Lately, I've been seeing more and more places where people have been putting forth a certain kind of argument for Zionism and why the U.S. should back the Zionists and Israel which argument ironically is about how clever the Jews are while the very argument is unintelligent.
A recent comment on this site is a case in point.
The most famous author using this argument I've seen thus far is. He wasn't the first I saw, but I don't recall the very first time I saw the argument. Also, the argument has been gathering. It has been in the process of being pieced together.
I've written a bit on this before, but I thought it worthwhile to point out more aspects about it since many Zionists are probably banking quit a bit on it and it needs to be deflated for everyone's sake. It really has no legs, and the sooner people are shown that the better.
The basic argument is that the Zionist project and the current iteration of the state of Israel is a immense value to the U.S. and the world by virtue of Jewish prowess in technology, the arts, literature, culture, etc. It's really another way of stating that Jews are smarter, have higher I.Q.s, and the like.
In making this argument, the proponents cite many statistics. Well, we've all heard the saying that "there are Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Statistics can easily be manipulated and used in isolation to make a case.
Some of the stats given concern the following:
- Number of university graduates
- Advanced degrees
- Recipients of famous awards
- Companies listed on the NASDAQ
- High tech
The list goes on.
I won't cite the numbers or attempt to be exhaustive in listing all the types of things the Zionist point to in trying to make their point.
Let's look at the subjects though, since that's the salient aspect.
Number of university graduates: This has a great deal to do with opportunity and oppression and suppression. Fuller statistics show that when people of other ethnic backgrounds have equal access to education, those other ethnic groups do better and better. This is one of the reasons racists and ethnic bigots attempt to deprive other races and ethnic groups from having an opportunity to attend colleges and universities. The statistics would show that the lower the rate of degrees with a given group, the more that group has suffered oppression — have literally been blocked from college educations.
So, what is this? Is it an argument for violent revolution? There are those who believe it is one argument for it, since the powers that be are those who make the decisions that deprive and oppress others on the basis of group even where one has no choice of being a member of the group.
Of course, the RLCC (Real Liberal Christian Church) doesn't hold with violence. Violence is a sign of lower intelligence.
Advanced degrees: This is exactly the same as for college graduates. Funding is made available by those who have seized power over such decisions. Those who would spread the funding across all ethnic groups are likewise suppressed. The powers that be wouldn't want intelligent ideas discussed at length and often. They would catch on. The masses would come to make the connections and move for greater egalitarianism for the good of the whole and all individuals.
Recipients of famous awards: This is more of the same inner circle rewarding themselves. Any group can give awards. It's nothing. Famous awards have been given to people for things that when looked at closely suggest that the person certainly didn't merit accolades but rather rebuking. Milton Friedman receiving the Nobel Prize for economics is a perfect case in point.
IQ: The tests for intelligence are designed by those who a culturally bias. Anyone can devise an I.Q. test, just as anyone can give out an award. The value is in the eye of the beholder. Do the prevalent I.Q. tests test for moral intelligence? Do they simply ask whether or not one is for giving and sharing over greed and for peace over violence and for harmlessness over harm and factor the answers into the quotient? No, they do not. They avoid these. However, the RLCC says giving and sharing, total pacifism, and harmlessness are intelligent while greed, violence, and harm are the opposite. Of course, circumstances or contexts dictate terms. We are speaking in the ultimate here.
Companies listed on the NASDAQ: Jewish/Israeli companies are listed in high percentage on the NASDAQ. Well, the NASDAQ is a U.S.-based stock exchange and the U.S. has the second highest population of Jews in the world after Israel. Is being listed on the U.S. NASDAQ a sign of intelligence or worth to Americans in general? What about all the anti-environmental aspects of the listed companies? How many Israeli companies are causing great harm to the people of the world while those companies are listed on the NASDAQ? What about corporate corruption? Some people would consider such a listing as an indication of inherent evil rather than good and intelligence.
The RLCC holds that evil is both absolute and relative at the same time. That's because God knows absolute righteousness while human beings see in relative terms. This is a huge subject area. It's the biggest, since it involves the infinitude of God. Of course, in some sense, everything is interconnected even while there are clear disconnects.
It is this type of so-called abstract reasoning that is lacking in the argument of the Zionists. It's why they fail to accept Jesus. Jesus comprehended all of this and shared it openly but was oppressed, suppressed, and murdered to shut him up.
Drugs: How many people die each year from bad drugs? How many drugs are not as good as the natural alternatives that are suppressed by the rich and powerful drug companies? How much better would the world be if the emphasis were to be placed first on prevention?
Not everything coming under the heading of drugs is bad. It's just that so much of what does come under that heading is bad.
The Zionists point to the numbers of drugs the Israelis have brought forth, but what about citing all the negatives associated with those drugs? What about the lack of care that is taken when it comes time to mass-market the drugs?
I'm not saying that everyone can anticipate everything. That's not the point. The point is how much does one want to come to be able to anticipate everything. How much does one want society moving in the direction of such care rather than using information to lord it over others for selfish gain?
The message of Jesus speaks directly to this. He taught service. The kind of service he showed put everyone else first.
Now, employ some of that abstract reasoning and imagine a world where everyone is putting the welfare of everyone else first. Imagine being the beneficiary of everyone else putting you first while you too do the same toward all of them. Think about a world where no one is out to harm you but rather to do the exact opposite, which is to benefit you. Absolutely no one would want to or attempt to benefit at your negative expense. In other words, no one would be living falsehood.
Patents: Many things are patented. Monsanto's dreaded GM seeds are patented. Many drugs that are really just rip offs of natural herbs have been patented. Many sinful weapons are patented. Just patenting something or just inventing something (fashioning it) is not a sign of intelligence. Some things ought not to be brought forth. Just because it can be imagined does not mean it ought to be brought forth into tangible reality. There are many things that if they could be uninvented we would all be better off.
Think about all the things you can imagine that society is not working toward bringing forth that were it to work toward, all would be better off. Where are our priorities? Jesus said that there are weightier matters than others. Can we all see that? Didn't people see that before he said it? Why are we failing to cooperate and serve each other if not for the evil of selfishness?
Imagination is a difficult word for Christians. The contexts of the term have not been sufficiently discussed. There is imagination, and then there is imagination. Some is good. Some is evil. Imagining Jesus's Heaven is not evil. Bringing it forth would not be evil.
As for setting priorities, it is absolutely critical to do so from the correct starting place. That starting place is the spirit of serving all in harmlessness. Therefore, the exhaustive questions must be asked and discussed openly, honestly, and directly. This is the enemy of secrets and barriers and of shutting down discussion before the root is discussed.
Jesus called for root change, radical, extreme change, not superficial or vacuous change, not platitudes, but specifics. This is where the current political discussions fall so woefully short.
The powers that be always seek to do all the talking and always seek to cut off all others who want to get at the root of matters. Watch them for this. Listen to them. Read their words. You will see that they will say what they want you to hear and then abruptly stop before the real meaning of terms, the real direction they have in mind, and the fuller consequences of their direction comes out. If asked, they will evade. The more they are asked, the more violent they become through hired goons (misled, some well-intentioned, police and others).
High tech: This is all about procreating. This is such a huge area and so touchy and misunderstood.
Jesus's worldly father was a carpenter, a builder, a "tek" person. Jesus though arrived at a place where God would provide without work on Jesus's part or any other human's part. He arrived at a place (a state of being) where the so-called natural world would alter instantly to provide. That place was absent hypocrisy. Hypocrisy fills things with falsehood. Where there is the spirit of falsehood, what is termed miraculous provisioning is withheld.
High tech is a human attempt to achieve the provisioning regardless of the presents of hypocrisy. It is the human attempt to achieve God-like powers in all things material while remaining as selfish as the overlords desire. It's the old satanic thrust. They want Heaven with sin, coercion, slaves, etc.
Wealth: It's been toned down recently, but not that long ago, the Jews were literally bragging about how many Jewish billionaires there are considering the small percentage of the world's population that is Jewish. Much of the reason for the toning down is because greed isn't a virtue, and one must be greedy to be a billionaire (at least until inflation makes billionaires of the poor).
No matter how much some billionaires give away and why or how much they give speeches for greater egalitarianism, unless they turn to Christlikeness, they remain greedy hoarders and out for number one where number one is not one with God but rather set up against God.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)