Hitler's gas chambers mere fiction?

[Faust]

No, it does not. You haven't a clear thought about the origins from Africa, therefore you cannot know the extent of genetic differences.

correct grammer please!!! I haven't a clear thought about the origins..what????? Fact is climate and the sun don't have anything to do with our skin pigmentation or eye colour and genetics. My Scandinavian example proves this.

There is far more genetic diversity across Africa than between a European and a Chinaman, for instance.

how the hell do you know??? Besides, this only supports my stance that Africa is not where humanity originated from. Races exist because the assumption that our skin colour and eye colour change with the climate is false.

[Faust]

Well then why did the rabbis convert them?

because they were Talmudic rabbis that wanted to conquer the goyim.

I just don't see why a tribe can't meander their way through history if they want to. Their bloodlines aren't pure, but so what? That isn't really a top priority of tribes. Tribal identity is what matters.

who is this fucking idiot retarded?????? This quoted statement, has got to be one of the worst blatant lies and contradictions that can possibly exist. This just isn't any tribe, the Khazarian tribe has NOTHING TO DO WITH JEWISH TRIBAL IDENTITY OR THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL. Their bloodlines aren't pure, but tribal identity is what matters???? WTF????? WTF is tribal identity WITHOUT bloodlines?????? Who is this retard trying to trick???

Well, she doesn't know that. I only found out about the khazarian thing a couple months ago. 1300 years, though, is still a long while.

you should tell your STUPID IDIOT MOTHER THAT SHE'S NOT A DESCENDANT OF JACOB, and tell her who she REALLY is, that'll be a good kick in her indolent ass. 1300 years ago is still a long while??? WTF you talking about?

Well, and how about you - do you consider all the world your people without preference?

yes I do, I guess Talmudic Jews can't understand that.

You just don't like that because you're a groupie here. Jesus wasn't always meek, but he did teach that, and compassion as well.

I'm a groupie here??? Even if he did teach it, there's nothing good about meekness and cowardice.

By the way, I think they're teaching them at university that race is a social construct, and I argued about that for a while over at another forum till I was blue in the face but it did no good. I don't know that it matters whether we came from Africa or not...what do you think is the origin of the races?

it matters where we come from on a genetic basis, as so many of our characters, abilities and traits are genetically determined. The problem I have is that many Jews today aren't a descendant of Jacob, which makes Zionism and the country of Israel a criminal organization and a rogue terrorist state. I think there's a good chance that races originated in many parts of the world, not necessarily from one single source, as we can see that the climate hypothesis for explaining skin differences is myth, until we find some other source that can explain distinctly various racial differences.

[Alex Jacob]

Anna,

I could take issue with what you wrote about 'a few getting enlightened' only, that being okay or desired, and point out that if there have been any 'ethical successes' as a result of the influence of Jewish teachings through Christianity, it is the broad influence that counts more than anything, and the broad influence in day-to-day ethics, not in the most exalted cases. It seems to me that that is what some people here do not seem to grasp: that the Holy Roman empire transformed pagan culture and brought a kind of social order that has endured for a long, long time. As a result of that process, just about every positive things that we could identify in Western culture has come into being. (And saying that does not at all negate the non-positive things, or excuse them).

Personally, I am deeply suspicious of this artificial character Jesus, the one presented in the Gospels. I do think that character is a creation and I suspect it had very little to do with the historical personage. But as a governing institution, the Catholic Church in no sense conducted itself like Jesus recommended (you cannot have and extend temporal power on the basis of Jesus' teaching, you can only do so if you go against this teaching, what a paradox!), and therein is a key of sorts: running a temporal organization or a state is not a Christian project, but the ideals of the Christian project can exert an influence and at least cause people to speculate about the best or better systems for governing society.

I don't get a great deal out of those sorts of stories, myself (the Buddhist story). Its not that it is not sweet in its way, or instructive to some degree, it is more that it is all rather impossible. More often than not, I have concluded that what makes people change (say from being a thief into being someone who works for their living) is the application of pain. Life even seems to work its transformation on us through the vehicle of pain. The Christian notion of visiting the criminal while he is serving his temporal sentence and 'ministering' to him makes sense to me, and I think that is really how life 'ministers' to us: it is in the midst of pain that some sweet, kind and transforming thing might come our way. This is not the place for literary references, but have you ever read De Profundis by Oscar Wilde? (Completely unlike anything else written by Oscar Wilde). I think it goes very purely to the essence of the Christian 'mood', but others see it as superficial.

All that I was trying to say with the reference to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche is that, it seems to me, that teachings of the Sermon of the Mount are inimical to most of our experience of life, that is, life does not act like a Christian, in fact life is horribly cruel and does not care for anyone or anything. A living thing fights to survive, and this is brutal and demanding. Anything that appears altruistic in life is also a survival mechanism, or strategy, which more or less prooves the point. The so-called Christian ideal, though you are sort of supposed to accept it as such, without question (piously), is in fact caounter to your own interests, which leads to a sort of conflict of appearances, and more often than not to hypocricy and self-deceit. What is appreciable in Nietzsche is the way that he places himself within this conflict, the conflict is him, his life, his values vs. the hard side of life, and so Nietzsche is really (as I see things) the truer of the true Christians, odd as that sounds. He grapples with the questions with a sincerity that few can match, and little of it has pious tones.

I don't think that every mystic is a philosopher, in fact I think you can be an excellent mystic and completely avoid philosophy, or rational consideration (if philosophy is not rational, what is it?) of any sort. Mysticism can be completely unreal, romantic, ungrounded. Sometimes I think mysticism is escapism, but sometimes I think art is also escapism, and what is better than to try to escape from horror into beauty? Mysticism can be merely escaping into fantasy metaphysiscs, vain idealisms, romantic sensationalism. I think there should be some sort of basic course we all should have to take: Romanticism vs Classicism. So that we can distinguish the romantic trends (so very evident) in ideas, philosophies, cosmologies, religious idealisms, political romanticism, etc.

"What the materialists don't understand is that the spiritual is perceived via subtle senses, just as the spiritual itself is subtle, and yet they want to use only their crude senses, and complain that there is no evidence for a spiritual world. It's a matter of perception. The way things work is that those things which are harder, denser and bigger are built up out of the smaller and finer. The inner driving force of a person is therefore spiritual."

But that is not quite right. You are using an untenable argument that comes from what I have called 'the graveyard of meaning'. You attempt a metaphysic, but the metaphysic doesn't hold up sufficiently. The roots of this metaphysic are most likely in theosophy or neo-platonism. Your idea is that there is a sort of 'subtle matter' that controls or directs, and that this is what the 'spiritual world' is composed of, something extrasensory. But, we have machines that are externsions of our senses---to extraordinary degrees---and there is no point where the gradient between matter and spirit is notable. If there were, I think, it would be (by now) perceivable, even usable. I think it is a dead-end argument myself, and it is entrenched in an old metaphysic. You are referring to a sort of yogic perception and it reminds me of the metaphysic described in Autobiography of a Yogi or in some theosophy writing, like Leadbetter.

You will never find a way to describe the mechanism by which so-called 'spirit' operates on or even in matter. If there is a greater mystery that, say, surrounds us or encapsulates us, and of which we can become aware, there is no way, except by far-out verbal trickery and metaphor to allude to it, and there is absolutely no mechanism that you could ever describe, All that is false and pure sophistry. (I said this in this way because it is fun to make outrageous statements). The 'spirit' in that sense, in a mystical sense, is something that you learn to operate, perhaps, but there is no way to explain that, none.

The inner force of a person is biology, the jealousy of striving genes. When we come into consciousness, whatever that is, there are perhaps other possibilities, and other rules and laws and mechanisms. But 'spirit' is a very problematic word, I think.

"But what is a factor is that I see the human race as extremely gullible. Not much different than the children who easily accept stories of Santa Claus. So they can be taken advantage of. I suspect that the gullibility is an aspect of or opposite side of the coin to the need or desire to hold on to cherished illusions. The sort of Hindu/eastern metaphor is that people are dreaming. From the moment I heard that it resonated with me. I think it is not merely metaphor, but quite literally true. No wonder we're confused! No wonder nothing really makes a lot of sense! No wonder when you examine things closely they unravel! No wonder we like our storylines!"

Life seems to be this place where you get to do any damn thing you please. You can behave as 'nicely' as you want or you can go to the oppositie extremes, and there is really no one who can tell you you can't. It's the nature of the place. I don't think, personally, that the Earth is ever going to get better becuase, if it did, it would just be some boring place, and someone would have to come along to disrupt that boredom, someone would knock something over just to watch it fall down. We are, perhaps, drama addicts, and we love these dramatic stories that capture us, take hold of us, take us into their currents. There are some who stand there and watch it all, and see the extremes, and are puzzled or shocked by them, and there are the multitudes who are ready to jump into the fray on a dare, and who can think of nothing more glorious. Personally, I think our minds have been completely fucked over by stupid and reductionist binary ideas about what life is and what it is not. Doesn't mean that you and I or others shouldn't be very careful about what choices we make here and now, but this place is just outrageous, like one of those 'lokas' the hindus talk about. Unfathomable, irredeemable.

"Another way to describe the deepening awareness of and knowledge of and relationship to God is that of awakening. There is only one thing to awaken to and that is reality, and God is the only reality. Whew! It's intense and it's no wonder a lot of people want no part of it. God is an acquired taste. There's only one way to hide from God and that is with unawareness."

I think I do agree with you, I just think it is such a personal process.

I am only differing with you for the sake of conversation since I don't have any kind of idea what sort of a reality we are in. But it occurs to me that we are in an intermediate world, strung between heaven and hell, these two potent metaphors. In one moment you could be on a delightful plain in the joyous sunlight with your sweetheart humming 'Sleepytime when I lie...' and in the next being attacked and eaten by army ants. There are places in us of deep peace, and there are places of excruciating pain. Either one can come on a moments notice. If it were a 'hell' I don't think that option would exist, to feel the sweet side of life. In some Vedic mythology or metaphysic, of course, they posit something like that: that here we have choices, to proceed toward the divine or to mire ourselves in materialism. That is precisely the polarity described in the Bhagavad-Gita, ain't it?

"Fear and intimidation are powerful decreasers of consciousness."

I think it can go either way, actually. It is in the midst of tremendous pain that some profound realizations can come to one, they might not have been able to come otherwise (cf. De Profundis). The proximity of oppression can sometimes provoke a will to lift off oppression. I think that a social and educational reality that is constantly numbing you is what is the most destructive, or even a life without extremes. I think the American Dream, the perfect consumer paradise, is maybe one of the most destructive realities, it just kills you off. Harry Haller and his meditations on the houseplant on the landing to his flat in Steppenwolf. Philistine values that are the antithesis of 'the spirit' in man.

"It was the right answer in the sense that ultimate truth cannot be described, but I also have always wished to know what he might have said if he had decided to give it a try."

Funny, I tried to edit my post because I later thought that it Pilate's question was the best question in the NT, and it was avoided! but my connection went dead and I lost what I'd written. (A Satanic Jewsih Zionist plot, no doubt)(Fucking Jews!). Just like a pious Christian would do or any religionist, they'd make it into a moral lesson for you and hold their tongue. But just try to define truth, just try to define a way to be fair and just in this world, and actually live in this world and not check-out like Jesus did, and you will have to answer Pilate's question yourself.

[Alex Jacob]

Faust wrote:

"...which makes Zionism and the country of Israel a criminal organization and a rogue terrorist state".

There is no 'legitimate state', Mr Faust. And there are states with far less 'legitimacy' than Israel.

[Leyla Shen]

Mr Jacob wrote:

There is no 'legitimate state', Mr Faust. And there are states with far less 'legitimacy' than Israel.

Yes, you’d like more people to buy into that, wouldn’t you.

The utterly deluded idea of race fundamental to Judaism is exactly what makes the “state of Israel” illegitimate. One truly has to wonder whether those at the top are as stupid as their masses of religious followers. Fucking Holy Land, my arse. Like, do they really believe this mystical god shit, or what? After centuries of the British Empire (for example), and the modern advances in science and technology, you reckon they’d have caught on to some degree to the usefulness of their Christ Almighty doctrines. Pumped the racism and god ideations for all they’re worth whilst defending their own vast material wealth---passing it down from generation to generation, preserving it through the political and social indoctrination (spanning centuries) of those who they give only enough time (money) to spend their single life supporting that single life and relieve its meaninglessness through celebrating some deluded and ecstatic notion of unity through their gods.

Jared Diamond points to the nature of deluded racism best when he says:

“By virtue of their geographic location in history, they (the Europeans) were the first people to acquire guns, germs & steel.”

Methinks you Jews protest too much. Oy vey! The holocaust (kill, slaughter, murder! those inferior Muslim Arab Palestinians). The theocratic crime doth speak the deed loudly and clearly in the words of the accuser. Lest we forget…..6,000,000. And, you know, it wasn’t even the Arab Muslims that killed them. What are you afraid of, your genes won't stand up to the test?

Stupid fucking Jews.

[Alex Jacob]

"The utterly deluded idea of race fundamental to Judaism is exactly what makes the “state of Israel” illegitimate".

All states are absurd and arbitrary, in fact. For example Australia. All states are arbitrary creations, more or less 'grand agreements' among certain people, and in a sort of post-modernistic sense they really have no 'right' to exsit at all. But it would be almost completey absurd to assert that Australia has no right to exist, and to try to fabricate arguments to convince others. I mean, you are free to do it but no one would take you seriously. And if you were attempting to wrest this false state away from those who held the agreement, say to oust them, they would of course ('legitimately') try to destroy you.

There are a group of arguments and reasoning ('arguments' and 'reasonings' if you prefer) that create a conceptual pathway for a defense of Israel's 'right to exist'. I won't bore you with an enumeration of each of them with their relative merits or lack of merit. And there is a conceptual pathway that negates Israel's right to exist, and that narrative is weilded by Israel's enemies. (There are even reasonable doubts on the part of some of Israel's friends and allies). These pathways, these arguments and narratives are vital because it is a always the convincing story upon which the state has been constructed: yours, mine and anyone elses. I don't think that your primary animus, the animus that motivates you to form your ideas about Israel, would ever be swayed by even the most cogent argument, and you should at least know that most Israelis understand that animus, and understand that you are in essence unreasonable. My object is not so much to defend Israel to you, but only to explain Judaism a little bit, at least to counter som eof the pure idiocy and crass misinformation that informs you (plural). Your lack of understanding of things Jewish is absurd, but what might anyone expect from you? Nothing at all, really.

There is really no 'top' as you seem to feel (this is conspiracy paranoia of a gentile variety, and I assume for you in the richness of your imagination there is a cabal of Jews there 'at the top' referencing Talmudic formula with which to dupe the middle and the bottom...it is theatric your paranoia!). Israelis are not exclusively a religious community, and because they are a highly modern society, and somewhat intellectually sophisticated, there are various ways they might defend the existence of their state. It is not exclusively religious, as in 'God gave us this land'.

"One truly has to wonder whether those at the top are as stupid as their masses of religious followers. Fucking Holy Land, my arse. Like, do they really believe this mystical god shit, or what? After centuries of the British Empire (for example), and the modern advances in science and technology, you reckon they’d have caught on to some degree to the usefulness of their Christ Almighty doctrines. Pumped the racism and god ideations for all they’re worth whilst defending their own vast material wealth---passing it down from generation to generation, preserving it through the political and social indoctrination (spanning centuries) of those who they give only enough time (money) to spend their single life supporting that single life and relieve its meaninglessness through celebrating some deluded and ecstatic notion of unity through their gods."

Fucking Jews!

Here, you venture into an almost mystical territory! yet it is precisely the same process, among all people, that you find at the core of the idea of the state. But, your purpose is not so much (rather impotently) to point this out, but rather to focalize your contempt on an enemy that you can identify, around which you can rally your excessive animus.

[Leyla Shen]

Alright, one weeny little idea at a time for you, I’m afraid. Let’s see how much of an irrelevant, inane ramble we get, before you even go anywhere near the stated premise.

L: The utterly deluded idea of race fundamental to Judaism is exactly what makes the “state of Israel” illegitimate.

AJ: All states are absurd and arbitrary, in fact. For example Australia. All states are arbitrary creations, more or less 'grand agreements' among certain people, and in a sort of post-modernistic sense they really have no 'right' to exsit at all. But it would be almost completey absurd to assert that Australia has no right to exist, and to try to fabricate arguments to convince others. I mean, you are free to do it but no one would take you seriously. And if you were attempting to wrest this false state away from those who held the agreement, say to oust them, they would of course ('legitimately') try to destroy you.

Are you completely insane? It is your assertion that all states are illegitimate. Why do you try to thrust the defence of such an thing onto to me? I ain't in the business of making excuses for irrationality. What I said was:

The utterly deluded idea of race fundamental to Judaism is exactly what makes the “state of Israel” illegitimate.

And what you said was:

All states are absurd and arbitrary, in fact [et cetera, ad nauseum…]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that Australia was founded on the same religious racialism as Israel??? What Israel continues to do with this state, continues to do with itself, either supports its legitimacy or illegitimacy---by anyone's standard of "law," which you understand very little about.

Israel was founded to provide a national home, safe from persecution, to the Jewish people. Although Israeli law explicitly grants equal civil rights to all citizens regardless of religion, ethnicity, or other heritage, it gives preferential treatment in certain aspects to individuals who fall within the criteria mandated by the Law of Return. Preferential treatment is given to Jews who seek to immigrate to Israel as part of a governmental policy to increase the Jewish population.

The criteria set forth by the Law of Return are controversial. The Law of Return differs from Jewish religious law in that it disqualifies individuals who are Jewish but who converted to another religion, and also in that it grants immigrant status to individuals who are not Jewish but are related to Jews.

Religion & Citizenship

Disqualifies those who are Jewish but who convert to another religion? Grants citizenship to those who are NOT Jewish but who are related to Jews? Why don’t you make sense out of that load of shit and tell us what a Jew is, Alex Jacob?

You’re right about one thing, though. Posting pictures of butterflies and Mel Gibson as incriminating evidence is much more likely to resonate with the ignorant masses than exposing irrational thought.

More later.

[Iolaus]

Leyla,

Me, reading all sorts of things into it that aren't there? Are you serious? Tell me what's there, Anna. Do you think that Jews are a race, descended from Jacob--Esau's twin brother--entitled by god-given right to the Promised Land because of their matrilineal heritage and, then, through deception in the form of sibling rivalry? Wasn't Abraham originally from Ur (somewhere between today's Iran and Iraq)?

I mean, fair fuckin' dinkum, what is this "connection" between Jews and the land we now call Israel and Palestine?

I think you fail to make the connections, as if each story is unrelated to the purported events preceding it, and proceeding from it.

I really have no idea what you're talking about, what these remarks even relate to.

[Iolaus]

Faust,

because they were Talmudic rabbis that wanted to conquer the goyim.

By converting them?

who is this fucking idiot retarded?????? This quoted statement, has got to be one of the worst blatant lies and contradictions that can possibly exist. This just isn't any tribe, the Khazarian tribe has NOTHING TO DO WITH JEWISH TRIBAL IDENTITY OR THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL. Their bloodlines aren't pure, but tribal identity is what matters???? WTF????? WTF is tribal identity WITHOUT bloodlines?????? Who is this retard trying to trick???

Watch your grammar and calm down, you haven't even understood what I've said, you're even not listening. There's no contradiction. Tribes aren't about bloodlines, as evidenced by the fact that tribes almost never care about bloodlines and readily intermarry with all and sundry. The American Indians readily intermarried with whites and blacks and most tribes also love to steal women. As for the bit about Khazarians not having any real ties to Israel, I thought we agreed about that long ago, and in any case I think after 2,000 years they don't have rights to the land anyway. If you look at history you'll note that people are taking over and getting booted out and interbred with all over the place. It's impossible to even the score or put things right. Furthermore, they drove out the Palestinians who had been there for who knows how many centuries. All wrong.

you should tell your STUPID IDIOT MOTHER THAT SHE'S NOT A DESCENDANT OF JACOB, and tell her who she REALLY is, that'll be a good kick in her indolent ass. 1300 years ago is still a long while??? WTF you talking about?

Tell your stupid idiot mother that she raised a fuckhead.

1300 years is a long while to have a particular identity, to be together as a people of a particular religion. Even if she is not a descendent of Jacob, there is still an idenitity, and furthermore, she does not have another one. And further furthermore, part of her family may very well be of the orignal Jews kicked out of Israel.

yes I do, I guess Talmudic Jews can't understand that.

Look, you fuckhead, I am not a Talmudic Jew and it isn't me who is slandering the black race. Your previous words make me surprised at your answer.

I'm a groupie here???

Maybe not but so far it seems like it.

Even if he did teach it, there's nothing good about meekness and cowardice.

He didn't teach cowardice.

The problem I have is that many Jews today aren't a descendant of Jacob, which makes Zionism and the country of Israel a criminal organization and a rogue terrorist state.

It is a rogue terrorist state even if they were descendents of Jacob. some of them are, by the way.

And some of the orthodox khazarians are against the state of Israel.

I think there's a good chance that races originated in many parts of the world, not necessarily from one single source, as we can see that the climate hypothesis for explaining skin differences is myth, until we find some other source that can explain distinctly various racial differences.

I think we are a domesticated species, and that is why we have the great, gratuitous variety.

[Iolaus]

and

The Law of Return differs from Jewish religious law in that it disqualifies individuals who are Jewish but who converted to another religion,

So I guess that takes care of the nonsense that you're Jewish if your mother's Jewish, and your mother and grandmother are Jewish, and your mother and grandmother and greatgrandmother are Jewish...

[Alex Jacob]

Leyla, sweetness, I really don't think you are functioning subtly enough to get what I am trying to say to you. You start with a premise, which is your premise and I guess it makes all the sense in the world to you, and is self-evident: that Jews are a 'race'. But Jews don't use that terminology, Jews refer to themselves as a people, a religious people. You can become a Jew if you want to, tomorrow. Anyone can become a Jew, and what it means to 'become a Jew', it is true, has remained pretty consistant: to come into the fold of the religion and the people of that religion, to agree to a set of beliefs and practices, to observe Halacha, and also to become a member, or participant in Jewish history.

What you consider and what you label 'deluded' is just your opinion. Jewish identity is complex and problematic, I certainly grant you that, and if you wish you can label it deluded. If you can de-legitimize a people's claim to their identity it is a first step to disinvalidating them, and I think that is your primary project.

It is better to let a given people determine their own definitions. One of the primary arguments of anti-semites revolves around this issue of denying identity, and there are others. Nothig new under the sun.

You wrote:

"The utterly deluded idea of race fundamental to Judaism is exactly what makes the “state of Israel” illegitimate."

Well, here is an example: Noam Chomsky, who is technically Jewish, recognizes the essential problematic nature of the existence of a state that defines itself according to being Jewish. He regards it as elitist (racist) and certainly democratically untenable, and for that reason does not support Israel, etc. I think this is what you are trying to get at, but perhaps your animus---which induces you to go hard on the interrogation point key, similar to Herr Faust---gets in the way of your own expression?

You can debate this issue until the kangaroo jumps over the proverbial moon, and you can make any sort of assertion you want about Israel, and it is all valid as far as I am concerned, but the point that I was bringing forward is that, as I see things, all the agreements upon which states are formed are similarly constructed---not the same---but similarly constructed. And most states that we can name are criminal at their core, as is Australia, whch is technically stolen territory, as is the US and Canada, most of the Americas, etc. Stories are told about origins and 'rights' that become the myths of the state, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. I don't see this as too complex.

[Dan Rowden]

What makes Chomsky "technically Jewish"? I must admit I have a hard time understanding what it is that actually makes a person Jewish.

[Alex Jacob]

There are different schools of thought within traditional Judaism regarding Jewishness, what it is and how you are or aren't. The most rigid and traditional and the measure adopted by the State of Israel is that of the Orthodoxy: you are Jewish if your mother is Jewish, and if you did not consciously choose another religion, say for example convert to Catholicism. Anyone who is not Jewish can become a Jew by conversion, and upon conversion you go through a ritual just like a Bar or Bat Mitzvah, which is akin to Catholic confirmation. Bar and Bat Mitzvah, bar for boys and bat for girls, is a coming-of-age ritual in which you consciously accept the responsibilities of being of age and a member of the Jewish community. It is then that the Jewish plan to take over the world is revealed to you, and you have to accept it and recite relevant Talmudic reference to prove you are on the ball.

But you do not have to go through bar or bat mitzvah or to make any sort of conscious declaration of Jewishness to remain a Jew (by orthodox standards). If your mother is a Jew and if you did not convert to something else, you are still a Jew.

So far so good?

In Reform Judaism (a post enlightenment German Jewish updating of traditional Judaism, more in line with 'modern thinking') you are a Jew if either of your parents are Jewish, if you were raised in a Jewish environment, and if you identify as a Jew. It is the most open and the most flexible. But you can only take 'aliyah' (return to Israel) if you conform to the orthodox standard, but I guess there is pressure to make this less demanding.

What complicates these questions is perhaps the Hitlerian doctrine in regard to Jewishness. For the Nazis Jewishness was a matter of 'race' and direct blood link. For example, you could be the most 'Jewish' person in the world, eat bagels morning noon and night, stack up coins on your dining room table like old Scrooge and count them over and over again, or serve in the administration of the 'Jewish Borg Hive', but if you did not have a Jewsih relative, ie a parent or grandparent, you are not Jewish, end of story.

PS: I don't know how Chomsky defines himself, he is such an oddball. But he was raised by religious parents and went to a yeshiva school, studied Hebrew and all that. I don't think he necessarily identifies as Jew, hence I wrote 'technically Jewish', that is his family and his 'context' was Jewish.

It is stated in a very old Talmudic text that if through trickery and hypnosis you can get the gentile children to eat bagels, world domination is assured. I submit as Article One the following photograph, and rest my case (until Leyla 'More Later' Shen returns to rebuke my heresies...)

http://www.bagels.co.nz/images/kidsEatingbagels.jpg

If a Jews offer you a bagel, DON'T TAKE IT!

[Leyla Shen]

Wow.

The heretic specified:

Conditions for Jewishness

1. Orthodox

Matrilineal inheritance: Yes
Patrilineal inheritance: No
Cultural: not specified but, given the circumstances, yes
Personal acceptance by non-conversion (to another religion): Yes
Conversion (to Judaism): Yes
Bar/bat mitvah necessary: Yes
Qualify for the right to return to Israel: Yes

2. Reform

Matrilineal inheritance: Yes
Patrilineal inheritance: Yes
Cultural: Yes
Personal acceptance by non-conversion (to another religion): Yes
Conversion (to Judaism): Yes
Bar/bat mitvah necessary: No
Qualify for the right to return to Israel: No (a. in the case where dad’s a Jew you‘re actually not Jewish, and further b. in the case where no bar/bat mitvah)

3. "Hitlerian"

Matrilineal inheritance: Yes
Patrilineal inheritance: Yes
Cultural: Yes
Personal acceptance by non-conversion (to another religion): No
Conversion (to Judaism): No
Bar/bat mitvah necessary: irrelevant
Qualify for the right to return to Israel: not sure that he gave a toss

4. “Technical” Jewishness

What a confused Jew calls someone he thinks should be Jewish but isn’t.

I notice that in these conditions for Jewishness, the word “God” is not mentioned once. Why is the belief in God, in what is proclaimed to be a religious movement, not the only criterion but, instead, the emphasis on heritage and, therefore, a conversion to the cultural heritage of a “people”?

I don’t see why you even have a Hitler category, since everything in it conforms either with Orthodox or Reform Judaism without negating any other criterion it becomes irrelevant as a category of its own in terms of Jewish identity.

[Alex Jacob]

Leyla wote:

"I notice that in these conditions for Jewishness, the word “God” is not mentioned once. Why is the belief in God, in what is proclaimed to be a religious movement, not the only criterion but, instead, the emphasis on heritage and, therefore, a conversion to the cultural heritage of a “people”?

"I don’t see why you even have a Hitler category, since everything in it conforms either with Orthodox or Reform Judaism without negating any other criterion it becomes irrelevant as a category of its own in terms of Jewish identity."

Again, my dear Leyla, you do not have a subtle mind and your mind is far from 'modern', far less modern than you assume. You seem stuck within Biblical premises, these are your primary 'object', and this renders you incomprehensible and sort of incoherant.

You will find many people who would and do use the idea of God as being central to their notion of right to ownership of Israel, and you will find other people who do not resort to it. Judaism itself is not a monolith, and is not presided over by a clearing house, like the Vatican, that issues definitive, guiding statements, and focuses opinion into a set doctrine. There is both a deeply religious strain of ideas within Judaism as well as the absolute vanguard of modernistic thinking that would make no use of the idea of God, and so staging your display (of ignorance) within this limited field (these biblical stories) is a vain exercise, it seems to me.

Do you want me to concede to you that the very idea of Jewishness is problematic? Do you want me to concede to you that, in a modern age such as ours, all these old ideas (the graveyard of meaning) are problematic and riddled with absurd contradictions? It is simply a given, Leyla, for anyone with the taste of the modern on their lips. If you can specify what precisely you want, perhaps I can assist you in getting to it, you see.

So many of our definitions and categories are absurd, if you really look into them, and yet they are part of the way the world functions.

See, I think that at the core your project is soley to create a 'conceptual pathway' that would enable you and others to feel justified in seeing the Israeli state dismantled or destroyed. I think, in fact, you would contribute toward this end. I think that you and others like you are, in fact. This is what is found, I believe, at the core of your animus. So why not just state your purpose? If you do not have this specific aspiration, desire or hope, nevertheless I assure you that others do. When this fact is grasped, it makes everything far more clear, and really at that point a conversation can begin: a conversation dealing on the raw issue of power.

I don't really care how you define Jewishness or if it is acceptable to you as a category. I only point in the direction of ways to grasp it, to understand it. No Jew and no Israeli cares if you accept their self-defininition or not, nor should you care if any other accepts or negates what is your own. Self-defintion in this sense is complex, variegated. You don't make any defnitive decisions about it.

There are narratives floating around out there that can be used to construct a case for as well as against Jews and Israel---indeed anything, in any category! Discourses and narratives are weilded, they are tools for various ends. That is a fact of post-modernism. This is so simple and so basic I really don't understand why you are hopping around so...

http://www.outback-australia-travel-sec ... ngaroo.jpg

This is a page that discusses Chomsky in the context of his opposition to Israel's policies, and it points in the direction of the range of conversation and opinion with Jewish community:

(I personally would be very interested to know how Chomsky's feelings about Judasim, which appear important to him, are expressed through his work, through his conviction, both in politics and linguistics. And here, dear Leyla, you have the 'god idea' that functions, still, even in the absence of specific, stated religiosity. I don't know if you will pick up on the implication, given the binary functioning of your mind).

http://www.jewishcurrents.org/2007-may-wecker.htm

[Leyla Shen]

OK, so, examining all that diluted wank*, what you actually want to discuss (given that you accept you’re an idiot for calling yourself a Jew, therefore everyone else is an idiot), we get:

I think that you and others like you are, in fact. This is what is found, I believe, at the core of your animus. So why not just state your purpose? If you do not have this specific aspiration, desire or hope, nevertheless I assure you that others do.

So what if others have this aspiration? What makes your aspirations valid and theirs not, Jew boy?

When this fact [that there are those who would gladly see the destruction of Israel] is grasped, it makes everything far more clear, and really at that point a conversation can begin: a conversation dealing on the raw issue of power.

So you’re saying that the poor ol’ persecuted Jews, just like the biblical Jews, are the victims of a raw push for power. I mean, spit it out, Alex! What the fuck is your argument, aside from I’m fucked (and all the consequent idiotic speculations and ramblings) because I’m questioning you about Jewishness?

(I personally would be very interested to know how Chomsky's feelings about Judasim, which appear important to him, are expressed through his work, through his conviction, both in politics and linguistics. And here, dear Leyla, you have the 'god idea' that functions, still, even in the absence of specific, stated religiosity. I don't know if you will pick up on the implication, given the binary functioning of your mind).

(That doesn’t make him a Jew. It makes him a rational individual on the subject of Israel. I have a great deal of respect for Noam--you are nothing like him. Or, haven't you noticed?)

*You could have saved a lot of time and stale breath by calling me an "anti-Semite." I would have understood exactly what you meant.

[General edit, and to add *]

[Iolaus]

Hi Alex J,

I could take issue with what you wrote about 'a few getting enlightened' only, that being okay or desired, and point out that if there have been any 'ethical successes' as a result of the influence of Jewish teachings through Christianity, it is the broad influence that counts more than anything, and the broad influence in day-to-day ethics, not in the most exalted cases.

My original point was that christianity is fundamentally morally confused. You then said that the christ ideal is unrealistic and unattainable. I disagree. There are some who have attained it, and many more who have attained aspects of it, or attained it at brief moments, and a consistent ideal would yield far greater harvest than the current one which hobbles the spirit, paralyzes the mind.

You are arguing whether a people can survive in this world while pursuing some sort of nonviolent ideal, (and perhaps they could, and indeed some have) but you are nitpicking about what Jesus might have meant on a day to day basis about turning the other cheek. Whereas Christianity is teaching a cosmic nightmare ordained by an unforgiving and nonmagnanimous God, while having an earthly ideal in christ that differs 180 degrees. Jesus taught compassion, as did Buddha. Yet what is the point of learning greater compassion in this difficult life on earth if after it is over there will be no further need to feel any pity even though people - even loved ones - will be suffering forever?

Now, what do you see as the ethical successes of Jewish teachings through christianity?

It seems to me that that is what some people here do not seem to grasp: that the Holy Roman empire transformed pagan culture and brought a kind of social order that has endured for a long, long time. As a result of that process, just about every positive things that we could identify in Western culture has come into being. (And saying that does not at all negate the non-positive things, or excuse them).

Whereas I think most of the negative in Christianity comes of the roman influence.

I do think that [Jesus] character is a creation and I suspect it had very little to do with the historical personage. But as a governing institution, the Catholic Church in no sense conducted itself like Jesus recommended (you cannot have and extend temporal power on the basis of Jesus' teaching, you can only do so if you go against this teaching, what a paradox!), and therein is a key of sorts: running a temporal organization or a state is not a Christian project, but the ideals of the Christian project can exert an influence and at least cause people to speculate about the best or better systems for governing society.

I agree entirely. That has been a crusading point with me, that the teachings of Jesus have been successfully negated and rendered impotent. Jesus' main teachings, in my opinion, were three: the nature of the Father, the necessity to become spiritually awake through contact with the Holy spirit, and to stop focusing on obeisances to God and instead on our treatment of one another.

I don't get a great deal out of those sorts of stories, myself (the Buddhist story). Its not that it is not sweet in its way, or instructive to some degree, it is more that it is all rather impossible.

But the Christ ideal does not depend on jesus having been an accurate historical personage. That was my point.

This is not the place for literary references, but have you ever read De Profundis by Oscar Wilde?

No. what is the essence of the christian mood?

it seems to me, that teachings of the Sermon of the Mount are inimical to most of our experience of life, that is, life does not act like a Christian, ...The so-called Christian ideal, though you are sort of supposed to accept it as such, without question (piously), is in fact counter to your own interests,

Hmmm...it's not life who should act like christians, but people...much of the sermon on the mount are truths. I don't see a lot wrong with it.

Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Absolutely true. The kingdom of heaven on earth as well as elsewhere can only be entered by the humble.
Comfort for those who mourn
Nothing wrong with that, nondifferent to many OT statements as well.
Meek shall inhereit the earth.
Well, we're still waiting on that one, but it may be true. The destroyers are ultimately destroyed.
those who thirst for righteousness will be filled
Yes, generally those who are spiritual seekers, so long as they are sincere, will find what they seek.
the merciful shall obtain mercy.
If he's talking about God and the afterlife, with or without an entity who judges, then he's saying nothing different than the law of karma. Those who have had near death experiences indicate that it is they themselves who do the judging. People who have been cruel and unforgiving have their troubles ahead. Like attracts like. You live in the reality of your perception and you gravitate toward like beings. In addition, you are vulnerable to those beings whose energy states and outlook you have not outgrown. I.e., if you're a bully, you'll be a target for the next bigger bully.
Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.
Pure truth.
etc.

I don't think that every mystic is a philosopher, in fact I think you can be an excellent mystic and completely avoid philosophy, or rational consideration (if philosophy is not rational, what is it?) of any sort.

Mysticism is about the personal experience of god or one's higher self and the deeper realities. Philosophy is about reality. The mystic may avoid speaking about philosophy but he has a philosophical understanding that is experiential.

Sometimes I think mysticism is escapism, but sometimes I think art is also escapism, and what is better than to try to escape from horror into beauty?

Why do you find this life so horrible?

I said,

"What the materialists don't understand is that the spiritual is perceived via subtle senses, just as the spiritual itself is subtle, and yet they want to use only their crude senses, and complain that there is no evidence for a spiritual world. It's a matter of perception. The way things work is that those things which are harder, denser and bigger are built up out of the smaller and finer. The inner driving force of a person is therefore spiritual."

But that is not quite right. You are using an untenable argument that comes from what I have called 'the graveyard of meaning'. You attempt a metaphysic, but the metaphysic doesn't hold up sufficiently. The roots of this metaphysic are most likely in theosophy or neo-platonism.

What graveyard? It may well be that others have thought similarly, certainly mystics mostly speak the same language, that should tell you something, but I mostly worked this out on my own. I do read and think a lot, have a lot of influences, so it's hard to say. I don't know enough about philosophy to know what you mean by neoplatonism, and I did read about theosophy once, but don't remember it.

Your idea is that there is a sort of 'subtle matter' that controls or directs, and that this is what the 'spiritual world' is composed of, something extrasensory. But, we have machines that are externsions of our senses---to extraordinary degrees---and there is no point where the gradient between matter and spirit is notable. If there were, I think, it would be (by now) perceivable, even usable.

Of course extrasensory - so is the electromagnetic spectrum, so are bacteria extrasensory. That should not bother you at all. Look, the Mitchelson-Morley experiement to find the ether was very crude. I was rather liking the ether idea, but really knew nothing about it, and was surprised when someone told me it was believed in so recently. I thought it was only ancient. So I read on Wiki about this experiment, and clever though it was, I immediately knew it was looking for something much to close to our wind that we feel, and not an ether capable of subtle causality or communication. I am talking about energies that are really subtle. Yes, our instruments are amazing, but they have not got there yet. A book that brought it together a bit for me was Lazslo's Science and the Akashic Field. Other scientific discoveries which seem utterly compatible to me are string theory, and just general knowledge of how very small the known building blocks of matter and of biology are. I expect that patterns repeat in this reality. The trend so far is that very, very small building blocks create our reality. They are so small, the planck length is so small that it might as well be another dimension. In fact, I think that the planck length is probably the border into the next dimension. Below planck length quantum weirdness begins. Why weird? Another dimension, that's why. And yet,

"Kind Prince, each small particle is an entire world in itself. The worlds are the conjoining movement of small articles. There is no real differnce between small particles and the vast world, but they are differently named because of the relative concepts of small and vast." Hua Hu Ching

Really, is there any other possibility, than that the gross is composed of the subtle? And how small can the subtle get? So far our instruments are showing us, very small indeed. Why be so attached to what our human senses can detect? We're lumbering giants up here.

I think it is a dead-end argument myself, and it is entrenched in an old metaphysic.

There is nothing new under the sun.

You will never find a way to describe the mechanism by which so-called 'spirit' operates on or even in matter.

Says who?! My, my my.

If there is a greater mystery that, say, surrounds us or encapsulates us, and of which we can become aware, there is no way, except by far-out verbal trickery and metaphor to allude to it, and there is absolutely no mechanism that you could ever describe, All that is false and pure sophistry.

Next you'll be telling me that everything worth discovering has been discovered, science is at an end, and everything worth inventing has been invented.

The 'spirit' in that sense, in a mystical sense, is something that you learn to operate, perhaps, but there is no way to explain that, none.

Come now, if you can operate it, then there it has a way that it works, and if it has a way it works, the mechanism can be described, and discovered.

The inner force of a person is biology, the jealousy of striving genes.

Quit reading Dawkins, he's a has-been, and you're smarter than he is.

When we come into consciousness, whatever that is, there are perhaps other possibilities, and other rules and laws and mechanisms.

It's all here. There's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. 'cept your mental compartments...

But 'spirit' is a very problematic word, I think.

Sure lots of words are problematic. Would you like another? Spirit are subtle energies, not visible to our regular sight.

Life seems to be this place where you get to do any damn thing you please. You can behave as 'nicely' as you want or you can go to the oppositie extremes, and there is really no one who can tell you you can't.

Yup, it's a hard lesson that many whiners don't want to accept. Like the good ole OT says, we are on the path of the knowledge of good and evil, knowledge like when Adam 'knew' his wife Eve...

I think I do agree with you, I just think it is such a personal process.

Ohhh, yeahhh...that's why Jesus talked of the bridal chamber. And no one can go with you or hold your hand: "There are many standing at the door, but those who are alone will enter the bridal suite."
(Gospel of Thomas)

But it occurs to me that we are in an intermediate world, strung between heaven and hell

Yeah, we're in the vestibule, I think. But also, heaven and hell are states of mind, of perception. There are no real bars and gates.
I don't know why I haven't read the Bhagavad-Gita yet. I've got two copies.

"Fear and intimidation are powerful decreasers of consciousness."
I think it can go either way, actually. It is in the midst of tremendous pain that some profound realizations can come to one, they might not have been able to come otherwise

We are not static beings. Pressure can lead to a breakthrough, yes, but that is the breakthrough. But being in a state of fear and anxiety decreases consciousness. Yet the way out of prison is through concsciousness...it's enough to make you believe in the devil, isn't it?

I think the American Dream, the perfect consumer paradise, is maybe one of the most destructive realities, it just kills you off.

What you mean is that it puts you to sleep.

I think you might like Jed McKenna.

[Alex Jacob]

I have already said that these views of yours, it seems to me, are little more than expressions of anti-semitism. What do you want me to spit out? I think it is you who needs to state your position more honestly. And I didn't hierarchize aspirations. I started awhile back just noting that some of the ideas presented in this thread about Jews, and Jewish identity, were just the same old stuff of anti-semitism. I assume that others who read here may at least see how anti-semitism is constructed and what its function is. Anti-semitism is not rational, it cannot be dialogued with. That is my assertion. So, it leads I think straight to the fact that the only remedy for anti-semitic animus is having a position from which to battle it. And by that I mean a state and an army.

"So you’re saying that the poor ol’ persecuted Jews, just like the biblical Jews, are the victims of a raw push for power. I mean, spit it out, Alex! What the fuck is your argument, aside from I’m fucked (and all the consequent idiotic speculations and ramblings) because I’m questioning you about Jewishness?"

No, that is not at all what I meant, and it is not what I said. You should read a little more carefully. In my way of seeing things, the state of Israel represents, among different things of course, the 'historical Jew' refusing a role that had been assigned to him, and choosing another role, another path, even another fate. That is my personal answer to you, in this conversation, I make no claim to speak for anyone else. The 'poor ole persecuted Jew' of the European experience is a series of complexities, and is not one thing. I don't expect you or anyone else to value that experience, or that fate and all that has come out of it, but the influence of Jewish culture on Europe has been so profound that it is simply a fact of history. I think I started on this thread talking about some of that.

It seems to me that if one puts aside the ideological arguments that spin around these questions and focuses only on the issue of raw power, one will better understand what is Israel. That is how I see it. If you don't think that Israel should exist, or that Jews should exist, then what I suggest to you is that you do all you can to contribute to the destruction of Israel. It is that simple. And that is really how power functions, don't you see? Wipe Israel out if you can. But also understand the consequences of your own choices. That to me is the core of the power issue.

You can 'question Jewishness' all you want, there are all sorts of things one can say about it, and Jewishness is a really odd thing, if you can call it a thing. I don't have any problem with you doing whatever you want in regard to it. But as I said I don't think you are merely 'questioning Jewishness' (mine or anyone's), I think you are working out details in a 'conceptual pathway' to destroy Jewishness, Jews, and Israel.

Reducing things to this point is instructive and highly relevant.

I think this expresses the power factor:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... d_jews.jpg

Chomsky calls himself a Jew and identifies himself as a Jew, so I have no idea how you separate out your contempt for Jewish identity and your admiration for the great Noam Chomsky. (It doesn't really matter of course).

I have read Chomsky extensively, and for many years, and I still find elements of his analysis relevant, but at the same time I find him hopelessly muddled, almost hopelessly lopsided, working a dead-end road. It is also instructive to look at the audience he gathers around him, and how he functions like a show, a spectacle, an event. It is a pantomine, almost a ritual.

Chomsky, I think, has internalized an essentially Machiavellian perspective of the world and 'how power functions', and it is useful to see the world through that lens, but one has to extend that analysis to all players in a very complex game, and not just channel it into pure 'ressentiment' for American power and use of power. Chomsky would be infinitely more relevant if he could extend his analysis to all power relationships. Well, that is what I found lacking in Chomsky (among various things) and so I am making the effort to balance out Chomskian anaysis.

http://jcdurbant.blog.lemonde.fr/files/ ... doll_5.gif
_________________________________

Serious Chomsky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSuaGIKT ... ed&search=

A humorous approach:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro

[Leyla Shen]

It seems to me that if one puts aside the ideological arguments that spin around these questions and focuses only on the issue of raw power, one will better understand what is Israel. That is how I see it. If you don't think that Israel should exist, or that Jews should exist, then what I suggest to you is that you do all you can to contribute to the destruction of Israel. It is that simple. And that is really how power functions, don't you see? Wipe Israel out if you can. But also understand the consequences of your own choices. That to me is the core of the power issue.

I’m sorry, Alex, but what exactly is your definition of ideological? You have presented me with an ideological argument in order to refute ideological arguments and the validity in condemning Israel, and thus Israeli policies, and thus the nature of the Jew, etc. All countries are founded on ideologies; you and I both know these borders--our political maps--are not objective, but arbitrary. So, no, I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make. Please, for once, try to put together a cogent argument. That is, in fact, what facilitates conversation. The only thing I’m gleaning from the above, really, is the idea that you think Israel represents raw power and should, therefore, not be questioned but one should, in fact, just blow it up rather than say anything about it. I mean, take a good, long look at what you have written. You're very good at pointing the finger, level it on yourself for a bit.

I can contribute to the destruction of anything I want, including irrational thinking, by presenting rational arguments. And I think you know that, albeit subconsciously at the moment. It frightens you; threatens your identity--your very existence. That’s really why you object to Chomsky, whose analysis you claim to be making an effort to “balance.” To achieve this "balance," you run around telling everyone that they should focus on the (ideological, by the way) issue of raw power (otherwise, you‘d just go over to his house and kill him, by your reasoning); blow things up rather than reason them out.

You remember when the Jews were being persecuted in Germany, obviously. Apparently gassed in their millions---an oppressed people. The wonderfully ideological basis upon which Israel was created takes its modern roots right there, precisely from ideological arguments. Necessarily, Jews had no raw power. That came (and continues to come--as you know, history doesn't just stop suddenly) from the allied forces, without which Israel would have been completely slaughtered by surrounding Arabs ten-fold before it got any foothold. Certainly, in Germany, they had no power comparable to the greatest civilisations history has seen (aside from some allusion to a guy named Moses in the Bible--who parted the fucking sea, no less!--and your religious texts, no doubt), like the Persians, Greeks, Romans and Ottomans, to mention a few. Many empires have had their people slaughtered over the ages. So, Alex, I have no problem discussing raw power. But you have to make a point about it to discuss. And, yes, Alex, your Israel’s “raw power” was purchased wholesale with conniving ideological arguments---the ones you now think we should leave out of the equation. Course, I think it evident that you’re not conscious enough to see that.

[Alex Jacob]

(It is Alex now and not 'Mr Jacob' or 'Jew Boy'?)

;-)

The way I see things, all things are riddled with contradictions. It is all contradiction. Starting from the individual right up to the state. In all of my studies and investigations I do not discover too much that is 'cogent', but more a tightly woven mass of contradictions.

I am pretty certain that as it pertains to the individual and to any social conglomeration, what ultimately functions at the base is raw power. In no sense does this dismiss or invalidate ideological questions, questions of ethics and morality, any particular narrative, discourse or story, but these are what are laid on top, and they are not primary. I only assert that it is valuable and worthwhile to apply a reduction from time to time, and I have described what I think that reduction is.

At the base of the issue of Israel, is the raw issue of power, and there also---always---is the possibility that Israel will be destroyed. There is no way, in my opinion, to broach the subject of Israel and not take this basic, exposed fact into consideration. In that sense, Israel's fate is quite different from, say, Australia and many other states: the issue of its (Australia's) existence is not in question, and there is no direct threat from any power to its continued existence. So, one must take this into account. And that is why I point out that the core issue is one of raw power.

You write:

"All countries are founded on ideologies; you and I both know these borders--our political maps--are not objective, but arbitrary. So, no, I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make. Please, for once, try to put together a cogent argument."

You say that you don't understand what my argument was, and yet you just stated it. I made that point to Faust, and it is a good point, a good idea to consider. That was my 'cogent argument'.

"I can contribute to the destruction of anything I want, including irrational thinking, by presenting rational arguments. And I think you know that, albeit subconsciously at the moment. It frightens you; threatens your identity--your very existence. That’s really why you object to Chomsky, whose analysis you claim to be making an effort to “balance.” To achieve this "balance," you run around telling everyone that they should focus on the (ideological, by the way) issue of raw power (otherwise, you‘d just go over to his house and kill him, by your reasoning); blow things up rather than reason them out."

In a sense I think that the idea of rationality, especially as it pertains to anything human, and in the light of human contradiction, is an unproductive road. If you want to understand yourself and anything human, do not suppose you can base your investigation in some sort of rational substrata, because it doesn't exist. It rather seems to me that one must start with the predicate of the irrational, the alogical, and the problematic. When you imply that your 'arguments' are 'rational' I can only laugh, because up till your last post there has been very little that even mimics reason, in my opinion. The issue, the real issue, as I see it (and the value of Chomskian analysis) is to see clearly that the human animal is not 'rational' and no aspect of the power equation is rational either. Chomsky in that sense frightens me because he is not realistic, he assumes that reason has an ascendency in human affairs that it by no means has. Chomsky takes up residence within his abstractions and his idealisms just as he does within academic positions, and all of this has so little to do with 'power and the way power functions'. It is that focus in Chomsky that needs to be 'balanced' by an understanding that power and the use of power is a system with many participants. To say this does not at all disinvalidate some of Chomsky's interpretations of speficic uses of power, of coercion, deception, etc.

"And I think you know that, albeit subconsciously at the moment. It frightens you; threatens your identity--your very existence."

You are a card! I welcome the foray into psychology and I'd like to hear more BTW. My identity does not depend on you, and what is more you do not really have a greasp on what Jewish identity is. Your views are couched in shallow cliches. If you did it is likely that your general rap against Jews and Judaism would improve. It really seems to me that the issue of the Jew is quite trhreatening to you and to others here, otherwise there wouldn't be all this emotional fireworks. And that is a fact of European history: the self-definition of the Jew makes little sense to Gentiles and the presence of the Jew in their cultures is unsettling.

But as I am saying, it is not my existence or self-defintion that is threatened, but the existence of Israel, and yes, the possibility of the annihilation (or extreme damage) to Israel is very much a fright. For me and for many other Jews. We are aware of the danger.

"You remember when the Jews were being persecuted in Germany, obviously. Apparently gassed in their millions---an oppressed people. The wonderfully ideological basis upon which Israel was created takes its modern roots right there, precisely from ideological arguments. Necessarily, Jews had no raw power. That came (and continues to come--as you know, history doesn't just stop suddenly) from the allied forces, without which Israel would have been completely slaughtered by surrounding Arabs ten-fold before it got any foothold. Certainly, in Germany, they had no power comparable to the greatest civilisations history has seen (aside from some allusion to a guy named Moses in the Bible--who parted the fucking sea, no less!--and your religious texts, no doubt), like the Persians, Greeks, Romans and Ottomans, to mention a few. Many empires have had their people slaughtered over the ages. So, Alex, I have no problem discussing raw power. But you have to make a point about it to discuss. And, yes, Alex, your Israel’s “raw power” was purchased wholesale with conniving ideological arguments---the ones you now think we should leave out of the equation. Course, I think it evident that you’re not conscious enough to see that."

I am doing you a favor then by stripping away any sense of the ideological that you seem to object to. I am in that sense contributing to your project. It is very true that the fact of that oppression was the fuel and the motivation of the Zionist movement, and all the arguments of that movement can be examined and considered. They are not irrelevant, and because they are not irrelevant they are no without merit. But as I said above, down at the core, the issue revolves around raw power, gettin git and holding it. I see no contradiction, and I see this fact as a basic human fact. If you suffer by my machinations, I don't think the voice of your suffering is ideological, not at the core. It is just suffering. Similarly, the wartime Jewish suffering is just suffering, and the cure for that suffering, as I see it, was to claim a state, and begin a project of changing Jewish fate, from what it had been to something different. This is just one description of a process and I make no claim to exclusivity, I only tell you what my thinking is, and why. But this is not all of what I think.

"So, Alex, I have no problem discussing raw power. But you have to make a point about it to discuss."

I am not the one to have frames this so-called 'conversation'. I entered an existing conversation and made some statements. The points that I have wanted to raise I have raised, there have been a number of them. In the context of you and I the point I want to make is that, at your core, there is a more or less pure animus, a sort of hatred or contempt for Jews and Israel (I gather this from what you write and the way you write it) and an attempt to undermine and disqualify Jewish identity. I see that as central to the historical process that has been the anti-semitic project. Separate from that, of course, is a critique of Israel's policy, which can take place in a so-called 'rational' conversation with someone who accepts Jewish identity, and by extension the Israeli state. I assume that when you discuss the policies of any existant state you do not question and challenge the very 'right' of that state to exist. So, Jewish identity exists because Jews decide it exists, and it is not presented to you for your approval, you see. Israel exists and has been recognized as one among many states. True, all states are (in that sense) concoctions, yet if you are going to invalidate Israel the same measure must be applied to all other states. And to any other 'arbitrary' social or political identity.

I do not dismiss any and all critique of Israel's policies, but I do take issue with the narratives that conceptually destroy Israel's right to exist, the arguments that seek to deconstruct Jewish identity as a plank for a general disqualification of Israel's existence, and that are connected with a group of ideological and practical platforms desiring destruction of Israel. If you want my opinion, it is knowledge of these constructs, this animus, that is one of the central motivators within Israeli society and in diaspora Jewry. If one understands that, one will better understand Israel.

[Alex Jacob]

Anna,

The 'Christian mood' that I felt is expressed in De Profundis is an awareness of suffering, and a solidarity with and succor of those who suffer. Wilde led a profligate life, by his own admission, and abused his freedom, by his own admission, and fate led him the the depths of prison, where he suffered tremendously. (De profundis: from the depths). He comes to terms with sorrow as something inevitable ('hearts are made to be broken') and also as the most profound teacher there is. He seems to develop a relationship with sorrow, and personally there is little that he wrote equal to the sincere sentiments in De Profundis. And in his relationship with sorrow, he feels he understands Jesus Christ. (One might have assumed on the basis of this document that he would have ended his days serving the suffering, but as someone said, he expressed lofty sentiments when in prison...and went to Paris when he got out). I have read De Profundis 3-4 times and still think it is an excellent and important peice of writing.

Taken in a general sense, the Christian ethic of giving away what one has, and dedicating oneself to the service of those who don't have enough, et cetera, is impractical for a person or a group that wishes to augment terrestrial power. In a general sense. I agree with you, personally, that it is nicer to practice the ethic, and I may or may not act in that way, and the fact is that sometimes I do and other times I most certainly do not, but overall I think a critique of these ethics points to their general impracticability, that is by an entire culture, by a civilization. To get ahead in the world, as they say, involves placing yourself in the front, striving to get and to hold. Generally, the Christian ideal is one of letting go, of deciding not to get and hold, and in that sense leads away from building up terrestrial power and wealth. I don't think that Christianity could really value knowledge for the sake of knowledge, then, because all knowledge would have to serve the Christian ideal to be considered relevant, non-vain, and so Christianity could only stress piety and submission and service, which it does. The ethic of Christianity is a contradiction in terms.

Words, phrases and metaphors come into existence when people attempt to describe the nature of reality. Words are likenesses. What they refer to is often not real, or is seen at another time to be false. But many of the terms, and the metaphors, remain. Our language is an historical graveyard of many meanings that are now dead, that is they do not refer to a real thing, the 'real thing' they supposedly referred to is now seen not to exist. If you read some of the earlier attempts at describing reality, say Aristotle in the Physics, you can easily see that his language and his metaphor, though living and vital to him then, is now 'dead', and yet the turns of phrase still exist in the language. They have left a mark, an indelible mark sometimes. In this there are medieval concepts of reality that rub up against modern ideas of reality. And that is what is happening in us.

So, more often than not it is seen as important to understand that to which language refers, what the specialized words mean, assuming they refer to 'real things', but another approach is to focus on the language itself, and discover what it is capable of expressing and what it is not capable of expressing, to get clear about the limits of language. There are some things about the nature of this reality that are simply beyond description (according to this view), and are more or less inexpressable, and yet we are locked into certain expressions by force of habit, because our langauge forces us to.

Being/existence, meaning, knowledge, truth, value: how can these things be expressed? Or how can they be defined and settled? I don't think anyone will ever be able to really express, in a 'logical' manner, what being is. Our being is beyond expressions about it. (Et cetera).

If you look at the primary and axial terms in what you wrote about ashkashic reconds, the ethers, etc., in the light of the above, it provokes thought about what we really mean when we use these terms. It seems to me the terms are hopelessly outdated and need revision. People are still invested and still invest in outdated metaphysics---me too---and I am only saying that it is intersting to examine them. I don't know how to address an apparent confluence of ancient metaphysics and modern physics, but maybe it is possible. But it seems to me if just about everything about the way our physical world functions, according to the old model, was proved to be false, that in fact life operates in a very distinct sense from what theology assumed, similarly modern physics will guide modern understanding to a new metaphysic, and will supercede old, dead metaphysic. (I don't know if I am making myself clear).

"Why be so attached to what our human senses can detect? We're lumbering giants up here."

What other option is there?

"Next you'll be telling me that everything worth discovering has been discovered, science is at an end, and everything worth inventing has been invented."

No, not at all! Everything lies in front of us, and we have to now consider all things in a new light, we have to integrate it all, and move from a medieval mind-frame into a modern mind-frame.

"Come now, if you can operate it, then there it has a way that it works, and if it has a way it works, the mechanism can be described, and discovered."

Okay, describe to me what a prayer is, and how a prayer acts upon the diety, and the mechanism by which a prayer functions in your or my world. If it is describable, describe it. I assert that all you will be able to do is trot out some semblance of an old description, a dead description. A metaphor. But you will not be able to touch or explain a mystery (if it exists) merely allude to a something.

"Spirit are subtle energies, not visible to our regular sight."

Straight from the 'graveyard of meaning'! ;-)

"Yet the way out of prison is through concsciousness...it's enough to make you believe in the devil, isn't it?"

It seems to me thatmost everyone 'believes in the devil', and it all depends on how their language is functioning. There is something about our psychology that is highly polarized between the demonic and the angelic.

Who is Jed McKenna, a relative of Terrence McKenna? If joining his cult depends on '9 grams of dried cubensis' I might decide to join...

;-)

[Alex Jacob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... ust_denial

[Dan Rowden]

Alex, could you cease inserting images into your posts. We have a strict text rule here. Link to them by all means, however.

[Iolaus]

Alex,

You say that the state of Israel represents Jews taking their fate in there own hands and refusing the role they had been playing.

I see that you have a back to the wall kind of stance re Israel and the survival of the Jews. A very common stance. I wonder if it is necessary, if it is true at all, and to what extent, if true, it was brought to this point by those conspirators I mentioned.

Why has it come to this, that Israel is one country that must never relax, is always vigilent lest it be destroyed? How have the Jews taken a certain tendency toward antisemitism and raised the bar so high? I'm tired of the answer that gentiles suffer from a disease called antisemitism.

What about the fact that Germany had instituted equality laws and Jews had never had it so good anywhere? How did that turn into the holocaust?

You say it was the fact of German oppression that was the fuel for Israel - but that is not so. The Zionist movement is much older than WWII. What if events were manipulated so that Jews would suffer and begin to respond, in fear and defiance, exactly as you are now?
People were similarly manipulated into the two world wars, and into Iraq both times. Remember, you said the idea that our own government blew up the federal building while blaming skinheads, and blew up the twin towers while blaming some arabs and then invading Iraq (again) was not particularly news.

If that is so, then we can certainly assume that these are not the first two times such manipulations have gone on. And we have the Rothschilds - richest family on planet earth, involved heavily in Israel, involved heavily in Zionism, in fact the author of the Balfour declaration...

What if the problem is that Israel really doesn't have a right to exist because they are a rogue, terrorist state?

Is it true that Jews don't have much power in this world? I don't know, but I do know that if they can make people go to jail for expressing opinions and on only one theme - the Jews, - then that is some raw power indeed. Does money have anything at all to do with power? I'm not saying Jews are a bunch of rich bastards - but I am saying that some of the wealthiest and most powerful bankers in the world are Jewish and have been involved in Jewish affairs and it's naive to think they have not pulled strings.
And what about this Khazarian thing? why is it so little known? Have they suppressed it in the history books and encyclopedias to downplay that most Jews have no historic tie to Israel?

What if the common mass of Jews are unwitting pawns in their game, just as Americans were unwitting pawns in several games in which their emotions were (so predictably!) stoked by staged attacks?

I have no paraticular problem with Jewish identity, but you say that such a person must also consider the survival of Israel as a right by extension with their acceptance of Jewish identity. But this is the problem. The state of Israel is a horrible mess, and it is endangering all of humanity. It needs to be defused as if by a bomb squad. I have no idea how - I'm not even discussing that. But if it were true that all the Jews wanted was to live in peace like any other nation, they would have carved out a niche for themselves. Well, perhaps at times they have and got the boot - I admit that - but America was wide open and they never took advantage of it. South America too. It seems to me that they are not an independent people.

Jews lived in peace and prosperity in Germany, they lived well here, and they lived pretty peacefully in various countries in the middle east, and still do. Their survival has never been under question to the extent it is now - and it is entirely possible that the worst threat to their survival - the holocaust - was manufactured to promote the aims of people who are doing exactly what you say is necessary in this world - attaining raw power.

It isn't necessary to deconstruct Jewish identity to disqualify Israel as having an automatic right to exist. That must be what's going on here because Faust descended into irrationality over it. That most modern Jews are not descended from the Hebrews does decrease the validity of Israel, but the main problem is that they took land that was occuppied, and did it with the 'permission' of England and the allied powers! Not to even mention their actions since then.

http://www.savethemales.ca/002104.html
http://www.savethemales.ca/002071.html
http://www.savethemales.ca/002030.html
http://www.savethemales.ca/002026.html
http://www.savethemales.ca/001936.html
http://www.savethemales.ca/001850.html
http://www.savethemales.ca/001707.html
http://www.savethemales.ca/001523.html

[Alex Jacob]

Anna,

If you are interested in these issues, really interested, I can only suggest that you look into it, and not just by accessing one source. Just before you posted, I had been experimenting with different search categories, and was surprised what came up under the term 'talmudic jews':

http://www.google.com/search?q=talmudic ... tartPage=1

(I especially like the one that links the NT prophecies to the Mayan Calander. Things get serious when you bring in the Virgin of Guadalupe! What you see is a group of various nut-cases who all have their pet strange ideas, and at the core of these ideas (in many of them) is the Jew as Devil. Look into it yourself.

I don't have the interest and I certainly don't have the time to refute these 'claims'. Are you aware of what the refutations are? Have you looked into that from the other side?

In order to understand the reason why these claims come into existence one needs to examine the origin and cause of anti-semitism. I am sorry that you are tired of hearing the term anti-semite, but what can I do about that?

I suggest a couple of books:

The Devil and the Jews by Joshua Trachtenberg:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Woh0AA ... esult&cd=3

Europe and the Jews by Malcolm Hay
http://www.amazon.com/Europe-Jews-Press ... 0897333594

Especially facinating is The Devil and the Jews, in my opinion.
____________________________________________

I don't think you have enough of a picture of some of the facts of history as they pertain to Jews in Europe to form an accurate opinion of that history. If you were to get more informed, I think, you would have a better stock of information with which to analyze the issue.

I could just as well ask you: What if all these assertions (these questions you are asking me) are misrepresentations, distortions and lies? What are the ramifications of that?
____________________________________________

I mentioned in a post to Leyla what is my opinion about the issue of raw power. This is just my opinion and I am very sure that others would see these and many other issues differently than I do. I sometimes think my views (my Machiavellian views, having read Machiavelli) are reductions, that is too reductive. In any case, I am not a spokesman for Israel or for Jews, you should take that into consideration.

I am already familiar with the majority of the 'arguments' that you present through these links, because I have examined them not only in their present, modern form, but in their original and proto-typical forms---beginning about 1000 years ago. It would only be fair that I ask that you read some portion of The Devil and the Jews in exchange for actually reading (and responding) to your material...

;-)
_________________________________________________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_canard
http://www.mideastweb.org/jewreligion.htm