THE STORY ON RACIST RABBI YITZHAK SHAPIRA CONTINUES

I was immediately compelled by the Holy Spirit to reinforce the calls for peace made by an atheist on Facebook in her argument with a fellow atheist of her's. This may strike some who call themselves Christian as an anti-Christ activity, but I assure you that it is not. The female (Alex) is an Iranian. The other one is a male, Jew, Israeli-Zionist who I believe is a graduate student in the U.S.

That Yitshak Shapiro [aka Yitzhak Shapira; author of the 230-page book, "The King's Torah"] is reflecting the racism and ethnic bigotry endemic in the Babylonian Talmud is without doubt. His views most certainly do reflect Talmudic Judaism, which is the most prevalent strain by far and has direct impact upon the course of Israel in both foreign and domestic affairs.

An aside: Cleaning toilets is an honorable profession. Many fine people do it. I'm sure Alex doesn't look down on others who do so. Many people put themselves and their children through college by doing such work that someone needs to do or we'd have pretty gross toilets. I know I clean mine. The person who demeaned Alex by making such references the way he or she did may end up experiencing divine retribution, as it were. Some would call it poetic justice were that soul to be a beyond-gross toilet cleaner for eternity. I curse no one to such. That's the other spirit.

Coinciding with my reading this thread today for the first time, I had read the following earlier today: "I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war." (Psalms 120:7)

Now the tables are turned. Who can be at home with fascist, racist Zionists?

The truth of the matter is that those Talmudic Zionists who subscribe to Yitshak Shapiro's interpretations are spewing evil. It doesn't help to deny it or to accuse those who say it of being perhaps crypto-racists themselves.

I am a bigot. I am bigoted against war-mongers and those who excuse themselves by reason of the Babylonian Talmud. There is nothing wrong with that bigotry of mine. I'm right to be bigoted in that sense. Am I bigoted against Yitshak Shapiro? I absolutely am bigoted against his current, unrepentant position. I am likewise bigoted against anyone calling himself or herself Muslim or Hindu or Christian or Atheist or what have you where that one tells anyone that it's okay and even right to murder innocents of any ethnic background. I say of anyone who disagrees with me on this that he is a liar or stupid or both. He is a fool, and I say it with cause and bearing no false witness, for it is self-evident to the softer-hearted.

H1471
גּי גּוי
gôy gôy
go'ee, go'-ee
Apparently from the same root as H1465 (in the sense of massing); a foreign nation; hence a Gentile; also (figuratively) a troop of animals, or a flight of locusts: - Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

Let's not limit the label "goy" merely to being other. It is akin to how the Athenians used the term barbarian – certainly inferior. Of course, there are inferior behaviors; however, they are not attributable to human DNA nearly as much as exposure and reinforcement. This is the nature/nurture debate. Racists lean way over on the so-called nature-side of the equation. While I find that many people who hold themselves out to be refined and sophisticated, etc., to be nearly and sometimes completely intractably "uncivilized." I find Benjamin Netanyahu to be against what is best for civil society for instance. He is the relative barbarian, depending upon one's connotation in play.

Racism is not peculiar to Israelis; however, right now, they are manifesting it in highly violent ways more so than are the other nations. This is the point. Denying it is obfuscation.

The same false arguments could have been made in support of Apartheid South Africa where one could have said that certain Afrikaners were no worst than KKK members in the U.S. and that to stand up against them might be dangerous as one might be taken as anti-Afrikaner regardless of the Afrikaner's racists views.

Banafshe? What's it mean? Is the same as Alex...?

As for Jews in Iran, which came first a) Zionist-Project terrorism to bring about the theft of Palestinian lands and property and the other crimes or b) the slightest, negative discrimination by Iran against Jews in Iran? Are the two linked? This is assuming that we should not defer to Alex on this since she seems to seek truth no matter who might look bad. I for one will defer. I am confident that I would find peaceful coexistence in Iran because Alex has said so. I am not suggesting here that she is denying any discrimination on the part of any Iranian. The exception can prove the rule. There is vastly worse discrimination going on in Israel and the other occupied areas by Israelis than there is in Iran generally and probably even in its worst locales for wrongful discrimination.

I say that relations have suffered more in the world at large due to the Zionist Project, which does equal racism in spite of the denials. The Zionists' literature shows it clearly. I still denounce the racism of the Deep South in the U.S. Why would I do something different just because Jews are involved? The holocaust is irrelevant for instance, as huge groups of people have suffered huge holocausts, even proportional to their populations. Whole nations have been exterminated, as the Jew's own Bible attests. As an example, there is no nation of Sodom. It was a city, but it was a nation if we believe that nations were extended families or tribes, etc. I hold that they were, and are, with the qualification now that there is the nation-state that is more diverse, such as is the case in the U.S. and many other political "nations" not based upon a lineage other than Human in general and not based upon religious sect.

I have no problem with voluntary, non-violent, honest separation. Families do, and should continue to be allowed to, live together without non-family members forced into their houses. What the Zionist Project is though is a separation that is violently cleansing stolen lands. That's a fact, and no amount of tap dancing or running away from it will alter it.

That Egypt makes mistakes does not excuse the illegal land-grabbing — and it was and is illegal no matter what is said about the U.N. or what comes out from the Empire.

Who cares about who is or is not a racist in terms of his own ethnicity when it comes to standing up against it all? One denounces it all or one excuses some of it. An Israeli either stands up to denounce the racism of all other Israelis for cause and denounces all racism everywhere also for cause or that one is part of the problem, not the solution.

It is right to hate evil, and the Zionist Project is evil. It may state partial-truths, but underlying it all is nothing short of land theft and worse, obviously.

Donate


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)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.