by...
DEALING WITH ANTI-SEMITISM FROM NEOCON/ZIONIST DISTORTED IDEOLOGY
I just posted the following comment over on OpEdNews on the post there entitled, "Dealing with Anti-Semitism from a Jewish Perspective."
When I saw the headline of this article, I thought to myself, does he mean anti-Semites or anti-Jews or anti-Zionists as in anti-Jabotinsky-type terrorists? I see now that you mean Jews who are against the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, which ethnic cleansing, as we all know, is a euphemism for murder and land theft.
I like Palestine. I've decided that my offspring will be a great nation. I'm instructing them now to takeover Palestine/Israel and "clean" (exterminate or horn out) the place of everyone who isn't my descendant because my descendents will be able to. Does that sound good to you?
Let's see, were there German anti-Nazis where that sentiment, that insanity, was diagnosed by the Nazis as a virus? Did those Nazis hate themselves?
You need to get up to speed. Alan Dershowitz said that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.
You say some of the staff of OpEdNews agrees with this junk you're spewing? Well, there's a definite fascist streak within OpEdNews then.
Do you really believe people are still falling for your propaganda? It's worn out. It stopped working long ago. You're just restating all the failed racist excuses. Your article is weak. You give no valid reasons for anyone who is truly anti-fascist to accept your agenda.
You mention Meier Kahane without even mentioning the reprehensible Jewish Defense League? Are you sure that OpEdNews staff agrees with you?
So, what's a Semite? My understanding is that it means the descendents of Shem. It is also my understanding that the Palestinian Arabs descend from Shem. So, where do the Zionists get off calling anti-Zionists anti-Semites? Also, how can a Jew be against himself when he is for righteousness toward the Palestinian Arabs and his fellow Jews alike?
Your logic isn't logical. Your reasoning is specious.
Let's look at the word "Zion." Everyone's root understanding about it should come from the Bible. It's a hill. It's tied in with Salem, which is the place of peace. The "Zionists," however, didn't return in peace to share the land. They return to horn out others by any means necessary including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, all the things they decry when done to them. Yet, you have the audacity to use the term "double standard."
Is the Zionist Project legitimate? Not in my book it isn't. Plenty of nations are wrong, illegal, and illegitimate, etc. The U.S. is one of them as a matter of fact. Of course, it depends upon the law one follows.
When was the first Palestinian suicide bomber? What was going on before that with the Zionists? Were they being nice to the Arabs? I'm not for suicide bombing, and I don't excuse it; but I know who has the greater sin if you're going to keep talking directly or indirectly about collective guilt and rights, etc.
Let's look at the name "Israel." It comes from Jacob. Jacob said his sons make Jacob's house to stink among the nations by the actions of those sons. To the real "Israel," Jacob, everything his sons did was not excused. In fact, he cursed them.
Then you go on to demean "Catholic Liberation Theology" as if it's less worthy than the so-called "just wars" of greedy capitalists? You are seriously confused. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a Marxist, but not all liberation theologians are Marxist or violent. I'm a liberation theologian, and I'm a total pacifist and can't stand capitalism, including the Austrian School variety.
Sharansky test? Sharansky doesn't set the definitions. He and you are losing and will lose. The only hope for him and you is to give it up: the racist, fascistic Zionist Project.
By the way, I don't care what Rob Kall thinks about this comment of mine in terms of whether or not he'll ban me from his site on account of it. Let him if he's a rabid Zionist. He'll fail right along with you. I hope he's brighter than that though.
You're wearing out the Stockholm Syndrome analogy and especially since it applies to Zionists more than the other way around. Zionists are the ones who have taken on the characteristics of those they complain most about: the Nazis. Of course, that's assuming that they weren't there already but just suppressed enough by other "nations."
You also cite a study on pain. Do you know who feels more the way the Arabs in that study feel? I bet you don't. People who feel more that way are people who have been more abused. The Zionists are the abusers right now, and more importantly, many of them have never been on the receiving and have their dirty work done for them by people barely out of their teens.
Was your point to show that there's an ethnic superiority-inferiority thing going on there? It sure sounds that way. However, I've known Arabs who weren't abused and who were born and raised in the U.S. as Christians. I'll tell you, I'll stack them up against your brain scan anytime.
You're piece starts out lumping everyone together. Then intermittently, when it suits you, you talk about individual Jews. What about the Jews who help to rebuild the houses of Palestinians and Israeli Arabs that are demolished by their fellow Jews? Are they all sick? Should they be like Meier Kahane and his followers? How many Palestinians would be left in the West Bank if they did that, none? Would they all be dead? It's likely if all the Zionists weren't dead first.
Try peace rather than lies. Ilan Pappe has more reasons to like himself. I like it that his ilk stands up telling the truth rather then spreading the false propaganda of the Zionist Project.
You're an OpEdNews Senior Editor? Will this comment even make it on? By the way, I'm prepared to debate you point-by-point in writing right here on OpEdNews. To me, failure to be willing to do that and just hitting with selective statements while ignoring the other person's points or twisting them into what they are not are the only legitimate reasons for censorship (barring porn and such of course). Some libertarians wouldn't even bar the porn.
Anyway, it's clear that you aren't a "liberal." You're a neocon. I thought OpEdNews was for liberals, not neocons. What is this, bait and switch now that Rob has plenty of people "invested" with time and energy? I hope not; but right now, it isn't looking good.
By the way, I wrote this before reading any comments. Then before posting it, I read the comments without changing from here up in my comment.
Let me say bravo to those Jews who stood right up to you. Mark Sashine is a particular shining example of why real anti-Semitism stinks. All the anti-Jew stereotyping does not apply against him. Fortunately, there are many, many Jews who are likewise standing up to be heard saying that what the Zionist Project has done is disgusting and inexcusable, just as what Apartheid South Africa did and slavery America and Nazi Germany and on and on all around the world.
The Zionists aren't special. You're just being some of the worst if not the worst for the time being.
Hallelujah for Rob Kall writing, "Put me on the list, I guess," with the exception of the "I guess" part. He probably means that he doesn't hate himself for being a Jew, per se.
"...we are building an Israeli-type 2,000 mile wall too." Whose idea is that? Could it have come from neocons within the U.S. government? Yes, it sure could have. It did, didn't it?
We don't need that wall. That wall is ridiculous. That wall is paranoid. That wall is the result of people who will profit selfishly by it at the greater expense of those who don't need or want the stupid, fascist wall. They are wicked people who have fired up the arms race in Mexico and stand to benefit by the drug wars.
As for Pearl Harbor, try reading the real reasons behind that event and the works of researchers who did firsthand studies of the historical documents, such as documented in, "Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor," by Robert Stinnett.
Oh by the way, you're supposed to hate yourself when you do wrong.
Lastly, Tony Blair and George W. Bush took more heat from Anglo-Saxons than Ariel Sharon took from Jews any day. I'm Anglo-Saxon and don't shrink a bit from saying that Blair and Bush and many others were monstrous and very fascistic, right in there with the Likud, although, Bush and Blair didn't like it all the time. They sucked it up for the money though and the Great Anglo-American-Israeli Empire.
Peace
- Technorati Tags: abuse, abusers, Alan Dershowitz, America, analogy, Anglo-American-Israeli Empire, Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Saxons, anti-fascist, anti-Jews, anti-Nazis, anti-Semites, anti-Zionists, Apartheid South Africa, Arabs, Ariel Sharon, arms race, Austrian School, bait and switch, Bible, brain scan, capitalism, capitalists, Catholic Liberation Theology, censorship, Christians, collective guilt, crimes against humanity, Day of Deceit, double standard, drug war, ethnic, ethnic cleansing, euphemism, exterminate, false propaganda, fascist, fascistic, genocide, George W. Bush, German, greater sin, greedy, horn out, ideology, Ilan Pappe, illegal, illegitimate, inferiority, insanity, Israel, Jabotinsky, Jacob, Jacob's house, Jew, Jewish, Jewish Defense League, Jews, just war, land theft, legitimate, liberal, liberals, liberation theologians, libertarians, Likud, logic, logical, Mark Sashine, Marxist, Meier Kahane, Mexico, murder, Nazi Germany, Nazis, neocon, neocons, OpEdNews, Palestine, Palestinian, Palestinian Arabs, paranoid, peace, Pearl Harbor, porn, propaganda, rabid Zionist, racist, righteousness, Rob Kall, Robert Stinnett, Salem, Semite, Sharansky, Sharansky test, Shem, slavery, stereotyping, stink among the nations, Stockholm Syndrome, suicide bomber, superiority, terrorists, The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, Tony Blair, total pacifist, U.S., violent, virus, war crimes, West Bank, Zion, Zionist Project, Zionists
Tom Usher
Standing Comment, all posts and pages:
To all homosexuals and their supporters, condoners, promoters, accepters, confirmers, and the like:
Unless you have something completely new that hasn't already been refuted, don't bother. It won't show up.
Rehashing what has already been refuted is a waste of everyone's time.
I'm not interested in casting pearls before swine, giving the children's bread to the dogs, or rebuking a forever scorner.
Learn or go away: There is zero wisdom in homosexuality. Homosexuality is wrong. Nothing any homosexual or anyone else can say or do will alter it. No one needs the Bible to know it either. It's prima facie. There's no such thing as an unrepentant-homosexual Christian. There never has been and never will be. That's the way of it. If you don't like it, change.
Do site searches on the various topics concerning homosexuality to determine if your "point" has already been handled. Currently, I provide three different search methods. The "WordPress" search is still the most thorough.
The same can be done regarding militarism, capitalism, coercion, and many other main issues and themes.
TREATMENT, RUDENESS, POLITENESS, OFFENSE, TRUTH
Many times over the course of this website's existence, I've had commentators complain about how I've treated them and/or others. Much less frequently has anyone taken exception to those commentator's comments. I assume that's because for one, I appear to be holding my own.
Often, I have raised the fact that Jesus called certain people "serpents." I've often also mentioned how he cleaned the temple with whip in hand, not that he used it on anyone. It certainly doesn't say that he did, and neither was he charged with it in the kangaroo court of the serpents who ended up murdering him by proxy just for, among other wonderful things, speaking out and speaking truth.
If I say that those who are engaged in serpentine behavior are the New Testament "serpents," then why take offense at my saying it rather than standing with Jesus and me about it?
If others don't like it that I treat others or them the way I have in this regard, why don't they take it up with the serpents and/or their own consciences and God?
If I wanted to catch flies, I'd use honey. I don't want flies on this level. Human beings aren't to be on the level of flies. If the truth is bitter as vinegar, then ask yourself why and learn to taste it as sweet but not sickeningly so. Why attack the message and messenger, as the serpents did, and become a serpent by so doing?
The issue is not "name calling" on some bratty, childish level. When Jesus said "serpents," he was not being as a brat. His level was completely adult to adults and children. He dared say that the children understood the clear and plain truth before the adults who, afterall, had been abused and socialized by the serpents. He still calls adults back. Those who hear him and know his voice (truth) turn around and do the other required things together as well.
What is it for a human being to be more serpentine or reptilian than what God initially gave? What was and remains Jesus's point? What is the reptilian brain versus the vastly higher human brain with its cerebral cortex and frontal and temporal lobes and specific areas of altruistic sentiments and abilities? What are those higher areas before they are damaged, before the communication pathways to them and between them are diminished by evil that is always some form of abuse? How are those pathways reestablished or created where they never were in this fleshly life?
The snake lays its eggs. The eggs hatch. The snake parent doesn't nurture or raise the offspring. It's every snake for itself. Human parents and family are not designed to be that way. Humans hand down the learning of nurturing. Many people get better training than do others, and many people have a greater aptitude for learning and predisposition for the higher and highest virtues. Many are less abused. People can change for the better and best though, no matter where the starting point. They only can't if they don't — if they reject it.
Snakes, of course, also come in venomous varieties and in strangling varieties, etc., such that they have been attackers and even devourers of humans for eons, guilty and innocent alike.
Now, Jesus knew that most people could relate to what were, and still are, largely considered "good" parenting skills and "good" "family" relations. He regularly used those concepts to get people to consider the wider implications for the whole of humanity. He did know that many would refuse. He let them go. He didn't demand secular or false-religion legislation to rein them in with threats of violence and imprisonment. He was not and is not coercive. Even his Church is a voluntary place to be.
What he still teaches (through the written words in the New Testament and as those connect with the Old and also teaches through the Holy Spirit he definitely sent as he said he would) is, among many other things, that "good" is vastly better than has been commonly accepted and that real "family" is everyone left after all the rest have rejected the higher and highest good. He raised the standards far above the Old Testament and far above the "modern" standard.
The American Empire and the American people in general aren't even touching the hem of his garment, let alone even attempting to stand upright and side-by-side with him.
I point out that Jesus was, and is, a Real Liberal Christian. He is the one who brought back this censored truth that is the light. After he had spoken it and lived it and was murdered for doing so, the censors set about to re-censor it and did. They couldn't put it out though — couldn't completely extinguish the truth. I wouldn't be saying it now again with all credit to God, just as Jesus, if they had been able to completely block it.
I point out that each of those terms ("real," "liberal," and "Christian," along with "Church") are actually redundant terms — synonyms that are so close that they become one. The term "liberal" here is not the common usage, which common usage is a deliberate corruption of the term. There is no harm in real liberalism. There is no vileness in it. There is only beneficence. "Real" may be understood as the opposite of false-hearted, dark side, and dead of the Holy Spirit. Christian is both real and liberal in those senses. To arrive at living, doing, being those full senses requires what Jesus lives, does, and is in the highest. Finally, the Church is the whole.
Who are they who want to drag it down, censor it, work against it, lessen it, ignore it, etc.? Well, who sides with Jesus and who sides against him? Did the serpents side with him then? Do they now?
We call war-mongers "hawks." We call "peacemakers" blessed and "doves." Why do the hawks not take offense at "hawks" but do take offense at "serpents"? "Hawks" is not yet as telling to the general public, but I must tell you that all hawks are serpents. Why do some say, "Greed is good" but take offense at "serpents"? I tell you there is no difference between the selfish and the serpents. Why do people take offense at serpents when they do not take offense at homosexuality? I tell you the homosexual spirit also comes out from the dark side. It is a choice. It is harmful. Many are abused with it. Many never overcome it. Their very brain matter is transformed by it. Then they claim it is good when it remains confusion and definitely wrong and harmful.
Many arguments were put forth in support of tolerance. I understood that Jesus "tolerated," as in he did not execute wrath but rather told the truth and let the blind follow the blind (blind to the truth) into the ditch of their own making. I have watched while the movement has been corrupted into condoning what was once only to be tolerated. I have watched further while it has moved from condoning to promoting even to the youngest children to get to them before the truth does. I have seen evil at work, and I sound the alarm. I face censorship and other negative reactions for it.
As the American Empire claims to be a light to the world, it murders innocent babies by Hellfire missiles fired from predator drones controlled by armchair, video-gaming serpents in uniform. It tortures those who are not even suspects. It spies on its own without even probable cause or reasonable suspicion. It lies its way into wars for spoils and control. It neglects its poor, whom it treads down for the sakes of the superrich — for the sake of the massive flow of mammon from the bottom up (no trickledown — trickledown is a farce and always has been). All is claimed to be okay in America though — that America is headed in the right direction — because soon, even "don't tell, don't ask" will be a thing of the quaint past and homosexuals may be able to sleep together and have sex in the barracks with the "blessing" of the Empire while they practice murdering the innocent for the sake of homosexual, greedy plutocrats who own them and who, in turn, are owned by the dark-side spirit named by God and Jesus as Satan.
Whose side are you on? I speak truth to warn. I don't tell the secular government what to do other than occasionally to say what at least would be less hypocritical within their fallen, unenlightened system. I do so for spiritual reasons. What I want is the Christian Commons.
Now, if you submit a comment:
What you write here against the Real Liberal Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ will mark you in the Biblical sense unless you show that you have turned and are repenting in time to escape the damnation of your own choosing. That's the way of it. Don't be tempted by the devil to stand opposed to the call of righteousness. Overcome such evil temptation. Help others to help yet others to come to righteous behavior through-and-through.
Check out how even after reading this, people will still take it out of context and twist it to an evil end.