0
   

Dawkins on the power of the Jews

 
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 10:38 am
it should bother people just the same, that failing to wholly agree with the israeli government's *policy* is confused with anti-semitism, no less than it should bother people that not agreeing with the bush administration's policy is referred to as "unamerican."

just because you don't like the bush administration doesn't mean you hate white people- i don't like him, that doesn't make me a "self-hating" white. i also don't agree with a lot of policies aimed at exploiting racial minorities. that doesn't make me self-hating either, it makes me a human being.
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 11:11 am
Foofie wrote:
Zippo, could you let the readers know a little bit about who you are, since you have such strong opinions about Jews. It would put a context around your posts that might even give credence to them.

But being the veritable masked Lone Ranger only casts you in the light of a very opinionated person with possibly no rational reason for your concerns.

Is your background one of the western monotheistic faiths? Are you first generation American? Did your family come from Europe, or an ex-colony of some European country? All this would take your black and white postings and give it some technicolor.


I like you Foofie, you make me laugh. Laughing
Well, a pictures speaks a hundred words. I've posted my photo. I hope this helps. Very Happy

http://www.stevequayle.com/GG.Images/giantAfghan.jpg
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 11:13 am
tinygiraffe wrote:
it should bother people just the same, that failing to wholly agree with the israeli government's *policy* is confused with anti-semitism, no less than it should bother people that not agreeing with the bush administration's policy is referred to as "unamerican."

just because you don't like the bush administration doesn't mean you hate white people- i don't like him, that doesn't make me a "self-hating" white. i also don't agree with a lot of policies aimed at exploiting racial minorities. that doesn't make me self-hating either, it makes me a human being.


Well said!
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 11:20 am
Foofie wrote:
Zippo wrote:
Quote:
You're telling me Australian aboriginees, or Argentinean natives, or Native Americans, or Black Africans in African Arab lands are treated with the milk of human kindness. I guess I was under a total misconception.


Find one single example of them having their homes/crops bulldozed by the government. Or getting run over by a tank.


Then show me one single example of Australian aboriginees, or Argentinean natives, or any other group that had their land compromised (in their opinion) and then using the tactic of Homocide Bombers on innocent civilians. You know that's what initiates the bulldozing of homes.

You still haven't addressed the thought about Sephardic Jews, since you seem to write as though all Jews/Israelis are Ashkenazim (aka western or eastern European). Over half of the Jewish Israelis came from Arab countries, after the 1957 Arab/Israeli war. Plus, with the Ethiopian Jews doubling their population practically every decade, the day may come when anti-Zionists won't have Ashkenazi Jews to point to in Israel, claiming the Jewish Israelis are European usurpers.

As I've mentioned earlier, the Palestinians that say they lost land/homes in Israel during the 1948 war, left Israel at the request of the Arab invading armies. They were told to get out of the way of the Arab advancing armies, and in a few weeks time, when the Arab armies won, they could return to live in the homes of the Jews. Boy, was that bad advice.


The sadistic nature of Zionism must be emphasized so that the dimmest person associates the word with scorn and revulsion.
There is one thing that puzzles me: You are apparently a Semite. And you know very well that the Russian Jews - the Ashkenazim - who control Israel and the United States are not Semitic. But you and all Arabs, who should know better, allow the weaponization of the Jewish term, "anti-Semitism."

You Semites never use this term to characterize those who hate and murder you. The genuine anti-Semites are the Zionists, to whom you have granted the exclusive use of this weapon. You even allow them to accuse you of "anti-Semitism" as they practice the vilest form of it against you, and you never object! Even this otherwise excellent article on "anti-Semitism" doesn't mention this obvious fact.

The Israelis, no matter whence they came to Palestine (Russia, Poland, Lithuania, West Europe, America, etc), are ninety-five percent Russian Jews, whose ancestors never set foot in the Middle East and who were in fact converts to Judaism around 900 AD. The few Sephardic Jews in Israel have virtually no rights compared with the Ashkenazim. "Zionism" simply means that the descendants of those converts must emigrate to Palestine, seize control of it, rename it and "make the Law go forth from Zion." The Law is Deuteronomy and the guide for the application of the Law is the Talmud.

Why don't you Semites blow the whistle on these criminal psychopaths and their deceptive weapon of mind control - "anti-Semitism?" An Anglo-Saxon such as I cannot really complain about the abuse of the term because I have no standing as a Semite. But you have.

The Jews use the term for two good reasons: First, it suggests that they are in fact Semitic, which serves to justify their invasion and occupation of Palestine, something that would be otherwise inexplicable for a non-Semite. The obvious question would be: Why do you insist on living there, where you have no roots?

The other reason is that "anti-Semitism" has a clinical, sinister sound. It sounds like a congenital mental disease, which I believe it is in its true form, as practiced by Jews and their janissaries such as Bush and DeLay.
But they simply do not want the term "anti-Jew" used, because they don't want non-Jews to say the word, "Jew." It offends them because the very use of the word by a non-Jew is an accusation of guilt - and they know it.

So, I urge you to spread this very helpful suggestion to create awareness of the criminal psychopathic abuse of the very legitimate term, "anti-Semitism," by racist fanatics whose main reason for living is to exterminate all Semites.

Such a truth campaign would undermine and eventually destroy the Jewish lie of "the right of return." What right? How can you return to a place you and your ancestors never were?

( writer of 'A New Definition of Anti-Semitism' )
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 11:35 am
i don't think there's anything wrong with the *original* definition of anti-semitism, but maybe it's too exclusive.

perhaps we should just lump everything under the term of "bigotry" and then we can get back to seeing the world for what it is, rather than through political blinders presented as love for the jewish people.

if i love jews and arabs alike, there are few avenues open to me politically, but fortunately they exist. and many of the people in favor of this openness happen to be jewish-

you can call them "self-hating," but i think of them as "humanity-loving." and of course, i'm sure there are exceptions- aren't there always?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 06:36 pm
rabel22 wrote:
Foofie
Would you post a personality profile of yourself and what area of the world you live in so I could get a handle on why you believe as you do.


How would that help you? I am Caucasoidal (more panache than just being white) and I live in the Northeast. And my favorite color is orange. I used to like yellow.

I inhabit the right side of the bellcurve, and I don't believe in organized religion. I do believe in the U.S. I believe there are not as many people today as from prior eras, where I am, that truly understand they should be grateful for living in the U.S. Probably some younger intelligent people, or more older people, but a percentage of the masses seem to take their living in the U.S. for granted. Less awareness of how good this country is.

I believe, if there is a God/Jesus, He's American, Republican, and He feels the U.S. has a leading part in His plan for the nations of the world. And if there is a Second Coming, He will ask to visit the White House shortly after His arrival.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 06:54 pm
tinygiraffe wrote:
i don't think there's anything wrong with the *original* definition of anti-semitism, but maybe it's too exclusive.

perhaps we should just lump everything under the term of "bigotry" and then we can get back to seeing the world for what it is, rather than through political blinders presented as love for the jewish people.

if i love jews and arabs alike, there are few avenues open to me politically, but fortunately they exist. and many of the people in favor of this openness happen to be jewish-

you can call them "self-hating," but i think of them as "humanity-loving." and of course, i'm sure there are exceptions- aren't there always?


Arabs are Semites also, so anti-Semitism technically should include Arabs. However, in common parlance, anti-Semitism refers to Jews (aka Jewish people).

I'm not comfortable with just calling all bigotry just bigotry. I think the bigot works too hard at his/her bigotry to just make it a generic term.

I wouldn't want to treat flippantly the nights of burning the midnight oil, so to speak, that the bigot might have had to stay awake to arrive at the fine nuances of prejudice. I could never devote so much effort to bigotry. I don't want to devalue that effort, even though I could never do it.

Think of all the creative false propaganda the bigot has to invent to vent his/her specific prejudice. What hard work! Needless to say, if all this energy was directed towards a more positive effort, many a bigot could be very successful in less bigoted endeavors!
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 07:09 pm
Zippo wrote:
The Israelis, no matter whence they came to Palestine (Russia, Poland, Lithuania, West Europe, America, etc), are ninety-five percent Russian Jews, whose ancestors never set foot in the Middle East and who were in fact converts to Judaism around 900 AD. The few Sephardic Jews in Israel have virtually no rights compared with the Ashkenazim. "Zionism" simply means that the descendants of those converts must emigrate to Palestine, seize control of it, rename it and "make the Law go forth from Zion." The Law is Deuteronomy and the guide for the application of the Law is the Talmud.



No. Over half of Jewish Israelis are of Sephardic Arab descent. They were kicked out of their Arab homelands after Israel won the 1957 war. Israel is becoming less and less an Ashkenazim country. The Ethopian Jews double their population practically every decade. There's over 100,000. They started in 1985 with an airlift from Ethiopia of 15,000.

Whether the Arabs countries like it or not, time is running out to calling Israel a country of European interlopers.

Your claiming the Sephardim have few rights as compared to the European Ashkenazim is wrong. You are also leaving out the fact that the Sephardim and Ashkenazim marry. The children are Sabras, as are all native born Israelis.

If you don't like the existence of Israel as a Jewish Homeland, I don't hear you venting your thoughts to the 60 million Evangelical Christians in the U.S.? The word "bully" comes to mind.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 07:17 pm
Zippo wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Zippo, could you let the readers know a little bit about who you are, since you have such strong opinions about Jews. It would put a context around your posts that might even give credence to them.

But being the veritable masked Lone Ranger only casts you in the light of a very opinionated person with possibly no rational reason for your concerns.

Is your background one of the western monotheistic faiths? Are you first generation American? Did your family come from Europe, or an ex-colony of some European country? All this would take your black and white postings and give it some technicolor.


I like you Foofie, you make me laugh. Laughing
Well, a pictures speaks a hundred words. I've posted my photo. I hope this helps. Very Happy

http://www.stevequayle.com/GG.Images/giantAfghan.jpg


No a phony photo does not help. You forget I see the img code when I reply to a quote.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 07:34 pm
Zippo I found the following from your posting earlier on this thread:

No worries!. Once we find a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, preferably a two-state solution, you won't catch me on any forums posting any threads at all. No more zippo!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you've followed the news over the last decade, you'll remember Arafat did not accept a peace offer for a Palestinian state when he was offered one. Why was that? Some news commentators then thought it might be because he knew a radical side to the conflict wanted only the destruction of Israel. His life might have been in jeopardy, if he concluded the conflict with a two-state solution.

The problem might be too complicated even for a two-state solution at this point in time. Look at the fighting between Fatah and Hamas in Gaza.

Based on this, I believe you should have someone to pass the responsibility of your postings to, since I don't believe there'll be a solution in either of our lifetimes.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 08:54 pm
tinygiraffe wrote:
it's sad that this particular thread has devolved into a discussion of genetics, that's about as racist and ignorant as a2k ever gets.


A real fan of Dawkins I see.

I'm sure you mean this particular discussion of genetics (don't you?) which even if I don't agree with you makes considerably more sense that arguing that a discussion about genetics is racist and ignorant.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 09:05 pm
tinygiraffe wrote:
it should bother people just the same, that failing to wholly agree with the israeli government's *policy* is confused with anti-semitism, no less than it should bother people that not agreeing with the bush administration's policy is referred to as "unamerican."

just because you don't like the bush administration doesn't mean you hate white people- i don't like him, that doesn't make me a "self-hating" white. i also don't agree with a lot of policies aimed at exploiting racial minorities. that doesn't make me self-hating either, it makes me a human being.


Well, it makes you something, but a human being is perhaps too broad a designation. Some human beings are all for exploiting racial minorities, and whether or not it makes you a righteous and caring human being would depend in part on what these policies you refer to might actually be.

I certainly agree that disagreement with Israeli policy does not make a person anti-semitic any more than disagreeing with Bush policy makes one anti-American.

However, always ranting about Jews as opposed to the Israeli government does suggest anti-semitism, and Dawkins, with his comments, proves that brilliant men like him and Noam Chomsky can be idiots too...but then I think he's an idiot about God as well.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Oct, 2007 12:29 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
However, always ranting about Jews as opposed to the Israeli government does suggest anti-semitism, and Dawkins, with his comments, proves that brilliant men like him and Noam Chomsky can be idiots too...but then I think he's an idiot about God as well.


we agree on the principle, in theory, but not on every application of it. i think it has to be case by case, it's easy to reduce someone who cares about the issue as much as chomsky (who i don't think is an idiot, and far as one can be from "anti-semite,") to "always ranting" and that's the imperfection of the theory.

with zippo, i couldn't tell you the reason for certain. he and i agree on some of the problems surrounding the issue, and i'm glad someone brings it up sometimes. i may not be keeping close enough track, and i offer the benefit of the doubt until i have better reason not to.

we agree that it's an important issue. i already mentioned that bringing it up several times a day probably hurts the case more than it helps. are some people that criticise israeli policy anti-semitic? that's so obvious, it hardly needs to be answered. i'm not going to throw the term around without great care, if i can help it. "nazi" is already thrown around like it's some kind of joke. i think the adl is anti-semitic, however. they're out to brand all jews that disagree with their politics, it would seem.
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Oct, 2007 03:35 am
Foofie wrote:
Zippo I found the following from your posting earlier on this thread:

No worries!. Once we find a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, preferably a two-state solution, you won't catch me on any forums posting any threads at all. No more zippo!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you've followed the news over the last decade, you'll remember Arafat did not accept a peace offer for a Palestinian state when he was offered one. Why was that? Some news commentators then thought it might be because he knew a radical side to the conflict wanted only the destruction of Israel. His life might have been in jeopardy, if he concluded the conflict with a two-state solution.

The problem might be too complicated even for a two-state solution at this point in time. Look at the fighting between Fatah and Hamas in Gaza.

Based on this, I believe you should have someone to pass the responsibility of your postings to, since I don't believe there'll be a solution in either of our lifetimes.


Sorry, but there is mounting evidence to suggest Israel have/had continually used deception and censorship to stall any type of peace process. Basically Israel does not want peace. (However, it does want piece of someone else's land). A different kind of piece.

------------------------------------ Land of the free?

I've noticed what may be a new phenomenon in the Israel-Palestine debate as it plays out in the US. I call it pre-emptive censorship. A number of non-Jewish organisations have denied supposedly controversial speakers or organisations the right to speak or perform due to the anticipated reaction of the local Jewish community.

It's one thing for pro-Israel groups to protest, as they did when Columbia University extended a speaking invitation to Mahmoud Ahmedinejad or when Barnard College approved tenure for a supposedly anti-Israel professor, Nadia Abu el-Haj. At least there was an actual protest that came in the midst of, or after, the supposedly controversial activity.

But in the case of the postponed New York performance of My Name is Rachel Corrie, a cancelled Chicago appearance of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, a cancelled concert by Marcel Khalife in San Diego, and a cancelled speech by Archbishop Desmond Tutu in Minneapolis, the hosts nixed the appearances before there was any protest. And they cancelled because of an anticipated response from the Jewish community which they had no reason to know might ever happen. This to me seems absolutely pernicious to open political debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Last year, the successful London show My Name is Rachel Corrie was to transfer to the US in a New York Theater Workshop production. Then inexplicably, theatre management told the producers they needed a delay. They felt the New York audience needed "preparation" and "context" in order to appreciate the issues involved in the drama. Without further educational work, they didn't feel the community was prepared to give the play the reception it deserved. The English producers saw this as a cop-out and withdrew the rights from NYTW and transferred them to others who mounted a New York run. When asked why he chose not to put on the play according to his contract, the NYTW director said he'd approached a Jewish board member and "colleagues of colleagues" who had expressed reservations about the play; but that he hadn't contacted anyone in the organised Jewish community or anyone with any expertise on the issues. Another example of pre-emptive censorship.[continued...]

Richard Silverstein
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Oct, 2007 06:07 am
Zippo wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Zippo I found the following from your posting earlier on this thread:

No worries!. Once we find a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, preferably a two-state solution, you won't catch me on any forums posting any threads at all. No more zippo!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you've followed the news over the last decade, you'll remember Arafat did not accept a peace offer for a Palestinian state when he was offered one. Why was that? Some news commentators then thought it might be because he knew a radical side to the conflict wanted only the destruction of Israel. His life might have been in jeopardy, if he concluded the conflict with a two-state solution.

The problem might be too complicated even for a two-state solution at this point in time. Look at the fighting between Fatah and Hamas in Gaza.

Based on this, I believe you should have someone to pass the responsibility of your postings to, since I don't believe there'll be a solution in either of our lifetimes.


Sorry, but there is mounting evidence to suggest Israel have/had continually used deception and censorship to stall any type of peace process. Basically Israel does not want peace. (However, it does want piece of someone else's land). A different kind of piece.



Zippo, fighting over land is really a silly discussion with a U.S. citizen living in an urban environment (i.e., Foofie). Neighborhoods change demographically, and people decide to leave. Neighborhoods get too expensive for people to stay and people leave. The mentality in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not over religion, but just over land. No one wants to leave the neighborhood.

The problem actually started 60 AD, when Jews were "scattered" (The Diaspora). So, regardless of whether or not all present day Jews (those who subscribe to the religion Judaism) are 100% Semites, there appears to be a collective belief that this was where they (the religion) originated from.

The Palestinian people also claim the same land as their historical place.

Don't forget Christianity started in Israel too.

And, am I correct to say that, since 1948, Palestinians are aware of their own Diaspora, having gone to different countries. (Seems like a replay of the Jewish Diaspora?)

So, if anyone wonders why Jews world-wide tend to be pro-Israel, even when there was so much mixing with 'others" that they are very Nordic looking, there is this tendency to think of Israel as the religious/spiritual home of Judaism.

Now, that cannot be changed.

Also, do you think it coincidence that Israel came into existence in 1948? Noooo. It was, in my opinion, solving two European self-serving concerns - what to do with the survivors of the Holocaust, and how to assuage the guilt over the Holocaust.

In my opinion, the Palestinians where, without their consent, asked to carry the brunt of the solution to the above two concerns of Europe.

So, Jews are not the problem. The problem is that even after the Holocaust, Europe still did not want Jews in their countries (to the degree they existed prior to WWII). You are quite intelligent, so I believe you should stop letting the cause of the current situation (two-thousand years of Christian anti-Semitism) get so much slack, so to speak. "The Jews" having never been forcibly converted to Islam, as Arab pagans were, nor converted to Christianity, as European pagans were, are still around, and still looking to Israel as the one place they believe they DO belong, since history really shows they don't truly "belong" anywhere else.

Unless you have a solution to this problem, your postings are just part of the problem. I believe, you are taking the path of least resistance, to a problem that evolved before your birth, and probably will continue when you're gone. Invectives against Jews is an old, old act that was perfected in Europe. You're not even doing a good imitation.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Oct, 2007 06:31 am
tinygiraffe wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
However, always ranting about Jews as opposed to the Israeli government does suggest anti-semitism, and Dawkins, with his comments, proves that brilliant men like him and Noam Chomsky can be idiots too...but then I think he's an idiot about God as well.


we agree on the principle, in theory, but not on every application of it. i think it has to be case by case, it's easy to reduce someone who cares about the issue as much as chomsky (who i don't think is an idiot, and far as one can be from "anti-semite,") to "always ranting" and that's the imperfection of the theory.

with zippo, i couldn't tell you the reason for certain. he and i agree on some of the problems surrounding the issue, and i'm glad someone brings it up sometimes. i may not be keeping close enough track, and i offer the benefit of the doubt until i have better reason not to.

we agree that it's an important issue. i already mentioned that bringing it up several times a day probably hurts the case more than it helps. are some people that criticise israeli policy anti-semitic? that's so obvious, it hardly needs to be answered. i'm not going to throw the term around without great care, if i can help it. "nazi" is already thrown around like it's some kind of joke. i think the adl is anti-semitic, however. they're out to brand all jews that disagree with their politics, it would seem.


The term anti-Semitism is a real trick question for many people I believe.

Anti-Semitism is simply the belief that Jews are inherently different.

Based on that definition, many nice, decent people, who even have Jewish friends, can be defined as anti-Semites, since many people do believe that Jews are inherently different from other people.

That definition is correct, since it is the basic definition of any prejudicial feelings towards any group; that that group is inherently different.

Sometimes it is explained using intellectual terms (i.e., genetics), or as done more often in prior eras, in religious terms; Jews did not get their original sin absolved.

Or, in the oftentimes non-thinking way of middle-class people; "they're not like us, so they have to be different."

Or, by using statistical references that Jews of a certain background (Ashkenazim - Eastern or Western European Jews) have a percentage of certain genetic diseases. This is like saying that because some people of African descent are afflicted with sickle cell anemia, all people of African descent are therefore reflecting certain traits. False.

Prejudices run so deep, often we don't even admit to ourselves our prejudices. Anti-Semitism is one of those. As soon as one hears a Jewish sounding name for a student in a class many people, I believe, have specific "expectations" about that student. That is anti-Semitism.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Oct, 2007 07:42 am
Quote:
A real fan of Dawkins I see.

I'm sure you mean this particular discussion of genetics (don't you?) which even if I don't agree with you makes considerably more sense that arguing that a discussion about genetics is racist and ignorant.


yes, i meant this one in particular. it reeks of that "master race" nonsense. i was unable to make a distinction, but my only issue with watson and crick was they may have stolen their research, not the nature of it.

dawkins... i never had a problem with him before, but lately he sounds like a real prick. i wouldn't mind being wrong about that.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Oct, 2007 11:27 pm
The whole problem is that Middle Eastern people cannot separate church from state. Europeans have learnt their lessons but when will the Middle Eastern people, after all civilization came to the Middle East before Europe?
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Oct, 2007 11:50 pm
talk72000 wrote:
The whole problem is that Middle Eastern people cannot separate church from state.


well that's the funny thing, isn't it? the iraqis managed that just fine, and now we're sending christian missionaries in Smile someday, i would really love to see the world that this one is obviously a parody of.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2007 12:42 am
The Korean Christian pastor was killed in Afghanistan so sending Christian missionaries would be dicey.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/05/2024 at 10:31:20