Since the ratio of death of Palestinian to Jew over there is targeted to at least 100:1 and Zionists can and have reached for many multiples of that, are they as heartless as was Adolf? Would they opt for extermination if the world turned its back?
To hear many of the Zionists speaking and writing, the answer appears to be that they very well might. The polls in Israel have clearly shown a widespread and deep-seated ethnically based hatred for Palestinians and Arabs or others. We've also seen the videos on YouTube that went "viral" showing obnoxious racists and ethnic bigots ("Settlers" and others) strutting their stuff every bit as much as any goose-stepping Nazi ever did. Of course, let's not forget how many crypto-Zionists may well have been part of the Nazis' war machine. Tens of thousands of Jews were in the Nazi military after all, were they not? – very strange indeed unless there was an underlying understanding of a twisted sort.
Hitler to Lord Halifax (1937): "Shoot Gandhi, and if that does not suffice to reduce them to submission, shoot a dozen leading members of Congress; and if that does not suffice, shoot 200 and so on until order is established."
Can non-violence work against Apartheid-or-else Zionism? Adolf said he (Germany) was stabbed in the back by Jewish banksters. Netanyahu and Lieberman say "Never Again" to being even partially exterminated by those who claim that they (Israel, albeit ersatz) are backstabbers or too much of a problem for humanity to allow them to survive and to reproduce their "kind."
(Note: On the main blog page of this site, the above video doesn't show in certain browsers. Visit the individual post's page. It should render there: http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2010/06/08/can-netanyahu-act-the-mini-hitler-or-worst-and-if-not-netanyahu-then-avigdor-lieberman-etc.html.)
Why then did Israel attack the USS Liberty, and why has it gotten away with it?
The Liberty was not supposed to survive.
What kept her afloat if God was on the side of the Zionists?
Well, Hitler is not in charge of the world. The British are a mixed breed and so is the whole world. The point of non-violence now is not to convince the British Empire to leave India but to convince the world not to support Israel in its desire to martyr itself by making "Israel" into Masada by the Sea. At least that's what they want everyone to think in their rush to brinkmanship. They are standing there with a guns to their own heads saying stop or we'll shoot. The problem is that the triggers are also connected to a doomsday device called hundreds of nuclear weapons.
Where are they? Are they mirved at the top of long-range missiles able to be launched from various locales including under water? The Israelis have some nuclear-capable submarines, but are they enough for hundreds of warheads? Where are their land-based missile silos? Where are their long-range bombers? Would any of these get through? Are any of them unknown to the US, Russia, and/or China, but especially the US? Would the Zionists, who rose via asymmetrical means, such as the terrorist bombing of the King David Hotel among many other terrorist acts, have adopted wholesale the model of the US for handling the Soviets?
Rather, are there suitcase bombs, wherever, in the US and elsewhere just in case? It would still be, suicide because those would not be at every location of US deterrent (read retaliatory) capability. The US can target and re-target and war game Israel (and its submarines that cannot hide from the US gaze that "sees" through water) in less than the blink of an eye. The super computers run hot 24/7 and "think" for themselves in ways the quants on "Wall Street" haven't yet imagined in their quest for their paymasters for unfathomable, Ponzi houses of cards.
In addition, the US certainly could have its own "suitcase" bombs sitting in Israel able to be triggered from a distance.
What other things might the Ashkenazim come up with? They pride themselves on their pharmacological, computer, and other prowess. They certainly have made major privatized inroads into the US National Security Community. The NSA has its leads patched into systems of Israeli origin. Who's the dog versus the tail, or is it one dog with two heads and tails?
If Verona taught the US intelligence agencies anything, it was that the other side mirrors the efforts of the US. The US simply tries to use more of the same is all and for no less unrighteous ends than the continuation and solidification of evil-elitist dictatorship. The poorer folks then do things on the cheap that can often work very well, since many of the rich folks always think rich methods are what the poor use but only as much of those methods as the poor can afford. Well, when the Zionist weren't getting quite enough money from the Rothschilds and others and they needed a rear view from their jets and couldn't afford the US TV-camera solution, they installed rearview mirrors – how cheap but how effective. So what tools can the Palestinians "afford," homemade, glorified bottle rockets (the latest technology from Iran, hardly) that fall as heavy tubes on Israelis killing only a hand full in decades, as bad as that is? Bad Israeli drivers are much more lethal in Israel – drive and ethnically cleans at your own risk.
As for the Zionist threat that the Pentagon takes seriously (the Pentagon loaded with Zionists by the way), suitcase nuclear bombs are no more lethal than are genetically engineered super viruses concerning which the eugenicists of the Zionists could pre-inoculate the Zionist ranks, sort of a grander version of the use of CIPRO by the White House before the Anthrax attack on Democrats in the Senate who were asking too many questions and acting too puffed up with anti-fascist rhetoric – all have clearly caved, but if they aren't still there, they're just somewhere else and richer, much, much richer thanks to the banksters and corporatists of the global empire, whatever that Hydra (the Beast of the Bible; worldly Empire) happens to be a any given moment. It is "We the people" reflected back on us – what our collective heart and soul has wrought.
So, is there MAD in the minds of the Zionist leadership, or are they really psychotic to the point of wanting to payback the "world" if they cannot have their way with the "niggers" (Palestinians), who ironically are very closely related carnally speaking to those Zionists.
Now, since I use that term "nigger," it behooves me to express in no uncertain terms that I don't hold with racism or ethnic bigotry whatsoever. I take each person one at a time and consider each according to his or her own character. There are many, many black people whom I consider to be fine people, as fine as people are in relative terms. None of us is measuring up to God yet, although we all should be working on it both individually and collectively – the exact opposite of sociopathic humanism a la Ayn Rand and others, Hitler included.
That said, let me also say that there is Christian humanism. In fact, it's the only kind. Jesus was a humanist. He was a real humanist. In fact, his brand of humanism is also the one and only real humanism. Only his view of the relationship of God and man is ultimately sustainable and leads to salvation in the Highest. There is no human-only technology now or in future that will defeat God. We are a subset forever until we become as trustworthy as God — meaning God. That's where Jesus is. That's where he came from. That's where he was coming from, to use the "modern" expression concerning his radical (root) return to God's ideology.
Humanity is lost in the confusion of its own making, arising from the chain reaction of its choices going back to the beginning. Whether you believe in total free will or complete predestination or determinism, we choose or appear to choose. Let us do either, and let the result be Good Samaritanism as a conscious choice guiding the New World Order rather than the grotesque outline we see right now in the womb of Hell waiting to give birth to greater death and destruction.
Would the Zionist show their real stripes that consider all non-Zionists to be worth less? Americans used to feel that way about themselves until they started to realize that Blacks actually had human and civil rights under the US Constitution, in which case, racial and ethnic pluralism sort of did away with WASP's-are-the-most-valuable-creatures-on-the-planet (American exceptionalism and only WASP's have the culture capable of the American system of government) – very convenient when the Palestinians elected Hamas (the Palestinians' own "Likud" only not so low) to represent and govern them.
If the world weren't watching, just how far would Avigdor Lieberman go to "own" the Holy Land, Greater Israel, the whole world?
Robert La Follette, Sr. said concerning WWI:
Envision our good old Uncle Sam dispensing charity to the starving peoples of [fill in the blank]; their hands stretched out to him shrunken with hunger and starvation, little children about his knees, pale, emaciated, their hands so thin you can see through them.... Think of charity represented in the person of this figure that stands for American benevolence and philanthropy turning away a starving child because it is of [Palestinian] heritage.
I substituted in Palestinian for German there, and the "fill in the blank" was Europe. Now one could just as easily substitute all the rich and powerful nations of the world for "Uncle Sam" too. Will the world never turn? What's the point? Is all lost? Is life on this plane futile? Do the nihilists have it right? Is only the ultimate in soul destruction the only escape?
What's wrong with going in the opposite direction to all of this humanism-apart-from-God-or-bust thinking? "Can't we all just get along?"
Well, the question is, "Can't we all just properly define God as that which is beyond and is the doer of what Jesus said all ought to be doing, etc.?" I say that, that is the right direction.
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)