people who have-every-right-to-believe that thewy ARE Jewish, but are called non-Jewish by the Rabbinate.

    In the real world, money can change that Rabbinical-Court decision via lawyers; but in the REALER world, it's cheaper just to spend a weekend in Cyprus.

    By the way, let it be noted that EVERY religious community's clergy has been grantedjurisdiction of "their people's" family-court decisions; that's leftover from the Ottomans.


    I myself am a gigantic opponent of established religion, but although quite unpopular with (eg) 49% of the populace..... the Rabbis are fucking experts at juggling their small Knesset presence into toleration by the Prime Minister, in return for voting with him when it counts. I don't imagine that will change in my lifetime.
  93. @dc.sunsets
    Aaron, I am top dog (excepting, of course, the political structure.)

    I'm smarter than at least 199 out of 200 people. Among other things, the proof is in my kids; they're running rings around their Millennial cohorts. Those are simple facts, not boasts.

    If you look back to the Middle Ages in Europe, life was so "nasty, brutish and short" that the lower classes simply didn't make it. They didn't leave surviving descendants. The artisans, the tradesmen, the capable people of that time survived, as did the aristocracy. My line is analogous to those tradesmen, actually productive in the context of this world.

    The reality is that the percentage of people who fit into that is shrinking rapidly. Not everyone will be an engineer or systems analyst. In fact, my middle son is a great example: he got ONE "B" in his whole life--7th grade advanced English. All the rest, through 7 semesters to obtain a B.S. in Mech. Eng., was all "A's." He is working as an engineer. Not all of his classmates, even the ones who finished their engineering degrees, are so fortunate. What fraction of people is capable of this?

    This is the problem. If 99 people in the room cannot cut that high a bar, and one does, who will "vote" to rob that one blind, deaf and dumb? We already have more people consuming what is produced than we do people doing the production. All roads lead to a cataclysm in this regard.

    So yes, I see this choice as quite stark. When I see youtubes of underclass blacks who state that "all whites are devils" and the comments are overwhelmingly in agreement, I don't see your peaceful, understanding path. I see that as The PAST, and this is where it got us, with millions of disaffected people who think all of their difficulties are the fault of ME AND MINE.

    The "understanding, caring" system turned humans into pets, into spoiled brats with muscles as large as mine and willing to kill those they hate for a pair of shoes.

    I used to think like you (sort of.) I used to think mankind could transcend these limits. Then I watched my wife, a teacher, deal with increasingly barbaric 9 year olds. I watched these kids' parents use "medical diagonses" as an excuse, insuring that no correctives could be applied. I watch the Left blame the very people who keep their lights on and food on their store shelves for all the troubles in the world.

    I watch people who couldn't design or build a PC keyboard in the next 10,000 years use one to hammer out how much they want to kill YT (me, my kids & my grandkids.)

    I just want to be left alone a bit more. Since the 1970's it has been public policy to square the circle of race disparities by coercing the haves in favor of the have-nots. It hasn't narrowed that gap one bit beyond the Affirmative Action set-aside effects. The fix for this embarrassment is "White Privilege."

    Do you know what White Privilege really is? Deoxyribonucleic Acid. It is
    -relatively high IQ
    -low time preference
    -low propensity to impulsivity
    -high investment parenting

    The proponents of this are metaphorically demanding one of two things: either my grandchildren be stripped of the very DNA in their cells, or they be made permanent slaves, tithing an ever-growing share of their product to a growing legion of parasites, parasites who VOTE.

    Yes, this is very bimodal. I'm really rather shocked you don't realize the gravity of this, given that it has been coming to a head for almost FIFTY YEARS. It's not like it sprang up last week.

    You seem like a reasonably bright person, but as I've said, you don't write like you have skin in the game in the form of descendants.

    I do. Look up r/K selection to put in perspective this statement: There is no equivalence to me between my grandchildren and any other people. Anyone who, by intent or simple folly threatens the well-being of my grandchildren merits the same treatment from me as if they were threatened by a stray dog. I like dogs, but that would be an easy call for me to make.

    If you interpret that as meaning I want to be "top dog," maybe that's so. My family matters more to me. The mistake people make is in thinking this means I want to eliminate others. High fences make good neighbors.

    I want those who are streaming (and have streamed here for 50 years) here from places Not Like Here (because of the people that populate them) to GO HOME. I don't want to live like people live in Honduras, or Somalia, or Albania, Syria, Peru, Vietnam, China, Japan, or anywhere else. I didn't invite them, I don't believe in political "commons," and I regard my fellow citizens who DO invite them as trespassers and litterers, people dumping their crap on my property and not observing the first rule of good neighborly relations.

    Africa for Africans. Russia for Russians, Israel for Ashkenazim, Mexico for Mexicans and stay there.

    How is that "top dog?"

    tl;dr version: It’s not paranoia if everyone really is out to get you and yours.

    Keep beating your sword into a plowshare. I’m happier with my sword, though, and learned a long, long time ago that if you want people to stop hitting you, hit them so hard they never consider doing so again.

    If you look like prey you will attract predators; those who act like food will be eaten.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    I think I understand where you're coming from. You see the world in terms of predator, or prey. I'm trying to say that its possible to be neither predator, nor prey - a third way.

    But its obvious I'm not going to convince you, and that's OK.

    Fear makes people want power.

    The fear may be justified, and power may be necessary - but we should be clear about the relationship between fear, weakness, and the desire for power. People who seek inordinat power are not 'strong', they are the more insecure and fearful elements of any community.

    There are times when fear is justified and fighting is necessary, but those times are when the community is facing a genuine threat - i.e, its position is not secure. Aggression may be necessary, but the passage from necessary aggression towards inordinate power-seeking is the passage from justified fear towards neurotic insecurity.

    Consider. The Jews are the most power-hungry and wealth and status obsessed people on the planet - they are also the worlds most insecure and fearful. Their position in society is always on thin ice, their culture fosters pathological fear and a sense of persecution, and Jews are famously neurotic and anxiety-ridden. Such are the worlds most power-hungry people.

    People like to say its crazy for the Jews, who have such power and wealth, to be so afraid, that they should relax, why are they so neurotic - such people don't understand the causal relationship between neuroticism and power and wealth. Take away that fear, and you take away the intense psychological pressure that drives so much of Jewish behavior. If the Jews ever lose their neuroticism and anxiety, they will lose their position as "top dog".

    As the white community has come to feel itself imperiled, it has produced 'strong' leaders and turned towards aggression and power-politics - as whites find themselves in a position of weakness, they turn to the politics of power. This may be necessary - and I myself support some of what Trump is doing - but there is nothing to valorize here, and it is well to remember that the passage from self-defense to power-seeking is from appropriate fear to weakness.

    Look at China. In its great days, when it was secure as the hart of East Asia, it had a philosophy that was anti-power - the military was despised, it wasn't expansionist, and Taoism and Buddhism were the basis of values. But the Chinese were traumatized by the West, and suddenly found their position far less secure than they could possibly have imagined - and now they are aggressive, boastful, obnoxious, bullying. They have become a fearful, insecure people. Their great days are over.

    Now, I am not opposed to necessary self-defense and necessary power. China really did need to become more powerful - in a world that contains the West, it cannot live in a Taoist fantasyland - and whites now really do need to deal with the threats facing them - we see now that the position of whites in a competitive world isn't so secure. But if we remember the relationship between weakness and power-seeking, we won't vavlorize this, and we'll see that countries, groups, and people who seem inordinately power-seeking are either in a weak position, or suffer from acute feelings of fear and weakness.

  94. @Karl
    > Why not just cross over to Jordan or Lebanon and return?

    well, yes you could go to Jordan. But it is actually faster & cheaper to fly to Cyprus. Also, in Jordan, (I am told, I can't vouch for it) you can only enter after you can show that you already booked hotel/etc arrangements which guarantee that you will leave behind some minimum amount of hard currency.

    And, Cyprus has much better/cheaper shopping....

    The border with Lebanon is not [routinely] open, as they never signed a treaty with us.

    Just like Jordan did it immediately after Egypt did, Lebanon will do it the day after Syria does.

    The border with Lebanon is not [routinely] open, as they never signed a treaty with us.

    Just like Jordan did it immediately after Egypt did, Lebanon will do it the day after Syria does.

    Forgive my Down Syndrome moment. In a word, Hezbollah.

    Read More
  95. Dumbo says:
    @macilrae

    We’re definitely not racist and we’re definitely a great example of a state that has opened its doors to immigration in a very successful way.
     
    Give me a break!

    In truth we are all racist - including the most liberal Africa-loving suburban English Guardian-reader who will definitely cross to the other side of the road when she encounters a group of young blacks approaching on a dark night. Certainly including the Africans themselves.

    As for all the Jews I ever met personally and got to know, they are among the most racist of people: is not Obama's derogatory nickname "Der Shvarzer"?

    But of course I see that this has to be be denied at all cost - but come on, Moshe, lighten up and have a beer: you can tell me!

    Well, he wants it both ways. “Not racist” because Jews are not a “race”, but still exclusionary because it is a “religion” — for it is not a universal religion but a religion with some kind of race-like (i.e. ethnicity) principles.

    In fact, as I understand, to migrate to Israel you do not need to practice the religion (you can be an atheist Jew), but you need to have “Jewish origins”.

    So in the end, being “Jewish” is not so different from being “Italian” or being “Turkish”. (Some Italians and Turks are also darker than others).

    Anyway, I’m getting to the point that I wonder if it is possible at all for Jews to be straight and direct about what they “really” think and feel.

    I mean, many people here have this idea of Jews as being duplicitous, but I am beginning to think that they really think what they say, that they really believe that they are not “racist”, and that many of them, even in the elite, really believe the dumb progressive ideas that they promote. They are just unable to see beyond certain limits. I don’t know, but that’s what it seems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @macilrae

    I mean, many people here have this idea of Jews as being duplicitous, but I am beginning to think that they really think what they say, that they really believe that they are not “racist”
     
    Oh I think you're totally correct - many live in an isolated cultural cocoon and all they ever hear is 'the line' and they are truly perplexed that non-Jews could hold contrary views - putting it down to ignorance and antisemitism. Also there is an element of "why can't you understand how my pain hurts me more than your pain hurts you?" And these could be quite decent people if they were not encouraged to be so self-centered.
  96. AaronB says:
    @dc.sunsets
    tl;dr version: It's not paranoia if everyone really is out to get you and yours.

    Keep beating your sword into a plowshare. I'm happier with my sword, though, and learned a long, long time ago that if you want people to stop hitting you, hit them so hard they never consider doing so again.

    If you look like prey you will attract predators; those who act like food will be eaten.

    I think I understand where you’re coming from. You see the world in terms of predator, or prey. I’m trying to say that its possible to be neither predator, nor prey – a third way.

    But its obvious I’m not going to convince you, and that’s OK.

    Fear makes people want power.

    The fear may be justified, and power may be necessary – but we should be clear about the relationship between fear, weakness, and the desire for power. People who seek inordinat power are not ‘strong’, they are the more insecure and fearful elements of any community.

    There are times when fear is justified and fighting is necessary, but those times are when the community is facing a genuine threat – i.e, its position is not secure. Aggression may be necessary, but the passage from necessary aggression towards inordinate power-seeking is the passage from justified fear towards neurotic insecurity.

    Consider. The Jews are the most power-hungry and wealth and status obsessed people on the planet – they are also the worlds most insecure and fearful. Their position in society is always on thin ice, their culture fosters pathological fear and a sense of persecution, and Jews are famously neurotic and anxiety-ridden. Such are the worlds most power-hungry people.

    People like to say its crazy for the Jews, who have such power and wealth, to be so afraid, that they should relax, why are they so neurotic – such people don’t understand the causal relationship between neuroticism and power and wealth. Take away that fear, and you take away the intense psychological pressure that drives so much of Jewish behavior. If the Jews ever lose their neuroticism and anxiety, they will lose their position as “top dog”.

    As the white community has come to feel itself imperiled, it has produced ‘strong’ leaders and turned towards aggression and power-politics – as whites find themselves in a position of weakness, they turn to the politics of power. This may be necessary – and I myself support some of what Trump is doing – but there is nothing to valorize here, and it is well to remember that the passage from self-defense to power-seeking is from appropriate fear to weakness.

    Look at China. In its great days, when it was secure as the hart of East Asia, it had a philosophy that was anti-power – the military was despised, it wasn’t expansionist, and Taoism and Buddhism were the basis of values. But the Chinese were traumatized by the West, and suddenly found their position far less secure than they could possibly have imagined – and now they are aggressive, boastful, obnoxious, bullying. They have become a fearful, insecure people. Their great days are over.

    Now, I am not opposed to necessary self-defense and necessary power. China really did need to become more powerful – in a world that contains the West, it cannot live in a Taoist fantasyland – and whites now really do need to deal with the threats facing them – we see now that the position of whites in a competitive world isn’t so secure. But if we remember the relationship between weakness and power-seeking, we won’t vavlorize this, and we’ll see that countries, groups, and people who seem inordinately power-seeking are either in a weak position, or suffer from acute feelings of fear and weakness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @macilrae
    Aaron: Thanks for expressing an interesting and original viewpoint. Definitely we need to employ psychology more than we do to the understanding of politics.
    , @mcohen
    aaronb says ......Consider. The Jews are the most power-hungry and wealth and status obsessed people on the planet – they are also the worlds most insecure and fearful.

    Consider.i am neither of the above.would you consider making an exception in my case.it means a lot.i have always been the black crow of the tribe and some sort of recognition would go a long way.
  97. Karl says:
    @Anon
    Also true that many interfaith marriages are conducted in Cyprus, isn't it?

    > Also true that many interfaith marriages are conducted in Cyprus, isn’t it?

    yes, and on top of that, you have people who have-every-right-to-believe that thewy ARE Jewish, but are called non-Jewish by the Rabbinate.

    In the real world, money can change that Rabbinical-Court decision via lawyers; but in the REALER world, it’s cheaper just to spend a weekend in Cyprus.

    By the way, let it be noted that EVERY religious community’s clergy has been grantedjurisdiction of “their people’s” family-court decisions; that’s leftover from the Ottomans.

    I myself am a gigantic opponent of established religion, but although quite unpopular with (eg) 49% of the populace….. the Rabbis are fucking experts at juggling their small Knesset presence into toleration by the Prime Minister, in return for voting with him when it counts. I don’t imagine that will change in my lifetime.

    Read More
  98. Karl says:
    @annamaria
    "...it’s the capital of the Jewish State. King David conquered it 1000 years Before Christ."
    Agree that currently, the shrines will be better cared and protected under Israelis. But please be honest about the conquest of "1000 years Before Christ:" it was a local holocaust, a wholesale slaughter of the indigenous people (children, women, elderly, men) by the ruthless invaders that did the "usurpation by superimposing their own chronology" on the canaanites and by creating the "historical identity theft." The Israelis are not indigenous to the ancient civilization of Canaan.

    "There’s a reason Muslims living in Israel proper—1.5 million of them—don’t migrate to the adjacent Palestinian Authority."
    Is this because Israelis have made a ghetto/prison on the "adjacent" land of the proper owners of the land? By following your logic, one could ask why Jews in Europe and US "don’t migrate" to Israel? Would not it be a proper way to avoid the alleged antisemitism there? Particularly the growing "antisemtism" related to the bloody unsavory activity of Friends of Israel in UK and EU re Middle east (the Libyan and Syrian tragedies?) and the ziocons' activities in the US (the whole Middle East debacle plus the $15 billions/per year to Israel from the US taxpayers pockets). Would you support an idea that Spain should be for Spaniards only (no Jews and other ethnic groups) and the UK should be for Brits only (no Friends of Israel and such)?
    The world would have been a much better place if the US were not captured by the Jewish Lobby, this openly subversive organization the members of which, for some reason, do not want to "migrate" to Israel but instead prefer to live as "usurpers" in the US.

    > The Israelis are not indigenous to the ancient civilization of Canaan.

    We speak the same language they did. And we did not that leanguage in Khazaria, my friend.

    The bible DOES record that David left the Jebusites be after he grabbed Jerusalem from their king.

    Read More
  99. Qasim says:
    @Qasim
    Mr. Unz:

    The articles you pick for your webzine never cease to amaze me. Like the first Rebecca Gordon article, this offers fascinating insights into the deranged minds of the sorts of people whose work I would hardly ever otherwise read.

    I believe the international community is actually waiting, longing, for some kind of a serious message that will come out from this wonderful, unusual experience where the oldest nation in the world is coming back to its homeland. The entire world is supposed to benefit from this, to achieve something from this beyond just another state in the world that is modern and democratic. Humanity is waiting for something deeper than that from us.

    I mean, what can you even say?? The solipsistic narcissism inherent in these sentences can't even be described in words. I wonder, does he really think people in say, Mongolia or Uruguay are waiting, nay longing for Israel to uplift them in some way? He can't actually believe that, can he? Does he actually believe that the Israeli/Arab conflict is "not a territorial conflict", but arises from a "cultural conflict" amongst Jews themselves?? I think he really does believe it! How can a brain steeped in such astronomical levels of self-deception even continue to function?

    I wonder if Mr. Feiglin has ever read Vox Day's blog. If he had, he might have realized what he was up to. Vox likes to toot his own horn as a super-genius; articles like these show his high opinion of himself has a large basis in fact. By simply offering up seemingly softball questions, he let Feiglin do all the work in exposing himself as a balls-out Jewish nationalist, thereby furthering Vox's contention that Christian Whites need to adopt similar tactics in a multicultural world or face civilizational extinction.

    Mr. Unz, I hope one day you will address why you allow so many articles on this website that portray Jews in such a negative light. Are you under the impression that exposing the ugly aspects of Jewish ethnic activism, while potentially painful in the short-term, is necessary to avoid a catastrophic recrudescence of anti-Semitism in the future?

    To my point about Vox’s motivations for this interview, this is his latest blogpost…

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/01/jews-are-enemy-of-old-europe.html

    “We see ourselves together, fighting together, with our Muslim brothers,” said the rabbi. “They are our natural allies.”

    That simply could not be more clear. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, is absolutely correct. Europe’s Jews belong in Israel, not in Europe. They certainly deserve absolutely no protection from “their Muslim brothers” with whom they are “fighting alongside”, or from anyone else, for that matter. They are, by their own declaration, the enemy of Old Europe. They hope to establish “a New Europe” with their “Muslim brothers”.

    There is no “Jewish question” here because there is nothing to question. To paraphrase Moshe Feiglin, if someone declares himself to be your enemy, one should do him the courtesy of taking him seriously.

    I’m pro-Israel, and pro-Israeli nationalism, and I rather like Zehut’s focus on identity in Israeli politics, but I am first and foremost on the side of Old Europe, America, and Western Civilization. If that makes me an enemy, so be it. Whether you are Jewish, or Israeli, or just a conservative subscriber to the mythical Judeo-Christian values, how can you possibly align yourself with these people and still consider yourself to be on the side of America, Christianity, or the West?

    Whose side are you on? The Alt-Right knows. We stand for the survival of Christendom, the European nations, and the West.

    This Alt-Right embrace of Zionism is really slick, if you think about it. It is going to be really hard to make the anti-Semitic charge stick on a bunch of people claiming they want to be just like Israelis are. Of course, establishing the precedent that the pursuit of the ethnic and religious interests of the majority is legitimate is not something Diaspora Jews will be too keen about. It is like the Alt-Right (or Trump) has offered a tempting gambit in a chess game, it will be interesting to see whether Jews as a whole accept the gambit or not.

    Read More
  100. macilrae says:
    @Dumbo
    Well, he wants it both ways. "Not racist" because Jews are not a "race", but still exclusionary because it is a "religion" -- for it is not a universal religion but a religion with some kind of race-like (i.e. ethnicity) principles.

    In fact, as I understand, to migrate to Israel you do not need to practice the religion (you can be an atheist Jew), but you need to have "Jewish origins".

    So in the end, being "Jewish" is not so different from being "Italian" or being "Turkish". (Some Italians and Turks are also darker than others).

    Anyway, I'm getting to the point that I wonder if it is possible at all for Jews to be straight and direct about what they "really" think and feel.

    I mean, many people here have this idea of Jews as being duplicitous, but I am beginning to think that they really think what they say, that they really believe that they are not "racist", and that many of them, even in the elite, really believe the dumb progressive ideas that they promote. They are just unable to see beyond certain limits. I don't know, but that's what it seems.

    I mean, many people here have this idea of Jews as being duplicitous, but I am beginning to think that they really think what they say, that they really believe that they are not “racist”

    Oh I think you’re totally correct – many live in an isolated cultural cocoon and all they ever hear is ‘the line’ and they are truly perplexed that non-Jews could hold contrary views – putting it down to ignorance and antisemitism. Also there is an element of “why can’t you understand how my pain hurts me more than your pain hurts you?” And these could be quite decent people if they were not encouraged to be so self-centered.

    Read More
  101. macilrae says:
    @AaronB
    I think I understand where you're coming from. You see the world in terms of predator, or prey. I'm trying to say that its possible to be neither predator, nor prey - a third way.

    But its obvious I'm not going to convince you, and that's OK.

    Fear makes people want power.

    The fear may be justified, and power may be necessary - but we should be clear about the relationship between fear, weakness, and the desire for power. People who seek inordinat power are not 'strong', they are the more insecure and fearful elements of any community.

    There are times when fear is justified and fighting is necessary, but those times are when the community is facing a genuine threat - i.e, its position is not secure. Aggression may be necessary, but the passage from necessary aggression towards inordinate power-seeking is the passage from justified fear towards neurotic insecurity.

    Consider. The Jews are the most power-hungry and wealth and status obsessed people on the planet - they are also the worlds most insecure and fearful. Their position in society is always on thin ice, their culture fosters pathological fear and a sense of persecution, and Jews are famously neurotic and anxiety-ridden. Such are the worlds most power-hungry people.

    People like to say its crazy for the Jews, who have such power and wealth, to be so afraid, that they should relax, why are they so neurotic - such people don't understand the causal relationship between neuroticism and power and wealth. Take away that fear, and you take away the intense psychological pressure that drives so much of Jewish behavior. If the Jews ever lose their neuroticism and anxiety, they will lose their position as "top dog".

    As the white community has come to feel itself imperiled, it has produced 'strong' leaders and turned towards aggression and power-politics - as whites find themselves in a position of weakness, they turn to the politics of power. This may be necessary - and I myself support some of what Trump is doing - but there is nothing to valorize here, and it is well to remember that the passage from self-defense to power-seeking is from appropriate fear to weakness.

    Look at China. In its great days, when it was secure as the hart of East Asia, it had a philosophy that was anti-power - the military was despised, it wasn't expansionist, and Taoism and Buddhism were the basis of values. But the Chinese were traumatized by the West, and suddenly found their position far less secure than they could possibly have imagined - and now they are aggressive, boastful, obnoxious, bullying. They have become a fearful, insecure people. Their great days are over.

    Now, I am not opposed to necessary self-defense and necessary power. China really did need to become more powerful - in a world that contains the West, it cannot live in a Taoist fantasyland - and whites now really do need to deal with the threats facing them - we see now that the position of whites in a competitive world isn't so secure. But if we remember the relationship between weakness and power-seeking, we won't vavlorize this, and we'll see that countries, groups, and people who seem inordinately power-seeking are either in a weak position, or suffer from acute feelings of fear and weakness.

    Aaron: Thanks for expressing an interesting and original viewpoint. Definitely we need to employ psychology more than we do to the understanding of politics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Thanks you. Yes, I think its important to really understand our motivations and psychology, and far too often people act without considering what really motivates them, what they're really trying to accomplish.
  102. Talha says:
    @AaronB
    I know, Talha, I often feel I'm being quite ridiculous with my posts. Obviously I'm not convincing the materialists. On the one hand its just ego-fighting, which is the most retarded thing you can do, but on the other hand maybe its good to have this perspective out there.

    Vox Day has some good insights, there is no doubt - his rhetoric vs dialectic distinction is very important and very good, and should receive widespread attention, even if he doesn't understand Aristotle very well and commits certain lapses in logic - but to call Vox a Christian is really pretty laughable. I think of him more as a "lower pagan" in the mold of Thor - not the Hellenistic pagans who were quite close to early Christianity and Buddhism.

    Hey AaronB,

    I thought Vox was publicly Christian – maybe I’m wrong and he simply defends ‘Christendom’ as a culture.

    Peace.

    Read More
  103. Talha says:
    @AaronB
    Thanks for the link, Talha. What a wonderful man! I'm gonna look more into him. I love reading about these fine old chivalrous warriors. Reminds me of Saladin, from what little I know of him. Really makes a mockery of the ridiculous "hajnal line" scientistic theorists solemnly assuring us that non-Northern Europeans are simply doomed to be treacherous knaves with only clan based loyalty. A curious feature of the scentistic mind - a complete ignorance of history! Do they even read history? I guess, who needs history when you have "science"? Ahh, the intellectual poverty of our times!

    The Muslim world is also struggling with this issue - "winning" vs living unmolested in peace according to divine values, as are the Chinese, and really the whole world, at the moment - and its great that you have such wonderful old characters to serve as guideposts.

    We in the West need to tap into our own tradition of saints and chivalrous warriors, who fought the good fight and stayed true to themselves. But its a steep uphill climb - many on the alt-right explicitly mock "nobility". They're quite honest about this. Perhaps similarly to the Muslim world, we have reached a point where our worst elements have come to the fore. And the Chinese seem to be in the same state - just look at Xi Jinping, what can you expect from a man who looks like that!?

    This is why I think hope at the moment prevails only the fringes of "civilization" - I was passing through Thailand recently, and there was barely any reporting on Trump. It was wonderful. Other, local issues dominated. They just didn't seem to be caught up in the "great" issues of our day. Now that is sanity.

    Hey AaronB,

    Do they even read history?

    Not sure. One thing I’ve noticed about current STEM minds is a lack of civilizing disciplines. Do they (can they) appreciate poetry? I honestly don’t give a whole lot of credence to these theories; are Scots Northern Europeans? Didn’t they operate on clan basis until relatively recently?

    The Muslim world is also struggling with this issue

    Yes, some have broken from our tradition and buy into ‘ends justify the means’. This has brought us nothing but more suffering. As our scholars teach us; the ends must be sound and noble and the means must be sound and noble. They also teach; it is always better to be the oppressed than the oppressor. If one is oppressed, it is a means to gain proximity to God – one can exercise patient, one can forgive, etc. Oppressing however can never, in anyway, bring one closer to God.

    many on the alt-right explicitly mock “nobility”

    Part and parcel of ‘ends justify the means’. C.S. Lewis mentions this in the wonderful ‘Screwtape Letters”:
    “(Humor) is an invaluable as a means of destroying shame. If a man simply lets others pay for him, he is ‘mean’; if he boasts of it in a jocular manner and twits his fellows with having been scored off, he is no longer ‘mean’ but a comical fellow…Cruelty is shameful – unless the cruel man can represent it as a practical joke. A thousand bawdy, or even blasphemous, jokes do not help towards a man’s damnation so much as his discovery that almost anything he wants to do can be done, not only without the disapproval but with the admiration of his fellows, if only it can get itself treated as a joke.”

    They just didn’t seem to be caught up in the “great” issues of our day. Now that is sanity.

    Indeed. Good for them, it is a sound way to operate. God will ask you about how you treated your neighbor and parents far more than what is happening in the halls of power in DC.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Most of them don't real poetry, history, literature, etc. Too 'messy', not enough 'control'. I've spent lots of times with such people, and you'd be shocked at just how impoverished their lives are. They seem to have a fetish for 'control' at all costs, based, I suspect, on fear, and all the best things in life pass them by. Technology, power, wealth, status - at bottom, just fear, lack of ease and security in the world. Many people I know whose lives are dominated by these preoccupations are prone to various anxiety disorders, have suffered from GAD at some point, and have a fetish for power, control, and mastery, often in self-defeating ways. They cannot 'let go', or surrender. Some rare ones manage to have human interests, like Steve Hsu from infoproc, I believe. But I don't read him anymore.

    Vox Day describes himself as a Christian, yes, that is correct.
  104. Dean says:
    @jacques sheete

    I believe the international community is actually waiting, longing, for some kind of a serious message that will come out from this wonderful, unusual experience where the oldest nation in the world is coming back to its homeland.
     
    Oldest nation in the world?

    I stopped reading right there. Obviously the guy is as ignorant as he is nuts. Who do these clowns think they're bullshitting, anyway?

    I know that we goyim are ignorant, stupid, contemptible saps, but there are limits to our gullibility.

    And if these cloacas think they're sooo smart, then why can't they understand the basic concept that if you lie long enough, at least a few will catch on? Oh, I guess if yer special, the rules don't apply.

    Every 6-year-old Jewish child (at least in Israel) can read stories off the bible in its original language.
    What other people can read 3,000 years old text?

    If rabbi Akiva, who lived in Israel almost 2,000 years ago, woke up from his grave today most Jews could easily converse with him about current affairs, relating to things he said and done in his time and dilemmas he had which are not much different than those Israeli Jews deal with today.
    Can you say the same thing about, for instance, Confucius and the Chinese? I don’t think so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "Every 6-year-old Jewish child (at least in Israel) can read stories off the bible in its original language."
    Perhaps you need to ponder then on the most important cultural achievements of the Jewish people in Europe and Americas: These achievements seem to be, from your perspective, non-Jewish at all but belong squarely to the European civilization, since none of the greatest Jewish scholars and scientists and artists of the 18th-20th centuries were busy with speaking and reading "off the bible in its original language." (Currently, Israel is in making of a Golem on other peoples' land.) Learning ancient languages us great but to do it exclusively for the sake of reading the bible, and with a racist intend, does not look healthy. By the way, are not these Israeli kids destined to become the birthing machines for the state? http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21656207-israel-cannot-afford-keep-paying-ultra-orthodox-men-shun-employment-eat
    , @Art

    If rabbi Akiva, who lived in Israel almost 2,000 years ago, woke up from his grave today most Jews could easily converse with him about current affairs, relating to things he said and done in his time and dilemmas he had which are not much different than those Israeli Jews deal with today.
     
    Really -- is this good - 2000 year old solutions?

    2000 years ago the Jew culture got itself sacked by Rome.

    It is amazing how the Jews can get pathologically and so blindly stuck on themselves.

    Peace --- Art
  105. annamaria says:
    @Dean
    Every 6-year-old Jewish child (at least in Israel) can read stories off the bible in its original language.
    What other people can read 3,000 years old text?

    If rabbi Akiva, who lived in Israel almost 2,000 years ago, woke up from his grave today most Jews could easily converse with him about current affairs, relating to things he said and done in his time and dilemmas he had which are not much different than those Israeli Jews deal with today.
    Can you say the same thing about, for instance, Confucius and the Chinese? I don't think so.

    “Every 6-year-old Jewish child (at least in Israel) can read stories off the bible in its original language.”
    Perhaps you need to ponder then on the most important cultural achievements of the Jewish people in Europe and Americas: These achievements seem to be, from your perspective, non-Jewish at all but belong squarely to the European civilization, since none of the greatest Jewish scholars and scientists and artists of the 18th-20th centuries were busy with speaking and reading “off the bible in its original language.” (Currently, Israel is in making of a Golem on other peoples’ land.) Learning ancient languages us great but to do it exclusively for the sake of reading the bible, and with a racist intend, does not look healthy. By the way, are not these Israeli kids destined to become the birthing machines for the state? http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21656207-israel-cannot-afford-keep-paying-ultra-orthodox-men-shun-employment-eat

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dean
    You totally missed my point. Certainly speaking Hebrew is not the criterion of being part of the Jewish nation and I was not advocating reading the bible in any language. I was just trying to prove to @jacques sheete that the Jewish nation is indeed some 3,000 years old and one (if not the) oldest nations in the world.

    And just for your information, Hebrew kids in Israel actually speak Hebrew as their mother tongue, and not "exclusively for the sake of reading the bible, and with a racist intend".

    And of course, thank you for the article from the economist. I have no idea how this has anything to do with the discussion here.
  106. plontz says:

    Jews are a people, and like all other people we are diverse. There is no “The Jews are in favor of open borders”. That is nonsensical. There’s a reason people say “2 Jews 3 opinions”. Simply put, Liberal Jews are Liberal. They are Liberal across the board: religiously, economically, socially, and so on. Conservative Jews are Conservative. They too are Conservative across all issues.

    In the last election 80% of Orthodox Jews voted for Trump, and a total of 24% of the Jewish vote went to Trump. That’s almost the same as the percentages of Hispanics and Asians who voted Trump (27% each). However, just like the Orthodox voted overwhelmingly for Trump, the non-Orthdodox Jews voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. The same people who push for open borders in the US and Europe also push for open borders in Israel, only in Israel they are a minority.

    According to survey conducted for the Israel Hayom newspaper for Israel’s Independence Day 56% of youth in Israel defines itself as right-wing, 13% as left-wing and the rest as centrist. This reflects the election result where out of 120 seats in the national parliament (Knesset) 67 went to right-wing and religious parties (~56%), 40 seats went to left-wing parties (~33%), and 13 (~11%) seats went to the Joint Arab List, which is combination of Arab Nationalists, Islamists, and Communists. Conservative Jews, like Conservatives everywhere, favor border controls, and celebrated Brexit and Trump’s victory.

    Also and important thing to understand about Jews is that even stateless, we are a nationality, and like most nations we have a naturalization process. Once someone goes through this process he is 100% a Jew. Genetics are irrelevant to national identity, although from what I’ve read Jews from all around the world are genetically more closely related to each other than to the native populations among which they live.

    The Khazar myth is just that, a myth. There is an old story about the elites of Khazaria converting and becoming Jews, but this story has never been confirmed. The very existence of a country or kingdom called Khazaria hasn’t been confirmed, and there is no story of mass conversion, only a conversion of the royal family and some elites. However, even if the entire country converted and even if Ashkenazi Jews descended from them (which is nonsensical. Ashkenazi Jews first settled in Western Europe along the Rhine and then moved east, and Khazaria is in Eastern Europe) it wouldn’t matter because Jews are not a biological group (a “race”) that is defined by genetics. We are a nation that is defined by citizenship. All citizens of the Jewish nation are equally Jews regardless of whether they born Jews or whether they are naturalized. We all share the same identity, the same duties, the same rights, the same traditions and heritage (even if some of our members have turned their backs on it).

    Read More
  107. geokat62 says:

    The same people who push for open borders in the US and Europe also push for open borders in Israel, only in Israel they are a minority.

    Care to explain this:

    http://www.unz.com/article/why-do-jewish-organizations-want-anti-israel-refugees/#comment-1737282

    Read More
    • Replies: @plontz
    Most Jews find the suicidal behavior of Leftist Jews to be very puzzling. I assume you have similar difficulty understanding non-Jewish Leftists. Basically, the explanation for why Jewish Leftists do the crazy things they do is the same as the explanation that one would give regarding non-Jewish Leftists.

    Leftists are Leftist first, and everything else second if at all. The basic idea of the Left (as far as I can comprehend it) is that there are only 2 identities: the unique identity of the individual, and the uniform identity as a human. All other identities, relationships, interpersonal bonds, and social structures, such as sex, family, and nationality are fictions that must be destroyed. The Left also seems to think that any progress one group makes comes at the expense of everyone else, so those who are most disadvantaged are the ones who should be helped, and those who are privileged should be punished. Also they like to define oppressed minority groups and then take ownership over them for political power.

    So they think that their own nation and culture should be destroyed to be replaced by multiculturalism, and Muslims come from poor countries so they are oppressed and must be helped and owned.

    Again, nothing here is particularly Jewish, because Leftist Jews are just as eager to destroy Israel as American Leftists are to destroy America.
  108. plontz says:
    @geokat62

    The same people who push for open borders in the US and Europe also push for open borders in Israel, only in Israel they are a minority.
     
    Care to explain this:

    http://www.unz.com/article/why-do-jewish-organizations-want-anti-israel-refugees/#comment-1737282

    Most Jews find the suicidal behavior of Leftist Jews to be very puzzling. I assume you have similar difficulty understanding non-Jewish Leftists. Basically, the explanation for why Jewish Leftists do the crazy things they do is the same as the explanation that one would give regarding non-Jewish Leftists.

    Leftists are Leftist first, and everything else second if at all. The basic idea of the Left (as far as I can comprehend it) is that there are only 2 identities: the unique identity of the individual, and the uniform identity as a human. All other identities, relationships, interpersonal bonds, and social structures, such as sex, family, and nationality are fictions that must be destroyed. The Left also seems to think that any progress one group makes comes at the expense of everyone else, so those who are most disadvantaged are the ones who should be helped, and those who are privileged should be punished. Also they like to define oppressed minority groups and then take ownership over them for political power.

    So they think that their own nation and culture should be destroyed to be replaced by multiculturalism, and Muslims come from poor countries so they are oppressed and must be helped and owned.

    Again, nothing here is particularly Jewish, because Leftist Jews are just as eager to destroy Israel as American Leftists are to destroy America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Again, nothing here is particularly Jewish, because Leftist Jews are just as eager to destroy Israel as American Leftists are to destroy America.
     
    The comment I linked to makes it clear that Lefteist Jews are more eager to destroy America than they are Israel. As a matter of fact, Leftist Jews have zero appetite to destroy Israel:

    So while refugee resettlement lies at the heart of HIAS’ work in the U.S., it is not a priority for HIAS in Israel. In Israel, HIAS is merely willing to meet with the African refugees to help them reunite with their family in western countries, but not to help them resettle in the Zionist state. There are no appeals by rabbis telling the Knesset to keep Israel’s doors open for the refugees, urging them to prioritize refugee resettlement, protection, and human rights. No pre drafted personal letter to send to their Member of the Knesset.

    So much for being guided by history and the Jewish value of “welcoming the stranger.”

    If you’re looking for a clue that explains this difference, HIAS itself reveals it in the following:

    HIAS is using our expertise to help [Israel] develop a humane admission system for refugees and asylum seekers that adheres to international legal standards and protects the security of the state.

    I looked all over, but I couldn’t find a similar qualifier for HIAS’ work in the US.
     
  109. AaronB says:
    @macilrae
    Aaron: Thanks for expressing an interesting and original viewpoint. Definitely we need to employ psychology more than we do to the understanding of politics.

    Thanks you. Yes, I think its important to really understand our motivations and psychology, and far too often people act without considering what really motivates them, what they’re really trying to accomplish.

    Read More
  110. AaronB says:
    @Talha
    Hey AaronB,

    Do they even read history?
     
    Not sure. One thing I've noticed about current STEM minds is a lack of civilizing disciplines. Do they (can they) appreciate poetry? I honestly don't give a whole lot of credence to these theories; are Scots Northern Europeans? Didn't they operate on clan basis until relatively recently?

    The Muslim world is also struggling with this issue
     
    Yes, some have broken from our tradition and buy into 'ends justify the means'. This has brought us nothing but more suffering. As our scholars teach us; the ends must be sound and noble and the means must be sound and noble. They also teach; it is always better to be the oppressed than the oppressor. If one is oppressed, it is a means to gain proximity to God - one can exercise patient, one can forgive, etc. Oppressing however can never, in anyway, bring one closer to God.

    many on the alt-right explicitly mock “nobility”
     
    Part and parcel of 'ends justify the means'. C.S. Lewis mentions this in the wonderful 'Screwtape Letters":
    "(Humor) is an invaluable as a means of destroying shame. If a man simply lets others pay for him, he is ‘mean’; if he boasts of it in a jocular manner and twits his fellows with having been scored off, he is no longer ‘mean’ but a comical fellow…Cruelty is shameful - unless the cruel man can represent it as a practical joke. A thousand bawdy, or even blasphemous, jokes do not help towards a man’s damnation so much as his discovery that almost anything he wants to do can be done, not only without the disapproval but with the admiration of his fellows, if only it can get itself treated as a joke."

    They just didn’t seem to be caught up in the “great” issues of our day. Now that is sanity.
     
    Indeed. Good for them, it is a sound way to operate. God will ask you about how you treated your neighbor and parents far more than what is happening in the halls of power in DC.

    Peace.

    Most of them don’t real poetry, history, literature, etc. Too ‘messy’, not enough ‘control’. I’ve spent lots of times with such people, and you’d be shocked at just how impoverished their lives are. They seem to have a fetish for ‘control’ at all costs, based, I suspect, on fear, and all the best things in life pass them by. Technology, power, wealth, status – at bottom, just fear, lack of ease and security in the world. Many people I know whose lives are dominated by these preoccupations are prone to various anxiety disorders, have suffered from GAD at some point, and have a fetish for power, control, and mastery, often in self-defeating ways. They cannot ‘let go’, or surrender. Some rare ones manage to have human interests, like Steve Hsu from infoproc, I believe. But I don’t read him anymore.

    Vox Day describes himself as a Christian, yes, that is correct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey AaronB,

    at bottom, just fear, lack of ease and security in the world
     
    I agree - a lot of it stems from fear. Well, welcome to life - all part of the plan. You can rest in your grave...if you've earned it.
    "And We will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient. Who say, when afflicted with calamity: 'To God do we belong, and to Him is our return.'" (2:155-156)

    My spiritual teacher deals with a lot of these kinds of people as well. Medication is quite prevalent among them, many don't sleep well.

    You will appreciate this poem on this subject:
    http://articles.latimes.com/1990-06-03/books/bk-967_1_open-mouth

    Peace.

    Note: On the other post about IQ, I've been glancing over the exchange. Intelligence is a wonderful thing, but wisdom is far more rare and far more precious. And as yet, they haven't figured out a way to 'test' that - and if they are wise, they won't attempt to either.
  111. Talha says:
    @AaronB
    Most of them don't real poetry, history, literature, etc. Too 'messy', not enough 'control'. I've spent lots of times with such people, and you'd be shocked at just how impoverished their lives are. They seem to have a fetish for 'control' at all costs, based, I suspect, on fear, and all the best things in life pass them by. Technology, power, wealth, status - at bottom, just fear, lack of ease and security in the world. Many people I know whose lives are dominated by these preoccupations are prone to various anxiety disorders, have suffered from GAD at some point, and have a fetish for power, control, and mastery, often in self-defeating ways. They cannot 'let go', or surrender. Some rare ones manage to have human interests, like Steve Hsu from infoproc, I believe. But I don't read him anymore.

    Vox Day describes himself as a Christian, yes, that is correct.

    Hey AaronB,

    at bottom, just fear, lack of ease and security in the world

    I agree – a lot of it stems from fear. Well, welcome to life – all part of the plan. You can rest in your grave…if you’ve earned it.
    “And We will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient. Who say, when afflicted with calamity: ‘To God do we belong, and to Him is our return.’” (2:155-156)

    My spiritual teacher deals with a lot of these kinds of people as well. Medication is quite prevalent among them, many don’t sleep well.

    You will appreciate this poem on this subject:

    http://articles.latimes.com/1990-06-03/books/bk-967_1_open-mouth

    Peace.

    Note: On the other post about IQ, I’ve been glancing over the exchange. Intelligence is a wonderful thing, but wisdom is far more rare and far more precious. And as yet, they haven’t figured out a way to ‘test’ that – and if they are wise, they won’t attempt to either.

    Read More
  112. geokat62 says:
    @plontz
    Most Jews find the suicidal behavior of Leftist Jews to be very puzzling. I assume you have similar difficulty understanding non-Jewish Leftists. Basically, the explanation for why Jewish Leftists do the crazy things they do is the same as the explanation that one would give regarding non-Jewish Leftists.

    Leftists are Leftist first, and everything else second if at all. The basic idea of the Left (as far as I can comprehend it) is that there are only 2 identities: the unique identity of the individual, and the uniform identity as a human. All other identities, relationships, interpersonal bonds, and social structures, such as sex, family, and nationality are fictions that must be destroyed. The Left also seems to think that any progress one group makes comes at the expense of everyone else, so those who are most disadvantaged are the ones who should be helped, and those who are privileged should be punished. Also they like to define oppressed minority groups and then take ownership over them for political power.

    So they think that their own nation and culture should be destroyed to be replaced by multiculturalism, and Muslims come from poor countries so they are oppressed and must be helped and owned.

    Again, nothing here is particularly Jewish, because Leftist Jews are just as eager to destroy Israel as American Leftists are to destroy America.

    Again, nothing here is particularly Jewish, because Leftist Jews are just as eager to destroy Israel as American Leftists are to destroy America.

    The comment I linked to makes it clear that Lefteist Jews are more eager to destroy America than they are Israel. As a matter of fact, Leftist Jews have zero appetite to destroy Israel:

    So while refugee resettlement lies at the heart of HIAS’ work in the U.S., it is not a priority for HIAS in Israel. In Israel, HIAS is merely willing to meet with the African refugees to help them reunite with their family in western countries, but not to help them resettle in the Zionist state. There are no appeals by rabbis telling the Knesset to keep Israel’s doors open for the refugees, urging them to prioritize refugee resettlement, protection, and human rights. No pre drafted personal letter to send to their Member of the Knesset.

    So much for being guided by history and the Jewish value of “welcoming the stranger.”

    If you’re looking for a clue that explains this difference, HIAS itself reveals it in the following:

    HIAS is using our expertise to help [Israel] develop a humane admission system for refugees and asylum seekers that adheres to international legal standards and protects the security of the state.

    I looked all over, but I couldn’t find a similar qualifier for HIAS’ work in the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @plontz
    I was trying to keep it simple by not discussing the non-leftists who are suffering from trauma and paranoia. I don't know if that's the case with this HIAS organization or not because I don't know it. It does seem to lean towards the Left and secularism. Or perhaps there is another reason, like trying to seem non-political in Israel while in the US you can go further left without drawing as much scrutiny. As I said, I don't know HIAS. I can only speculate. I do, however, find it interesting that when you encounter a Jewish entity that is doing something you don't like your immediate conclusion is "Jews are the worse" and not "these particular Jews are bad".

    Suffice it to say that the Leftists in Israel are doing everything they can to erase the country's identity and bring in a mass of immigrants to dilute the Jewish population and to give away the country's core territory, and other things to destroy the country. They control the media, academia, and judicial system. They just happen to be unpopular and don't have control of the government (executive/legislative. They are kind of mashed together here). The Left has controlled Israel for decades before the country was reestablished, collaborating with foreign powers to squash any alternative (handed NILI over to the Turks in WWI, persecuted the ETZEL under the British mandate) and only in recent decades has its control started to erode. Only in the last 10 years or so does Israel have a popular daily newspaper that's not Leftist. Only in the last few years has Israel finally gotten a public broadcast TV station that's not Leftist, and only in the last month or so has that station finally been given permission to broadcast news. Only around 13 years ago did Israel finally give a broadcasting license to a non-Leftist radio station. It's taking time to pry the Left's fingers off the country's neck. And a few years ago they were advocating for letting Syrian refugees into the country, but we had a right-wing government. They have been supporting the invasion of Sudanese and Eritreans, but our right-wing government has built a wall and has been getting them to leave (although actually they are multiplying. I hear that now Sudanese and Eritrean women come by plane on tourist visas and then stay to get married and have children) against the opposition of the Leftist supreme court.

    You deal with the Leftists in your country. We'll deal with the Leftists in our country.
  113. mcohen says:
    @AaronB
    I think I understand where you're coming from. You see the world in terms of predator, or prey. I'm trying to say that its possible to be neither predator, nor prey - a third way.

    But its obvious I'm not going to convince you, and that's OK.

    Fear makes people want power.

    The fear may be justified, and power may be necessary - but we should be clear about the relationship between fear, weakness, and the desire for power. People who seek inordinat power are not 'strong', they are the more insecure and fearful elements of any community.

    There are times when fear is justified and fighting is necessary, but those times are when the community is facing a genuine threat - i.e, its position is not secure. Aggression may be necessary, but the passage from necessary aggression towards inordinate power-seeking is the passage from justified fear towards neurotic insecurity.

    Consider. The Jews are the most power-hungry and wealth and status obsessed people on the planet - they are also the worlds most insecure and fearful. Their position in society is always on thin ice, their culture fosters pathological fear and a sense of persecution, and Jews are famously neurotic and anxiety-ridden. Such are the worlds most power-hungry people.

    People like to say its crazy for the Jews, who have such power and wealth, to be so afraid, that they should relax, why are they so neurotic - such people don't understand the causal relationship between neuroticism and power and wealth. Take away that fear, and you take away the intense psychological pressure that drives so much of Jewish behavior. If the Jews ever lose their neuroticism and anxiety, they will lose their position as "top dog".

    As the white community has come to feel itself imperiled, it has produced 'strong' leaders and turned towards aggression and power-politics - as whites find themselves in a position of weakness, they turn to the politics of power. This may be necessary - and I myself support some of what Trump is doing - but there is nothing to valorize here, and it is well to remember that the passage from self-defense to power-seeking is from appropriate fear to weakness.

    Look at China. In its great days, when it was secure as the hart of East Asia, it had a philosophy that was anti-power - the military was despised, it wasn't expansionist, and Taoism and Buddhism were the basis of values. But the Chinese were traumatized by the West, and suddenly found their position far less secure than they could possibly have imagined - and now they are aggressive, boastful, obnoxious, bullying. They have become a fearful, insecure people. Their great days are over.

    Now, I am not opposed to necessary self-defense and necessary power. China really did need to become more powerful - in a world that contains the West, it cannot live in a Taoist fantasyland - and whites now really do need to deal with the threats facing them - we see now that the position of whites in a competitive world isn't so secure. But if we remember the relationship between weakness and power-seeking, we won't vavlorize this, and we'll see that countries, groups, and people who seem inordinately power-seeking are either in a weak position, or suffer from acute feelings of fear and weakness.

    aaronb says ……Consider. The Jews are the most power-hungry and wealth and status obsessed people on the planet – they are also the worlds most insecure and fearful.

    Consider.i am neither of the above.would you consider making an exception in my case.it means a lot.i have always been the black crow of the tribe and some sort of recognition would go a long way.

    Read More
  114. plontz says:
    @geokat62

    Again, nothing here is particularly Jewish, because Leftist Jews are just as eager to destroy Israel as American Leftists are to destroy America.
     
    The comment I linked to makes it clear that Lefteist Jews are more eager to destroy America than they are Israel. As a matter of fact, Leftist Jews have zero appetite to destroy Israel:

    So while refugee resettlement lies at the heart of HIAS’ work in the U.S., it is not a priority for HIAS in Israel. In Israel, HIAS is merely willing to meet with the African refugees to help them reunite with their family in western countries, but not to help them resettle in the Zionist state. There are no appeals by rabbis telling the Knesset to keep Israel’s doors open for the refugees, urging them to prioritize refugee resettlement, protection, and human rights. No pre drafted personal letter to send to their Member of the Knesset.

    So much for being guided by history and the Jewish value of “welcoming the stranger.”

    If you’re looking for a clue that explains this difference, HIAS itself reveals it in the following:

    HIAS is using our expertise to help [Israel] develop a humane admission system for refugees and asylum seekers that adheres to international legal standards and protects the security of the state.

    I looked all over, but I couldn’t find a similar qualifier for HIAS’ work in the US.
     

    I was trying to keep it simple by not discussing the non-leftists who are suffering from trauma and paranoia. I don’t know if that’s the case with this HIAS organization or not because I don’t know it. It does seem to lean towards the Left and secularism. Or perhaps there is another reason, like trying to seem non-political in Israel while in the US you can go further left without drawing as much scrutiny. As I said, I don’t know HIAS. I can only speculate. I do, however, find it interesting that when you encounter a Jewish entity that is doing something you don’t like your immediate conclusion is “Jews are the worse” and not “these particular Jews are bad”.

    Suffice it to say that the Leftists in Israel are doing everything they can to erase the country’s identity and bring in a mass of immigrants to dilute the Jewish population and to give away the country’s core territory, and other things to destroy the country. They control the media, academia, and judicial system. They just happen to be unpopular and don’t have control of the government (executive/legislative. They are kind of mashed together here). The Left has controlled Israel for decades before the country was reestablished, collaborating with foreign powers to squash any alternative (handed NILI over to the Turks in WWI, persecuted the ETZEL under the British mandate) and only in recent decades has its control started to erode. Only in the last 10 years or so does Israel have a popular daily newspaper that’s not Leftist. Only in the last few years has Israel finally gotten a public broadcast TV station that’s not Leftist, and only in the last month or so has that station finally been given permission to broadcast news. Only around 13 years ago did Israel finally give a broadcasting license to a non-Leftist radio station. It’s taking time to pry the Left’s fingers off the country’s neck. And a few years ago they were advocating for letting Syrian refugees into the country, but we had a right-wing government. They have been supporting the invasion of Sudanese and Eritreans, but our right-wing government has built a wall and has been getting them to leave (although actually they are multiplying. I hear that now Sudanese and Eritrean women come by plane on tourist visas and then stay to get married and have children) against the opposition of the Leftist supreme court.

    You deal with the Leftists in your country. We’ll deal with the Leftists in our country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    I do, however, find it interesting that when you encounter a Jewish entity that is doing something you don’t like your immediate conclusion is “Jews are the worse” and not “these particular Jews are bad”.
     
    Not sure where that is coming from. Perhaps a little context might help. Someone pointed out in another thread that while there were several Jewish organizations promoting the immigration into the US, there was not a single one that did so for Israel. That is when another commenter suggested that HIAS was doing just that. I jumped into their exchange by pointing out that while HIAS very much supported the resettlement of refugees in the US, they were less enthusiastic about doing so in Israel. So, that was it. Nothing about "Jews are the worse" or "these particular Jews are bad."
  115. geokat62 says:
    @plontz
    I was trying to keep it simple by not discussing the non-leftists who are suffering from trauma and paranoia. I don't know if that's the case with this HIAS organization or not because I don't know it. It does seem to lean towards the Left and secularism. Or perhaps there is another reason, like trying to seem non-political in Israel while in the US you can go further left without drawing as much scrutiny. As I said, I don't know HIAS. I can only speculate. I do, however, find it interesting that when you encounter a Jewish entity that is doing something you don't like your immediate conclusion is "Jews are the worse" and not "these particular Jews are bad".

    Suffice it to say that the Leftists in Israel are doing everything they can to erase the country's identity and bring in a mass of immigrants to dilute the Jewish population and to give away the country's core territory, and other things to destroy the country. They control the media, academia, and judicial system. They just happen to be unpopular and don't have control of the government (executive/legislative. They are kind of mashed together here). The Left has controlled Israel for decades before the country was reestablished, collaborating with foreign powers to squash any alternative (handed NILI over to the Turks in WWI, persecuted the ETZEL under the British mandate) and only in recent decades has its control started to erode. Only in the last 10 years or so does Israel have a popular daily newspaper that's not Leftist. Only in the last few years has Israel finally gotten a public broadcast TV station that's not Leftist, and only in the last month or so has that station finally been given permission to broadcast news. Only around 13 years ago did Israel finally give a broadcasting license to a non-Leftist radio station. It's taking time to pry the Left's fingers off the country's neck. And a few years ago they were advocating for letting Syrian refugees into the country, but we had a right-wing government. They have been supporting the invasion of Sudanese and Eritreans, but our right-wing government has built a wall and has been getting them to leave (although actually they are multiplying. I hear that now Sudanese and Eritrean women come by plane on tourist visas and then stay to get married and have children) against the opposition of the Leftist supreme court.

    You deal with the Leftists in your country. We'll deal with the Leftists in our country.

    I do, however, find it interesting that when you encounter a Jewish entity that is doing something you don’t like your immediate conclusion is “Jews are the worse” and not “these particular Jews are bad”.

    Not sure where that is coming from. Perhaps a little context might help. Someone pointed out in another thread that while there were several Jewish organizations promoting the immigration into the US, there was not a single one that did so for Israel. That is when another commenter suggested that HIAS was doing just that. I jumped into their exchange by pointing out that while HIAS very much supported the resettlement of refugees in the US, they were less enthusiastic about doing so in Israel. So, that was it. Nothing about “Jews are the worse” or “these particular Jews are bad.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @plontz
    Sorry. It looks like I accidentally conflated your comment with someone else's.

    The interview was good, but then when I started reading the comment thread I found sickening antisemitism, and even though I can see that not everyone here is an antisemite this impression is coloring the way I read all the comments.
  116. plontz says:
    @geokat62

    I do, however, find it interesting that when you encounter a Jewish entity that is doing something you don’t like your immediate conclusion is “Jews are the worse” and not “these particular Jews are bad”.
     
    Not sure where that is coming from. Perhaps a little context might help. Someone pointed out in another thread that while there were several Jewish organizations promoting the immigration into the US, there was not a single one that did so for Israel. That is when another commenter suggested that HIAS was doing just that. I jumped into their exchange by pointing out that while HIAS very much supported the resettlement of refugees in the US, they were less enthusiastic about doing so in Israel. So, that was it. Nothing about "Jews are the worse" or "these particular Jews are bad."

    Sorry. It looks like I accidentally conflated your comment with someone else’s.

    The interview was good, but then when I started reading the comment thread I found sickening antisemitism, and even though I can see that not everyone here is an antisemite this impression is coloring the way I read all the comments.

    Read More
  117. Art says:
    @Dean
    Every 6-year-old Jewish child (at least in Israel) can read stories off the bible in its original language.
    What other people can read 3,000 years old text?

    If rabbi Akiva, who lived in Israel almost 2,000 years ago, woke up from his grave today most Jews could easily converse with him about current affairs, relating to things he said and done in his time and dilemmas he had which are not much different than those Israeli Jews deal with today.
    Can you say the same thing about, for instance, Confucius and the Chinese? I don't think so.

    If rabbi Akiva, who lived in Israel almost 2,000 years ago, woke up from his grave today most Jews could easily converse with him about current affairs, relating to things he said and done in his time and dilemmas he had which are not much different than those Israeli Jews deal with today.

    Really — is this good – 2000 year old solutions?

    2000 years ago the Jew culture got itself sacked by Rome.

    It is amazing how the Jews can get pathologically and so blindly stuck on themselves.

    Peace — Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @plontz
    There were 2 major Jewish revolts against Rome. In both cases Rome was persecuting the Jews and the Jews responded with open rebellion. In the first case, The Great Jewish Rebellion, the "elites" took over the rebellion, mismanaged it, and the rebels suffered from widespread treason. The commander of the Gallilee switched sides and helped Rome conquer Judea, then after the war he wrote a "history" book smearing the rebels and praising the Romans. This rebellion lasted 7 years and ended in the destruction of the temple.

    The second rebellion, the Bar Cochba rebellion, lasted 3.5 years. This time the Jews were united and the seriously kicked Roman butt. Half of all the legions in the Roman empire were sent to Judea, a few of them got completely wiped out, and Rome reassigned its top general all the way from the war in Scotland to Judea. This is the war that Rabbi Akiva was involved in, and it took place about 60 years after the previous one. Although the Jews failed to establish permanent independence the achieved their first goal, which was ending the persecution.
    , @Dean

    2000 years ago the Jew culture got itself sacked by Rome.
     
    Sure it did. And now Jewish kids read about the Romans in history books.


    It is amazing how the Jews can get pathologically and so blindly stuck on themselves.
     
    Pathologically, blindly, whatever. The fact that so many people (e.g. in this forum) are obsessed with this tiny nation of ~15 million people and their tiny-tiny country is enough to make you wonder.
  118. plontz says:
    @Art

    If rabbi Akiva, who lived in Israel almost 2,000 years ago, woke up from his grave today most Jews could easily converse with him about current affairs, relating to things he said and done in his time and dilemmas he had which are not much different than those Israeli Jews deal with today.
     
    Really -- is this good - 2000 year old solutions?

    2000 years ago the Jew culture got itself sacked by Rome.

    It is amazing how the Jews can get pathologically and so blindly stuck on themselves.

    Peace --- Art

    There were 2 major Jewish revolts against Rome. In both cases Rome was persecuting the Jews and the Jews responded with open rebellion. In the first case, The Great Jewish Rebellion, the “elites” took over the rebellion, mismanaged it, and the rebels suffered from widespread treason. The commander of the Gallilee switched sides and helped Rome conquer Judea, then after the war he wrote a “history” book smearing the rebels and praising the Romans. This rebellion lasted 7 years and ended in the destruction of the temple.

    The second rebellion, the Bar Cochba rebellion, lasted 3.5 years. This time the Jews were united and the seriously kicked Roman butt. Half of all the legions in the Roman empire were sent to Judea, a few of them got completely wiped out, and Rome reassigned its top general all the way from the war in Scotland to Judea. This is the war that Rabbi Akiva was involved in, and it took place about 60 years after the previous one. Although the Jews failed to establish permanent independence the achieved their first goal, which was ending the persecution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    The second rebellion, the Bar Cochba rebellion, lasted 3.5 years.

    Golly Gee - This is Jew glory?


    Wiki: The second Jewish rebellion took place 60 years after the first and established an independent state lasting three years. For many Jews of the time, this turn of events was heralded as the long hoped for Messianic Age. The excitement was short-lived, however, and after a brief span of glory, the revolt was crushed by the Roman legions

    ... ... ...

    Bar Kokhba took up refuge in the fortress of Betar. The Romans eventually captured it after laying siege to the city for three and a half years, and they killed all the defenders except for one Jewish youth whose life was spared.
     

    Not too smart. Peace is better! (And more intelligent.)

    Peace --- Art

  119. Dean says:
    @annamaria
    "Every 6-year-old Jewish child (at least in Israel) can read stories off the bible in its original language."
    Perhaps you need to ponder then on the most important cultural achievements of the Jewish people in Europe and Americas: These achievements seem to be, from your perspective, non-Jewish at all but belong squarely to the European civilization, since none of the greatest Jewish scholars and scientists and artists of the 18th-20th centuries were busy with speaking and reading "off the bible in its original language." (Currently, Israel is in making of a Golem on other peoples' land.) Learning ancient languages us great but to do it exclusively for the sake of reading the bible, and with a racist intend, does not look healthy. By the way, are not these Israeli kids destined to become the birthing machines for the state? http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21656207-israel-cannot-afford-keep-paying-ultra-orthodox-men-shun-employment-eat

    You totally missed my point. Certainly speaking Hebrew is not the criterion of being part of the Jewish nation and I was not advocating reading the bible in any language. I was just trying to prove to that the Jewish nation is indeed some 3,000 years old and one (if not the) oldest nations in the world.

    And just for your information, Hebrew kids in Israel actually speak Hebrew as their mother tongue, and not “exclusively for the sake of reading the bible, and with a racist intend”.

    And of course, thank you for the article from the economist. I have no idea how this has anything to do with the discussion here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "Jewish nation" and reading the bible..."
    Wikipedia: "Biblical Hebrew as preserved in the Hebrew Bible is composed of multiple linguistic layers.... Hebrew had already ceased being used as a spoken language around 200 CE... The Israelite tribes who settled in the land of Israel adopted the Phoenician script around the 12th century BCE... This script developed into the Paleo-Hebrew script in the 10th or 9th centuries BCE....The ancient Hebrew script was in continuous use until the early 6th century BCE, the end of the First Temple period. In the Second Temple Period the Paleo-Hebrew script gradually fell into disuse, and was completely abandoned among the Jews after the failed Bar Kochba revolt... Spoken in ancient times, Hebrew, a Canaanite language, was supplanted as the Jewish vernacular by the western dialect of Aramaic beginning in the third century BCE... It was revived as a spoken language in the 19th and 20th centuries"
    More: http://ling.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/alumni%20senior%20essays/Freeburg,%20Elizabeth%20-%20Senior%20Essay.pdf
    "Language does not exist in a political vacuum... The connection between the Hebrew revival, Zionism, and Jewish “[efforts] to retain or regain their political autonomy, their land base, or at least their own sense of identity” is obvious."
    1. Colonialism. 2. The use of the US to farther the ethnocentric agenda.
  120. Dean says:
    @Art

    If rabbi Akiva, who lived in Israel almost 2,000 years ago, woke up from his grave today most Jews could easily converse with him about current affairs, relating to things he said and done in his time and dilemmas he had which are not much different than those Israeli Jews deal with today.
     
    Really -- is this good - 2000 year old solutions?

    2000 years ago the Jew culture got itself sacked by Rome.

    It is amazing how the Jews can get pathologically and so blindly stuck on themselves.

    Peace --- Art

    2000 years ago the Jew culture got itself sacked by Rome.

    Sure it did. And now Jewish kids read about the Romans in history books.

    It is amazing how the Jews can get pathologically and so blindly stuck on themselves.

    Pathologically, blindly, whatever. The fact that so many people (e.g. in this forum) are obsessed with this tiny nation of ~15 million people and their tiny-tiny country is enough to make you wonder.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art

    Pathologically, blindly, whatever. The fact that so many people (e.g. in this forum) are obsessed with this tiny nation of ~15 million people and their tiny-tiny country is enough to make you wonder.
     
    Please - that statement is disingenuous – it is dishonest.

    What insignificant tiny-tiny country has 200 nukes?

    What insignificant tiny-tiny country controls congress and the president of the most powerful country on the planet?

    Peace --- Art
    , @Steel T Post
    Roman civilization lives-on in the West today. The Roman fasces, rods bundled together, have been a symbol of how white men organize themselves into State-level politics to defend his blood and soil. Even today, the Roman fasces are found today all over the United States, from the Senate chambers to the reverse of the dime coin—not just in history books.

    As to those in the current year who recoil from Roman fascism in our Western culture, it must be noted that even Austrian economic theory accepts the fascist war axe as an expedient against Bolshie expansion.

    It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history.

    -Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, section I:10
     
    Unfortunately, Western fascism lost, the Bolshies and their Allies won, and the GW (Good War) narrative has become the favorite of ANTIFA (anti-fascist/anti-western) activists today.

    Perhaps that GW narrative can be best symbolized by today's dime fasces, while still present, being manipulated into looking rather like a torch handle.
  121. Moshe: [T]he Founding Fathers of the United States based their deepest concepts on the Bible and the Jewish prophets.

    That’s an old trope of Christian apologists; however, in reality, the United States is based on classical Greek and Roman civilization.

    “Thomas Jefferson and the two John Adamses were particularly keen on the Greek and Roman idea of rule…”

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/architect-of-the-republic/

    Especially valued was Epicurus, from whom the concepts of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” as well as “Nature’s God” originate in the DoI.

    “As you say of yourself, I TOO AM AN EPICUREAN. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing every thing rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, October 31, 1819

    As far as what Jefferson thought of the Jews, an outline of his reads:

    “II. Jews. …their ideas of Him and of his attributes were degrading and injurious.”

    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803

    Time to check your premise.

    Read More
  122. mcohen says:

    interesting obsession,mostly since the internet,social conditioning for the ignorant.

    peace-art

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    interesting obsession,mostly since the internet,social conditioning for the ignorant.

    You Jews do not like freedom of speech - do you!

    You have to control everything - otherwise people will get to the truth of your misdeeds.

    Your endless screeds of guilt will not function in a free society - will they?

    Jesus said "the truth will set you free" - you Jews should try it. We will let you - we will help you.

    Peace --- Art
  123. Art says:
    @plontz
    There were 2 major Jewish revolts against Rome. In both cases Rome was persecuting the Jews and the Jews responded with open rebellion. In the first case, The Great Jewish Rebellion, the "elites" took over the rebellion, mismanaged it, and the rebels suffered from widespread treason. The commander of the Gallilee switched sides and helped Rome conquer Judea, then after the war he wrote a "history" book smearing the rebels and praising the Romans. This rebellion lasted 7 years and ended in the destruction of the temple.

    The second rebellion, the Bar Cochba rebellion, lasted 3.5 years. This time the Jews were united and the seriously kicked Roman butt. Half of all the legions in the Roman empire were sent to Judea, a few of them got completely wiped out, and Rome reassigned its top general all the way from the war in Scotland to Judea. This is the war that Rabbi Akiva was involved in, and it took place about 60 years after the previous one. Although the Jews failed to establish permanent independence the achieved their first goal, which was ending the persecution.

    The second rebellion, the Bar Cochba rebellion, lasted 3.5 years.

    Golly Gee – This is Jew glory?

    Wiki: The second Jewish rebellion took place 60 years after the first and established an independent state lasting three years. For many Jews of the time, this turn of events was heralded as the long hoped for Messianic Age. The excitement was short-lived, however, and after a brief span of glory, the revolt was crushed by the Roman legions

    … … …

    Bar Kokhba took up refuge in the fortress of Betar. The Romans eventually captured it after laying siege to the city for three and a half years, and they killed all the defenders except for one Jewish youth whose life was spared.

    Not too smart. Peace is better! (And more intelligent.)

    Peace — Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @plontz
    You can't have peace when there is persecution. And I'm not sure that the wiki you're quoting has the full and correct information.
  124. Art says:
    @Dean

    2000 years ago the Jew culture got itself sacked by Rome.
     
    Sure it did. And now Jewish kids read about the Romans in history books.


    It is amazing how the Jews can get pathologically and so blindly stuck on themselves.
     
    Pathologically, blindly, whatever. The fact that so many people (e.g. in this forum) are obsessed with this tiny nation of ~15 million people and their tiny-tiny country is enough to make you wonder.

    Pathologically, blindly, whatever. The fact that so many people (e.g. in this forum) are obsessed with this tiny nation of ~15 million people and their tiny-tiny country is enough to make you wonder.

    Please – that statement is disingenuous – it is dishonest.

    What insignificant tiny-tiny country has 200 nukes?

    What insignificant tiny-tiny country controls congress and the president of the most powerful country on the planet?

    Peace — Art

    Read More
  125. annamaria says:
    @Dean
    You totally missed my point. Certainly speaking Hebrew is not the criterion of being part of the Jewish nation and I was not advocating reading the bible in any language. I was just trying to prove to @jacques sheete that the Jewish nation is indeed some 3,000 years old and one (if not the) oldest nations in the world.

    And just for your information, Hebrew kids in Israel actually speak Hebrew as their mother tongue, and not "exclusively for the sake of reading the bible, and with a racist intend".

    And of course, thank you for the article from the economist. I have no idea how this has anything to do with the discussion here.

    “Jewish nation” and reading the bible…”
    Wikipedia: “Biblical Hebrew as preserved in the Hebrew Bible is composed of multiple linguistic layers…. Hebrew had already ceased being used as a spoken language around 200 CE… The Israelite tribes who settled in the land of Israel adopted the Phoenician script around the 12th century BCE… This script developed into the Paleo-Hebrew script in the 10th or 9th centuries BCE….The ancient Hebrew script was in continuous use until the early 6th century BCE, the end of the First Temple period. In the Second Temple Period the Paleo-Hebrew script gradually fell into disuse, and was completely abandoned among the Jews after the failed Bar Kochba revolt… Spoken in ancient times, Hebrew, a Canaanite language, was supplanted as the Jewish vernacular by the western dialect of Aramaic beginning in the third century BCE… It was revived as a spoken language in the 19th and 20th centuries”
    More: http://ling.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/alumni%20senior%20essays/Freeburg,%20Elizabeth%20-%20Senior%20Essay.pdf
    “Language does not exist in a political vacuum… The connection between the Hebrew revival, Zionism, and Jewish “[efforts] to retain or regain their political autonomy, their land base, or at least their own sense of identity” is obvious.”
    1. Colonialism. 2. The use of the US to farther the ethnocentric agenda.

    Read More
  126. Art says:
    @mcohen
    interesting obsession,mostly since the internet,social conditioning for the ignorant.

    peace-art

    interesting obsession,mostly since the internet,social conditioning for the ignorant.

    You Jews do not like freedom of speech – do you!

    You have to control everything – otherwise people will get to the truth of your misdeeds.

    Your endless screeds of guilt will not function in a free society – will they?

    Jesus said “the truth will set you free” – you Jews should try it. We will let you – we will help you.

    Peace — Art

    Read More
  127. @Dean

    2000 years ago the Jew culture got itself sacked by Rome.
     
    Sure it did. And now Jewish kids read about the Romans in history books.


    It is amazing how the Jews can get pathologically and so blindly stuck on themselves.
     
    Pathologically, blindly, whatever. The fact that so many people (e.g. in this forum) are obsessed with this tiny nation of ~15 million people and their tiny-tiny country is enough to make you wonder.

    Roman civilization lives-on in the West today. The Roman fasces, rods bundled together, have been a symbol of how white men organize themselves into State-level politics to defend his blood and soil. Even today, the Roman fasces are found today all over the United States, from the Senate chambers to the reverse of the dime coin—not just in history books.

    As to those in the current year who recoil from Roman fascism in our Western culture, it must be noted that even Austrian economic theory accepts the fascist war axe as an expedient against Bolshie expansion.

    It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history.

    -Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, section I:10

    Unfortunately, Western fascism lost, the Bolshies and their Allies won, and the GW (Good War) narrative has become the favorite of ANTIFA (anti-fascist/anti-western) activists today.

    Perhaps that GW narrative can be best symbolized by today’s dime fasces, while still present, being manipulated into looking rather like a torch handle.

    Read More
  128. plontz says:
    @Art
    The second rebellion, the Bar Cochba rebellion, lasted 3.5 years.

    Golly Gee - This is Jew glory?


    Wiki: The second Jewish rebellion took place 60 years after the first and established an independent state lasting three years. For many Jews of the time, this turn of events was heralded as the long hoped for Messianic Age. The excitement was short-lived, however, and after a brief span of glory, the revolt was crushed by the Roman legions

    ... ... ...

    Bar Kokhba took up refuge in the fortress of Betar. The Romans eventually captured it after laying siege to the city for three and a half years, and they killed all the defenders except for one Jewish youth whose life was spared.
     

    Not too smart. Peace is better! (And more intelligent.)

    Peace --- Art

    You can’t have peace when there is persecution. And I’m not sure that the wiki you’re quoting has the full and correct information.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    And I’m not sure that the wiki you’re quoting has the full and correct information.

    Simon bar Kokhba

    Simon bar Kokhba (Hebrew: שמעון בר כוכבא‎‎; died 135 CE) was the Jewish leader of what is known as the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE, establishing an independent Jewish state which he ruled for three years as Nasi ("Prince"). His state was conquered by the Romans in 135 following a two and half-year war.[a]

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

  129. Art says:
    @plontz
    You can't have peace when there is persecution. And I'm not sure that the wiki you're quoting has the full and correct information.

    And I’m not sure that the wiki you’re quoting has the full and correct information.

    Simon bar Kokhba

    Simon bar Kokhba (Hebrew: שמעון בר כוכבא‎‎; died 135 CE) was the Jewish leader of what is known as the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE, establishing an independent Jewish state which he ruled for three years as Nasi (“Prince”). His state was conquered by the Romans in 135 following a two and half-year war.[a]

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @plontz
    So I read that wiki page. A few notes:
    1. Bar Kohva and Ben Kosiva are both different pronunciations of the same name. They are both correct and neither of them is a nickname.
    2. The messiah's entity is measured by results. Bar Kohva was a political leader who restored Jewish independence, therefor meeting the first few requirements for being the messiah, and thus could be assumed to be the messiah. However, he died without completing the list of accomplishments the messiah needs to achieve (and what he did accomplish was undone with his death), so retroactively it was proven that he was never the messiah.
    3. That wiki article seems confused about the timeline.
    4. That wiki article seems unaware of some of the facts:
    a. During the time of the Bar Kohva rebellion a few Roman legions ceased to exist, indicating that the Jews inflicted very heavy casualties on the Romans.
    b. The Romans had a custom of honoring dead soldiers by inscribing difficult battles they participated in on their tombstone. Half of all the Roman tombstones in the relevant period after the war had the inscription "fought in Judea", indicating that the Romans considered the war in Judea to be noteworthy and that half of the entire Roman army was sent to fight in it.
    c. Rome sent the general who was in charge of the war in Scotland (Polonius?) all the way to the opposite end of the empire to put out the Jewish rebellion. Another indication of how tough the Jewish rebellion was. I wonder how the Jewish rebellion affected Scottish history, since they must have gotten 4 years worth of breathing room against the Romans thanks to us?

    In any case, it seems like the rebellion had some impressive achievements against the most powerful empire of its day, even though it ultimately ended in failure.

    5. The article seems to rely on the book of Josephus Flavius when referencing The Great Jewish Rebellion. However I don't think his account can be trusted for the following reasons:
    a. The war started with Shimon Bar Giora and Yohanan of Gush Halav successfully striking against Roman forces stationed near Jerusalem. They came home and were greeted as heroes, but the establishment was afraid of their popularity and cast them aside in favor of appointing cronies. And when people are appointed based on connections rather than ability the results are bad.
    b. Josephus Flavius was one of the elites who were cozy with the Roman elites and was placed in charge of organizing the defense of the Galilee. Like the other establishment cronies he did close to nothing, but he went one step further and when the Roman army showed up he turned coat and helped the Romans conquer the Jews.
    c. Eventually Shimon and Yohanan performed a coup, kicked the establishment out, and took control of the Jewish army. They then waged heroic war and broke the Roman troop several times. If not for the sheer force of Titus's personality the Roman troops would have run away with their tails between their legs.
    d. After the war was over Josephus wrote a "history" book in which he expends every effort to smear the heroic Jewish rebels and praise his barbaric Roman masters, making the book seem less like an objective account and more like a traitor's attempt to manufacture justification for his treason.

    Both rebellions started as a reaction to Roman oppression and persecution. There were several atrocities committed by Romans against Jews in the decades leading up to the first rebellion.

  130. plontz says:
    @Art
    And I’m not sure that the wiki you’re quoting has the full and correct information.

    Simon bar Kokhba

    Simon bar Kokhba (Hebrew: שמעון בר כוכבא‎‎; died 135 CE) was the Jewish leader of what is known as the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE, establishing an independent Jewish state which he ruled for three years as Nasi ("Prince"). His state was conquered by the Romans in 135 following a two and half-year war.[a]

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

    So I read that wiki page. A few notes:
    1. Bar Kohva and Ben Kosiva are both different pronunciations of the same name. They are both correct and neither of them is a nickname.
    2. The messiah’s entity is measured by results. Bar Kohva was a political leader who restored Jewish independence, therefor meeting the first few requirements for being the messiah, and thus could be assumed to be the messiah. However, he died without completing the list of accomplishments the messiah needs to achieve (and what he did accomplish was undone with his death), so retroactively it was proven that he was never the messiah.
    3. That wiki article seems confused about the timeline.
    4. That wiki article seems unaware of some of the facts:
    a. During the time of the Bar Kohva rebellion a few Roman legions ceased to exist, indicating that the Jews inflicted very heavy casualties on the Romans.
    b. The Romans had a custom of honoring dead soldiers by inscribing difficult battles they participated in on their tombstone. Half of all the Roman tombstones in the relevant period after the war had the inscription “fought in Judea”, indicating that the Romans considered the war in Judea to be noteworthy and that half of the entire Roman army was sent to fight in it.
    c. Rome sent the general who was in charge of the war in Scotland (Polonius?) all the way to the opposite end of the empire to put out the Jewish rebellion. Another indication of how tough the Jewish rebellion was. I wonder how the Jewish rebellion affected Scottish history, since they must have gotten 4 years worth of breathing room against the Romans thanks to us?

    In any case, it seems like the rebellion had some impressive achievements against the most powerful empire of its day, even though it ultimately ended in failure.

    5. The article seems to rely on the book of Josephus Flavius when referencing The Great Jewish Rebellion. However I don’t think his account can be trusted for the following reasons:
    a. The war started with Shimon Bar Giora and Yohanan of Gush Halav successfully striking against Roman forces stationed near Jerusalem. They came home and were greeted as heroes, but the establishment was afraid of their popularity and cast them aside in favor of appointing cronies. And when people are appointed based on connections rather than ability the results are bad.
    b. Josephus Flavius was one of the elites who were cozy with the Roman elites and was placed in charge of organizing the defense of the Galilee. Like the other establishment cronies he did close to nothing, but he went one step further and when the Roman army showed up he turned coat and helped the Romans conquer the Jews.
    c. Eventually Shimon and Yohanan performed a coup, kicked the establishment out, and took control of the Jewish army. They then waged heroic war and broke the Roman troop several times. If not for the sheer force of Titus’s personality the Roman troops would have run away with their tails between their legs.
    d. After the war was over Josephus wrote a “history” book in which he expends every effort to smear the heroic Jewish rebels and praise his barbaric Roman masters, making the book seem less like an objective account and more like a traitor’s attempt to manufacture justification for his treason.

    Both rebellions started as a reaction to Roman oppression and persecution. There were several atrocities committed by Romans against Jews in the decades leading up to the first rebellion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey plotz,

    Good stuff - Bani Israel rocking the pagan empire - love it! Reminds me a bit about the Punic Wars (though on a more localized scale) which also ultimately ended in Rome's favor - empire strikes back...what can you do?

    Peace.
    , @Art
    My original point was that the solutions of 2000 years ago, are worthless today.

    Ultra-nationalism to the death and messiah chasing are things of the past and are not relevant today. We have other options.

    The Christian option is to love your neighbor. Clearly this is not an option used by the tribal Jews of today. The Western peoples (not their elites) prescribe looking for peace, and for tolerance for difference religious views. No one can say those are the goals of mainstream Jewish thought.

    Peace --- Art

  131. Talha says:
    @plontz
    So I read that wiki page. A few notes:
    1. Bar Kohva and Ben Kosiva are both different pronunciations of the same name. They are both correct and neither of them is a nickname.
    2. The messiah's entity is measured by results. Bar Kohva was a political leader who restored Jewish independence, therefor meeting the first few requirements for being the messiah, and thus could be assumed to be the messiah. However, he died without completing the list of accomplishments the messiah needs to achieve (and what he did accomplish was undone with his death), so retroactively it was proven that he was never the messiah.
    3. That wiki article seems confused about the timeline.
    4. That wiki article seems unaware of some of the facts:
    a. During the time of the Bar Kohva rebellion a few Roman legions ceased to exist, indicating that the Jews inflicted very heavy casualties on the Romans.
    b. The Romans had a custom of honoring dead soldiers by inscribing difficult battles they participated in on their tombstone. Half of all the Roman tombstones in the relevant period after the war had the inscription "fought in Judea", indicating that the Romans considered the war in Judea to be noteworthy and that half of the entire Roman army was sent to fight in it.
    c. Rome sent the general who was in charge of the war in Scotland (Polonius?) all the way to the opposite end of the empire to put out the Jewish rebellion. Another indication of how tough the Jewish rebellion was. I wonder how the Jewish rebellion affected Scottish history, since they must have gotten 4 years worth of breathing room against the Romans thanks to us?

    In any case, it seems like the rebellion had some impressive achievements against the most powerful empire of its day, even though it ultimately ended in failure.

    5. The article seems to rely on the book of Josephus Flavius when referencing The Great Jewish Rebellion. However I don't think his account can be trusted for the following reasons:
    a. The war started with Shimon Bar Giora and Yohanan of Gush Halav successfully striking against Roman forces stationed near Jerusalem. They came home and were greeted as heroes, but the establishment was afraid of their popularity and cast them aside in favor of appointing cronies. And when people are appointed based on connections rather than ability the results are bad.
    b. Josephus Flavius was one of the elites who were cozy with the Roman elites and was placed in charge of organizing the defense of the Galilee. Like the other establishment cronies he did close to nothing, but he went one step further and when the Roman army showed up he turned coat and helped the Romans conquer the Jews.
    c. Eventually Shimon and Yohanan performed a coup, kicked the establishment out, and took control of the Jewish army. They then waged heroic war and broke the Roman troop several times. If not for the sheer force of Titus's personality the Roman troops would have run away with their tails between their legs.
    d. After the war was over Josephus wrote a "history" book in which he expends every effort to smear the heroic Jewish rebels and praise his barbaric Roman masters, making the book seem less like an objective account and more like a traitor's attempt to manufacture justification for his treason.

    Both rebellions started as a reaction to Roman oppression and persecution. There were several atrocities committed by Romans against Jews in the decades leading up to the first rebellion.

    Hey plotz,

    Good stuff – Bani Israel rocking the pagan empire – love it! Reminds me a bit about the Punic Wars (though on a more localized scale) which also ultimately ended in Rome’s favor – empire strikes back…what can you do?

    Peace.

    Read More
  132. Art says:
    @plontz
    So I read that wiki page. A few notes:
    1. Bar Kohva and Ben Kosiva are both different pronunciations of the same name. They are both correct and neither of them is a nickname.
    2. The messiah's entity is measured by results. Bar Kohva was a political leader who restored Jewish independence, therefor meeting the first few requirements for being the messiah, and thus could be assumed to be the messiah. However, he died without completing the list of accomplishments the messiah needs to achieve (and what he did accomplish was undone with his death), so retroactively it was proven that he was never the messiah.
    3. That wiki article seems confused about the timeline.
    4. That wiki article seems unaware of some of the facts:
    a. During the time of the Bar Kohva rebellion a few Roman legions ceased to exist, indicating that the Jews inflicted very heavy casualties on the Romans.
    b. The Romans had a custom of honoring dead soldiers by inscribing difficult battles they participated in on their tombstone. Half of all the Roman tombstones in the relevant period after the war had the inscription "fought in Judea", indicating that the Romans considered the war in Judea to be noteworthy and that half of the entire Roman army was sent to fight in it.
    c. Rome sent the general who was in charge of the war in Scotland (Polonius?) all the way to the opposite end of the empire to put out the Jewish rebellion. Another indication of how tough the Jewish rebellion was. I wonder how the Jewish rebellion affected Scottish history, since they must have gotten 4 years worth of breathing room against the Romans thanks to us?

    In any case, it seems like the rebellion had some impressive achievements against the most powerful empire of its day, even though it ultimately ended in failure.

    5. The article seems to rely on the book of Josephus Flavius when referencing The Great Jewish Rebellion. However I don't think his account can be trusted for the following reasons:
    a. The war started with Shimon Bar Giora and Yohanan of Gush Halav successfully striking against Roman forces stationed near Jerusalem. They came home and were greeted as heroes, but the establishment was afraid of their popularity and cast them aside in favor of appointing cronies. And when people are appointed based on connections rather than ability the results are bad.
    b. Josephus Flavius was one of the elites who were cozy with the Roman elites and was placed in charge of organizing the defense of the Galilee. Like the other establishment cronies he did close to nothing, but he went one step further and when the Roman army showed up he turned coat and helped the Romans conquer the Jews.
    c. Eventually Shimon and Yohanan performed a coup, kicked the establishment out, and took control of the Jewish army. They then waged heroic war and broke the Roman troop several times. If not for the sheer force of Titus's personality the Roman troops would have run away with their tails between their legs.
    d. After the war was over Josephus wrote a "history" book in which he expends every effort to smear the heroic Jewish rebels and praise his barbaric Roman masters, making the book seem less like an objective account and more like a traitor's attempt to manufacture justification for his treason.

    Both rebellions started as a reaction to Roman oppression and persecution. There were several atrocities committed by Romans against Jews in the decades leading up to the first rebellion.

    My original point was that the solutions of 2000 years ago, are worthless today.

    Ultra-nationalism to the death and messiah chasing are things of the past and are not relevant today. We have other options.

    The Christian option is to love your neighbor. Clearly this is not an option used by the tribal Jews of today. The Western peoples (not their elites) prescribe looking for peace, and for tolerance for difference religious views. No one can say those are the goals of mainstream Jewish thought.

    Peace — Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @plontz
    Jews have become focused on survival in a hostile world, but Christians don't have a monopoly on loving one's neighbor. That's a Jewish teaching. They don't have a monopoly on peace - Jews have sought peace incessantly, even insanely. And you have no idea what the messiah actually is. The messiah isn't a prophet or an angel or "the son of god". He is called the messiah (meaning: anointed one) because Jewish kings and high priests are anointed with oil. Yes, all the hundreds of high priests and kings were all messiahs. There isn't one messiah. The special Messiah with a capital M is just one of many messiahs who will accomplish a specific task list, and actually in Jewish tradition there are 2 of them for 2 different roles.

    If there is a universal eternal truth then it doesn't matter if it was known a 2000 years ago or not. Since it is universal and eternal then it is just as relevant to the present day as it was relevant in the past.

  133. plontz says:
    @Art
    My original point was that the solutions of 2000 years ago, are worthless today.

    Ultra-nationalism to the death and messiah chasing are things of the past and are not relevant today. We have other options.

    The Christian option is to love your neighbor. Clearly this is not an option used by the tribal Jews of today. The Western peoples (not their elites) prescribe looking for peace, and for tolerance for difference religious views. No one can say those are the goals of mainstream Jewish thought.

    Peace --- Art

    Jews have become focused on survival in a hostile world, but Christians don’t have a monopoly on loving one’s neighbor. That’s a Jewish teaching. They don’t have a monopoly on peace – Jews have sought peace incessantly, even insanely. And you have no idea what the messiah actually is. The messiah isn’t a prophet or an angel or “the son of god”. He is called the messiah (meaning: anointed one) because Jewish kings and high priests are anointed with oil. Yes, all the hundreds of high priests and kings were all messiahs. There isn’t one messiah. The special Messiah with a capital M is just one of many messiahs who will accomplish a specific task list, and actually in Jewish tradition there are 2 of them for 2 different roles.

    If there is a universal eternal truth then it doesn’t matter if it was known a 2000 years ago or not. Since it is universal and eternal then it is just as relevant to the present day as it was relevant in the past.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    That's true - loving your neighbor is a Jewish teaching, but loving your enemies is not found in Judaism, but is specifically Christian (and Buddhist, Hindu, and Taoist - I don't know about Islam, but I bet it's there somewhere among the Sufis).

    In fact, hating your enemies and "evil" people is a very Jewish virtue. I was reading an article in a Christian magazine, First Things I believe, in which Rabbi Aaron Soloveichick (I think it was him) wrote very eloquently and passionately about the Jewish virtue of hating your enemies, to the consternation and chagrin of his Christian readers.

    You're also right that universal truth is timeless - Christian precepts about not returning evil for evil are 2,000 years old, hardly a development of modern "post-tribal" conditions, and Buddhism and Taoism are even earlier.

    Nor is Jewish behavior merely a "bad fit" for modern conditions, as Art implies - Jewish particularism was a potent source of conflict in the ancient world, as well.

    I often wonder if Judaism would benefit from a "reformation" - but then I reflect, it already happened, and is called Christianity.
  134. AaronB says:
    @plontz
    Jews have become focused on survival in a hostile world, but Christians don't have a monopoly on loving one's neighbor. That's a Jewish teaching. They don't have a monopoly on peace - Jews have sought peace incessantly, even insanely. And you have no idea what the messiah actually is. The messiah isn't a prophet or an angel or "the son of god". He is called the messiah (meaning: anointed one) because Jewish kings and high priests are anointed with oil. Yes, all the hundreds of high priests and kings were all messiahs. There isn't one messiah. The special Messiah with a capital M is just one of many messiahs who will accomplish a specific task list, and actually in Jewish tradition there are 2 of them for 2 different roles.

    If there is a universal eternal truth then it doesn't matter if it was known a 2000 years ago or not. Since it is universal and eternal then it is just as relevant to the present day as it was relevant in the past.

    That’s true – loving your neighbor is a Jewish teaching, but loving your enemies is not found in Judaism, but is specifically Christian (and Buddhist, Hindu, and Taoist – I don’t know about Islam, but I bet it’s there somewhere among the Sufis).

    In fact, hating your enemies and “evil” people is a very Jewish virtue. I was reading an article in a Christian magazine, First Things I believe, in which Rabbi Aaron Soloveichick (I think it was him) wrote very eloquently and passionately about the Jewish virtue of hating your enemies, to the consternation and chagrin of his Christian readers.

    You’re also right that universal truth is timeless – Christian precepts about not returning evil for evil are 2,000 years old, hardly a development of modern “post-tribal” conditions, and Buddhism and Taoism are even earlier.

    Nor is Jewish behavior merely a “bad fit” for modern conditions, as Art implies – Jewish particularism was a potent source of conflict in the ancient world, as well.

    I often wonder if Judaism would benefit from a “reformation” – but then I reflect, it already happened, and is called Christianity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @plontz
    Jews don't teach to hate. We teach rigorous self-defense, which includes preemption. Loving your enemies is suicide. If someone is trying to kill you then you've got to fight back.

    Jews are a nation. Erasing national identity is not only incredibly sad, it's a disaster. This is true for all nations, of course. Every nation should be free in its own homeland, develop its own unique culture, and have its own religion.

    Judaism introduces the concept of morality to the world, and morality is the basis of civilization. Without Judaism we would all be barbarians.

    Christianity is a big step up from paganism, but it's a big step down from Judaism, and it is provably false, but Christians are either unaware of the facts or they repress them, thinking that reality is what you choose to believe in rather than something objective.
    , @Talha
    Hey AaronB,

    I don’t know about Islam
     
    I've honestly never found an explicit maxim of "love thine enemy" within the Islamic framework, but there is what I would call "want best for your enemy" - if that makes sense. This includes the following maxims:
    1) Be just to your enemy despite enmity:
    "O you who believe - stand out firmly for God, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just! That is next to piety: and fear God. For God is well-acquainted with all that you do." (5:8)
    2) Be forgiving of their trespasses:
    "O you who believe - indeed, among your wives and your children are enemies* to you, so beware of them. But if you pardon, and overlook, and forgive - then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful." (64:14)
    3) Pray for them:
    "It was said [when the Muslims were besieging the Tribe of Thaqif at their stronghold of Ta'if], 'O Messenger of Allah, the arrows of the of Thaqif have pierced us, so pray against them!' So he said: 'O Allah! Guide the Thaqif.'" - reported in Tirmidhi
    4) Never make it personal:
    "It may be that God will grant love between you and those whom you (now) hold as enemies. For God has power (over all things); And God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (60:9)
    5) Do your best to repel evil with good:
    "Do not be a people without a will of your own, saying: 'If the people treat us well, we will treat them well; and if they do wrong, we will do wrong.' But accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and not to do wrong if they do evil." - reported in Tirmidhi

    That, of course does not mean you do not fight your enemies, but that you are always hopeful for the best outcome for them (from a spiritual perspective - you can't obviously be fighting them and pray for their material victory - that's just incoherent).

    Peace.

    *This was when the wives and children of the early Muslims still did not convert and were antagonistic to their faith.
  135. plontz says:
    @AaronB
    That's true - loving your neighbor is a Jewish teaching, but loving your enemies is not found in Judaism, but is specifically Christian (and Buddhist, Hindu, and Taoist - I don't know about Islam, but I bet it's there somewhere among the Sufis).

    In fact, hating your enemies and "evil" people is a very Jewish virtue. I was reading an article in a Christian magazine, First Things I believe, in which Rabbi Aaron Soloveichick (I think it was him) wrote very eloquently and passionately about the Jewish virtue of hating your enemies, to the consternation and chagrin of his Christian readers.

    You're also right that universal truth is timeless - Christian precepts about not returning evil for evil are 2,000 years old, hardly a development of modern "post-tribal" conditions, and Buddhism and Taoism are even earlier.

    Nor is Jewish behavior merely a "bad fit" for modern conditions, as Art implies - Jewish particularism was a potent source of conflict in the ancient world, as well.

    I often wonder if Judaism would benefit from a "reformation" - but then I reflect, it already happened, and is called Christianity.

    Jews don’t teach to hate. We teach rigorous self-defense, which includes preemption. Loving your enemies is suicide. If someone is trying to kill you then you’ve got to fight back.

    Jews are a nation. Erasing national identity is not only incredibly sad, it’s a disaster. This is true for all nations, of course. Every nation should be free in its own homeland, develop its own unique culture, and have its own religion.

    Judaism introduces the concept of morality to the world, and morality is the basis of civilization. Without Judaism we would all be barbarians.

    Christianity is a big step up from paganism, but it’s a big step down from Judaism, and it is provably false, but Christians are either unaware of the facts or they repress them, thinking that reality is what you choose to believe in rather than something objective.

    Read More
    • LOL: iffen
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Judaism introduces the concept of morality to the world, and morality is the basis of civilization. Without Judaism we would all be barbarians.
     
    Based on common practice, I would say the commandments were meant to be applied only to the in-group. The universal application of morality, introduced by Plato and his successors, especially Immanuel Kant, is one of the pillars of Western (i.e., not Judeo-Christian) civilization.
    , @Talha
    Hey plontz,

    Without Judaism we would all be barbarians.
     
    Wait - what??!!

    Chinese, Dharmic civilization of India, Mayans...please tell me you have heard of these people. Or are you saying they had no concept of ethics or morality?

    Bro - you are totally not doing your people any favors by saying something like that.

    Peace.

  136. geokat62 says:
    @plontz
    Jews don't teach to hate. We teach rigorous self-defense, which includes preemption. Loving your enemies is suicide. If someone is trying to kill you then you've got to fight back.

    Jews are a nation. Erasing national identity is not only incredibly sad, it's a disaster. This is true for all nations, of course. Every nation should be free in its own homeland, develop its own unique culture, and have its own religion.

    Judaism introduces the concept of morality to the world, and morality is the basis of civilization. Without Judaism we would all be barbarians.

    Christianity is a big step up from paganism, but it's a big step down from Judaism, and it is provably false, but Christians are either unaware of the facts or they repress them, thinking that reality is what you choose to believe in rather than something objective.

    Judaism introduces the concept of morality to the world, and morality is the basis of civilization. Without Judaism we would all be barbarians.

    Based on common practice, I would say the commandments were meant to be applied only to the in-group. The universal application of morality, introduced by Plato and his successors, especially Immanuel Kant, is one of the pillars of Western (i.e., not Judeo-Christian) civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    one of the pillars of Western (i.e., not Judeo-Christian) civilization.

    You say tomato, I say .........

  137. Talha says:
    @plontz
    Jews don't teach to hate. We teach rigorous self-defense, which includes preemption. Loving your enemies is suicide. If someone is trying to kill you then you've got to fight back.

    Jews are a nation. Erasing national identity is not only incredibly sad, it's a disaster. This is true for all nations, of course. Every nation should be free in its own homeland, develop its own unique culture, and have its own religion.

    Judaism introduces the concept of morality to the world, and morality is the basis of civilization. Without Judaism we would all be barbarians.

    Christianity is a big step up from paganism, but it's a big step down from Judaism, and it is provably false, but Christians are either unaware of the facts or they repress them, thinking that reality is what you choose to believe in rather than something objective.

    Hey plontz,

    Without Judaism we would all be barbarians.

    Wait – what??!!

    Chinese, Dharmic civilization of India, Mayans…please tell me you have heard of these people. Or are you saying they had no concept of ethics or morality?

    Bro – you are totally not doing your people any favors by saying something like that.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Bro – you are totally not doing your people any favors by saying something like that.

    Maybe JR is right and there really are false flaggers and unicorns. :)

    , @Gabriel M
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice_in_pre-Columbian_cultures#Maya_culture

    In 2005 a mass grave of one- to two-year-old sacrificed children was found in the Maya region of Comalcalco. The sacrifices were apparently performed for consecration purposes when building temples at the Comalcalco acropolis.[2]
     
    You are perfectly correct about Chinese culture, which achieved a very high level of ethical sophistication at an early stage, but its global impact was close to nil. You can more or less study the history of the world outside China without knowing China even existed. Most of the stuff we "know" about the ancient religions of the Indian subcontinent turns out, when you look into it, to be kind of made up, so it's hard to comment, but, frankly, what the British found when they turned up wasn't much to write home about.


    Anyway, I assume plontz was using the term "barbarians" inaccurately, but not unusually, to mean "not possessing what we would recognize as morality". He's not so far off; Tacitus lists among the odd customs of the the Jews that they did not practice infanticide. Maybe they would have got the memo anyway if it wasn't for Christianity, but I'm inclined to doubt it.
    , @plontz
    "Chinese, Dharmic civilization of India, Mayans…please tell me you have heard of these people. Or are you saying they had no concept of ethics or morality?"

    I'm going to define two words. These definitions might not match the dictionary definition, but they will be useful for the purpose of this explanation:

    1. Morality - The universal eternal specific code of human behavior, whose source is the absolute authority known as god, and is equally binding upon all humans.
    2. Ethics - A human attempt to puzzle out morality based on our own intellect.

    There have been many great humans throughout history who achieved many great things in the area of ethics. They are wise. Their words should be studied and practiced. They should be respected. However, what they say is merely the best that human intellect has to offer. Often they hit the mark, but sometimes they can get things awfuly wrong. However, morality, that is actually knowing what the truth is and putting it into practice rather than theorizing about the truth without knowing, is uniquely Jewish. The reason it exists is because we got to god first and he subsequently chose to reveal himself to us and use us to spread the knowledge around. This doesn't mean that God couldn't or didn't reveal himself to other people around the world. We ourselves have documented at least 2 cases of true prophets who weren't Jews. Not to mention that people can simply find at least fragments of the truth on their own. All religions contain at least a fragment of the truth (and might even contain pieces that we are missing), and probably the more monotheistic they are the more truth they will contain. So if a religion is based on the words of a true prophet it will contain a lot of truth, some of which might even be missing from Judaism. It will probably also contain elements that only belong to the nation that created that religion, and probably, although not necessarily, also some false elements too. The difference with Judaism is that all other religions are based on an individual or a small group of individuals who then go and teach everyone else, while Judaism is based on the direct communication from God to the entire nation.

    tl;dr - Other religions can also be true, but Jews are the pioneers and have a solid base, and we have top down knowledge from God rather than trying to put it together from scratch and maybe getting it wrong sometimes (it doesn't mean we never get it wrong, but thankfully God set up a system for dealing with that too).

    "Based on common practice, I would say the commandments were meant to be applied only to the in-group. The universal application of morality, introduced by Plato and his successors, especially Immanuel Kant, is one of the pillars of Western (i.e., not Judeo-Christian) civilization."

    Jews are the pioneers championing the idea, and have a different set of rules that govern every tiny aspect of our lives. However the idea we are championing is not that everyone becomes like us, but that everyone becomes civilized. Christianity did a lot to promote this. So did some secular philosophies that developed independently of us, but a secular philosophy that exists without being connected to the source of moral authority has shallow roots and can be much more easily forgotten, warped, or discarded.

    The goal is to make the world civilized. The most important thing is that people behave morally. What their motivation for doing so is is a secondary issue at most. If people act morally because secular ethics teach them to do so, that's great! If they act morally because Christianity teaches them to be good and kind and compassionate, that's great! The only reason I'm getting into this argument rather than just leave Christians be to be the good faithful people that they are is because someone attacked Judaism for not conforming to Christianity.

    Just like what I said about the messiah, it's all about results. If you follow the basic rules of decent behavior, regardless of your reasons for doing so, you merit an afterlife according to your beliefs or philosophy.
  138. iffen says:
    @geokat62

    Judaism introduces the concept of morality to the world, and morality is the basis of civilization. Without Judaism we would all be barbarians.
     
    Based on common practice, I would say the commandments were meant to be applied only to the in-group. The universal application of morality, introduced by Plato and his successors, especially Immanuel Kant, is one of the pillars of Western (i.e., not Judeo-Christian) civilization.

    one of the pillars of Western (i.e., not Judeo-Christian) civilization.

    You say tomato, I say ………

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    You say tomato, I say ………
     
    It's more like "apples and...
  139. iffen says:
    @Talha
    Hey plontz,

    Without Judaism we would all be barbarians.
     
    Wait - what??!!

    Chinese, Dharmic civilization of India, Mayans...please tell me you have heard of these people. Or are you saying they had no concept of ethics or morality?

    Bro - you are totally not doing your people any favors by saying something like that.

    Peace.

    Bro – you are totally not doing your people any favors by saying something like that.

    Maybe JR is right and there really are false flaggers and unicorns. :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    You know - sometimes I'm besides myself. I mean, I've seen some Muslim commentators say really whacky things, but I just cannot understand why someone would type the stuff they type - at least from a Muslim perspective. Like, do you want them to get pitchforks and torches out and toss us out on our backsides - why are you poking fingers in everyone's eyes for no reason? I'm not talking about covering up the truth or anything - I don't think we have anything to hide and have a rock solid foundation. But, just saying incendiary stuff for no good reason...makes you wonder though with this anonymity stuff...

    Peace.
  140. anarchyst says:
    @LarryS
    When will Israel define its border? Is it Genesis 15:18 from the river in Egypt to the Euphrates river in Iraq? Didn't God make His covenant conditional on the obedience of Abraham's offspring? Deuteronomy 28. Does the modern, secular state called Israel have a living prophet telling the Jews to take the land away from the people living there? The 10 tribes of the Kingdom of Israel were conquered and assimilated in 722 BC leaving the southern Kingdom of Judah (and the tribe of Benjamin). They were conquered in 586 BC. Later Judeans (Jews) returned to Judea. The land today should rightfully be called Judea, not Israel, and of course Jews should be allowed to live there. But I disagree that it should be a solely Jewish state. Also, I do not believe that the modern, secular state called Israel has anything to do with the Second Coming of Christ. Modern Israel was created by the UN in 1948 and is not the Israel of the Bible.

    God is not a real estate agent. The concept of Israel is of the mind and NOT a piece of land…

    Read More
    • Replies: @plontz
    "God is not a real estate agent. The concept of Israel is of the mind and NOT a piece of land…"

    God himself repeatedly, clearly, and unmistakably disagrees with you. Says so in the Bible.
  141. Talha says:
    @AaronB
    That's true - loving your neighbor is a Jewish teaching, but loving your enemies is not found in Judaism, but is specifically Christian (and Buddhist, Hindu, and Taoist - I don't know about Islam, but I bet it's there somewhere among the Sufis).

    In fact, hating your enemies and "evil" people is a very Jewish virtue. I was reading an article in a Christian magazine, First Things I believe, in which Rabbi Aaron Soloveichick (I think it was him) wrote very eloquently and passionately about the Jewish virtue of hating your enemies, to the consternation and chagrin of his Christian readers.

    You're also right that universal truth is timeless - Christian precepts about not returning evil for evil are 2,000 years old, hardly a development of modern "post-tribal" conditions, and Buddhism and Taoism are even earlier.

    Nor is Jewish behavior merely a "bad fit" for modern conditions, as Art implies - Jewish particularism was a potent source of conflict in the ancient world, as well.

    I often wonder if Judaism would benefit from a "reformation" - but then I reflect, it already happened, and is called Christianity.

    Hey AaronB,

    I don’t know about Islam

    I’ve honestly never found an explicit maxim of “love thine enemy” within the Islamic framework, but there is what I would call “want best for your enemy” – if that makes sense. This includes the following maxims:
    1) Be just to your enemy despite enmity:
    “O you who believe – stand out firmly for God, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just! That is next to piety: and fear God. For God is well-acquainted with all that you do.” (5:8)
    2) Be forgiving of their trespasses:
    “O you who believe – indeed, among your wives and your children are enemies* to you, so beware of them. But if you pardon, and overlook, and forgive – then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful.” (64:14)
    3) Pray for them:
    “It was said [when the Muslims were besieging the Tribe of Thaqif at their stronghold of Ta'if], ‘O Messenger of Allah, the arrows of the of Thaqif have pierced us, so pray against them!’ So he said: ‘O Allah! Guide the Thaqif.’” – reported in Tirmidhi
    4) Never make it personal:
    “It may be that God will grant love between you and those whom you (now) hold as enemies. For God has power (over all things); And God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (60:9)
    5) Do your best to repel evil with good:
    “Do not be a people without a will of your own, saying: ‘If the people treat us well, we will treat them well; and if they do wrong, we will do wrong.’ But accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and not to do wrong if they do evil.” – reported in Tirmidhi

    That, of course does not mean you do not fight your enemies, but that you are always hopeful for the best outcome for them (from a spiritual perspective – you can’t obviously be fighting them and pray for their material victory – that’s just incoherent).

    Peace.

    *This was when the wives and children of the early Muslims still did not convert and were antagonistic to their faith.

    Read More
  142. Talha says:
    @iffen
    Bro – you are totally not doing your people any favors by saying something like that.

    Maybe JR is right and there really are false flaggers and unicorns. :)

    You know – sometimes I’m besides myself. I mean, I’ve seen some Muslim commentators say really whacky things, but I just cannot understand why someone would type the stuff they type – at least from a Muslim perspective. Like, do you want them to get pitchforks and torches out and toss us out on our backsides – why are you poking fingers in everyone’s eyes for no reason? I’m not talking about covering up the truth or anything – I don’t think we have anything to hide and have a rock solid foundation. But, just saying incendiary stuff for no good reason…makes you wonder though with this anonymity stuff…

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Agent provocateur

    I am going to keep in mind to be on the lookout for the earliest occurrences in history.
  143. iffen says:
    @Talha
    You know - sometimes I'm besides myself. I mean, I've seen some Muslim commentators say really whacky things, but I just cannot understand why someone would type the stuff they type - at least from a Muslim perspective. Like, do you want them to get pitchforks and torches out and toss us out on our backsides - why are you poking fingers in everyone's eyes for no reason? I'm not talking about covering up the truth or anything - I don't think we have anything to hide and have a rock solid foundation. But, just saying incendiary stuff for no good reason...makes you wonder though with this anonymity stuff...

    Peace.

    Agent provocateur

    I am going to keep in mind to be on the lookout for the earliest occurrences in history.

    Read More
  144. Gabriel M says:
    @Talha
    Hey plontz,

    Without Judaism we would all be barbarians.
     
    Wait - what??!!

    Chinese, Dharmic civilization of India, Mayans...please tell me you have heard of these people. Or are you saying they had no concept of ethics or morality?

    Bro - you are totally not doing your people any favors by saying something like that.

    Peace.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice_in_pre-Columbian_cultures#Maya_culture

    In 2005 a mass grave of one- to two-year-old sacrificed children was found in the Maya region of Comalcalco. The sacrifices were apparently performed for consecration purposes when building temples at the Comalcalco acropolis.[2]

    You are perfectly correct about Chinese culture, which achieved a very high level of ethical sophistication at an early stage, but its global impact was close to nil. You can more or less study the history of the world outside China without knowing China even existed. Most of the stuff we “know” about the ancient religions of the Indian subcontinent turns out, when you look into it, to be kind of made up, so it’s hard to comment, but, frankly, what the British found when they turned up wasn’t much to write home about.

    Anyway, I assume plontz was using the term “barbarians” inaccurately, but not unusually, to mean “not possessing what we would recognize as morality”. He’s not so far off; Tacitus lists among the odd customs of the the Jews that they did not practice infanticide. Maybe they would have got the memo anyway if it wasn’t for Christianity, but I’m inclined to doubt it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    We note that Abraham's response to God in Genesis 22 was not: huh?
    , @Talha
    Hey Gabriel,

    Yuck - I guess you learn something new every day - I thought that was an Aztec thing, oh well. I know the pagan Arabs did this as well - just with females.

    Few points...

    “not possessing what we would recognize as morality”
     
    I have seen this before, truth requires precision, and this is not necessarily a sound yardstick on its own (we, and our sensibilities, are a product of our times):
    "An older tradition appears to be that the punishment for adultery was stoning: the lighter offenses of the unvirginal bride (Deut. 22:21) and of the betrothed woman and her adulterer (Deut. 22:24) were punished by stoning, and the severer offense of adultery would certainly not have carried a lighter punishment. Stoning of adulteresses is moreover vouched for in prophetic allegories (e.g., Ezek. 6:38–40) and is described in the New Testament as commanded by the Law of Moses (John 8:5). In the aggravated case of adultery by a priest's daughter, the adulteress was burned (Lev. 21:9), while the adulterer remained liable to strangulation (Sif. 5:19). Burning is provided for another similar offense (Lev. 20:14) and is also found in prophetic allegory (e.g., Ezek. 23:25; Nah. 3:15)."
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adultery-2

    I believe each culture needs to be viewed holistically and cannot simply be tossed aside or discounted because of certain exceptions.

    The reason I disagreed with plontz is because our tradition differs in this particular respect from what we have on record (though we are not confident in its veracity) through Judaism and Christianity. From what they convey, Divine guidance is the lot of Bani Isaac exclusively and the rest of the world has been left to its own designs.

    From what we have been taught; Divine guidance was never the monopoly of the Semites (of this we are certain):
    "Verily! We have sent you with the truth, a bearer of glad tidings, and a warner. And there never was a nation but a warner had passed among them." (35:24)

    "Of some messengers We have already told you the story; of others We have not - and to Moses God spoke directly." (4:164)

    Certain hadith (though they are weak in their chain of transmission) mention over a 100 thousand guides sent to all of mankind. It may be possible that men like Confucius, Zoroaster, the Buddha, Aristotle, etc. might have been prophets to their people. We just don't know for sure, nor are we confident that everything transmitted from them is accurate or sound - it may have easily been corrupted over time. Thus, a message that starts out pure, eventually is diluted with impurities (like infanticide, polytheism, etc.) while still retaining other good qualities which were hold-overs from the pure source. As the late Shaykh Abul Hasan Nadwi (ra) wrote; all goodness present anywhere in mankind can be traced back to the teachings of God's many emissaries. We are indebted to them for the sacrifices they made - all of them (the European [that's right White people - God was not remiss about you either], Asian, African, Aboriginal, etc.) - some of them humanity has forgotten because they were not as successful, but God has not:
    "The nations were displayed in front of me and I saw one prophet passing by with a large group of his followers, and another prophet passing by with only a small group of people, and another prophet passing by with only ten (followers), and another prophet passing by with only five (followers), and another prophet passed by alone..." - reported in Bukhari

    "God has written, 'I will surely triumph, I and My messengers.' Indeed, God is Powerful and Exalted in Might." (58:21)

    So...

    If plontz had stated:
    "God conveyed the concept of morality to the world through His emissaries, and morality is the basis of civilization. Without them we would all be barbarians or worse."

    I would have had no problem.

    Peace.
  145. iffen says:
    @Gabriel M
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice_in_pre-Columbian_cultures#Maya_culture

    In 2005 a mass grave of one- to two-year-old sacrificed children was found in the Maya region of Comalcalco. The sacrifices were apparently performed for consecration purposes when building temples at the Comalcalco acropolis.[2]
     
    You are perfectly correct about Chinese culture, which achieved a very high level of ethical sophistication at an early stage, but its global impact was close to nil. You can more or less study the history of the world outside China without knowing China even existed. Most of the stuff we "know" about the ancient religions of the Indian subcontinent turns out, when you look into it, to be kind of made up, so it's hard to comment, but, frankly, what the British found when they turned up wasn't much to write home about.


    Anyway, I assume plontz was using the term "barbarians" inaccurately, but not unusually, to mean "not possessing what we would recognize as morality". He's not so far off; Tacitus lists among the odd customs of the the Jews that they did not practice infanticide. Maybe they would have got the memo anyway if it wasn't for Christianity, but I'm inclined to doubt it.

    We note that Abraham’s response to God in Genesis 22 was not: huh?

    Read More
  146. geokat62 says:
    @iffen
    one of the pillars of Western (i.e., not Judeo-Christian) civilization.

    You say tomato, I say .........

    You say tomato, I say ………

    It’s more like “apples and…

    Read More
  147. Talha says:
    @Gabriel M
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice_in_pre-Columbian_cultures#Maya_culture

    In 2005 a mass grave of one- to two-year-old sacrificed children was found in the Maya region of Comalcalco. The sacrifices were apparently performed for consecration purposes when building temples at the Comalcalco acropolis.[2]
     
    You are perfectly correct about Chinese culture, which achieved a very high level of ethical sophistication at an early stage, but its global impact was close to nil. You can more or less study the history of the world outside China without knowing China even existed. Most of the stuff we "know" about the ancient religions of the Indian subcontinent turns out, when you look into it, to be kind of made up, so it's hard to comment, but, frankly, what the British found when they turned up wasn't much to write home about.


    Anyway, I assume plontz was using the term "barbarians" inaccurately, but not unusually, to mean "not possessing what we would recognize as morality". He's not so far off; Tacitus lists among the odd customs of the the Jews that they did not practice infanticide. Maybe they would have got the memo anyway if it wasn't for Christianity, but I'm inclined to doubt it.

    Hey Gabriel,

    Yuck – I guess you learn something new every day – I thought that was an Aztec thing, oh well. I know the pagan Arabs did this as well – just with females.

    Few points…

    “not possessing what we would recognize as morality”

    I have seen this before, truth requires precision, and this is not necessarily a sound yardstick on its own (we, and our sensibilities, are a product of our times):
    “An older tradition appears to be that the punishment for adultery was stoning: the lighter offenses of the unvirginal bride (Deut. 22:21) and of the betrothed woman and her adulterer (Deut. 22:24) were punished by stoning, and the severer offense of adultery would certainly not have carried a lighter punishment. Stoning of adulteresses is moreover vouched for in prophetic allegories (e.g., Ezek. 6:38–40) and is described in the New Testament as commanded by the Law of Moses (John 8:5). In the aggravated case of adultery by a priest’s daughter, the adulteress was burned (Lev. 21:9), while the adulterer remained liable to strangulation (Sif. 5:19). Burning is provided for another similar offense (Lev. 20:14) and is also found in prophetic allegory (e.g., Ezek. 23:25; Nah. 3:15).”

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adultery-2

    I believe each culture needs to be viewed holistically and cannot simply be tossed aside or discounted because of certain exceptions.

    The reason I disagreed with plontz is because our tradition differs in this particular respect from what we have on record (though we are not confident in its veracity) through Judaism and Christianity. From what they convey, Divine guidance is the lot of Bani Isaac exclusively and the rest of the world has been left to its own designs.

    From what we have been taught; Divine guidance was never the monopoly of the Semites (of this we are certain):
    “Verily! We have sent you with the truth, a bearer of glad tidings, and a warner. And there never was a nation but a warner had passed among them.” (35:24)

    “Of some messengers We have already told you the story; of others We have not – and to Moses God spoke directly.” (4:164)

    Certain hadith (though they are weak in their chain of transmission) mention over a 100 thousand guides sent to all of mankind. It may be possible that men like Confucius, Zoroaster, the Buddha, Aristotle, etc. might have been prophets to their people. We just don’t know for sure, nor are we confident that everything transmitted from them is accurate or sound – it may have easily been corrupted over time. Thus, a message that starts out pure, eventually is diluted with impurities (like infanticide, polytheism, etc.) while still retaining other good qualities which were hold-overs from the pure source. As the late Shaykh Abul Hasan Nadwi (ra) wrote; all goodness present anywhere in mankind can be traced back to the teachings of God’s many emissaries. We are indebted to them for the sacrifices they made – all of them (the European [that's right White people - God was not remiss about you either], Asian, African, Aboriginal, etc.) – some of them humanity has forgotten because they were not as successful, but God has not:
    “The nations were displayed in front of me and I saw one prophet passing by with a large group of his followers, and another prophet passing by with only a small group of people, and another prophet passing by with only ten (followers), and another prophet passing by with only five (followers), and another prophet passed by alone…” – reported in Bukhari

    “God has written, ‘I will surely triumph, I and My messengers.’ Indeed, God is Powerful and Exalted in Might.” (58:21)

    So…

    If plontz had stated:
    “God conveyed the concept of morality to the world through His emissaries, and morality is the basis of civilization. Without them we would all be barbarians or worse.”

    I would have had no problem.

    Peace.

    Read More
  148. plontz says:
    @Talha
    Hey plontz,

    Without Judaism we would all be barbarians.
     
    Wait - what??!!

    Chinese, Dharmic civilization of India, Mayans...please tell me you have heard of these people. Or are you saying they had no concept of ethics or morality?

    Bro - you are totally not doing your people any favors by saying something like that.

    Peace.

    “Chinese, Dharmic civilization of India, Mayans…please tell me you have heard of these people. Or are you saying they had no concept of ethics or morality?”

    I’m going to define two words. These definitions might not match the dictionary definition, but they will be useful for the purpose of this explanation:

    1. Morality – The universal eternal specific code of human behavior, whose source is the absolute authority known as god, and is equally binding upon all humans.
    2. Ethics – A human attempt to puzzle out morality based on our own intellect.

    There have been many great humans throughout history who achieved many great things in the area of ethics. They are wise. Their words should be studied and practiced. They should be respected. However, what they say is merely the best that human intellect has to offer. Often they hit the mark, but sometimes they can get things awfuly wrong. However, morality, that is actually knowing what the truth is and putting it into practice rather than theorizing about the truth without knowing, is uniquely Jewish. The reason it exists is because we got to god first and he subsequently chose to reveal himself to us and use us to spread the knowledge around. This doesn’t mean that God couldn’t or didn’t reveal himself to other people around the world. We ourselves have documented at least 2 cases of true prophets who weren’t Jews. Not to mention that people can simply find at least fragments of the truth on their own. All religions contain at least a fragment of the truth (and might even contain pieces that we are missing), and probably the more monotheistic they are the more truth they will contain. So if a religion is based on the words of a true prophet it will contain a lot of truth, some of which might even be missing from Judaism. It will probably also contain elements that only belong to the nation that created that religion, and probably, although not necessarily, also some false elements too. The difference with Judaism is that all other religions are based on an individual or a small group of individuals who then go and teach everyone else, while Judaism is based on the direct communication from God to the entire nation.

    tl;dr – Other religions can also be true, but Jews are the pioneers and have a solid base, and we have top down knowledge from God rather than trying to put it together from scratch and maybe getting it wrong sometimes (it doesn’t mean we never get it wrong, but thankfully God set up a system for dealing with that too).

    “Based on common practice, I would say the commandments were meant to be applied only to the in-group. The universal application of morality, introduced by Plato and his successors, especially Immanuel Kant, is one of the pillars of Western (i.e., not Judeo-Christian) civilization.”

    Jews are the pioneers championing the idea, and have a different set of rules that govern every tiny aspect of our lives. However the idea we are championing is not that everyone becomes like us, but that everyone becomes civilized. Christianity did a lot to promote this. So did some secular philosophies that developed independently of us, but a secular philosophy that exists without being connected to the source of moral authority has shallow roots and can be much more easily forgotten, warped, or discarded.

    The goal is to make the world civilized. The most important thing is that people behave morally. What their motivation for doing so is is a secondary issue at most. If people act morally because secular ethics teach them to do so, that’s great! If they act morally because Christianity teaches them to be good and kind and compassionate, that’s great! The only reason I’m getting into this argument rather than just leave Christians be to be the good faithful people that they are is because someone attacked Judaism for not conforming to Christianity.

    Just like what I said about the messiah, it’s all about results. If you follow the basic rules of decent behavior, regardless of your reasons for doing so, you merit an afterlife according to your beliefs or philosophy.

    Read More
    • LOL: iffen
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey plontz,

    1. Morality – The universal eternal specific code of human behavior, whose source is the absolute authority known as god, and is equally binding upon all humans.
     
    I would agree with this - for us, it is called the Shariah (which linguistically means something along the lines of the 'well-trodden path').

    is uniquely Jewish
     
    No it is not, it is available to any people who received Divine guidance from prophets (who you recognize can come outside of your group). They may not have been able to preserve it as well, but that is a different question.

    The reason it exists is because we got to god first and he subsequently chose to reveal himself to us and use us to spread the knowledge around.
     
    You are talking about things you believe as if they are factually provable. You already acknowledge others can and did receive revelation, so what proof do you have that you were the first? Lack of evidence to the contrary is not proof. For instance in the Qur'an, it is stated that Abraham (pbuh) was given a written revelation - it is not around now, nor do we have proof for it other than the Qur'an mentioning it. You have zero evidence that the prophets sent to the North Americans or Europeans or East Asians did not precede the Abrahamic revelation, thus you have no proof He revealed Himself to Bani Israel first.

    So if a religion is based on the words of a true prophet it will contain a lot of truth, some of which might even be missing from Judaism.
     
    Exactly, which means that the claim to uniqueness doesn't hold up - though we will readily admit, even by our scripture, Bani Israel was granted many more well-known prophets than any other nation - so they are unique in that regard. Of course, we claim them too (along with any/all other historic prophets), but that's a separate issue.

    Other religions can also be true, but Jews are the pioneers and have a solid base, and we have top down knowledge from God rather than trying to put it together from scratch and maybe getting it wrong sometimes
     
    This is contradictory; if other religions are true (or fragments of them) then, by necessity, they too were given it directly from God and did not simply make it up. They may have screwed things up later, but we are talking about the source.

    but a secular philosophy that exists without being connected to the source of moral authority has shallow roots
     
    Will agree here.

    If you follow the basic rules of decent behavior, regardless of your reasons for doing so, you merit an afterlife according to your beliefs or philosophy.
     
    Interesting - so are you saying anyone can enter Paradise as long as they follow the 'golden rule'?

    Peace.

    Friendly note: I would avoid saying 'Jews did this...' and 'We Jews that...' - it is better to always give credit to God completely:
    "...And they shall say: 'Praise be to God, who hath guided us to this - never could we have found guidance, had it not been for the guidance of God. Indeed it was the truth that the messengers of our Lord brought to us..." (7:43)
  149. plontz says:
    @anarchyst
    God is not a real estate agent. The concept of Israel is of the mind and NOT a piece of land...

    “God is not a real estate agent. The concept of Israel is of the mind and NOT a piece of land…”

    God himself repeatedly, clearly, and unmistakably disagrees with you. Says so in the Bible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey plontz,

    Says so in the Bible.
     
    God Himself repeatedly, clearly, and unmistakably states the Bible is corrupted; says so in the Qur'an.

    Do you see how that works?

    Peace.
  150. Talha says:
    @plontz
    "God is not a real estate agent. The concept of Israel is of the mind and NOT a piece of land…"

    God himself repeatedly, clearly, and unmistakably disagrees with you. Says so in the Bible.

    Hey plontz,

    Says so in the Bible.

    God Himself repeatedly, clearly, and unmistakably states the Bible is corrupted; says so in the Qur’an.

    Do you see how that works?

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gabriel M
    I was under the impression that this is not taught in the Koran, but is rather an implication drawn from the fact that the Koran relates events also related in the Bible, but with numerous changes in detail. From my limited knowledge, In understand that the Koran testifies to the truth of the Torah and never once mentions it containing inaccuracies, which is kind of .... suspicious.

    I will add that to most people the concept of tahrif looks like a particularly obvious example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis that violates Occam Razor in a particularly obnoxious way. By the same logic, I can just claim that Muhammad really told everyone to be a Jew/Christian/Hindu/anything, but his followers perverted his message and introduced false teachings into the Koran and Hadith to cover their tracks. You can't prove me wrong, but you would obviously regard this argument as childish and inane.
  151. Talha says:
    @plontz
    "Chinese, Dharmic civilization of India, Mayans…please tell me you have heard of these people. Or are you saying they had no concept of ethics or morality?"

    I'm going to define two words. These definitions might not match the dictionary definition, but they will be useful for the purpose of this explanation:

    1. Morality - The universal eternal specific code of human behavior, whose source is the absolute authority known as god, and is equally binding upon all humans.
    2. Ethics - A human attempt to puzzle out morality based on our own intellect.

    There have been many great humans throughout history who achieved many great things in the area of ethics. They are wise. Their words should be studied and practiced. They should be respected. However, what they say is merely the best that human intellect has to offer. Often they hit the mark, but sometimes they can get things awfuly wrong. However, morality, that is actually knowing what the truth is and putting it into practice rather than theorizing about the truth without knowing, is uniquely Jewish. The reason it exists is because we got to god first and he subsequently chose to reveal himself to us and use us to spread the knowledge around. This doesn't mean that God couldn't or didn't reveal himself to other people around the world. We ourselves have documented at least 2 cases of true prophets who weren't Jews. Not to mention that people can simply find at least fragments of the truth on their own. All religions contain at least a fragment of the truth (and might even contain pieces that we are missing), and probably the more monotheistic they are the more truth they will contain. So if a religion is based on the words of a true prophet it will contain a lot of truth, some of which might even be missing from Judaism. It will probably also contain elements that only belong to the nation that created that religion, and probably, although not necessarily, also some false elements too. The difference with Judaism is that all other religions are based on an individual or a small group of individuals who then go and teach everyone else, while Judaism is based on the direct communication from God to the entire nation.

    tl;dr - Other religions can also be true, but Jews are the pioneers and have a solid base, and we have top down knowledge from God rather than trying to put it together from scratch and maybe getting it wrong sometimes (it doesn't mean we never get it wrong, but thankfully God set up a system for dealing with that too).

    "Based on common practice, I would say the commandments were meant to be applied only to the in-group. The universal application of morality, introduced by Plato and his successors, especially Immanuel Kant, is one of the pillars of Western (i.e., not Judeo-Christian) civilization."

    Jews are the pioneers championing the idea, and have a different set of rules that govern every tiny aspect of our lives. However the idea we are championing is not that everyone becomes like us, but that everyone becomes civilized. Christianity did a lot to promote this. So did some secular philosophies that developed independently of us, but a secular philosophy that exists without being connected to the source of moral authority has shallow roots and can be much more easily forgotten, warped, or discarded.

    The goal is to make the world civilized. The most important thing is that people behave morally. What their motivation for doing so is is a secondary issue at most. If people act morally because secular ethics teach them to do so, that's great! If they act morally because Christianity teaches them to be good and kind and compassionate, that's great! The only reason I'm getting into this argument rather than just leave Christians be to be the good faithful people that they are is because someone attacked Judaism for not conforming to Christianity.

    Just like what I said about the messiah, it's all about results. If you follow the basic rules of decent behavior, regardless of your reasons for doing so, you merit an afterlife according to your beliefs or philosophy.

    Hey plontz,

    1. Morality – The universal eternal specific code of human behavior, whose source is the absolute authority known as god, and is equally binding upon all humans.

    I would agree with this – for us, it is called the Shariah (which linguistically means something along the lines of the ‘well-trodden path’).

    is uniquely Jewish

    No it is not, it is available to any people who received Divine guidance from prophets (who you recognize can come outside of your group). They may not have been able to preserve it as well, but that is a different question.

    The reason it exists is because we got to god first and he subsequently chose to reveal himself to us and use us to spread the knowledge around.

    You are talking about things you believe as if they are factually provable. You already acknowledge others can and did receive revelation, so what proof do you have that you were the first? Lack of evidence to the contrary is not proof. For instance in the Qur’an, it is stated that Abraham (pbuh) was given a written revelation – it is not around now, nor do we have proof for it other than the Qur’an mentioning it. You have zero evidence that the prophets sent to the North Americans or Europeans or East Asians did not precede the Abrahamic revelation, thus you have no proof He revealed Himself to Bani Israel first.

    So if a religion is based on the words of a true prophet it will contain a lot of truth, some of which might even be missing from Judaism.

    Exactly, which means that the claim to uniqueness doesn’t hold up – though we will readily admit, even by our scripture, Bani Israel was granted many more well-known prophets than any other nation – so they are unique in that regard. Of course, we claim them too (along with any/all other historic prophets), but that’s a separate issue.

    Other religions can also be true, but Jews are the pioneers and have a solid base, and we have top down knowledge from God rather than trying to put it together from scratch and maybe getting it wrong sometimes

    This is contradictory; if other religions are true (or fragments of them) then, by necessity, they too were given it directly from God and did not simply make it up. They may have screwed things up later, but we are talking about the source.

    but a secular philosophy that exists without being connected to the source of moral authority has shallow roots

    Will agree here.

    If you follow the basic rules of decent behavior, regardless of your reasons for doing so, you merit an afterlife according to your beliefs or philosophy.

    Interesting – so are you saying anyone can enter Paradise as long as they follow the ‘golden rule’?

    Peace.

    Friendly note: I would avoid saying ‘Jews did this…’ and ‘We Jews that…’ – it is better to always give credit to God completely:
    “…And they shall say: ‘Praise be to God, who hath guided us to this – never could we have found guidance, had it not been for the guidance of God. Indeed it was the truth that the messengers of our Lord brought to us…” (7:43)

    Read More
    • Replies: @plontz
    I wasn't going to discuss Islam. Figured I'd leave you guys out of this. Oh, well.

    God Himself repeatedly, clearly, and unmistakably states the Bible is corrupted; says so in the Qur’an.

    Do you see how that works?
     
    I finally figured out how to use these blockquotes.

    Anyway, to the subject at hand:

    Muhammad was guy who went around telling self-glorifying stories with absolutely no evidence to back up any of his claims. The fact that people believed him is only a testament to his powers of persuasion, but says nothing of the truth of his claims. There is simply no reason for anyone at any point in history, not even for his original followers, to believe a word he says. People are just taking it all on a leap of faith. Furthermore, as Gabriel M says, some of Muhammad's stories are directly contradicted by established historical fact, giving us plenty of reason not to believe him. If we don't believe Muhammad, then we also don't believe the Qur'an. If there is no reason to believe that something is true, then it can't be used as evidence.

    No it is not, it is available to any people who received Divine guidance from prophets (who you recognize can come outside of your group). They may not have been able to preserve it as well, but that is a different question.
     
    The divine guidance provided by God to Israel is unique both quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitatively, just the number of prophets for which we have surviving records are numbered over 50, and there are many more who received divine inspiration but weren't considered formally as prophets, not to mention records of a huge multitude of prophets who didn't make it into the Bible (their message didn't add anything new compared to others, or it was only relevant to a specific situation).

    Qualitatively we've had the best prophets. Prophets who spoke directly with God as a man might speak face to face with another man. The most prominent is Moses, although Samuel and Elisa are said to be of the same level in prophecy, even though they fell short of Moses's standard in other areas.

    More than that, God gave us a subset of the truth that is very close to being the complete truth although not quite there.

    You are talking about things you believe as if they are factually provable. You already acknowledge others can and did receive revelation, so what proof do you have that you were the first? Lack of evidence to the contrary is not proof. For instance in the Qur’an, it is stated that Abraham (pbuh) was given a written revelation – it is not around now, nor do we have proof for it other than the Qur’an mentioning it. You have zero evidence that the prophets sent to the North Americans or Europeans or East Asians did not precede the Abrahamic revelation, thus you have no proof He revealed Himself to Bani Israel first.
     
    Maybe I should stop trying to be simplistic, but writing everything out takes a lot of effort.

    I talk as if everything I say is fact because I believe in it. Why do I believe? Is it that I want not to believe yet believe anyway despite myself, or do I want to believe yet still suffer from doubt? I'm not sure. In any case Judaism has the firmest foundation in evidence out of all religions, but the evidence is not so airtight as to close the door on disbelief. If you don't want to believe, then you will find rational justification. If you do want to believe, you will find rational justification. However, if you doubt Judaism then you should definitely disbelieve everything else because all other religions have a very weak foundation, and I've already explained this specifically regarding Islam.

    Now to the second part of being simplistic: Judaism is, contrary to what I said in the previous comment, not "first". According to Judaism humanity started out with a direct relationship with God and then grew distant and its understanding of God became warped until almost all people forgot God and became pagan. There were a few people who still remembered and kept the faith and they tried to teach others, but it didn't hold. Abraham was born to this line of people who kept the faith, but his own father turned away from it and became a priest to an idol. That's the kind of house that Abraham was born into, and yet with his own intellect he discovered God without any background. It's this quality that caused him to become chosen for the purpose of reigniting the spark. Abraham had many children who spread far and wide, including many that he sent "to the east to the land of the people of the east", which, coincidence or not, is an event that happened roughly at the same time that monotheism first appeared in the East Asia.

    Abraham wasn't the only person worshiping God during his time. There were others who are also recorded as knowing about God and practicing semi-monotheistic religions, although it seems that pure monotheism was somewhere between rare to extinct. Abraham is recorded as having many followers, but there is no record of those followers after his death. He fought a war and won, but conquered nothing and did not even keep the spoils.

    It is possible that prophets and philosophers appeared in various places around the world and reintroduced the truth to people, but whether it's the quantity, quality, staying power, or mission focus, it's just not the same and I'm not sure that there's any record of anything like that that predates Abraham. It could have happened. There's no reason to think it didn't. It's just that if it did happen it didn't survive or leave enough of an impression. Furthermore, God says that his relationship with Israel, his communication with us, and the miracles he performed for us are unique.

    Exactly, which means that the claim to uniqueness doesn’t hold up – though we will readily admit, even by our scripture, Bani Israel was granted many more well-known prophets than any other nation – so they are unique in that regard. Of course, we claim them too (along with any/all other historic prophets), but that’s a separate issue.
     
    Cultural appropriation doesn't make things yours and it's offensive. I don't know why Ishmaelites, with all that they have to be proud for, still feel a need to take credit for other people's achievements. The rest has been addressed above.

    This is contradictory; if other religions are true (or fragments of them) then, by necessity, they too were given it directly from God and did not simply make it up. They may have screwed things up later, but we are talking about the source.
     
    Humans are a combination of the physical and metaphisical (or spiritual and and material, whichever you prefer). This means that we can use the part of us that is divine to grasp a minuscule part of the divine. Whether we achieve this through our intellect or some other means is not really important, the important point is that philosophers, prophets, and even barbarians can realize parts of the truth then bring them to the people. Even if someone invents a false religion, that religion will likely contain truth just in order to be believable and appealing, not to mention people who have actual contact with the divine.

    There are two directions of communication: a human reaching up to the divine and managing to grasp a tiny piece of it, and God contacting a human and sending him information. Sometimes you reach for the divine and the divine then reaches back for you.

    Interesting – so are you saying anyone can enter Paradise as long as they follow the ‘golden rule’?
     
    I'm not sure what the term 'golden rule' means, but there is a set of rules that we believe were given by God to all mankind and that any who follow these rules merit an afterlife, regardless of the reason behind their compliance. Whether they do it because their own intellect tells them that it how they should behave, or whether they believe that God commanded it. There are some hints about these rules in scripture, but most of it is in the oral tradition (not that it matters). Islam includes all of these rules, so therefor a good Muslim goes to heaven. Christianity more or less includes them as a kind of vague recommendation, so good Christians will probably go to heaven too.

    Islam seems like a good religion. It just needs to stop being imperialistic and stop rewriting history. It may be almost accidental, but it is a manifestation of a big chunk of truth.

    Friendly note: I would avoid saying ‘Jews did this…’ and ‘We Jews that…’ – it is better to always give credit to God completely
     
    That's a nice piece of friendly advice. Thanks. However, realistically I'm not going to change the way I talk. To me the terms "according to Judaism" and "according to God" are interchangeable in the context of religion, because when using the term "Judaism" as something that refers to a religion it just means "what God taught the nation of Israel". Maybe talking like this is offensive or off-putting, but I'd be far more offended by the rest of what I'm saying than by a poor choice of words.
  152. Gabriel M says:
    @Talha
    Hey plontz,

    Says so in the Bible.
     
    God Himself repeatedly, clearly, and unmistakably states the Bible is corrupted; says so in the Qur'an.

    Do you see how that works?

    Peace.

    I was under the impression that this is not taught in the Koran, but is rather an implication drawn from the fact that the Koran relates events also related in the Bible, but with numerous changes in detail. From my limited knowledge, In understand that the Koran testifies to the truth of the Torah and never once mentions it containing inaccuracies, which is kind of …. suspicious.

    I will add that to most people the concept of tahrif looks like a particularly obvious example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis that violates Occam Razor in a particularly obnoxious way. By the same logic, I can just claim that Muhammad really told everyone to be a Jew/Christian/Hindu/anything, but his followers perverted his message and introduced false teachings into the Koran and Hadith to cover their tracks. You can’t prove me wrong, but you would obviously regard this argument as childish and inane.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Gabriel,

    No need to take it personally - I was responding that if someone makes a claim to land by virtue of something based on belief (God says so), it can be refuted based on belief (God says so).

    As to the details...Islam, makes it clear that it is meant to correct problems in the earlier revelations - that was the whole point of it; to bring things full circle. The Qur'an both makes it clear that the earlier revelations were indeed from God and confirms them, but that there were parts that were forgotten/lost or changed/corrupted.

    the concept of tahrif
     
    The Bible says things like the prophet Lot (pbuh) committed drunken incest with his daughters. I'm asking, how are we Muslims supposed to square the circle that (one of the principle beliefs we hold) the emissaries of God (all of them, including Lot [pbuh]) are infallible, honest and upright? If they aren't and are capable of immorality/dishonesty - if there is even a question about this - kiss the foundations of your revelation goodbye - this is simple epistemology.

    As far as falsifiable hypothesis - look, if people are going to claim something is from unequivocally from God (from cover to cover), the burden is on them to produce evidence that it was at least transmitted soundly and they didn't make errors in it. As you know there was quite a few centuries of gap between when the revelation came to Moses (pbuh) and when it is compiled in its current form. Now if one wants to believe that nothing went awry in between, that's cool with us:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/05/130530-worlds-oldest-torah-scroll-bible-bologna-carbon-dating/

    Does Occam's Razor really state that the simplest explanation for someone claiming a book is from God and preserved exactly for 3000+ years is that it is?

    You can’t prove me wrong, but you would obviously regard this argument as childish and inane.
     
    I actually don't find it to be inane - it is a legitimate question. How do we know the Qur'an was preserved? I would submit that, yes, in order to believe in the Qur'an, you have to believe that the first few generations of scholars were upright individuals - otherwise, there is no foundation for us to stand on - Qur'an, Hadith, anything - period. These things did not just fall out of the sky into our hands. One of the important stages of our history was the process of sifting through sound, unsound, weak and fabricated hadith. The scholars developed a specific science just to figure out who could be reliably transmitted from:
    http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e1010

    The preservation of the Qur'an (assuming you believe in the honesty of that first generation) was meticulous - they even transmitted and preserved the way it is pronounced (and the variations in which it is pronounced) - we don't even have any confidence that we pronounce any letter of English the way Shakespeare did because nobody cared to preserve its phonetic sound or intonation. One can get an ijazah (certification) in the valid pronunciation(s) which is part of a human chain that must trace itself back to the Prophet (pbuh):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N99geG0zUsc
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQcsOmNrX8A

    To be completely honest, if we were to apply our rules of preservation to any other tradition, it wouldn't pass, so I'm not sure it's fair that we have developed a set of rules and try to apply them backwards to other traditions. Of course, that also means we can't consider them reliable according to our standards.

    Peace.
  153. plontz says:
    @Talha
    Hey plontz,

    1. Morality – The universal eternal specific code of human behavior, whose source is the absolute authority known as god, and is equally binding upon all humans.
     
    I would agree with this - for us, it is called the Shariah (which linguistically means something along the lines of the 'well-trodden path').

    is uniquely Jewish
     
    No it is not, it is available to any people who received Divine guidance from prophets (who you recognize can come outside of your group). They may not have been able to preserve it as well, but that is a different question.

    The reason it exists is because we got to god first and he subsequently chose to reveal himself to us and use us to spread the knowledge around.
     
    You are talking about things you believe as if they are factually provable. You already acknowledge others can and did receive revelation, so what proof do you have that you were the first? Lack of evidence to the contrary is not proof. For instance in the Qur'an, it is stated that Abraham (pbuh) was given a written revelation - it is not around now, nor do we have proof for it other than the Qur'an mentioning it. You have zero evidence that the prophets sent to the North Americans or Europeans or East Asians did not precede the Abrahamic revelation, thus you have no proof He revealed Himself to Bani Israel first.

    So if a religion is based on the words of a true prophet it will contain a lot of truth, some of which might even be missing from Judaism.
     
    Exactly, which means that the claim to uniqueness doesn't hold up - though we will readily admit, even by our scripture, Bani Israel was granted many more well-known prophets than any other nation - so they are unique in that regard. Of course, we claim them too (along with any/all other historic prophets), but that's a separate issue.

    Other religions can also be true, but Jews are the pioneers and have a solid base, and we have top down knowledge from God rather than trying to put it together from scratch and maybe getting it wrong sometimes
     
    This is contradictory; if other religions are true (or fragments of them) then, by necessity, they too were given it directly from God and did not simply make it up. They may have screwed things up later, but we are talking about the source.

    but a secular philosophy that exists without being connected to the source of moral authority has shallow roots
     
    Will agree here.

    If you follow the basic rules of decent behavior, regardless of your reasons for doing so, you merit an afterlife according to your beliefs or philosophy.
     
    Interesting - so are you saying anyone can enter Paradise as long as they follow the 'golden rule'?

    Peace.

    Friendly note: I would avoid saying 'Jews did this...' and 'We Jews that...' - it is better to always give credit to God completely:
    "...And they shall say: 'Praise be to God, who hath guided us to this - never could we have found guidance, had it not been for the guidance of God. Indeed it was the truth that the messengers of our Lord brought to us..." (7:43)

    I wasn’t going to discuss Islam. Figured I’d leave you guys out of this. Oh, well.

    God Himself repeatedly, clearly, and unmistakably states the Bible is corrupted; says so in the Qur’an.

    Do you see how that works?

    I finally figured out how to use these blockquotes.

    Anyway, to the subject at hand:

    Muhammad was guy who went around telling self-glorifying stories with absolutely no evidence to back up any of his claims. The fact that people believed him is only a testament to his powers of persuasion, but says nothing of the truth of his claims. There is simply no reason for anyone at any point in history, not even for his original followers, to believe a word he says. People are just taking it all on a leap of faith. Furthermore, as Gabriel M says, some of Muhammad’s stories are directly contradicted by established historical fact, giving us plenty of reason not to believe him. If we don’t believe Muhammad, then we also don’t believe the Qur’an. If there is no reason to believe that something is true, then it can’t be used as evidence.

    No it is not, it is available to any people who received Divine guidance from prophets (who you recognize can come outside of your group). They may not have been able to preserve it as well, but that is a different question.

    The divine guidance provided by God to Israel is unique both quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitatively, just the number of prophets for which we have surviving records are numbered over 50, and there are many more who received divine inspiration but weren’t considered formally as prophets, not to mention records of a huge multitude of prophets who didn’t make it into the Bible (their message didn’t add anything new compared to others, or it was only relevant to a specific situation).

    Qualitatively we’ve had the best prophets. Prophets who spoke directly with God as a man might speak face to face with another man. The most prominent is Moses, although Samuel and Elisa are said to be of the same level in prophecy, even though they fell short of Moses’s standard in other areas.

    More than that, God gave us a subset of the truth that is very close to being the complete truth although not quite there.

    You are talking about things you believe as if they are factually provable. You already acknowledge others can and did receive revelation, so what proof do you have that you were the first? Lack of evidence to the contrary is not proof. For instance in the Qur’an, it is stated that Abraham (pbuh) was given a written revelation – it is not around now, nor do we have proof for it other than the Qur’an mentioning it. You have zero evidence that the prophets sent to the North Americans or Europeans or East Asians did not precede the Abrahamic revelation, thus you have no proof He revealed Himself to Bani Israel first.

    Maybe I should stop trying to be simplistic, but writing everything out takes a lot of effort.

    I talk as if everything I say is fact because I believe in it. Why do I believe? Is it that I want not to believe yet believe anyway despite myself, or do I want to believe yet still suffer from doubt? I’m not sure. In any case Judaism has the firmest foundation in evidence out of all religions, but the evidence is not so airtight as to close the door on disbelief. If you don’t want to believe, then you will find rational justification. If you do want to believe, you will find rational justification. However, if you doubt Judaism then you should definitely disbelieve everything else because all other religions have a very weak foundation, and I’ve already explained this specifically regarding Islam.

    Now to the second part of being simplistic: Judaism is, contrary to what I said in the previous comment, not “first”. According to Judaism humanity started out with a direct relationship with God and then grew distant and its understanding of God became warped until almost all people forgot God and became pagan. There were a few people who still remembered and kept the faith and they tried to teach others, but it didn’t hold. Abraham was born to this line of people who kept the faith, but his own father turned away from it and became a priest to an idol. That’s the kind of house that Abraham was born into, and yet with his own intellect he discovered God without any background. It’s this quality that caused him to become chosen for the purpose of reigniting the spark. Abraham had many children who spread far and wide, including many that he sent “to the east to the land of the people of the east”, which, coincidence or not, is an event that happened roughly at the same time that monotheism first appeared in the East Asia.

    Abraham wasn’t the only person worshiping God during his time. There were others who are also recorded as knowing about God and practicing semi-monotheistic religions, although it seems that pure monotheism was somewhere between rare to extinct. Abraham is recorded as having many followers, but there is no record of those followers after his death. He fought a war and won, but conquered nothing and did not even keep the spoils.

    It is possible that prophets and philosophers appeared in various places around the world and reintroduced the truth to people, but whether it’s the quantity, quality, staying power, or mission focus, it’s just not the same and I’m not sure that there’s any record of anything like that that predates Abraham. It could have happened. There’s no reason to think it didn’t. It’s just that if it did happen it didn’t survive or leave enough of an impression. Furthermore, God says that his relationship with Israel, his communication with us, and the miracles he performed for us are unique.

    Exactly, which means that the claim to uniqueness doesn’t hold up – though we will readily admit, even by our scripture, Bani Israel was granted many more well-known prophets than any other nation – so they are unique in that regard. Of course, we claim them too (along with any/all other historic prophets), but that’s a separate issue.

    Cultural appropriation doesn’t make things yours and it’s offensive. I don’t know why Ishmaelites, with all that they have to be proud for, still feel a need to take credit for other people’s achievements. The rest has been addressed above.

    This is contradictory; if other religions are true (or fragments of them) then, by necessity, they too were given it directly from God and did not simply make it up. They may have screwed things up later, but we are talking about the source.

    Humans are a combination of the physical and metaphisical (or spiritual and and material, whichever you prefer). This means that we can use the part of us that is divine to grasp a minuscule part of the divine. Whether we achieve this through our intellect or some other means is not really important, the important point is that philosophers, prophets, and even barbarians can realize parts of the truth then bring them to the people. Even if someone invents a false religion, that religion will likely contain truth just in order to be believable and appealing, not to mention people who have actual contact with the divine.

    There are two directions of communication: a human reaching up to the divine and managing to grasp a tiny piece of it, and God contacting a human and sending him information. Sometimes you reach for the divine and the divine then reaches back for you.

    Interesting – so are you saying anyone can enter Paradise as long as they follow the ‘golden rule’?

    I’m not sure what the term ‘golden rule’ means, but there is a set of rules that we believe were given by God to all mankind and that any who follow these rules merit an afterlife, regardless of the reason behind their compliance. Whether they do it because their own intellect tells them that it how they should behave, or whether they believe that God commanded it. There are some hints about these rules in scripture, but most of it is in the oral tradition (not that it matters). Islam includes all of these rules, so therefor a good Muslim goes to heaven. Christianity more or less includes them as a kind of vague recommendation, so good Christians will probably go to heaven too.

    Islam seems like a good religion. It just needs to stop being imperialistic and stop rewriting history. It may be almost accidental, but it is a manifestation of a big chunk of truth.

    Friendly note: I would avoid saying ‘Jews did this…’ and ‘We Jews that…’ – it is better to always give credit to God completely

    That’s a nice piece of friendly advice. Thanks. However, realistically I’m not going to change the way I talk. To me the terms “according to Judaism” and “according to God” are interchangeable in the context of religion, because when using the term “Judaism” as something that refers to a religion it just means “what God taught the nation of Israel”. Maybe talking like this is offensive or off-putting, but I’d be far more offended by the rest of what I’m saying than by a poor choice of words.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey plontz,

    There is simply no reason for anyone at any point in history, not even for his original followers, to believe a word he says.
     
    Yeah - transcendental monotheism - pfffssshhh, who needs that? Arab Paganism is so much more retro.

    People are just taking it all on a leap of faith.
     
    Sure - same as you. Somebody comes and says 'God (or an angel) spoke to me' - what're you going to do? That's what belief is about.

    some of Muhammad’s stories are directly contradicted by established historical fact
     
    I've seen some polemics like this - I've never seen a convincing one though - post one, I'd like to take a look.

    Speaking of historical fact...I assume you've come across this and believe it:
    “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.” – Genesis 17:20

    Historically, can you tell me who else this 'great nation' could be out of the line of Ishmael (pbuh) - and what does God mean when He says 'great nation' in the context of a promise of 'surely blessing' someone?


    If there is no reason to believe that something is true, then it can’t be used as evidence.
     
    Agreed.

    all other religions have a very weak foundation, and I’ve already explained this specifically regarding Islam
     
    OK - last time I checked (and it surprises me still), our numbers are ticking higher - even in the post-modern era. You don't seem to think we have much to offer, that's fine. Plenty of intelligent people in the West seem to be throwing their lot with Bani Ishmael - we're also getting not a few from Bani Isaac. But mostly this is a heart thing - the appeal to a universal brotherhood and a God who doesn't pick favorites is quite appealing (well, unless you say you are the favorites).

    No disagreements about the stature of the prophet Abraham (pbuh) in the eyes of God. He is both called the 'close friend' of God and that he was himself a 'nation'. It is funny though, you give credit to his intellect, while in the Qur'an he gives credit to God for guidance:
    "And his people argued with him. He said, 'Do you argue with me concerning God while He has guided me? And I fear not what you associate with Him [and will not be harmed] unless my Lord should will something. My Lord encompasses all things in knowledge; then will you not take heed?' (6:80)


    Cultural appropriation doesn’t make things yours and it’s offensive.
     
    Tell it to SJW's - they'll get you a coffee mug or something. My eldest son is named Zakariya - do I have to pay a toll?

    I don’t know why Ishmaelites, with all that they have to be proud for, still feel a need to take credit for other people’s achievements.
     
    We don't - they are God's achievements - always have been. We are the khudaam (attendants) of the prophets (all of them) - the fact that they happen to come from one or another people is incidental. You keep saying ours, ours, ours - while we say these noble men are the inheritance of the world. This is the reason why Malays and Chechens name their children Maryam and Dawood.

    Sometimes you reach for the divine and the divine then reaches back for you.
     
    Agreed.

    It may be almost accidental, but it is a manifestation of a big chunk of truth.
     
    Nothing accidental about it as far as we're concerned - "surely bless" "great nation". :)

    Peace.

  154. Talha says:
    @Gabriel M
    I was under the impression that this is not taught in the Koran, but is rather an implication drawn from the fact that the Koran relates events also related in the Bible, but with numerous changes in detail. From my limited knowledge, In understand that the Koran testifies to the truth of the Torah and never once mentions it containing inaccuracies, which is kind of .... suspicious.

    I will add that to most people the concept of tahrif looks like a particularly obvious example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis that violates Occam Razor in a particularly obnoxious way. By the same logic, I can just claim that Muhammad really told everyone to be a Jew/Christian/Hindu/anything, but his followers perverted his message and introduced false teachings into the Koran and Hadith to cover their tracks. You can't prove me wrong, but you would obviously regard this argument as childish and inane.

    Hey Gabriel,

    No need to take it personally – I was responding that if someone makes a claim to land by virtue of something based on belief (God says so), it can be refuted based on belief (God says so).

    As to the details…Islam, makes it clear that it is meant to correct problems in the earlier revelations – that was the whole point of it; to bring things full circle. The Qur’an both makes it clear that the earlier revelations were indeed from God and confirms them, but that there were parts that were forgotten/lost or changed/corrupted.

    the concept of tahrif

    The Bible says things like the prophet Lot (pbuh) committed drunken incest with his daughters. I’m asking, how are we Muslims supposed to square the circle that (one of the principle beliefs we hold) the emissaries of God (all of them, including Lot [pbuh]) are infallible, honest and upright? If they aren’t and are capable of immorality/dishonesty – if there is even a question about this – kiss the foundations of your revelation goodbye – this is simple epistemology.

    As far as falsifiable hypothesis – look, if people are going to claim something is from unequivocally from God (from cover to cover), the burden is on them to produce evidence that it was at least transmitted soundly and they didn’t make errors in it. As you know there was quite a few centuries of gap between when the revelation came to Moses (pbuh) and when it is compiled in its current form. Now if one wants to believe that nothing went awry in between, that’s cool with us:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/05/130530-worlds-oldest-torah-scroll-bible-bologna-carbon-dating/

    Does Occam’s Razor really state that the simplest explanation for someone claiming a book is from God and preserved exactly for 3000+ years is that it is?

    You can’t prove me wrong, but you would obviously regard this argument as childish and inane.

    I actually don’t find it to be inane – it is a legitimate question. How do we know the Qur’an was preserved? I would submit that, yes, in order to believe in the Qur’an, you have to believe that the first few generations of scholars were upright individuals – otherwise, there is no foundation for us to stand on – Qur’an, Hadith, anything – period. These things did not just fall out of the sky into our hands. One of the important stages of our history was the process of sifting through sound, unsound, weak and fabricated hadith. The scholars developed a specific science just to figure out who could be reliably transmitted from:

    http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e1010

    The preservation of the Qur’an (assuming you believe in the honesty of that first generation) was meticulous – they even transmitted and preserved the way it is pronounced (and the variations in which it is pronounced) – we don’t even have any confidence that we pronounce any letter of English the way Shakespeare did because nobody cared to preserve its phonetic sound or intonation. One can get an ijazah (certification) in the valid pronunciation(s) which is part of a human chain that must trace itself back to the Prophet (pbuh):

    To be completely honest, if we were to apply our rules of preservation to any other tradition, it wouldn’t pass, so I’m not sure it’s fair that we have developed a set of rules and try to apply them backwards to other traditions. Of course, that also means we can’t consider them reliable according to our standards.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Talha,

    Do you actually believe that there is secular "proof" for your beliefs?
    , @Gabriel M
    Just to be clear, is there a single text anywhere in the Koran that says the Torah (or the Christian Bible for that matter) has been corrupted, or is it a belief introduced later when it became clear that it was impossible to reconcile the Koran with the Torah?


    I’m asking, how are we Muslims supposed to square the circle that (one of the principle beliefs we hold) the emissaries of God (all of them, including Lot [pbuh]) are infallible, honest and upright?
     
    Well, no offense, but you seem to manage fine with Muhammad.
  155. Talha says:
    @plontz
    I wasn't going to discuss Islam. Figured I'd leave you guys out of this. Oh, well.

    God Himself repeatedly, clearly, and unmistakably states the Bible is corrupted; says so in the Qur’an.

    Do you see how that works?
     
    I finally figured out how to use these blockquotes.

    Anyway, to the subject at hand:

    Muhammad was guy who went around telling self-glorifying stories with absolutely no evidence to back up any of his claims. The fact that people believed him is only a testament to his powers of persuasion, but says nothing of the truth of his claims. There is simply no reason for anyone at any point in history, not even for his original followers, to believe a word he says. People are just taking it all on a leap of faith. Furthermore, as Gabriel M says, some of Muhammad's stories are directly contradicted by established historical fact, giving us plenty of reason not to believe him. If we don't believe Muhammad, then we also don't believe the Qur'an. If there is no reason to believe that something is true, then it can't be used as evidence.

    No it is not, it is available to any people who received Divine guidance from prophets (who you recognize can come outside of your group). They may not have been able to preserve it as well, but that is a different question.
     
    The divine guidance provided by God to Israel is unique both quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitatively, just the number of prophets for which we have surviving records are numbered over 50, and there are many more who received divine inspiration but weren't considered formally as prophets, not to mention records of a huge multitude of prophets who didn't make it into the Bible (their message didn't add anything new compared to others, or it was only relevant to a specific situation).

    Qualitatively we've had the best prophets. Prophets who spoke directly with God as a man might speak face to face with another man. The most prominent is Moses, although Samuel and Elisa are said to be of the same level in prophecy, even though they fell short of Moses's standard in other areas.

    More than that, God gave us a subset of the truth that is very close to being the complete truth although not quite there.

    You are talking about things you believe as if they are factually provable. You already acknowledge others can and did receive revelation, so what proof do you have that you were the first? Lack of evidence to the contrary is not proof. For instance in the Qur’an, it is stated that Abraham (pbuh) was given a written revelation – it is not around now, nor do we have proof for it other than the Qur’an mentioning it. You have zero evidence that the prophets sent to the North Americans or Europeans or East Asians did not precede the Abrahamic revelation, thus you have no proof He revealed Himself to Bani Israel first.
     
    Maybe I should stop trying to be simplistic, but writing everything out takes a lot of effort.

    I talk as if everything I say is fact because I believe in it. Why do I believe? Is it that I want not to believe yet believe anyway despite myself, or do I want to believe yet still suffer from doubt? I'm not sure. In any case Judaism has the firmest foundation in evidence out of all religions, but the evidence is not so airtight as to close the door on disbelief. If you don't want to believe, then you will find rational justification. If you do want to believe, you will find rational justification. However, if you doubt Judaism then you should definitely disbelieve everything else because all other religions have a very weak foundation, and I've already explained this specifically regarding Islam.

    Now to the second part of being simplistic: Judaism is, contrary to what I said in the previous comment, not "first". According to Judaism humanity started out with a direct relationship with God and then grew distant and its understanding of God became warped until almost all people forgot God and became pagan. There were a few people who still remembered and kept the faith and they tried to teach others, but it didn't hold. Abraham was born to this line of people who kept the faith, but his own father turned away from it and became a priest to an idol. That's the kind of house that Abraham was born into, and yet with his own intellect he discovered God without any background. It's this quality that caused him to become chosen for the purpose of reigniting the spark. Abraham had many children who spread far and wide, including many that he sent "to the east to the land of the people of the east", which, coincidence or not, is an event that happened roughly at the same time that monotheism first appeared in the East Asia.

    Abraham wasn't the only person worshiping God during his time. There were others who are also recorded as knowing about God and practicing semi-monotheistic religions, although it seems that pure monotheism was somewhere between rare to extinct. Abraham is recorded as having many followers, but there is no record of those followers after his death. He fought a war and won, but conquered nothing and did not even keep the spoils.

    It is possible that prophets and philosophers appeared in various places around the world and reintroduced the truth to people, but whether it's the quantity, quality, staying power, or mission focus, it's just not the same and I'm not sure that there's any record of anything like that that predates Abraham. It could have happened. There's no reason to think it didn't. It's just that if it did happen it didn't survive or leave enough of an impression. Furthermore, God says that his relationship with Israel, his communication with us, and the miracles he performed for us are unique.

    Exactly, which means that the claim to uniqueness doesn’t hold up – though we will readily admit, even by our scripture, Bani Israel was granted many more well-known prophets than any other nation – so they are unique in that regard. Of course, we claim them too (along with any/all other historic prophets), but that’s a separate issue.
     
    Cultural appropriation doesn't make things yours and it's offensive. I don't know why Ishmaelites, with all that they have to be proud for, still feel a need to take credit for other people's achievements. The rest has been addressed above.

    This is contradictory; if other religions are true (or fragments of them) then, by necessity, they too were given it directly from God and did not simply make it up. They may have screwed things up later, but we are talking about the source.
     
    Humans are a combination of the physical and metaphisical (or spiritual and and material, whichever you prefer). This means that we can use the part of us that is divine to grasp a minuscule part of the divine. Whether we achieve this through our intellect or some other means is not really important, the important point is that philosophers, prophets, and even barbarians can realize parts of the truth then bring them to the people. Even if someone invents a false religion, that religion will likely contain truth just in order to be believable and appealing, not to mention people who have actual contact with the divine.

    There are two directions of communication: a human reaching up to the divine and managing to grasp a tiny piece of it, and God contacting a human and sending him information. Sometimes you reach for the divine and the divine then reaches back for you.

    Interesting – so are you saying anyone can enter Paradise as long as they follow the ‘golden rule’?
     
    I'm not sure what the term 'golden rule' means, but there is a set of rules that we believe were given by God to all mankind and that any who follow these rules merit an afterlife, regardless of the reason behind their compliance. Whether they do it because their own intellect tells them that it how they should behave, or whether they believe that God commanded it. There are some hints about these rules in scripture, but most of it is in the oral tradition (not that it matters). Islam includes all of these rules, so therefor a good Muslim goes to heaven. Christianity more or less includes them as a kind of vague recommendation, so good Christians will probably go to heaven too.

    Islam seems like a good religion. It just needs to stop being imperialistic and stop rewriting history. It may be almost accidental, but it is a manifestation of a big chunk of truth.

    Friendly note: I would avoid saying ‘Jews did this…’ and ‘We Jews that…’ – it is better to always give credit to God completely
     
    That's a nice piece of friendly advice. Thanks. However, realistically I'm not going to change the way I talk. To me the terms "according to Judaism" and "according to God" are interchangeable in the context of religion, because when using the term "Judaism" as something that refers to a religion it just means "what God taught the nation of Israel". Maybe talking like this is offensive or off-putting, but I'd be far more offended by the rest of what I'm saying than by a poor choice of words.

    Hey plontz,

    There is simply no reason for anyone at any point in history, not even for his original followers, to believe a word he says.

    Yeah – transcendental monotheism – pfffssshhh, who needs that? Arab Paganism is so much more retro.

    People are just taking it all on a leap of faith.

    Sure – same as you. Somebody comes and says ‘God (or an angel) spoke to me’ – what’re you going to do? That’s what belief is about.

    some of Muhammad’s stories are directly contradicted by established historical fact

    I’ve seen some polemics like this – I’ve never seen a convincing one though – post one, I’d like to take a look.

    Speaking of historical fact…I assume you’ve come across this and believe it:
    “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.” – Genesis 17:20

    Historically, can you tell me who else this ‘great nation’ could be out of the line of Ishmael (pbuh) – and what does God mean when He says ‘great nation’ in the context of a promise of ‘surely blessing’ someone?

    If there is no reason to believe that something is true, then it can’t be used as evidence.

    Agreed.

    all other religions have a very weak foundation, and I’ve already explained this specifically regarding Islam

    OK – last time I checked (and it surprises me still), our numbers are ticking higher – even in the post-modern era. You don’t seem to think we have much to offer, that’s fine. Plenty of intelligent people in the West seem to be throwing their lot with Bani Ishmael – we’re also getting not a few from Bani Isaac. But mostly this is a heart thing – the appeal to a universal brotherhood and a God who doesn’t pick favorites is quite appealing (well, unless you say you are the favorites).

    No disagreements about the stature of the prophet Abraham (pbuh) in the eyes of God. He is both called the ‘close friend’ of God and that he was himself a ‘nation’. It is funny though, you give credit to his intellect, while in the Qur’an he gives credit to God for guidance:
    “And his people argued with him. He said, ‘Do you argue with me concerning God while He has guided me? And I fear not what you associate with Him [and will not be harmed] unless my Lord should will something. My Lord encompasses all things in knowledge; then will you not take heed?’ (6:80)

    Cultural appropriation doesn’t make things yours and it’s offensive.

    Tell it to SJW’s – they’ll get you a coffee mug or something. My eldest son is named Zakariya – do I have to pay a toll?

    I don’t know why Ishmaelites, with all that they have to be proud for, still feel a need to take credit for other people’s achievements.

    We don’t – they are God’s achievements – always have been. We are the khudaam (attendants) of the prophets (all of them) – the fact that they happen to come from one or another people is incidental. You keep saying ours, ours, ours – while we say these noble men are the inheritance of the world. This is the reason why Malays and Chechens name their children Maryam and Dawood.

    Sometimes you reach for the divine and the divine then reaches back for you.

    Agreed.

    It may be almost accidental, but it is a manifestation of a big chunk of truth.

    Nothing accidental about it as far as we’re concerned – “surely bless” “great nation”. :)

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Ahhh - but I really should quit - I am again getting far too deep into theological debate territory.

    Darn that slippery slope!
    , @plontz
    When I saw that you completely evaded my most fundamental argument on the issue and instead fell back to an argument you must already know is nonsensical I wanted to gloat over my triumph in this debate, but then I took a day to think about it and decided that I don't want to try to destroy your faith. However, I can't just let you walk away thinking that you've won, so I'll just quote the argument that you seem to be running away from:

    Muhammad was guy who went around telling self-glorifying stories with absolutely no evidence to back up any of his claims. The fact that people believed him is only a testament to his powers of persuasion, but says nothing of the truth of his claims. There is simply no reason for anyone at any point in history, not even for his original followers, to believe a word he says. People are just taking it all on a leap of faith. Furthermore, as Gabriel M says, some of Muhammad’s stories are directly contradicted by established historical fact, giving us plenty of reason not to believe him. If we don’t believe Muhammad, then we also don’t believe the Qur’an. If there is no reason to believe that something is true, then it can’t be used as evidence.
     
    As far as I'm concerned there are 2 ways to interpret Islam. One way is to interpret it based on its actions, which would then lead me to the conclusion that Muhammad cynically invented it for the purpose of gaining glory and power for himself. The second way is to say that he brought back God's teachings to the Ishmaelites but got carried away with his ego. It's up to the Muslims to decide which interpretation is closer to the historical truth.

    Saying that he got carried away with his ego is no insult, as we are all human and as humans are a combination of body and soul they are inherently imperfect and all will make mistakes or commit sins, even the greatest. The only ones who don't don't commit sins are those who do not have a soul, such as animals, or those who do not have a corporeal body, such as angels. As it says in the holy book: "There is not a righteous man in the land who will do good and not sin" - Righteous people commit sins too and that doesn't contradict their definition of being righteous. What then is the difference between the righteous and other people? "Seven times a righteous man will fall and rise", meaning that the righteous commit sins but don't give up and recover from them, as opposed to other people who give up and give themselves over to sin.

    Committing a sin, making a mistake, or giving in to your ego don't necessarily prevent you from being a great person, as long as you are able to recover and return to the struggle to achieve the unattainable perfection.

    I'm not sure I want to make any more points because I don't want to distract too much from the first point in this comment. If Islam is Muhammed being a messenger bringing "God's Teachings: The Ishmaelite Edition" to his people, then it can be a true religion and Muhammad can be a great person, but if Islam pretends to be a revision of God's teachings that replaces all that came before it and is destined to rule the world then it has no basis whatsoever and is a false religion.
  156. Talha says:
    @Talha
    Hey plontz,

    There is simply no reason for anyone at any point in history, not even for his original followers, to believe a word he says.
     
    Yeah - transcendental monotheism - pfffssshhh, who needs that? Arab Paganism is so much more retro.

    People are just taking it all on a leap of faith.
     
    Sure - same as you. Somebody comes and says 'God (or an angel) spoke to me' - what're you going to do? That's what belief is about.

    some of Muhammad’s stories are directly contradicted by established historical fact
     
    I've seen some polemics like this - I've never seen a convincing one though - post one, I'd like to take a look.

    Speaking of historical fact...I assume you've come across this and believe it:
    “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.” – Genesis 17:20

    Historically, can you tell me who else this 'great nation' could be out of the line of Ishmael (pbuh) - and what does God mean when He says 'great nation' in the context of a promise of 'surely blessing' someone?


    If there is no reason to believe that something is true, then it can’t be used as evidence.
     
    Agreed.

    all other religions have a very weak foundation, and I’ve already explained this specifically regarding Islam
     
    OK - last time I checked (and it surprises me still), our numbers are ticking higher - even in the post-modern era. You don't seem to think we have much to offer, that's fine. Plenty of intelligent people in the West seem to be throwing their lot with Bani Ishmael - we're also getting not a few from Bani Isaac. But mostly this is a heart thing - the appeal to a universal brotherhood and a God who doesn't pick favorites is quite appealing (well, unless you say you are the favorites).

    No disagreements about the stature of the prophet Abraham (pbuh) in the eyes of God. He is both called the 'close friend' of God and that he was himself a 'nation'. It is funny though, you give credit to his intellect, while in the Qur'an he gives credit to God for guidance:
    "And his people argued with him. He said, 'Do you argue with me concerning God while He has guided me? And I fear not what you associate with Him [and will not be harmed] unless my Lord should will something. My Lord encompasses all things in knowledge; then will you not take heed?' (6:80)


    Cultural appropriation doesn’t make things yours and it’s offensive.
     
    Tell it to SJW's - they'll get you a coffee mug or something. My eldest son is named Zakariya - do I have to pay a toll?

    I don’t know why Ishmaelites, with all that they have to be proud for, still feel a need to take credit for other people’s achievements.
     
    We don't - they are God's achievements - always have been. We are the khudaam (attendants) of the prophets (all of them) - the fact that they happen to come from one or another people is incidental. You keep saying ours, ours, ours - while we say these noble men are the inheritance of the world. This is the reason why Malays and Chechens name their children Maryam and Dawood.

    Sometimes you reach for the divine and the divine then reaches back for you.
     
    Agreed.

    It may be almost accidental, but it is a manifestation of a big chunk of truth.
     
    Nothing accidental about it as far as we're concerned - "surely bless" "great nation". :)

    Peace.

    Ahhh – but I really should quit – I am again getting far too deep into theological debate territory.

    Darn that slippery slope!

    Read More
  157. iffen says:
    @Talha
    Hey Gabriel,

    No need to take it personally - I was responding that if someone makes a claim to land by virtue of something based on belief (God says so), it can be refuted based on belief (God says so).

    As to the details...Islam, makes it clear that it is meant to correct problems in the earlier revelations - that was the whole point of it; to bring things full circle. The Qur'an both makes it clear that the earlier revelations were indeed from God and confirms them, but that there were parts that were forgotten/lost or changed/corrupted.

    the concept of tahrif
     
    The Bible says things like the prophet Lot (pbuh) committed drunken incest with his daughters. I'm asking, how are we Muslims supposed to square the circle that (one of the principle beliefs we hold) the emissaries of God (all of them, including Lot [pbuh]) are infallible, honest and upright? If they aren't and are capable of immorality/dishonesty - if there is even a question about this - kiss the foundations of your revelation goodbye - this is simple epistemology.

    As far as falsifiable hypothesis - look, if people are going to claim something is from unequivocally from God (from cover to cover), the burden is on them to produce evidence that it was at least transmitted soundly and they didn't make errors in it. As you know there was quite a few centuries of gap between when the revelation came to Moses (pbuh) and when it is compiled in its current form. Now if one wants to believe that nothing went awry in between, that's cool with us:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/05/130530-worlds-oldest-torah-scroll-bible-bologna-carbon-dating/

    Does Occam's Razor really state that the simplest explanation for someone claiming a book is from God and preserved exactly for 3000+ years is that it is?

    You can’t prove me wrong, but you would obviously regard this argument as childish and inane.
     
    I actually don't find it to be inane - it is a legitimate question. How do we know the Qur'an was preserved? I would submit that, yes, in order to believe in the Qur'an, you have to believe that the first few generations of scholars were upright individuals - otherwise, there is no foundation for us to stand on - Qur'an, Hadith, anything - period. These things did not just fall out of the sky into our hands. One of the important stages of our history was the process of sifting through sound, unsound, weak and fabricated hadith. The scholars developed a specific science just to figure out who could be reliably transmitted from:
    http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e1010

    The preservation of the Qur'an (assuming you believe in the honesty of that first generation) was meticulous - they even transmitted and preserved the way it is pronounced (and the variations in which it is pronounced) - we don't even have any confidence that we pronounce any letter of English the way Shakespeare did because nobody cared to preserve its phonetic sound or intonation. One can get an ijazah (certification) in the valid pronunciation(s) which is part of a human chain that must trace itself back to the Prophet (pbuh):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N99geG0zUsc
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQcsOmNrX8A

    To be completely honest, if we were to apply our rules of preservation to any other tradition, it wouldn't pass, so I'm not sure it's fair that we have developed a set of rules and try to apply them backwards to other traditions. Of course, that also means we can't consider them reliable according to our standards.

    Peace.

    Talha,

    Do you actually believe that there is secular “proof” for your beliefs?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    Rational proof? Sure.

    Empirical proof? No way!

    Let's see what the Qur'an has to say right from the get go:
    "Alif, Laam, Meem. This is the Book in which there is no doubt, a guidance for the God-conscious. Those who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them. And who believe in what has been revealed to you, and what was revealed before you, and of the Hereafter they are certain. These are upon guidance from their Lord, and it is these who are the successful." (2:1-5)

    It already makes belief in a bunch of empirically unverifiable things the requisite to get guidance from the Book. If you can't get past that hump - move along, move along.

    What I was getting at was, we have been blessed with the authenticity of our texts from an empirically verifiable standpoint more so than others. But we do have an unfair advantage; latest to come in the game, learning from mistakes of previous traditions, and immediately having a secure caliphate that ensured the first generation could implement the means to preserve the tradition helped massively - as opposed to, say, being scattered Christian communities that the Romans could kick around or burn down churches and writings.

    I dunno, maybe the Mormons would say they're top dog in this regard.

    Peace.

  158. Talha says:
    @iffen
    Talha,

    Do you actually believe that there is secular "proof" for your beliefs?

    Hey iffen,

    Rational proof? Sure.

    Empirical proof? No way!

    Let’s see what the Qur’an has to say right from the get go:
    “Alif, Laam, Meem. This is the Book in which there is no doubt, a guidance for the God-conscious. Those who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them. And who believe in what has been revealed to you, and what was revealed before you, and of the Hereafter they are certain. These are upon guidance from their Lord, and it is these who are the successful.” (2:1-5)

    It already makes belief in a bunch of empirically unverifiable things the requisite to get guidance from the Book. If you can’t get past that hump – move along, move along.

    What I was getting at was, we have been blessed with the authenticity of our texts from an empirically verifiable standpoint more so than others. But we do have an unfair advantage; latest to come in the game, learning from mistakes of previous traditions, and immediately having a secure caliphate that ensured the first generation could implement the means to preserve the tradition helped massively – as opposed to, say, being scattered Christian communities that the Romans could kick around or burn down churches and writings.

    I dunno, maybe the Mormons would say they’re top dog in this regard.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    the burden is on them to produce evidence that it was at least transmitted soundly

    Rational proof? Sure.

    Empirical proof? No way!

    What I was getting at was, we have been blessed with the authenticity of our texts from an empirically verifiable standpoint more so than others.

    The Bible can be taken on faith and interpreted rationally just like the Koran.

    You cannot use your assertions concerning the empirical support for your texts to make a superior claim over the faith and rationality of someone who has faith in the Bible. You can only say that I think that there is more empirical evidence for my texts than you have for yours. This assertion has no weight in regards to a faith-based rational interpretation of the texts. The faith is not on sounder ground because of empirical evidence. You keep wanting to mix the supernatural with the empirical, not kosher.

    I dunno, maybe the Mormons would say they’re top dog in this regard.

    Yes, Joe Smith made a really big mistake when he put those golden plates back into the ground. :)

  159. iffen says:
    @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    Rational proof? Sure.

    Empirical proof? No way!

    Let's see what the Qur'an has to say right from the get go:
    "Alif, Laam, Meem. This is the Book in which there is no doubt, a guidance for the God-conscious. Those who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them. And who believe in what has been revealed to you, and what was revealed before you, and of the Hereafter they are certain. These are upon guidance from their Lord, and it is these who are the successful." (2:1-5)

    It already makes belief in a bunch of empirically unverifiable things the requisite to get guidance from the Book. If you can't get past that hump - move along, move along.

    What I was getting at was, we have been blessed with the authenticity of our texts from an empirically verifiable standpoint more so than others. But we do have an unfair advantage; latest to come in the game, learning from mistakes of previous traditions, and immediately having a secure caliphate that ensured the first generation could implement the means to preserve the tradition helped massively - as opposed to, say, being scattered Christian communities that the Romans could kick around or burn down churches and writings.

    I dunno, maybe the Mormons would say they're top dog in this regard.

    Peace.

    the burden is on them to produce evidence that it was at least transmitted soundly

    Rational proof? Sure.

    Empirical proof? No way!

    What I was getting at was, we have been blessed with the authenticity of our texts from an empirically verifiable standpoint more so than others.

    The Bible can be taken on faith and interpreted rationally just like the Koran.

    You cannot use your assertions concerning the empirical support for your texts to make a superior claim over the faith and rationality of someone who has faith in the Bible. You can only say that I think that there is more empirical evidence for my texts than you have for yours. This assertion has no weight in regards to a faith-based rational interpretation of the texts. The faith is not on sounder ground because of empirical evidence. You keep wanting to mix the supernatural with the empirical, not kosher.

    I dunno, maybe the Mormons would say they’re top dog in this regard.

    Yes, Joe Smith made a really big mistake when he put those golden plates back into the ground. :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    You cannot use your assertions concerning the empirical support for your texts to make a superior claim over the faith and rationality of someone who has faith in the Bible.
     
    This is correct - which is why this whole thing started off with when I was simply making this statement earlier:
    "God Himself repeatedly, clearly, and unmistakably states the Bible is corrupted; says so in the Qur’an."

    To show how this statement could be challenged:
    "God himself repeatedly, clearly, and unmistakably disagrees with you. Says so in the Bible."

    Claim of faith challenged by claim of faith - no harm no foul.

    Peace.
  160. Talha says:
    @iffen
    the burden is on them to produce evidence that it was at least transmitted soundly

    Rational proof? Sure.

    Empirical proof? No way!

    What I was getting at was, we have been blessed with the authenticity of our texts from an empirically verifiable standpoint more so than others.

    The Bible can be taken on faith and interpreted rationally just like the Koran.

    You cannot use your assertions concerning the empirical support for your texts to make a superior claim over the faith and rationality of someone who has faith in the Bible. You can only say that I think that there is more empirical evidence for my texts than you have for yours. This assertion has no weight in regards to a faith-based rational interpretation of the texts. The faith is not on sounder ground because of empirical evidence. You keep wanting to mix the supernatural with the empirical, not kosher.

    I dunno, maybe the Mormons would say they’re top dog in this regard.

    Yes, Joe Smith made a really big mistake when he put those golden plates back into the ground. :)

    Hey iffen,

    You cannot use your assertions concerning the empirical support for your texts to make a superior claim over the faith and rationality of someone who has faith in the Bible.

    This is correct – which is why this whole thing started off with when I was simply making this statement earlier:
    “God Himself repeatedly, clearly, and unmistakably states the Bible is corrupted; says so in the Qur’an.”

    To show how this statement could be challenged:
    “God himself repeatedly, clearly, and unmistakably disagrees with you. Says so in the Bible.”

    Claim of faith challenged by claim of faith – no harm no foul.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    My mentioning of evidence of strength of texts was specifically in reference to how Muslims claim tahrif (distortion, alteration) in the earlier source texts (because we are in a unique position that we actually do believe they are from God, but that they are not reliable in current form). A claim that is absolutely not unique to us, but has been going on within Biblical scholarship itself.
  161. Talha says:
    @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    You cannot use your assertions concerning the empirical support for your texts to make a superior claim over the faith and rationality of someone who has faith in the Bible.
     
    This is correct - which is why this whole thing started off with when I was simply making this statement earlier:
    "God Himself repeatedly, clearly, and unmistakably states the Bible is corrupted; says so in the Qur’an."

    To show how this statement could be challenged:
    "God himself repeatedly, clearly, and unmistakably disagrees with you. Says so in the Bible."

    Claim of faith challenged by claim of faith - no harm no foul.

    Peace.

    My mentioning of evidence of strength of texts was specifically in reference to how Muslims claim tahrif (distortion, alteration) in the earlier source texts (because we are in a unique position that we actually do believe they are from God, but that they are not reliable in current form). A claim that is absolutely not unique to us, but has been going on within Biblical scholarship itself.

    Read More
  162. anarchyst says:

    If a country were hell-bent on genocide, WHY WOULD THEY KEEP RECORDS?? WHY would they build “camps” hundreds (if not thousands) of miles away with sanitary facilities, housing, recreational, medical and other ancillary facilities. Would it not have been easier to just “eliminate” them without going through all of this trouble? The jewish communist Bolsheviks did just that with the non-communist civilian populations of the conquered countries in the communist orbit.

    Something BIG “stinks” in this whole jewish “holocaust ™” deal. It is no secret that jewish Zionists made “deals” with the Nazis in order to make life “uncomfortable” for jewish Germans.

    The establishment of a “homeland” was a Zionist “dream” since the 1800s. What better way to encourage “emigration” to a barren land than to make things difficult for the “cream of German society” (jews)?? The TRUTH about the so-called jewish “holocaust ™” is out . . .

    The so-called jewish “holocaust ™” has been turned into a de-facto “religion” in which no deviation from orthodoxy is permitted. In fact, in most European countries, independent investigation into jewish “holocaust ™” truths is strictly forbidden under pain of fines and imprisonment. In the USA, things are not quite as bad, only job loss and personal and professional destruction at the hands of those of the “tribe” that FEAR the real truth of the jewish “holocaust ™” being exposed is evident.

    The truth about this minor event in human history will change much of the world’s perception about those that are using this event as a “cash cow” that “keeps on giving”. . . “there’s NO business like “SHOAH business”.

    Jewish complicity in this event is carefully “covered up”.

    It is curious to note that jewish interests will hunt down and imprison a 90 plus year-old German “camp guard” while looking the other way when their “own kind” was involved in truly brutal actions. Camp “capos” and “sonderkommandos” (who were primarily jewish) come to mind. Not one of these jewish “collaborators” has been brought to (jewish) justice. I guess blood is thicker than water.

    A good example of present-day censorship is the fate that awaits those that dare question “official” jewish “holocaust” orthodoxy. Most European countries have criminalized ANY line of thought that deviates from the “official” jewish “holocaust” story. WHY?? In fact, TRUTH is no defense when it comes to “all things holocaust”.

    Ask noted WW2 researcher David Irving, who was forced to recant TRUTH in order to avoid punishment. . .

    If people only knew of the planning that took place (among those of the “chosen”) to engineer the jewish “holocaust”, there would be a pogrom of massive size. You see, the jewish “holocaust” was necessary in order to force the establishment of a jewish state. In this case, the ENDS justified the MEANS. There have been many “holocausts” of much greater misery throughout human history, yet the jewish “holocaust” is the only one that counts . . .

    Look at the “commercialization” of the so-called jewish “holocaust ™” while the much larger communist (true) holocaust is conveniently forgotten. To assure a continuing supply of jewish “holocaust ™” “survivors”, jews are tattooing their ATM (oops, I mean “camp” numbers) on their children and grandchildren.

    Since the jews declared war on Germany in 1933 (yes, 1933), the Germans had no choice but to complete the Zionist plan of marginalizing German jews (to say the least).. This fulfilled the Zionist plan of “encouraging” German jews to emigrate to Palestine while making the world grant jews a “homeland” – Israel.

    Zionists have been predicting a jewish “homeland” for the last two-hundred years while predicting a “holocaust ™” of 6 million for the same amount of time. The ACTUAL number of non-combatant deaths in the European theater of operations is approximately 731,000, NOT 6 million (official International Red Cross figures).

    Regarding that “holocaust ™” “showplace” Auschwitz, there are engineering inconsistencies in the design of the so-called “gas chambers”. The doors are not of a gas-tight design; it would have been impossible to retrieve the bodies, and there is no means to ventilate the rooms after the so-called “gassing” took place”. From an engineering standpoint, these are very serious errors that would have caused the deaths of the “operators” of these supposed “gas chambers”.

    American execution expert, Fred Leuchter travelled to Auschwitz, surreptitiously obtained samples from the purported “gas chambers”, had them tested and published his results. The absence of methylene blue in ALL of the samples, save one, was PROOF that the “gas chambers” did not exist. The one positive sample was taken from a room used to disinfect clothing.

    Mr. Leuchter was rewarded for his search for TRUTH by his professional and personal character assassination by those of the “tribe”. He lost all of his federal and state contracts, and was prosecuted under an obscure Massachusetts “law” for “practicing engineering without a license” – a law which had never been used before or since. . .

    It is no secret that after WW2, the Soviets attempted to “create” the “death camps” for propaganda purposes.

    The engineering inconsistencies proves that these “death camps” were recreated for communist propaganda purposes. Germans were excellent engineers, and as such, would not have made the engineering “mistakes” that are evident.

    Yes, there was extreme deprivation and suffering–many people perished. However, the prime cause of death was typhus. As allied bombings destroyed most of the infrastructure, typhus was at epidemic levels. THIS is what caused the massive amounts of human deaths . . .NOT gassing.

    After the end of WW2, these same “camps” were used to intern German civilians. These German civilians were subject to much greater deprivation and suffering than the previous “occupants” of these “camps”. In fact, jews were controlling these camps, at the behest of the Allied forces, and were vicious in their treatment of those interned. In fact, the German civilians interned were defined as “disarmed enemy combatants” despite being civilians, so that Geneva Convention rules would not apply to them.

    In fact, it was JEWS that ran the internment camps after WW2. I guess vengeance was theirs, as the Germans made the jews WORK (manual labor in the camps) for the first time in their lives…

    Read More
  163. plontz says:
    @Talha
    Hey plontz,

    There is simply no reason for anyone at any point in history, not even for his original followers, to believe a word he says.
     
    Yeah - transcendental monotheism - pfffssshhh, who needs that? Arab Paganism is so much more retro.

    People are just taking it all on a leap of faith.
     
    Sure - same as you. Somebody comes and says 'God (or an angel) spoke to me' - what're you going to do? That's what belief is about.

    some of Muhammad’s stories are directly contradicted by established historical fact
     
    I've seen some polemics like this - I've never seen a convincing one though - post one, I'd like to take a look.

    Speaking of historical fact...I assume you've come across this and believe it:
    “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.” – Genesis 17:20

    Historically, can you tell me who else this 'great nation' could be out of the line of Ishmael (pbuh) - and what does God mean when He says 'great nation' in the context of a promise of 'surely blessing' someone?


    If there is no reason to believe that something is true, then it can’t be used as evidence.
     
    Agreed.

    all other religions have a very weak foundation, and I’ve already explained this specifically regarding Islam
     
    OK - last time I checked (and it surprises me still), our numbers are ticking higher - even in the post-modern era. You don't seem to think we have much to offer, that's fine. Plenty of intelligent people in the West seem to be throwing their lot with Bani Ishmael - we're also getting not a few from Bani Isaac. But mostly this is a heart thing - the appeal to a universal brotherhood and a God who doesn't pick favorites is quite appealing (well, unless you say you are the favorites).

    No disagreements about the stature of the prophet Abraham (pbuh) in the eyes of God. He is both called the 'close friend' of God and that he was himself a 'nation'. It is funny though, you give credit to his intellect, while in the Qur'an he gives credit to God for guidance:
    "And his people argued with him. He said, 'Do you argue with me concerning God while He has guided me? And I fear not what you associate with Him [and will not be harmed] unless my Lord should will something. My Lord encompasses all things in knowledge; then will you not take heed?' (6:80)


    Cultural appropriation doesn’t make things yours and it’s offensive.
     
    Tell it to SJW's - they'll get you a coffee mug or something. My eldest son is named Zakariya - do I have to pay a toll?

    I don’t know why Ishmaelites, with all that they have to be proud for, still feel a need to take credit for other people’s achievements.
     
    We don't - they are God's achievements - always have been. We are the khudaam (attendants) of the prophets (all of them) - the fact that they happen to come from one or another people is incidental. You keep saying ours, ours, ours - while we say these noble men are the inheritance of the world. This is the reason why Malays and Chechens name their children Maryam and Dawood.

    Sometimes you reach for the divine and the divine then reaches back for you.
     
    Agreed.

    It may be almost accidental, but it is a manifestation of a big chunk of truth.
     
    Nothing accidental about it as far as we're concerned - "surely bless" "great nation". :)

    Peace.

    When I saw that you completely evaded my most fundamental argument on the issue and instead fell back to an argument you must already know is nonsensical I wanted to gloat over my triumph in this debate, but then I took a day to think about it and decided that I don’t want to try to destroy your faith. However, I can’t just let you walk away thinking that you’ve won, so I’ll just quote the argument that you seem to be running away from:

    Muhammad was guy who went around telling self-glorifying stories with absolutely no evidence to back up any of his claims. The fact that people believed him is only a testament to his powers of persuasion, but says nothing of the truth of his claims. There is simply no reason for anyone at any point in history, not even for his original followers, to believe a word he says. People are just taking it all on a leap of faith. Furthermore, as Gabriel M says, some of Muhammad’s stories are directly contradicted by established historical fact, giving us plenty of reason not to believe him. If we don’t believe Muhammad, then we also don’t believe the Qur’an. If there is no reason to believe that something is true, then it can’t be used as evidence.

    As far as I’m concerned there are 2 ways to interpret Islam. One way is to interpret it based on its actions, which would then lead me to the conclusion that Muhammad cynically invented it for the purpose of gaining glory and power for himself. The second way is to say that he brought back God’s teachings to the Ishmaelites but got carried away with his ego. It’s up to the Muslims to decide which interpretation is closer to the historical truth.

    Saying that he got carried away with his ego is no insult, as we are all human and as humans are a combination of body and soul they are inherently imperfect and all will make mistakes or commit sins, even the greatest. The only ones who don’t don’t commit sins are those who do not have a soul, such as animals, or those who do not have a corporeal body, such as angels. As it says in the holy book: “There is not a righteous man in the land who will do good and not sin” – Righteous people commit sins too and that doesn’t contradict their definition of being righteous. What then is the difference between the righteous and other people? “Seven times a righteous man will fall and rise”, meaning that the righteous commit sins but don’t give up and recover from them, as opposed to other people who give up and give themselves over to sin.

    Committing a sin, making a mistake, or giving in to your ego don’t necessarily prevent you from being a great person, as long as you are able to recover and return to the struggle to achieve the unattainable perfection.

    I’m not sure I want to make any more points because I don’t want to distract too much from the first point in this comment. If Islam is Muhammed being a messenger bringing “God’s Teachings: The Ishmaelite Edition” to his people, then it can be a true religion and Muhammad can be a great person, but if Islam pretends to be a revision of God’s teachings that replaces all that came before it and is destined to rule the world then it has no basis whatsoever and is a false religion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey plontz,

    I don’t want to try to destroy your faith
     
    I would be worried if this was in your hands:
    "And had Allah willed, He could have made you (all) one nation, but He leaves astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. But you shall certainly be called to account for what you used to do." (16:93)

    the conclusion that Muhammad cynically invented it for the purpose of gaining glory and power for himself
     
    Hmmm...OK, even though he lived a completely spartan life and died in debt to a Jewish man for a loan for 30 measures of barley - even while he was the undisputed ruler of the Arabian peninsula?
    http://www.virtualmosque.com/personaldvlpt/character/the-prophet-and-food/
    http://lifeofprophet.com/the-bed-of-the-prophet/
    Yeah - really living it up there...

    The only ones who don’t don’t commit sins are those who...
     
    ...are prophets - fixed it for you.

    If you believe that your own prophets committed sins, you have no problem believing that other prophets could. For us, if a Muslim believes that any of the prophets could commit any sins - then he is no longer a Muslim; they can make mistakes, but sins are intentional disobedience of God. If they can disobey God, they can be treacherous and dishonest and lie about what God has communicated - there go the foundations of religion.

    Committing a sin, making a mistake, or giving in to your ego don’t necessarily prevent you from being a great person
     
    Yes, that is all fine for the rest of humanity - even the greatest saints.

    One way...The second way...It’s up to the Muslims to decide which interpretation is closer to the historical truth.
     
    Sorry, you don't get to offer up Coke and Pepsi and demand we choose when a third cola is around.

    If Islam is Muhammed being a messenger bringing “God’s Teachings: The Ishmaelite Edition” to his people, then it can be a true religion and Muhammad can be a great person
     
    Sorry, he stated that he came for all of mankind - you either accept that or reject it based on what he is reported to have said.

    a revision of God’s teachings that replaces all that came before it and is destined to rule the world then it has no basis whatsoever and is a false religion.
     
    Perhaps...or its claims are true and that is exactly what it is; God can update religion as He wishes. Plenty of people around the world (1.5 billion+) find this proposition to be quite sane and logical. Actually, plenty of people accepted the first revision too, from within Bani Is-haac - the Son of Mary (pbuh) - your viewpoint may actually be in the extreme minority, accounting for all human beings.

    Imam Ghazali (ra), in his deconstruction of the various philosophical schools, made it clear that claiming something doesn't make sense to one is not an argument - the proposition may well be ontologically correct and the person is simply unable to understand the premise.

    Now, can we quit while we're ahead and drop the theological debate? I'm not interested in winning.

    Peace.
  164. Gabriel M says:
    @Talha
    Hey Gabriel,

    No need to take it personally - I was responding that if someone makes a claim to land by virtue of something based on belief (God says so), it can be refuted based on belief (God says so).

    As to the details...Islam, makes it clear that it is meant to correct problems in the earlier revelations - that was the whole point of it; to bring things full circle. The Qur'an both makes it clear that the earlier revelations were indeed from God and confirms them, but that there were parts that were forgotten/lost or changed/corrupted.

    the concept of tahrif
     
    The Bible says things like the prophet Lot (pbuh) committed drunken incest with his daughters. I'm asking, how are we Muslims supposed to square the circle that (one of the principle beliefs we hold) the emissaries of God (all of them, including Lot [pbuh]) are infallible, honest and upright? If they aren't and are capable of immorality/dishonesty - if there is even a question about this - kiss the foundations of your revelation goodbye - this is simple epistemology.

    As far as falsifiable hypothesis - look, if people are going to claim something is from unequivocally from God (from cover to cover), the burden is on them to produce evidence that it was at least transmitted soundly and they didn't make errors in it. As you know there was quite a few centuries of gap between when the revelation came to Moses (pbuh) and when it is compiled in its current form. Now if one wants to believe that nothing went awry in between, that's cool with us:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/05/130530-worlds-oldest-torah-scroll-bible-bologna-carbon-dating/

    Does Occam's Razor really state that the simplest explanation for someone claiming a book is from God and preserved exactly for 3000+ years is that it is?

    You can’t prove me wrong, but you would obviously regard this argument as childish and inane.
     
    I actually don't find it to be inane - it is a legitimate question. How do we know the Qur'an was preserved? I would submit that, yes, in order to believe in the Qur'an, you have to believe that the first few generations of scholars were upright individuals - otherwise, there is no foundation for us to stand on - Qur'an, Hadith, anything - period. These things did not just fall out of the sky into our hands. One of the important stages of our history was the process of sifting through sound, unsound, weak and fabricated hadith. The scholars developed a specific science just to figure out who could be reliably transmitted from:
    http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e1010

    The preservation of the Qur'an (assuming you believe in the honesty of that first generation) was meticulous - they even transmitted and preserved the way it is pronounced (and the variations in which it is pronounced) - we don't even have any confidence that we pronounce any letter of English the way Shakespeare did because nobody cared to preserve its phonetic sound or intonation. One can get an ijazah (certification) in the valid pronunciation(s) which is part of a human chain that must trace itself back to the Prophet (pbuh):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N99geG0zUsc
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQcsOmNrX8A

    To be completely honest, if we were to apply our rules of preservation to any other tradition, it wouldn't pass, so I'm not sure it's fair that we have developed a set of rules and try to apply them backwards to other traditions. Of course, that also means we can't consider them reliable according to our standards.

    Peace.

    Just to be clear, is there a single text anywhere in the Koran that says the Torah (or the Christian Bible for that matter) has been corrupted, or is it a belief introduced later when it became clear that it was impossible to reconcile the Koran with the Torah?

    I’m asking, how are we Muslims supposed to square the circle that (one of the principle beliefs we hold) the emissaries of God (all of them, including Lot [pbuh]) are infallible, honest and upright?

    Well, no offense, but you seem to manage fine with Muhammad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Gabriel,

    Yes there is, just one example:
    "...they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them..." (5:13)

    And numerous hadith (which explain the Qur'an) ask us to take an agnostic view - for indeed it is a delicate dance; if one denies a verse in the Bible that is true inadvertently, one has made an offence to God:
    "The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: Whatever the people of the Book [Jews and Christians] tell you, do not verify them, nor falsify them, but say: We believe in Allah and His Messenger. If it is false, do not confirm it, and if it is right, do not falsify it." - reported in Abu Dawud

    "Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.'" - reported in Bukhari

    So - how do we determine what is true? Well, if it doesn't contradict the Qur'an, of course. :)

    Well, no offense, but you seem to manage fine with Muhammad.
     
    None taken. His life is literally an open book. He asked everyone to report everything about himself; not one human being is this well documented. In books like the Shama'il of Imam Tirmidhi (ra) he records hadith on how he ate grapes or how he leaned on a pillow. In fact, all external criticisms stem from scrutinizing the very same texts our scholars expended efforts to preserve. And his teachings preserve the honor and nobility of the prophets before him:
    "Both in this world and in the hereafter, I am the nearest of all the people to Jesus, the son of Mary (pbuh). The prophets are paternal brothers, their mothers are different but their religion is one." - reported in Bukhari

    Peace.
  165. Talha says:
    @Gabriel M
    Just to be clear, is there a single text anywhere in the Koran that says the Torah (or the Christian Bible for that matter) has been corrupted, or is it a belief introduced later when it became clear that it was impossible to reconcile the Koran with the Torah?


    I’m asking, how are we Muslims supposed to square the circle that (one of the principle beliefs we hold) the emissaries of God (all of them, including Lot [pbuh]) are infallible, honest and upright?
     
    Well, no offense, but you seem to manage fine with Muhammad.

    Hey Gabriel,

    Yes there is, just one example:
    “…they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them…” (5:13)

    And numerous hadith (which explain the Qur’an) ask us to take an agnostic view – for indeed it is a delicate dance; if one denies a verse in the Bible that is true inadvertently, one has made an offence to God:
    “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: Whatever the people of the Book [Jews and Christians] tell you, do not verify them, nor falsify them, but say: We believe in Allah and His Messenger. If it is false, do not confirm it, and if it is right, do not falsify it.” – reported in Abu Dawud

    “Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, ‘We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.’” – reported in Bukhari

    So – how do we determine what is true? Well, if it doesn’t contradict the Qur’an, of course. :)

    Well, no offense, but you seem to manage fine with Muhammad.

    None taken. His life is literally an open book. He asked everyone to report everything about himself; not one human being is this well documented. In books like the Shama’il of Imam Tirmidhi (ra) he records hadith on how he ate grapes or how he leaned on a pillow. In fact, all external criticisms stem from scrutinizing the very same texts our scholars expended efforts to preserve. And his teachings preserve the honor and nobility of the prophets before him:
    “Both in this world and in the hereafter, I am the nearest of all the people to Jesus, the son of Mary (pbuh). The prophets are paternal brothers, their mothers are different but their religion is one.” – reported in Bukhari

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gabriel M
    http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=13

    From what I can tell, most of the translations state that we perverted it through misinterpretation (which is something that Christians would agree with). Not a very good proof text.

    I will add that in the Midrashic tradition there are numerous cases of Biblical verses and passages being interpreted in very different, sometimes even opposite, manner to their plain meaning. Within Judaism some will obstinately defend these Midrashic readings as the *true* meaning of the text whereas others, myself included, interpret them as being homilies using the text as a springboard, but not intending to subvert the actual meaning of the text. It seems most likely that these Midrashim are what Muhammad was referring to.

    On this note, I will add that there are many Midrashic sources that try to whitewash Jewish figures, so that David, Reuven, Aaron, Yehuda etc. did not really sin, or at least, did not sin all that much. Often children (and in ultra-Orthodox communities even the adults) are only exposed to these whitewashed accounts. However, the strict prohibition we have on changing any word of the Tanakh has preserved the record of these figures in all their realistic complexity, for those who want to look. The Islamic claim that we falsified our sources to make our heroes look bad is thus almost the opposite of the truth.


    In fact, all external criticisms stem from scrutinizing the very same texts our scholars expended efforts to preserve.
     
    You are missing the point. In order to portray Muhammad as a good person you have to resort to a mixture of apologetic tactics. If you wanted to, you could do the same with any prophet. To take your example, Lot got drunk and unwittingly had sex whilst semi-comatose with his own daughters. So what? Muhammad has his child bride scrape semen off his clothes and had someone burned alive because he wouldn't tell him where to find some buried treasure. I'm pretty sure if you can justify the one, you can justify the other.
  166. Talha says:
    @plontz
    When I saw that you completely evaded my most fundamental argument on the issue and instead fell back to an argument you must already know is nonsensical I wanted to gloat over my triumph in this debate, but then I took a day to think about it and decided that I don't want to try to destroy your faith. However, I can't just let you walk away thinking that you've won, so I'll just quote the argument that you seem to be running away from:

    Muhammad was guy who went around telling self-glorifying stories with absolutely no evidence to back up any of his claims. The fact that people believed him is only a testament to his powers of persuasion, but says nothing of the truth of his claims. There is simply no reason for anyone at any point in history, not even for his original followers, to believe a word he says. People are just taking it all on a leap of faith. Furthermore, as Gabriel M says, some of Muhammad’s stories are directly contradicted by established historical fact, giving us plenty of reason not to believe him. If we don’t believe Muhammad, then we also don’t believe the Qur’an. If there is no reason to believe that something is true, then it can’t be used as evidence.
     
    As far as I'm concerned there are 2 ways to interpret Islam. One way is to interpret it based on its actions, which would then lead me to the conclusion that Muhammad cynically invented it for the purpose of gaining glory and power for himself. The second way is to say that he brought back God's teachings to the Ishmaelites but got carried away with his ego. It's up to the Muslims to decide which interpretation is closer to the historical truth.

    Saying that he got carried away with his ego is no insult, as we are all human and as humans are a combination of body and soul they are inherently imperfect and all will make mistakes or commit sins, even the greatest. The only ones who don't don't commit sins are those who do not have a soul, such as animals, or those who do not have a corporeal body, such as angels. As it says in the holy book: "There is not a righteous man in the land who will do good and not sin" - Righteous people commit sins too and that doesn't contradict their definition of being righteous. What then is the difference between the righteous and other people? "Seven times a righteous man will fall and rise", meaning that the righteous commit sins but don't give up and recover from them, as opposed to other people who give up and give themselves over to sin.

    Committing a sin, making a mistake, or giving in to your ego don't necessarily prevent you from being a great person, as long as you are able to recover and return to the struggle to achieve the unattainable perfection.

    I'm not sure I want to make any more points because I don't want to distract too much from the first point in this comment. If Islam is Muhammed being a messenger bringing "God's Teachings: The Ishmaelite Edition" to his people, then it can be a true religion and Muhammad can be a great person, but if Islam pretends to be a revision of God's teachings that replaces all that came before it and is destined to rule the world then it has no basis whatsoever and is a false religion.

    Hey plontz,

    I don’t want to try to destroy your faith

    I would be worried if this was in your hands:
    “And had Allah willed, He could have made you (all) one nation, but He leaves astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. But you shall certainly be called to account for what you used to do.” (16:93)

    the conclusion that Muhammad cynically invented it for the purpose of gaining glory and power for himself

    Hmmm…OK, even though he lived a completely spartan life and died in debt to a Jewish man for a loan for 30 measures of barley – even while he was the undisputed ruler of the Arabian peninsula?

    http://www.virtualmosque.com/personaldvlpt/character/the-prophet-and-food/

    http://lifeofprophet.com/the-bed-of-the-prophet/

    Yeah – really living it up there…

    The only ones who don’t don’t commit sins are those who…

    …are prophets – fixed it for you.

    If you believe that your own prophets committed sins, you have no problem believing that other prophets could. For us, if a Muslim believes that any of the prophets could commit any sins – then he is no longer a Muslim; they can make mistakes, but sins are intentional disobedience of God. If they can disobey God, they can be treacherous and dishonest and lie about what God has communicated – there go the foundations of religion.

    Committing a sin, making a mistake, or giving in to your ego don’t necessarily prevent you from being a great person

    Yes, that is all fine for the rest of humanity – even the greatest saints.

    One way…The second way…It’s up to the Muslims to decide which interpretation is closer to the historical truth.

    Sorry, you don’t get to offer up Coke and Pepsi and demand we choose when a third cola is around.

    If Islam is Muhammed being a messenger bringing “God’s Teachings: The Ishmaelite Edition” to his people, then it can be a true religion and Muhammad can be a great person

    Sorry, he stated that he came for all of mankind – you either accept that or reject it based on what he is reported to have said.

    a revision of God’s teachings that replaces all that came before it and is destined to rule the world then it has no basis whatsoever and is a false religion.

    Perhaps…or its claims are true and that is exactly what it is; God can update religion as He wishes. Plenty of people around the world (1.5 billion+) find this proposition to be quite sane and logical. Actually, plenty of people accepted the first revision too, from within Bani Is-haac – the Son of Mary (pbuh) – your viewpoint may actually be in the extreme minority, accounting for all human beings.

    Imam Ghazali (ra), in his deconstruction of the various philosophical schools, made it clear that claiming something doesn’t make sense to one is not an argument – the proposition may well be ontologically correct and the person is simply unable to understand the premise.

    Now, can we quit while we’re ahead and drop the theological debate? I’m not interested in winning.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Hmmm…OK, even though he lived a completely spartan life and died in debt to a Jewish man for a loan for 30 measures of barley – even while he was the undisputed ruler of the Arabian peninsula?
     
    I'm not specifically referring to the Prophet here, but extreme simplicity of life can in fact coexist with a wanton desire for power or praise:

    Plutarch on Alcibiades

    At Sparta, he was held in high repute publicly, and privately was no less admired. The multitude was brought under his influence, and was actually bewitched, by his assumption of the Spartan mode of life. When they saw him with his hair untrimmed, taking cold baths, on terms of intimacy with their coarse bread, and supping on black porridge, they could scarcely trust their eyes, and doubted whether such a man as he now was had ever had a cook in his own house, had even so much as looked upon a perfumer, or endured the touch of Milesian wool. 4 He had, as they say, one power which transcended all others, and proved an implement of his chase for men: that of assimilating and adapting himself to the pursuits and lives of others, thereby assuming more violent changes than the chameleon. That animal, however, as it is said, is utterly unable to assume one colour, namely, white; but Alcibiades could associate with good and bad alike, and found naught that he could not imitate and practice. 5 In Sparta, he was all for bodily training, simplicity of life, and severity of countenance; in Ionia, for p65luxurious ease and pleasure; in Thrace, for drinking deep; in Thessaly, for riding hard; and when he was thrown with Tissaphernes the satrap, he outdid even Persian magnificence in his pomp and lavishness. It was not that he could so easily pass entirely from one manner of man to another, nor that he actually underwent in every case a change in his real character; but when he saw that his natural manners were likely to be annoying to his associates, he was quick to assume any counterfeit exterior which might in each case be suitable for them. 6 At all events, in Sparta, so far as the outside was concerned, it was possible to say of him, " 'No child of Achilles he, but Achilles himself,'48 such a man as Lycurgus trained"; but judging by what he actually felt and did, one might have cried with the poet, " 'Tis the selfsame woman still!"
     
    Indeed, this sort of vice seems to have been endemic with the ancient Greeks, especially the real Spartans:

    Indeed, from the very first they wish their boys to be sensitive towards public opinion, distressed by censure, and exalted by praise; and he who is insensible and stolid in these matters, is looked down upon as without ambition for excellence, and a cumberer of the ground. Ambition, then, and the spirit of emulation, were firmly implanted in him by his Laconian training, and no great fault should be found with his natural disposition on this account.
     
    (ibid, Life of Lysander)
    , @plontz
    I'm really trying to wean myself off of this debate, but I'd just like to point out that you are still sticking to peripheral issues in my comment and ignoring the core argument.

    So I'll restate: is there any evidence whatsoever to support Muhammad's claims? Because from anything I have ever heard people from the very first believers to this day ultimately just take him at his word, which means they are making an unsupported giant leap of faith and that the fancy logical structure of Islam lacks a foundation.

    I hope this is focused enough.

    Also, when saying I don't want to try destroy your faith I did not necessarily mean that I thought I could, only that even if I thought it was possible I still wouldn't want to try.

  167. Anon says:
    @Talha
    Hey plontz,

    I don’t want to try to destroy your faith
     
    I would be worried if this was in your hands:
    "And had Allah willed, He could have made you (all) one nation, but He leaves astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. But you shall certainly be called to account for what you used to do." (16:93)

    the conclusion that Muhammad cynically invented it for the purpose of gaining glory and power for himself
     
    Hmmm...OK, even though he lived a completely spartan life and died in debt to a Jewish man for a loan for 30 measures of barley - even while he was the undisputed ruler of the Arabian peninsula?
    http://www.virtualmosque.com/personaldvlpt/character/the-prophet-and-food/
    http://lifeofprophet.com/the-bed-of-the-prophet/
    Yeah - really living it up there...

    The only ones who don’t don’t commit sins are those who...
     
    ...are prophets - fixed it for you.

    If you believe that your own prophets committed sins, you have no problem believing that other prophets could. For us, if a Muslim believes that any of the prophets could commit any sins - then he is no longer a Muslim; they can make mistakes, but sins are intentional disobedience of God. If they can disobey God, they can be treacherous and dishonest and lie about what God has communicated - there go the foundations of religion.

    Committing a sin, making a mistake, or giving in to your ego don’t necessarily prevent you from being a great person
     
    Yes, that is all fine for the rest of humanity - even the greatest saints.

    One way...The second way...It’s up to the Muslims to decide which interpretation is closer to the historical truth.
     
    Sorry, you don't get to offer up Coke and Pepsi and demand we choose when a third cola is around.

    If Islam is Muhammed being a messenger bringing “God’s Teachings: The Ishmaelite Edition” to his people, then it can be a true religion and Muhammad can be a great person
     
    Sorry, he stated that he came for all of mankind - you either accept that or reject it based on what he is reported to have said.

    a revision of God’s teachings that replaces all that came before it and is destined to rule the world then it has no basis whatsoever and is a false religion.
     
    Perhaps...or its claims are true and that is exactly what it is; God can update religion as He wishes. Plenty of people around the world (1.5 billion+) find this proposition to be quite sane and logical. Actually, plenty of people accepted the first revision too, from within Bani Is-haac - the Son of Mary (pbuh) - your viewpoint may actually be in the extreme minority, accounting for all human beings.

    Imam Ghazali (ra), in his deconstruction of the various philosophical schools, made it clear that claiming something doesn't make sense to one is not an argument - the proposition may well be ontologically correct and the person is simply unable to understand the premise.

    Now, can we quit while we're ahead and drop the theological debate? I'm not interested in winning.

    Peace.

    Hmmm…OK, even though he lived a completely spartan life and died in debt to a Jewish man for a loan for 30 measures of barley – even while he was the undisputed ruler of the Arabian peninsula?

    I’m not specifically referring to the Prophet here, but extreme simplicity of life can in fact coexist with a wanton desire for power or praise:

    Plutarch on Alcibiades

    At Sparta, he was held in high repute publicly, and privately was no less admired. The multitude was brought under his influence, and was actually bewitched, by his assumption of the Spartan mode of life. When they saw him with his hair untrimmed, taking cold baths, on terms of intimacy with their coarse bread, and supping on black porridge, they could scarcely trust their eyes, and doubted whether such a man as he now was had ever had a cook in his own house, had even so much as looked upon a perfumer, or endured the touch of Milesian wool. 4 He had, as they say, one power which transcended all others, and proved an implement of his chase for men: that of assimilating and adapting himself to the pursuits and lives of others, thereby assuming more violent changes than the chameleon. That animal, however, as it is said, is utterly unable to assume one colour, namely, white; but Alcibiades could associate with good and bad alike, and found naught that he could not imitate and practice. 5 In Sparta, he was all for bodily training, simplicity of life, and severity of countenance; in Ionia, for p65luxurious ease and pleasure; in Thrace, for drinking deep; in Thessaly, for riding hard; and when he was thrown with Tissaphernes the satrap, he outdid even Persian magnificence in his pomp and lavishness. It was not that he could so easily pass entirely from one manner of man to another, nor that he actually underwent in every case a change in his real character; but when he saw that his natural manners were likely to be annoying to his associates, he was quick to assume any counterfeit exterior which might in each case be suitable for them. 6 At all events, in Sparta, so far as the outside was concerned, it was possible to say of him, ” ‘No child of Achilles he, but Achilles himself,’48 such a man as Lycurgus trained”; but judging by what he actually felt and did, one might have cried with the poet, ” ‘Tis the selfsame woman still!”

    Indeed, this sort of vice seems to have been endemic with the ancient Greeks, especially the real Spartans:

    Indeed, from the very first they wish their boys to be sensitive towards public opinion, distressed by censure, and exalted by praise; and he who is insensible and stolid in these matters, is looked down upon as without ambition for excellence, and a cumberer of the ground. Ambition, then, and the spirit of emulation, were firmly implanted in him by his Laconian training, and no great fault should be found with his natural disposition on this account.

    (ibid, Life of Lysander)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    What you say has some truth in it. But the example you give states this:
    "In Sparta, he was all for bodily training, simplicity of life, and severity of countenance; in Ionia, for luxurious ease and pleasure; in Thrace, for drinking deep; in Thessaly, for riding hard; and when he was thrown with Tissaphernes the satrap, he outdid even Persian magnificence in his pomp and lavishness. but when he saw that his natural manners were likely to be annoying to his associates, he was quick to assume any counterfeit exterior which might in each case be suitable for them."

    To stay true to one's principles throughout all circumstance - that indeed is a major accomplishment. We have been taught to shun praise:
    "He who lets the people hear of his good deeds intentionally, to win their praise, Allah will let the people know his real intention (on the Day of Resurrection), and he who does good things in public to show off and win the praise of the people, Allah will disclose his real intention (and humiliate him)." - reported in Bukhari

    He made sure people understood proper limits of who he was: “Do not exaggerate in praising me like the Christians have exaggerated in praising Jesus the son of Mary. Rather, say that I’m the slave of God and His Messenger” - reported in Bukhari

    I guess one can be cynical* about his motives (or of the motives of the other prophets) - we don't see any reason to be; but, to each his own.

    Peace.

    *I've always found it interesting that the word cynic is derived from the Greek for 'doglike'.
  168. Talha says:
    @Anon

    Hmmm…OK, even though he lived a completely spartan life and died in debt to a Jewish man for a loan for 30 measures of barley – even while he was the undisputed ruler of the Arabian peninsula?
     
    I'm not specifically referring to the Prophet here, but extreme simplicity of life can in fact coexist with a wanton desire for power or praise:

    Plutarch on Alcibiades

    At Sparta, he was held in high repute publicly, and privately was no less admired. The multitude was brought under his influence, and was actually bewitched, by his assumption of the Spartan mode of life. When they saw him with his hair untrimmed, taking cold baths, on terms of intimacy with their coarse bread, and supping on black porridge, they could scarcely trust their eyes, and doubted whether such a man as he now was had ever had a cook in his own house, had even so much as looked upon a perfumer, or endured the touch of Milesian wool. 4 He had, as they say, one power which transcended all others, and proved an implement of his chase for men: that of assimilating and adapting himself to the pursuits and lives of others, thereby assuming more violent changes than the chameleon. That animal, however, as it is said, is utterly unable to assume one colour, namely, white; but Alcibiades could associate with good and bad alike, and found naught that he could not imitate and practice. 5 In Sparta, he was all for bodily training, simplicity of life, and severity of countenance; in Ionia, for p65luxurious ease and pleasure; in Thrace, for drinking deep; in Thessaly, for riding hard; and when he was thrown with Tissaphernes the satrap, he outdid even Persian magnificence in his pomp and lavishness. It was not that he could so easily pass entirely from one manner of man to another, nor that he actually underwent in every case a change in his real character; but when he saw that his natural manners were likely to be annoying to his associates, he was quick to assume any counterfeit exterior which might in each case be suitable for them. 6 At all events, in Sparta, so far as the outside was concerned, it was possible to say of him, " 'No child of Achilles he, but Achilles himself,'48 such a man as Lycurgus trained"; but judging by what he actually felt and did, one might have cried with the poet, " 'Tis the selfsame woman still!"
     
    Indeed, this sort of vice seems to have been endemic with the ancient Greeks, especially the real Spartans:

    Indeed, from the very first they wish their boys to be sensitive towards public opinion, distressed by censure, and exalted by praise; and he who is insensible and stolid in these matters, is looked down upon as without ambition for excellence, and a cumberer of the ground. Ambition, then, and the spirit of emulation, were firmly implanted in him by his Laconian training, and no great fault should be found with his natural disposition on this account.
     
    (ibid, Life of Lysander)

    What you say has some truth in it. But the example you give states this:
    “In Sparta, he was all for bodily training, simplicity of life, and severity of countenance; in Ionia, for luxurious ease and pleasure; in Thrace, for drinking deep; in Thessaly, for riding hard; and when he was thrown with Tissaphernes the satrap, he outdid even Persian magnificence in his pomp and lavishness. but when he saw that his natural manners were likely to be annoying to his associates, he was quick to assume any counterfeit exterior which might in each case be suitable for them.”

    To stay true to one’s principles throughout all circumstance – that indeed is a major accomplishment. We have been taught to shun praise:
    “He who lets the people hear of his good deeds intentionally, to win their praise, Allah will let the people know his real intention (on the Day of Resurrection), and he who does good things in public to show off and win the praise of the people, Allah will disclose his real intention (and humiliate him).” – reported in Bukhari

    He made sure people understood proper limits of who he was: “Do not exaggerate in praising me like the Christians have exaggerated in praising Jesus the son of Mary. Rather, say that I’m the slave of God and His Messenger” – reported in Bukhari

    I guess one can be cynical* about his motives (or of the motives of the other prophets) – we don’t see any reason to be; but, to each his own.

    Peace.

    *I’ve always found it interesting that the word cynic is derived from the Greek for ‘doglike’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You're right about Alcibiades; my point in citing him was that he obviously did not care much for the external trappings of this world, viewing them as mere instruments for the attainment of his ambition. Lysander the Spartan is, fittingly enough, a better example of a spartan lifestyle and financial incorruptibility (like Mohammed, he died penniless or nearly so) combined with, again, a devouring ambition. But Alcibiades is interesting because in disdaining the passing things of the physical world he owes a great deal to his mentor, Socrates; the thing he serves and strives to perfect is always himself; the sin of pride, the great temptation which specifically attacked the noblest of the Greeks (and to which they had no theological resistance), has found him out and relentlessly pursues him.

    As I said, I wasn't specifically attacking the Prophet, about whom I know fairly little; though it is certain, even to a non-Muslim, that he was both a great statesman and a great teacher, a synthesis rarely achieved except in legend (Numa, Theseus, etc.); the nearest real-life comparison, and it would be a distant one, would probably be Confucius. Given his religious framework, the sin of pride would probably be easier for him to avoid than for a classical Greek who knew of no such thing.

    My intention was to point out that it is no defense from the charge of reckless ambition to prove simplicity of life or financial incorruptibility.

    You probably know this but the short explanation of the term "cynicism" is the contrast between the loyalty and simplicity of dogs and the faithlessness and pretentiousness of men.
  169. Gabriel M says:
    @Talha
    Hey Gabriel,

    Yes there is, just one example:
    "...they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them..." (5:13)

    And numerous hadith (which explain the Qur'an) ask us to take an agnostic view - for indeed it is a delicate dance; if one denies a verse in the Bible that is true inadvertently, one has made an offence to God:
    "The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: Whatever the people of the Book [Jews and Christians] tell you, do not verify them, nor falsify them, but say: We believe in Allah and His Messenger. If it is false, do not confirm it, and if it is right, do not falsify it." - reported in Abu Dawud

    "Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.'" - reported in Bukhari

    So - how do we determine what is true? Well, if it doesn't contradict the Qur'an, of course. :)

    Well, no offense, but you seem to manage fine with Muhammad.
     
    None taken. His life is literally an open book. He asked everyone to report everything about himself; not one human being is this well documented. In books like the Shama'il of Imam Tirmidhi (ra) he records hadith on how he ate grapes or how he leaned on a pillow. In fact, all external criticisms stem from scrutinizing the very same texts our scholars expended efforts to preserve. And his teachings preserve the honor and nobility of the prophets before him:
    "Both in this world and in the hereafter, I am the nearest of all the people to Jesus, the son of Mary (pbuh). The prophets are paternal brothers, their mothers are different but their religion is one." - reported in Bukhari

    Peace.

    http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=13

    From what I can tell, most of the translations state that we perverted it through misinterpretation (which is something that Christians would agree with). Not a very good proof text.

    I will add that in the Midrashic tradition there are numerous cases of Biblical verses and passages being interpreted in very different, sometimes even opposite, manner to their plain meaning. Within Judaism some will obstinately defend these Midrashic readings as the *true* meaning of the text whereas others, myself included, interpret them as being homilies using the text as a springboard, but not intending to subvert the actual meaning of the text. It seems most likely that these Midrashim are what Muhammad was referring to.

    On this note, I will add that there are many Midrashic sources that try to whitewash Jewish figures, so that David, Reuven, Aaron, Yehuda etc. did not really sin, or at least, did not sin all that much. Often children (and in ultra-Orthodox communities even the adults) are only exposed to these whitewashed accounts. However, the strict prohibition we have on changing any word of the Tanakh has preserved the record of these figures in all their realistic complexity, for those who want to look. The Islamic claim that we falsified our sources to make our heroes look bad is thus almost the opposite of the truth.

    In fact, all external criticisms stem from scrutinizing the very same texts our scholars expended efforts to preserve.

    You are missing the point. In order to portray Muhammad as a good person you have to resort to a mixture of apologetic tactics. If you wanted to, you could do the same with any prophet. To take your example, Lot got drunk and unwittingly had sex whilst semi-comatose with his own daughters. So what? Muhammad has his child bride scrape semen off his clothes and had someone burned alive because he wouldn’t tell him where to find some buried treasure. I’m pretty sure if you can justify the one, you can justify the other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Gabriel,

    From what I can tell...Not a very good proof text.
     
    This is not a good argument from our perspective. You are a non-Muslim looking into the Qur'an at verses in translation in English. There is a consensus among the scholars from beginning to now that the various Qur'anic verses on the subject plus the hadith indicate that there were either accretions in the earlier text or things were dropped - whether through intention or accident. That is what Islam says - if you want to challenge that narrative based on our texts, find a single authority from our tradition that says otherwise - I wouldn't waste your time honestly. And it makes sense from our perspective; for us, the Qur'an (all of it, was exact dictation from the mouth of the Prophet [pbuh]) including its sounds - verbatim. Which is why certain chapters of the Qur'an start simply with letters, like "Alif, Laam, Meem" or "Haa Meem" - nobody knows what they mean exactly - but they have been preserved. A cursory reading of the Bible shows it reads like a history book. The prophets and their lives are indeed the subject (and sometimes other random people), but who is doing the dictation - from whose mouth is the text flowing? Or are people simply recording history as it occurs? Who then are the actual writers of the original text - did they hear the words directly from the mouth of the prophets and other than the direct words, could they have made mistakes in details of what they recorded? How does this all come into play when we know the earliest Torah copies come centuries after the events? When the Qur'an states revelation, it says, we revealed the Psalms to David (pbuh) or the Gospels to Jesus (pbuh) or the like - the revelation is what is directly revealed to the prophet or messenger at hand (who must be absolutely truthful - as I outlined) - not whatever extraneous words are interpolated by observers.

    To us, the Bible really more resembles our hadith - which we have had to sift through weak ones from strong and even reject outright fabrications.

    Just a note: I'm only talking about what would fit our criteria for preserved revelation - if you find it sufficient that the scribes were collectively 'inspired' to get things right - that's fine. It simply doesn't work for us in our framework.

    The fine tuned preservation of the Arabic language (including the sounds and original meanings from the initial revelation in the Hijaz) have not only helped us keep the tradition intact, but been instrumental to other communities which have lost certain knowledge with the passage of time:
    "For the interpretation of the Old Testament the Arabic language has been of service in a variety of ways. In the department of lexicography it has thrown light not only on many a word used but once in the Bible or too seldom for usage alone to determine its meaning, but also on words which had seemed clear enough in their Biblical setting, but which have received illustration or correction from their usage in the immense bulk and range of Arabic literature with its enormous vocabulary. For the modern scientific study of Hebrew grammar, with its genetic method, Arabic has been of the greatest value, through the comparison of its cognate forms, where, in the main, the Arabic has the simpler, fuller and more regular morphology, and through the comparison of similar constructions, for which the highly developed Arabic syntax furnishes useful rubrics. In addition to this the Arabic language plays a prominent part, perhaps the foremost part, in the determination of those laws of the mutation of sounds, which once governed the development and now reveal the mutual relationships of the various Semitic languages."
    http://biblehub.com/topical/a/arabic.htm

    "The stimulus for the study of Hebrew philology was, it is, true, strengthened by external influence, namely, the example furnished by Arabic philology, which continued to influence materially the character of the Hebrew science; and it was the Arabic model which, being that of a kindred language, directed the development of Hebrew philology into the right path and led it to permanent results. But, notwithstanding this foreign stimulus, Hebrew philology retained its independence and its own character, to which its connection with the Masorah, the peculiar collection of old traditions regarding the spelling and pronunciation of the Biblical text, contributed not a little...Later, when, under the influence of Arabic grammar, Hebrew grammar grew out of the Masoretic rules for reading, this expression offered itself as a designation for the new science...Ben Asher, the great Masorite of Tiberias, who formulated the Masoretic notes to the Bible text and laid down general rules, dealt in particular with the consonants and vowels; but in his work, "Di?du?e ha-?e'amim," the theory of forms is laid down in a few sentences that already show the influence of Arabic grammar. "
    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6854-grammar-hebrew

    The Islamic claim that we falsified our sources to make our heroes look bad is thus almost the opposite of the truth.
     
    Doesn't have to be intentional at least on the part of the whole community - the accretion could have entered from anywhere even forced into it from external source - for a good amount of Jewish history, they are constantly being hauled away from one place to the other - the temple and all it contained was destroyed - twice. This is also an issue with early Christians who acknowledge that many of their churches and writings were destroyed in early Roman persecutions. We did not have this problem; Muslims entered into Babylon and Persia as conquerors, not slaves.

    In order to portray Muhammad as a good person you have to resort to a mixture of apologetic tactics.
     
    Sure, every religion does this.

    So what?
     
    I already explained the 'what' - epistemological collapse; if a prophet of God is not protected from such an egregious sin (that the vast majority of human beings themselves would not commit - this is not even a little white lie or stealing an apple or something) - then how can one claim they are protected from lying? And if they aren't, how can any words from their mouth be taken at face value?

    Look, if you want to believe in exceptions, like Jacob (pbuh) could lie in order to steal the blessings of the covenant from his elder twin brother, and yet be an upright prophet whose words were sacrosanct in nature, then that is up to you. This is an issue of belief after all. We don't roll that way. It is a consensus of the Muslims (which means there is no negotiation on this point) that the prophets and messengers of God are protected from sin. They can make errors in judgement or mistakes but those are unintentional slights. Many converts into Islam (that I have come across) say they are glad that the character of the prophets is corrected in Islam and that this was a specific issue they had problems with in the Bible. Again, to each his own.

    child bride
     
    She was never a 'child bride'. As I've mentioned before in other posts, she was a biological adult (which is why he waited before they cohabited):
    http://www.unz.com/pgottfried/real-islam-and-democracy/#comment-1713585

    C'mon, you guys know better than this:
    https://youtu.be/c8eeHRAIaIc?t=5m58s

    had someone burned alive because he wouldn’t tell him where to find some buried treasure
     
    Nonsense - where did you find this - on some anti-Islam website? Maybe they were quoting from one of our Seerah books or Maghazi literature. These are the weakest of our sources; they contain many wild tales, outright fabrications and unsourced quotes. Using those is like someone using apocrypha* to say whacky things about Jesus (pbuh). Find me a sound source for this and we'll discuss; not Ibn Hisham, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa'ad's Tabaqat or Imam Tabari's Tareekh, etc.

    We are obligated to believe in none of that - which is why you'll never find a single opinion from any juristic school that it's OK to torture someone to find treasure.

    Peace.

    *Note: Apparently the Son of Mary (pbuh) is found doing crazy stuff (I seek refuge in God) like cursing little kids until they die and then blinding their parents:
    “And when Jesus saw what was done, he was wroth and said unto him: O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. 3 And straightway that lad withered up wholly, but Jesus departed and went unto Joseph’s house. But the parents of him that was withered took him up, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph, and accused him ‘for that thou hast such a child which doeth such deeds.’
    IV. 1 After that again he went through the village, and a child ran and dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: Thou shalt not finish thy course (lit. go all thy way). And immediately he fell down and died. But certain when they saw what was done said: Whence was this young child born, for that every word of his is an accomplished work? And the parents of him that was dead came unto Joseph, and blamed him, saying: Thou that hast such a child canst not dwell with us in the village: or do thou teach him to bless and not to curse: for he slayeth our children.
    V. 1 And Joseph called the young child apart and admonished him, saying: Wherefore doest thou such things, that these suffer and hate us and persecute us? But Jesus said: I know that these thy words are not thine: nevertheless for thy sake I will hold my peace: but they shall bear their punishment. And straightway they that accused him were smitten with blindness”

    http://gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm
  170. plontz says:
    @Talha
    Hey plontz,

    I don’t want to try to destroy your faith
     
    I would be worried if this was in your hands:
    "And had Allah willed, He could have made you (all) one nation, but He leaves astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. But you shall certainly be called to account for what you used to do." (16:93)

    the conclusion that Muhammad cynically invented it for the purpose of gaining glory and power for himself
     
    Hmmm...OK, even though he lived a completely spartan life and died in debt to a Jewish man for a loan for 30 measures of barley - even while he was the undisputed ruler of the Arabian peninsula?
    http://www.virtualmosque.com/personaldvlpt/character/the-prophet-and-food/
    http://lifeofprophet.com/the-bed-of-the-prophet/
    Yeah - really living it up there...

    The only ones who don’t don’t commit sins are those who...
     
    ...are prophets - fixed it for you.

    If you believe that your own prophets committed sins, you have no problem believing that other prophets could. For us, if a Muslim believes that any of the prophets could commit any sins - then he is no longer a Muslim; they can make mistakes, but sins are intentional disobedience of God. If they can disobey God, they can be treacherous and dishonest and lie about what God has communicated - there go the foundations of religion.

    Committing a sin, making a mistake, or giving in to your ego don’t necessarily prevent you from being a great person
     
    Yes, that is all fine for the rest of humanity - even the greatest saints.

    One way...The second way...It’s up to the Muslims to decide which interpretation is closer to the historical truth.
     
    Sorry, you don't get to offer up Coke and Pepsi and demand we choose when a third cola is around.

    If Islam is Muhammed being a messenger bringing “God’s Teachings: The Ishmaelite Edition” to his people, then it can be a true religion and Muhammad can be a great person
     
    Sorry, he stated that he came for all of mankind - you either accept that or reject it based on what he is reported to have said.

    a revision of God’s teachings that replaces all that came before it and is destined to rule the world then it has no basis whatsoever and is a false religion.
     
    Perhaps...or its claims are true and that is exactly what it is; God can update religion as He wishes. Plenty of people around the world (1.5 billion+) find this proposition to be quite sane and logical. Actually, plenty of people accepted the first revision too, from within Bani Is-haac - the Son of Mary (pbuh) - your viewpoint may actually be in the extreme minority, accounting for all human beings.

    Imam Ghazali (ra), in his deconstruction of the various philosophical schools, made it clear that claiming something doesn't make sense to one is not an argument - the proposition may well be ontologically correct and the person is simply unable to understand the premise.

    Now, can we quit while we're ahead and drop the theological debate? I'm not interested in winning.

    Peace.

    I’m really trying to wean myself off of this debate, but I’d just like to point out that you are still sticking to peripheral issues in my comment and ignoring the core argument.

    So I’ll restate: is there any evidence whatsoever to support Muhammad’s claims? Because from anything I have ever heard people from the very first believers to this day ultimately just take him at his word, which means they are making an unsupported giant leap of faith and that the fancy logical structure of Islam lacks a foundation.

    I hope this is focused enough.

    Also, when saying I don’t want to try destroy your faith I did not necessarily mean that I thought I could, only that even if I thought it was possible I still wouldn’t want to try.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey plontz,

    No problem. I am more than happy to answer any questions; my teachers have taught us to avoid theological debates.


    So I’ll restate: is there any evidence whatsoever to support Muhammad’s claims?
     
    You mean like; is there any prophecy or something that can be verified? Sure - he had multiple prophecies; that the Muslims would conquer Byzantium, Persia, Constantinople, etc. Some of these prophecies were extremely bold - given that he was talking about the conquest of the empires of his age at the Battle of Khandaq - when the Muslims were completely surrounded by a confederate force of 10,000 and had to dig a huge ditch around Madinah to prevent being completely overwhelmed.

    Also, the Qur'an was revealed at the stage when Arabic had reached the peak of eloquence due to the age of the master poets like Labid, Imru' al-Qais, etc. The Arabs used to honor and memorize these works (and continued to do so after Islam). But the Qur'an came and knocked them all off the throne in Arabic - it has yet to be challenged (and in fact basically is the apex of eloquence in that language). There is also its appeal to unadulterated transcendent monotheism.

    And prophecies continue to be relevant today:
    https://youtu.be/3_M5sGmdkr4?t=9m12s

    Peace.

  171. Talha says:
    @plontz
    I'm really trying to wean myself off of this debate, but I'd just like to point out that you are still sticking to peripheral issues in my comment and ignoring the core argument.

    So I'll restate: is there any evidence whatsoever to support Muhammad's claims? Because from anything I have ever heard people from the very first believers to this day ultimately just take him at his word, which means they are making an unsupported giant leap of faith and that the fancy logical structure of Islam lacks a foundation.

    I hope this is focused enough.

    Also, when saying I don't want to try destroy your faith I did not necessarily mean that I thought I could, only that even if I thought it was possible I still wouldn't want to try.

    Hey plontz,

    No problem. I am more than happy to answer any questions; my teachers have taught us to avoid theological debates.

    So I’ll restate: is there any evidence whatsoever to support Muhammad’s claims?

    You mean like; is there any prophecy or something that can be verified? Sure – he had multiple prophecies; that the Muslims would conquer Byzantium, Persia, Constantinople, etc. Some of these prophecies were extremely bold – given that he was talking about the conquest of the empires of his age at the Battle of Khandaq – when the Muslims were completely surrounded by a confederate force of 10,000 and had to dig a huge ditch around Madinah to prevent being completely overwhelmed.

    Also, the Qur’an was revealed at the stage when Arabic had reached the peak of eloquence due to the age of the master poets like Labid, Imru’ al-Qais, etc. The Arabs used to honor and memorize these works (and continued to do so after Islam). But the Qur’an came and knocked them all off the throne in Arabic – it has yet to be challenged (and in fact basically is the apex of eloquence in that language). There is also its appeal to unadulterated transcendent monotheism.

    And prophecies continue to be relevant today:

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @plontz
    So you do have an answer. Great.

    That part about the beauty of the poetry of the Qur'an is something I've heard in the past, but it's the kind of argument that only strengthens the faith of the believers or convinces those who want to believe, not something that can be used to win over a skeptic. It's not a debate-winning piece of evidence.

    The part about the prophecies has a few answers I can give. First a question: In order to carry out all those Islamic conquests he would have needed an army of believers, no? So before he made those bold promises come true, what convinced so many people to follow him? The original followers didn't have already-fulfilled prophecies as evidence to convince them.

    (there is more to say on the issue of predicting the future, but that's enough for now)

    Second, God told us that his teachings are forever and that any who contradict them is a false prophet, and that he may send false prophets to test our faith. He says these false prophets may even perform supernatural deeds. Someone who comes and claims to be a prophet and changes God's teachings (no matter the pretext, whether he claims to be "correcting" them or that God changed his mind) falls squarely in the definition of a false prophet as we have been taught.

    (which incidentally also provides something of an answer about how we can trust human prophets - they have to be consistent with God's teachings that were given to us directly by God and (at our request) through the intermediary Moses. Now I understand why you insist prophets must be angels, because you don't have another basis for trust except to believe that they are perfect)

    Third is that we already know that God blessed Ishmael that he will be a great nation, but we also know that he wasn't chosen to inherit Abraham's job. So the Ishmaelite empire building is a fulfillment of ancient prophecy, but indicates nothing about Ishmael being chosen or Islam being the true religion.

    (what's in brackets is for me unimportant to the discussion. I'm just acting as if I have logorrhea)
  172. Talha says:
    @Gabriel M
    http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=13

    From what I can tell, most of the translations state that we perverted it through misinterpretation (which is something that Christians would agree with). Not a very good proof text.

    I will add that in the Midrashic tradition there are numerous cases of Biblical verses and passages being interpreted in very different, sometimes even opposite, manner to their plain meaning. Within Judaism some will obstinately defend these Midrashic readings as the *true* meaning of the text whereas others, myself included, interpret them as being homilies using the text as a springboard, but not intending to subvert the actual meaning of the text. It seems most likely that these Midrashim are what Muhammad was referring to.

    On this note, I will add that there are many Midrashic sources that try to whitewash Jewish figures, so that David, Reuven, Aaron, Yehuda etc. did not really sin, or at least, did not sin all that much. Often children (and in ultra-Orthodox communities even the adults) are only exposed to these whitewashed accounts. However, the strict prohibition we have on changing any word of the Tanakh has preserved the record of these figures in all their realistic complexity, for those who want to look. The Islamic claim that we falsified our sources to make our heroes look bad is thus almost the opposite of the truth.


    In fact, all external criticisms stem from scrutinizing the very same texts our scholars expended efforts to preserve.
     
    You are missing the point. In order to portray Muhammad as a good person you have to resort to a mixture of apologetic tactics. If you wanted to, you could do the same with any prophet. To take your example, Lot got drunk and unwittingly had sex whilst semi-comatose with his own daughters. So what? Muhammad has his child bride scrape semen off his clothes and had someone burned alive because he wouldn't tell him where to find some buried treasure. I'm pretty sure if you can justify the one, you can justify the other.

    Hey Gabriel,

    From what I can tell…Not a very good proof text.

    This is not a good argument from our perspective. You are a non-Muslim looking into the Qur’an at verses in translation in English. There is a consensus among the scholars from beginning to now that the various Qur’anic verses on the subject plus the hadith indicate that there were either accretions in the earlier text or things were dropped – whether through intention or accident. That is what Islam says – if you want to challenge that narrative based on our texts, find a single authority from our tradition that says otherwise – I wouldn’t waste your time honestly. And it makes sense from our perspective; for us, the Qur’an (all of it, was exact dictation from the mouth of the Prophet [pbuh]) including its sounds – verbatim. Which is why certain chapters of the Qur’an start simply with letters, like “Alif, Laam, Meem” or “Haa Meem” – nobody knows what they mean exactly – but they have been preserved. A cursory reading of the Bible shows it reads like a history book. The prophets and their lives are indeed the subject (and sometimes other random people), but who is doing the dictation – from whose mouth is the text flowing? Or are people simply recording history as it occurs? Who then are the actual writers of the original text – did they hear the words directly from the mouth of the prophets and other than the direct words, could they have made mistakes in details of what they recorded? How does this all come into play when we know the earliest Torah copies come centuries after the events? When the Qur’an states revelation, it says, we revealed the Psalms to David (pbuh) or the Gospels to Jesus (pbuh) or the like – the revelation is what is directly revealed to the prophet or messenger at hand (who must be absolutely truthful – as I outlined) – not whatever extraneous words are interpolated by observers.

    To us, the Bible really more resembles our hadith – which we have had to sift through weak ones from strong and even reject outright fabrications.

    Just a note: I’m only talking about what would fit our criteria for preserved revelation – if you find it sufficient that the scribes were collectively ‘inspired’ to get things right – that’s fine. It simply doesn’t work for us in our framework.

    The fine tuned preservation of the Arabic language (including the sounds and original meanings from the initial revelation in the Hijaz) have not only helped us keep the tradition intact, but been instrumental to other communities which have lost certain knowledge with the passage of time:
    “For the interpretation of the Old Testament the Arabic language has been of service in a variety of ways. In the department of lexicography it has thrown light not only on many a word used but once in the Bible or too seldom for usage alone to determine its meaning, but also on words which had seemed clear enough in their Biblical setting, but which have received illustration or correction from their usage in the immense bulk and range of Arabic literature with its enormous vocabulary. For the modern scientific study of Hebrew grammar, with its genetic method, Arabic has been of the greatest value, through the comparison of its cognate forms, where, in the main, the Arabic has the simpler, fuller and more regular morphology, and through the comparison of similar constructions, for which the highly developed Arabic syntax furnishes useful rubrics. In addition to this the Arabic language plays a prominent part, perhaps the foremost part, in the determination of those laws of the mutation of sounds, which once governed the development and now reveal the mutual relationships of the various Semitic languages.”

    http://biblehub.com/topical/a/arabic.htm

    “The stimulus for the study of Hebrew philology was, it is, true, strengthened by external influence, namely, the example furnished by Arabic philology, which continued to influence materially the character of the Hebrew science; and it was the Arabic model which, being that of a kindred language, directed the development of Hebrew philology into the right path and led it to permanent results. But, notwithstanding this foreign stimulus, Hebrew philology retained its independence and its own character, to which its connection with the Masorah, the peculiar collection of old traditions regarding the spelling and pronunciation of the Biblical text, contributed not a little…Later, when, under the influence of Arabic grammar, Hebrew grammar grew out of the Masoretic rules for reading, this expression offered itself as a designation for the new science…Ben Asher, the great Masorite of Tiberias, who formulated the Masoretic notes to the Bible text and laid down general rules, dealt in particular with the consonants and vowels; but in his work, “Di?du?e ha-?e’amim,” the theory of forms is laid down in a few sentences that already show the influence of Arabic grammar. ”

    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6854-grammar-hebrew

    The Islamic claim that we falsified our sources to make our heroes look bad is thus almost the opposite of the truth.

    Doesn’t have to be intentional at least on the part of the whole community – the accretion could have entered from anywhere even forced into it from external source – for a good amount of Jewish history, they are constantly being hauled away from one place to the other – the temple and all it contained was destroyed – twice. This is also an issue with early Christians who acknowledge that many of their churches and writings were destroyed in early Roman persecutions. We did not have this problem; Muslims entered into Babylon and Persia as conquerors, not slaves.

    In order to portray Muhammad as a good person you have to resort to a mixture of apologetic tactics.

    Sure, every religion does this.

    So what?

    I already explained the ‘what’ – epistemological collapse; if a prophet of God is not protected from such an egregious sin (that the vast majority of human beings themselves would not commit – this is not even a little white lie or stealing an apple or something) – then how can one claim they are protected from lying? And if they aren’t, how can any words from their mouth be taken at face value?

    Look, if you want to believe in exceptions, like Jacob (pbuh) could lie in order to steal the blessings of the covenant from his elder twin brother, and yet be an upright prophet whose words were sacrosanct in nature, then that is up to you. This is an issue of belief after all. We don’t roll that way. It is a consensus of the Muslims (which means there is no negotiation on this point) that the prophets and messengers of God are protected from sin. They can make errors in judgement or mistakes but those are unintentional slights. Many converts into Islam (that I have come across) say they are glad that the character of the prophets is corrected in Islam and that this was a specific issue they had problems with in the Bible. Again, to each his own.

    child bride

    She was never a ‘child bride’. As I’ve mentioned before in other posts, she was a biological adult (which is why he waited before they cohabited):

    http://www.unz.com/pgottfried/real-islam-and-democracy/#comment-1713585

    C’mon, you guys know better than this:

    https://youtu.be/c8eeHRAIaIc?t=5m58s

    had someone burned alive because he wouldn’t tell him where to find some buried treasure

    Nonsense – where did you find this – on some anti-Islam website? Maybe they were quoting from one of our Seerah books or Maghazi literature. These are the weakest of our sources; they contain many wild tales, outright fabrications and unsourced quotes. Using those is like someone using apocrypha* to say whacky things about Jesus (pbuh). Find me a sound source for this and we’ll discuss; not Ibn Hisham, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’ad’s Tabaqat or Imam Tabari’s Tareekh, etc.

    We are obligated to believe in none of that – which is why you’ll never find a single opinion from any juristic school that it’s OK to torture someone to find treasure.

    Peace.

    *Note: Apparently the Son of Mary (pbuh) is found doing crazy stuff (I seek refuge in God) like cursing little kids until they die and then blinding their parents:
    “And when Jesus saw what was done, he was wroth and said unto him: O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. 3 And straightway that lad withered up wholly, but Jesus departed and went unto Joseph’s house. But the parents of him that was withered took him up, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph, and accused him ‘for that thou hast such a child which doeth such deeds.’
    IV. 1 After that again he went through the village, and a child ran and dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: Thou shalt not finish thy course (lit. go all thy way). And immediately he fell down and died. But certain when they saw what was done said: Whence was this young child born, for that every word of his is an accomplished work? And the parents of him that was dead came unto Joseph, and blamed him, saying: Thou that hast such a child canst not dwell with us in the village: or do thou teach him to bless and not to curse: for he slayeth our children.
    V. 1 And Joseph called the young child apart and admonished him, saying: Wherefore doest thou such things, that these suffer and hate us and persecute us? But Jesus said: I know that these thy words are not thine: nevertheless for thy sake I will hold my peace: but they shall bear their punishment. And straightway they that accused him were smitten with blindness”

    http://gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gabriel M
    I don't find copy and paste apologetics very persuasive. The bottom line is that you clearly don't have any Koranic verse that states that either the Jewish or Christian bibles were falsified. We are thus left with the following two possibilities.

    (i) Muhammad picked up a bunch of stories from both orthodox and heterodox Christians he met in Arabia. Some of these stories were told to him inaccurately, some he mis-remembered and some, perhaps, he just chose to rewrite. Later, when it became clear to the Muslims community that the stories in the Koran were at variance with what can be found in the original sources, the doctrine of tahfir was conjured up as an ad hoc band aid to deal with the problem.

    (ii) Jews and Christians for some unknown reason decided to tamper with the holy scriptures they had received. Luckily, Muhammad came along to reveal the true versions of these scriptures, of which no historical trace exists whatsoever. The only way to know what sources written hundreds or thousands of years before Muhammad really said is to ask Muhammad. Muhammad weirdly neglected to mention that this is what he was doing.


    Many converts into Islam (that I have come across) say they are glad that the character of the prophets is corrected in Islam and that this was a specific issue they had problems with in the Bible. Again, to each his own.
     
    Well, that is hardly surprising. The Koran rewrites Biblical stories as childish morality plays (much like many Midrashic sources), i.e. it tells the story as a dummy would tell it. It's well known that Christian Arabs are much cleverer than Muslims ones (Christian Arab Israelis actually slightly outperform Jews in test scores). The most common explanation is inbreeding depression caused by endemic cousin marriage. I've often wondered, however, if it's not just that simple people like their religion simple.

    She was never a ‘child bride’. As I’ve mentioned before in other posts, she was a biological adult
     
    And Lot's daughter wasn't his "biological daughter". That makes as much sense as your claim (none). See, no need to resort to outlandish claims of tahrif.

    Find me a sound source for this and we’ll discuss; not Ibn Hisham, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’ad’s Tabaqat or Imam Tabari’s Tareekh
     
    Why did Ibn Ishaq make up stories about Muhammad setting peoples' chests on fire as an instrument of torture? Who was he trying to impress?
  173. plontz says:
    @Talha
    Hey plontz,

    No problem. I am more than happy to answer any questions; my teachers have taught us to avoid theological debates.


    So I’ll restate: is there any evidence whatsoever to support Muhammad’s claims?
     
    You mean like; is there any prophecy or something that can be verified? Sure - he had multiple prophecies; that the Muslims would conquer Byzantium, Persia, Constantinople, etc. Some of these prophecies were extremely bold - given that he was talking about the conquest of the empires of his age at the Battle of Khandaq - when the Muslims were completely surrounded by a confederate force of 10,000 and had to dig a huge ditch around Madinah to prevent being completely overwhelmed.

    Also, the Qur'an was revealed at the stage when Arabic had reached the peak of eloquence due to the age of the master poets like Labid, Imru' al-Qais, etc. The Arabs used to honor and memorize these works (and continued to do so after Islam). But the Qur'an came and knocked them all off the throne in Arabic - it has yet to be challenged (and in fact basically is the apex of eloquence in that language). There is also its appeal to unadulterated transcendent monotheism.

    And prophecies continue to be relevant today:
    https://youtu.be/3_M5sGmdkr4?t=9m12s

    Peace.

    So you do have an answer. Great.

    That part about the beauty of the poetry of the Qur’an is something I’ve heard in the past, but it’s the kind of argument that only strengthens the faith of the believers or convinces those who want to believe, not something that can be used to win over a skeptic. It’s not a debate-winning piece of evidence.

    The part about the prophecies has a few answers I can give. First a question: In order to carry out all those Islamic conquests he would have needed an army of believers, no? So before he made those bold promises come true, what convinced so many people to follow him? The original followers didn’t have already-fulfilled prophecies as evidence to convince them.

    (there is more to say on the issue of predicting the future, but that’s enough for now)

    Second, God told us that his teachings are forever and that any who contradict them is a false prophet, and that he may send false prophets to test our faith. He says these false prophets may even perform supernatural deeds. Someone who comes and claims to be a prophet and changes God’s teachings (no matter the pretext, whether he claims to be “correcting” them or that God changed his mind) falls squarely in the definition of a false prophet as we have been taught.

    (which incidentally also provides something of an answer about how we can trust human prophets – they have to be consistent with God’s teachings that were given to us directly by God and (at our request) through the intermediary Moses. Now I understand why you insist prophets must be angels, because you don’t have another basis for trust except to believe that they are perfect)

    Third is that we already know that God blessed Ishmael that he will be a great nation, but we also know that he wasn’t chosen to inherit Abraham’s job. So the Ishmaelite empire building is a fulfillment of ancient prophecy, but indicates nothing about Ishmael being chosen or Islam being the true religion.

    (what’s in brackets is for me unimportant to the discussion. I’m just acting as if I have logorrhea)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey plontz,

    not something that can be used to win over a skeptic.
     
    Not much can. When it comes to belief, I have seen all sorts of positions. People can be quite stubborn in their belief or skepticism - which is why it is silly to debate it. Pick something that makes coherent sense to you and roll with it.

    what convinced so many people to follow him?
     
    Well actually, many people rejected him - polytheist leadership don't like being told their gods are bunk. It was in Madinah where he had success - why? Because it was torn apart by tribal warfare and Islam came in and made people look at each other like brothers and lay down arms - that was a powerful message. Also, it made people treat slaves with dignity, etc. People liked the message - plus one absolute God made more sense than hundreds of local ones.

    Someone who comes and claims to be a prophet and changes God’s teachings
     
    There are two parts to this; 1) the principle teachings will never be changed (like belief in monotheism, afterlife, angels, judgement, etc.) and 2) rules and regulations which can change (like marriage rules, prayer, etc.).

    falls squarely in the definition of a false prophet as we have been taught
     
    Yup - so one has to choose - which narrative is correct; accepting one negates the foundations of the other; because according to us, your 'we have been taught' is based on inaccurate texts. We can get along for sure; Jews have often lived better within Muslim lands than in Christian ones - but the belief narrative cannot be reconciled. Offer people your version of the prophets of Bani Israel, we'll offer ours - may the best offer gain acceptance.

    but indicates nothing about Ishmael being ch