Hitler's gas chambers mere fiction?

[Tomas]

Alex: I was being ironical. There's no wishy-washy relativism with me here: good and evil are both false categories that cause suffering.

-tomas-
Well said, Trevor.


Judas Iscariot was the good guy. He didn't kill himself, but was set up (murdered) by the Sanhedrin.

Same is true for Lee Harvey Oswald. Body double.

It was micro-nukes in both Bali and Oklahoma City.


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971


.

[Leyla Shen]

Alex: I was being ironical. There's no wishy-washy relativism with me here: good and evil are both false categories that cause suffering.

:)

I thought it was an excellent parody of Mr Jacob's preceding post, myself. Good job, Trevor.

Mr Jacob: you shall have to stay tuned to my discussion with Anna if you want to see my points, rather than simply react to what you find offensive. It ain't my fault they slipped and cut off your balls, mate!

[Leyla Shen]

Anna wrote:

But it looks to me like your focus on the woman at the well is different than mine, and I still don't know what you're driving at. My take is that Jesus wants to teach her spiritually,

Well, I think even atheists understand that Jesus’s intention was spiritual enlightenment, so no problem here.

…and uses a water metaphor to describe it. She either doesn't understand, or is just conversationally drawing him out, asking how his water could be better than Jacob's well water.

Sure. She’s says, “Man, this place is a fucking desert and the ol’ patriarch, Jacob, gave us a well, which keeps us alive. I use a bucket because the well descends almost to the very depths of hell, I quench my thirst and that of the cattle and I live another day. You don’t even have a bucket, so where the heck do you get living water from, let alone the cheap, dead kind? I reckon that Jacob, having given us this dead water which allows us to live, is a really, really swell guy. But if you‘ve got this living water---sustenance for life everlasting---you must be greater than he. Are you?” And Jesus says, “Yep, you’re water’s dead, temporal--naught, alright. For no sooner than you have quenched your thirst for it, you shall thirst again. But my water---little petal---MY water is life everlasting for it quenches the thirst for truth, and whosoever swallows it shall never thirst for truth again, but shall be that which satiates the thirst for life itself.”

After this she asks which group is right about the correct mountain to worship,

I left out Jhn4:20, in which she says that the Samaritans, “worshipped in this mountain; and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”

…and he says the Jews are, but that it really isn't relevant because worshipping god doesn't require any particular place, and that sort of thinking is on the way out.

Here is where we might disagree, somewhat. What he is speaking about is uniting the tribes of “Israel” (Jacob--though some say Isaac is Israel and Ishmael Islam)---which is where all the race bullshit (and, by the way, tribal factions of Judea/Israel) comes into the equation. And that is what he speaks of when he says, “Salvation is of the Jews”--a tribe of (ancient land mass) Israel, which encompassed the whole of today’s Palestine and Israel. He is saying there will come a time when they will be united and it will not matter where they worship, for they will be worship the “ONE” (same) god as one---as Israel!

The Samaritans ware a splinter group of Jews, I don't think they were Palestinians.

That’s right, according to the bible. Descendants of Jacob. One assumes this is during the 20-year fall-out period with Esau? Samaria is, basically, today’s West Bank.

What is a Palestinian, a descendant of Esau fathered by Isaac or an inhabitant of today's Palestine?

More later.

[Edited to add title]

[Alex Jacob]

You guys...are obviously too ironic for me. Still I eagerly await more revelations/chastening, as well as the continuation of the Bible Study course which I find edifying.
___________________________________________

But a small comment: It is inaccurate to imply a correspondence between patriarchs of the Greek Church, the popes of the Roman Catholic Church, and the rabbis of the diaspora period.

"In 69, Vespasian seized the throne after a civil war. By 70, the Romans had occupied Jerusalem. Titus, son of the Roman Emperor, destroyed the Second Temple on the 9th of Av, ie. Tisha B'Av (656 years to the day after the destruction of the First Temple in 587 BCE). Over 100,000 Jews died during the siege, and nearly 100,000 were taken to Rome as slaves. Many Jews fled to Mesopotamia (Iraq), and to other countries around the Mediterranean. In 73 the last Jewish resistance was crushed by Rome at the mountain fortress of Masada; the last 900 defenders committed suicide rather than be captured and sold into slavery.

"Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai escaped from Jerusalem. He obtained permission from the Roman general to establish a center of Jewish learning and the seat of the Sanhedrin in the outlying town of Yavneh (see Council of Jamnia). This is generally considered the beginning of Rabbinic Judaism, the period when the Halakha became formalized. Some believe that the Jewish canon was determined during this time period, but this theory has been largely discredited, see also Biblical canon. Judaism survived the destruction of Jerusalem through this new center. The Sanhedrin became the supreme religious, political and judicial body for Jews worldwide until 425, when it was forcibly disbanded by the Roman government, by then officially dominated by the Christian Church."

What distinguishes a rabbinate from a priesthood is part of the reason why Judaism has remained vital and relevant (if only to Jews themselves), and is one of the features I admire (despite what you crypto-Christians have to say on the matter). These rabbis did not have the authority of a priesthood and so their ideas are expressed as opinions, but with no or little official sanction. Or, a sanction very different from that of a patriarch or a pope. There was not nor is there a set universality of opinion, there is only the record of a long conversation with Torah as the central text. But even that is not an absolute, especially now. There are rabbis who include far more than only Torah in their understanding of reality, and who specifically negate any notion of an external objective God who has done things, or 'chosen' Jews, etc. They see this only as choices men have made. And yet they are very much members of their religion and function within it. The notion of heresy doesn't exist in any comparable way to that of the Christian churces, and this is a very important distinction.

That is why the rabbinical community has been a community far more wedded to conversation and discussion, as well as argument and disagreement.

Also:

"In 132 the Bar Kokhba's Revolt began led by Simon bar Kokhba and an independent state in Israel was declared. By 135 this revolt was crushed by Rome. The Romans, seeking to suppress the names "Judaea" and "Jerusalem", reorganized it as part of the province of Syria-Palestine. In order to worsen the humiliation of the defeated Jews, the Latin name Palaestina was chosen for the area, after the Philistines, whom the Romans identified as the worst enemies of the Jews in history. From then on the region was known as Palestine."

The Romans tended to find those pesky Jews rather irksome...
_____________________________

Though completely dominated by Zionist mind control, you scholars might be interested (though I am not counting on it) in a source that would actually increase knowledge of that which you so strongly condemn. At the very least it would improve some of your 'arguments'. You'd appear, perhaps, a bit less stupid...(as it pertains to things Jewish).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi

(Helpful hint from the 'resident Jew')

;-)

[Iolaus]

Tomas,

Code: Select all

It was micro-nukes in both Bali and Oklahoma City.

I know we have bombed over 20 countries since WWII, so it's hard to keep up, but what happened in Bali?

Here is where we might disagree, somewhat. What he is speaking about is uniting the tribes of “Israel” (Jacob--though some say Isaac is Israel and Ishmael Islam)---which is where all the race bullshit (and, by the way, tribal factions of Judea/Israel) comes into the equation. And that is what he speaks of when he says, “Salvation is of the Jews”--a tribe of (ancient land mass) Israel, which encompassed the whole of today’s Palestine and Israel. He is saying there will come a time when they will be united and it will not matter where they worship, for they will be worship the “ONE” (same) god as one---as Israel!

Well, I don't get that from the text! He says that the day and the hour has cmoe when the people will not worship on either mountain because the Father seeks those who worshop in spirit and truth, i.e., not tied to material places.

The Palestinians could hve been descended from Esau but perhaps also from Ishmael. As to the feud between Ishmael and Isaac, the problem is that Sarah was not only the senior wife, and in fact not a concubine, but they were from Mesopotamia and were royalty or high priesthood. Sarai means princess, and Abraham's father Terah was a high priest in the big ziggurat there. Abraham was not a simple nomad, he hobnobbed with kings and the pharaoh. And, all the royalty in those days kept their blood lines pure by marrying close relatives (as the rothschild's did!!). They married half-sisters, the pharaohs, and so was Sarah/sarai the half-sister of Abraham.

alex, I'll read your post next.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Alex,

You guys...are obviously too ironic for me. Still I eagerly await more revelations/chastening, as well as the continuation of the Bible Study course which I find edifying.

I only use irony when it's useful.

There was not nor is there a set universality of opinion, there is only the record of a long conversation with Torah as the central text. But even that is not an absolute, especially now.

Then there is no Judaism whatsoever. These bigoted men have categorized themselves falsely and arbitrarily. What else is arbitrary? Is Jewish law arbitrary? All it would take to be arbitrary would be a single case of Jewish law taking the arbitrary distinction "Jew" seriously. If that were the case, then Judaism is no better than the worst forms of government.

(For instance, I am required by an arbitrary munipal bylaw to have my dog both under control and on a leash no longer than 2 metres in length when she is not confined to my property. The penalty for not doing either one is a $300 fine. When both means and end are legislated simultaneously, the law is arbitrary, and not worth obeying. Since my dog is a highly trained, socialized, expressive, and intelligent border collie who is absolutely never not under control, I will not put her on a leash. That would be an absurd action, and would only end up confusing my dog.)

The Romans tended to find those pesky Jews rather irksome...

I find poorly considered beliefs irksome, as well. The Romans contributed far more to philosophy than Judaism. Roman accomplishments in the domain of truth are commendable: I can't imagine modern philosophy without the hard knuckles of the Stoics beating back some of the worst excesses of Grecian philosophy.

The Jews have One God, but they are as confused as the Christians when it comes to defining him in any logical (or even consistent) manner.

(Helpful hint from the 'resident Jew')

Why would you put this label on yourself? Is it designed to foster division?

[Alex Jacob]

Trevor wrote:

"Then there is no Judaism whatsoever. These bigoted men have categorized themselves falsely and arbitrarily. What else is arbitrary? Is Jewish law arbitrary? All it would take to be arbitrary would be a single case of Jewish law taking the arbitrary distinction "Jew" seriously. If that were the case, then Judaism is no better than the worst forms of government."

Well, you got me on that one. Whew! You're right: there is no Judaism, it is an arbitrary designation. And because the law that is arbitrary and ipso facto does not exist has indeed decided issues of law on the basis of the false belief that there is such a thing as a Jew, you have proved that it is arbitrary.

All I can do is crawl away in shame, and hope that the Aussie doesn't go quite as hard on me (yet I can feel her key strokes, and they will be devastating, no doubt of it!)

You asked me:

"Why would you put this label on yourself? Is it designed to foster division?"

I use the term 'resident Jew' because that is how Leyla referred to me, something like 'our resident Jew' (New Arrival Jew would have suited me). Do you suppose she used that term to 'foster division'? (Careful now, that was a deeply ironical question with some trecherous undercurrents in it...)

Warm regards.

[Iolaus]

Alex,

But I am not sure to what you are responding. What I spoke about was influence and attitude, of Roman law and dominance as compared to the more philosophical Greeks.

You might not have a lot of heresies, but they did try to stone Jesus (if the accounts are to be believed) for saying things that indicated divinity. So you've got stoning. Like for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Poor chap was probably just trying to make some tea for his wife's menstrual cramps.

Of course everything you say is perfectly true so far as it goes but is there a deeper story. That is what concerns me. I don't deny being a born again conspiracy theorist and I've been reading David Icke. But I recommend for you to go to Henry Makow's site. He's Jewish, his parents fled the Nazis, but he talks about the global elite agenda and it includes a lot of wealthy Jews such as the Rothschilds. Neither he nor Icke think the Jews are the sole perpetrators. In fact, the Jews get blamed and take the fall sometimes, as in Nazi Germany. It is entirely possible that there is a group of Jews bent on world dominion and who use some shitty old Biblical stuff to justify it. After all, it's in there.

[Leyla Shen]

Anna:

Well, I don't get that from the text!

That’s because--at heart--your ideas stem from those of an ignorant and puritan Christianity who wants appear distant from any significant relationship between the unpalatable OT and the NT, despite such connections being abundantly clear. But, Anna, this is impossible---unless you think there's more validity to a form of Christianity that picks and chooses random quotes to preach a bit-and-piece-Christ situational morality without regard for the whole context. These folk, in my view, simply have too short an attention span to deal with the whole thing.

He says that the day and the hour has cmoe when the people will not worship on either mountain because the Father seeks those who worshop in spirit and truth, i.e., not tied to material places.

Yes, and as you pointed out, the Samarians were a “splinter group of Jews.” The day will come when there is no division between the people of the (entire ancient) land Israel but instead a unity of the people of “the Father.” There is no other way to read it but the way that it is written:

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain [in Samaria, a “splinter group of “Jews”--being of Judea; otherwise, why the statement, “but you are a Jew…”?], nor yet at Jerusalem [in Israel, separated at the time from Judea], worship the Father.

The Palestinians could hve been descended from Esau but perhaps also from Ishmael. As to the feud between Ishmael and Isaac, the problem is that Sarah was not only the senior wife, and in fact not a concubine, but they were from Mesopotamia and were royalty or high priesthood. Sarai means princess, and Abraham's father Terah was a high priest in the big ziggurat there. Abraham was not a simple nomad, he hobnobbed with kings and the pharaoh. And, all the royalty in those days kept their blood lines pure by marrying close relatives (as the rothschild's did!!). They married half-sisters, the pharaohs, and so was Sarah/sarai the half-sister of Abraham.

You see how a Christian MUST have the OT? The NT makes even less sense without it. It is an integral and immutable part of Christianity. The question is, exactly why and, therefore, what is the relationship between Yahweh and Jesus? It’s not good enough to simply say it was added on by the Church to keep people in fear, as you have done.

Would you mind citing your source for Sarai as the senior wife (if it’s in the bible, I reckon I’ve missed it. And, if it isn’t, that would be rather interesting….), I’d like to review it.

~

That’s right, Alex. I am not done with you, yet.

~

It is entirely possible that there is a group of Jews bent on world dominion and who use some shitty old Biblical stuff to justify it. After all, it's in there.

Course it is. The question is, why and how could the rest of the world buy into it, even if unconsciously?

[Alex Jacob]

Leyla the Terrible:

"That’s right, Alex. I am not done with you, yet."

Well, when you are done, just let me crawl back to where I came from unhurt, okay? Is that asking too much, or is it? You cruel woman you!
___________________________________________________________

Hello Anna,

I don't know what the connection between Henry Makow and this site is, but oddly enough (somehow) that is how I got here (and am beginning to regret it, but as long as there is some level of exchange I'll guess I'll make do). I came across Makow's critique of feminism, and again, in my opinion, not all the nutcases of this world are wrong on all points. Often, they have some good points, but then mixed in among them is some...well, excuse the term: mishegoss (craziness, nonsense). I am no expert on Makow, and have no intention of becoming one, but based on his article on the evils of feminism, I simply dismissed him. It is not that I dismissed everything, because most people are not altogether crazy, and their ideas do connect, often marginally it is true, with 'reality', it is more that he is wrong on a sufficient number of point to render his general thrust as suspect (thsat is, wrong to my understanding).

And so this is an important poin, if you want my opinion: All idea-structures are more or less like that. They are accurate, perhaps, up to a point, but they are not universally and 100% accurate. They all contain flaws. In the intellectual world, speaking generally, this is almost a truism. Once you have hear so many different raps, and once you have seen their definciencies and flaws, you can be pretty much assured that most raps (ideological systems, metaphysical systems, etc) are similarly flawed. The question is to what degree. And this was my first point in one of my first posts: Judaism, as a religion, is ample, wide, and has many differeent dimensions. It is a plurality and not a singularity. And within that plurality, that small universe, there are indeed things of merit. It is pretty simple. No one asked me to describe what I think is flawed in that system, and the main points of contention against my ideas, or me, or me as a Jew, were bizarre, general and almost wild claims against 'the Jews'. This sort of thinking is part of destructive thinking, not productive thinking, and as I have been saying there is likely a psychological undercurrent operating here.

One thing you should know, if you want to know anything about Jews (and perhaps you don't) is that we are a complex people. There is no general term that can define 'the Jews' and so any text that contains these unreal generalizations can be looked on as suspect. You can find some Jew, somewhere, who will support any strange idea you may have. Jews are used to this. If Makow seems to make sense to you,all I can say is don't believe everything you read. Sometimes you have to hold back from accepting discourses, of allowing your own faculties to be overrun by some one else's ideas. To my way of thinking, this is one of the main problems 'of our age': people have no choices in the matter, and ideas overrun them, control them, have invisible power over them. The only cure for this is some sort of internal strength that can resist these powerful discourses that seek to dominate, or so much familiarity with discourse that you can pick up and 'handle' any one and not get 'possessed'.

It is interesting, too, to pay close attention to those who are deconsructionists, those who suppose or act like they are out from under the sway of powerful ideas, and who describe some reductive method to do this. A partial cure is not equal to a cure, and sometimes the result are not so hot.

In respect to Jesus, I can only look at these Gospels as stories, as narratives, and as constructed narratives. The same can be said for a good portion of the Tanach (the old testament). But the New Testament, as I see it, is a more brazen and if you will 'modern' use of a narrative form, and it takes place at an important juncture in history, just as 'modern histories' were begun, for example the Greek histories and the Roman histories. The Gospels take the form of 'histories', as if they are actually telling of events that definitely occured, but it is generally agreed (by biblical scholars, less by the faithful of course) that these are narratives strung together for 'purposes'. I can only refer you to the Jesus Seminar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

...if you were interested in looking into some of this and its implications.

My personal view is that this historical personage, Jesus, was a man who had some pithy things to say, some intricate (and often deeply ironic) parables, but that the whole New Testament story is invented, patched together, or constructed. I think that 'we' are very capable of doing these things, and that we invent and mold our reality, even if we do this unconsciously, or in a group-mind manner. This process of creation is as complex as anything about us, and there is almost no way to ferret-out all aspects of the process, since it hinges into the very fact of our consciousness, some sense of 'divinity' (a divinity inside and outside of us, a creative or directing power), into blind psychology, 'will-to-power' and all that complexifies human beings.

David Icke...David Icke. You put it out there so I will comment on it, but please know that I have no interest in condemning something that has value or meaning for you. But David Iske, in the sense that I am trying to articulate, is a very good example of a sort of disease, a malaise, a danger if you will. He represents someone who literally has been 'possessed' by certain ideas, or you could almost describe them as 'spirits'. And he will attract others who think like he does, who share this sort of metaphysic, a description of reality, of how we got here, what we are doing here, and what sort of 'demons' and 'angels' surround us. I would say that most of the Earth's population thinks along lines like this, in one way or another. We seem to be a small conscious bubble (our mind)floating on a sea of image, impulse and psychological content. All the more reason to find some sort of bedrock and find a way to atttach ourself to it.

These idea-structures, these belief-systems, are vestiges of medieval thinking, and we are in a late medieval period as it pertains to humankind, if you wanted my pinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke

Do you believe that the earth is being controlled by reptilian humanoids? (I guess this is one interpretation, a little whimsical, but an interpretation nonetheless). I think it stems froma scientific fact that in embryonic development we humans pass through a reptilian stage. Oddly enough, this belief is a result of the Darwinian revolution. Well, that was a thought that occured to me recently.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Well, you got me on that one. Whew! You're right: there is no Judaism, it is an arbitrary designation. And because the law that is arbitrary and ipso facto does not exist has indeed decided issues of law on the basis of the false belief that there is such a thing as a Jew, you have proved that it is arbitrary.

All I can do is crawl away in shame, and hope that the Aussie doesn't go quite as hard on me (yet I can feel her key strokes, and they will be devastating, no doubt of it!)

No need to exaggerate your shame. Everyone makes mistakes, including every single self-professed Jew that has ever lived.

[Iolaus]

Leyla,

That’s because--at heart--your ideas stem from those of an ignorant and puritan Christianity who wants appear distant from any significant relationship between the unpalatable OT and the NT,

Leyla this is not only unnecessarily insulting, it's crap. I am not a christian, and never was a puritan type. And further, my thoughts on this are mostly my own, or partly gleaned from very nonmainstream sources. The average puritan Christian believes that the entire ball of wax is 'the word of God.'

I never said there were no connections. There are historic and other connections between OT and NT. I said that a lot of the stuff in the OT is rather evil, inconsistent with itself and with the new, and leads, as Trevor said, to an incoherent God concept.

Actually, I do think it is time to start doing some picking and choosing. But that's me. So far, few agree with me.

Yes, and as you pointed out, the Samarians were a “splinter group of Jews.” The day will come when there is no division between the people of the (entire ancient) land Israel but instead a unity of the people of “the Father.” There is no other way to read it but the way that it is written:

Once could possibly read that into it as a consequence...
It would be one thing if he had said that the day would come when they all worshipped at the SAME mountain - but he said they would no longer be stuck on particular mountains because they would understand that worship is of the spirit.
Anyway, I sense this is important to you, this interpretation. What do you see as the possibility for the words to come true? Or did they come true? One is that shortly after Jesus' lifetime, the Jews were ousted and had neither temple nor mount, which I think was good for them. I don't even know what happened to the Samaritans. Perhaps they were routed by the Romans as well. Do you want the Jews to convert to Islam? At any rate, before the advent of Israel, Jews and Muslims did live in relative peace often enough, and believed that their God was more or less the same one.

You see how a Christian MUST have the OT? The NT makes even less sense without it. It is an integral and immutable part of Christianity. The question is, exactly why and, therefore, what is the relationship between Yahweh and Jesus? It’s not good enough to simply say it was added on by the Church to keep people in fear, as you have done.

I didn't say the OT should be burned. It is chock full of usefel information, and it has some actual spiritual gems as well. As far as I am concerned, Yahweh was the devil that Jesus spoke of , a liar and a murderer.

Would you mind citing your source for Sarai as the senior wife (if it’s in the bible, I reckon I’ve missed it. And, if it isn’t, that would be rather interesting….), I’d like to review it.

My source is the bible, is there another? She was the wife of his youth, the wife from his family, his half-sister, and they were married before they left the land of Ur. Abraham took the Egyptian concubine because she was barren. marrying in the family was important. That is why Isaac's servant journeyed all the way back to his mother's family to find a wife for him, and it specifically says Abraham didn't want him to marry the local women. Rebekah was Isaac's cousin. Their son Jacob then married another cousin. two, actually. But Esau married local women.

Course it is. The question is, why and how could the rest of the world buy into it, even if unconsciously?

That's a big question. It's about power, money, deception, and the gullibility of the human race.


Henry

I don't know what the connection between Henry Makow and this site is,

The feminism thing is not why I sent you there, but to read his articles about Hitler and WWII, and the global elite.

Not that I think he's a nutcase.

Yes, you are right about logical structures of thought, which are usually adhered to out of an emotional preference of some kind. Once such a decision is made, intelligence only helps create a better maze, it does not help to see through the delusion of it. That is a decision of the will.

One thing you should know, if you want to know anything about Jews (and perhaps you don't) is that we are a complex people.

Sure but didn't I say that any global conspiracy, or the zionist movement, is not about all Jews?

If Makow seems to make sense to you,all his ideas

It'll be nice if he's wrong, but I am not primarily talking about his 'ideas' I'm interested in his historical fact finding. Did these things happen, are the people he quotes made up or are they true? It isn't a small amount of stuff, and he isn't the only one saying it.

all I can say is don't believe everything you read.

how about don't believe everything the media tells you? I'm to the point that if they tell me it's 100 degrees in Texas, I suspect they're lying. Our media is a propaganda machine.

To my way of thinking, this is one of the main problems 'of our age': people have no choices in the matter, and ideas overrun them, control them, have invisible power over them. The only cure for this is some sort of internal strength that can resist these powerful discourses that seek to dominate,

It's not about ideas. It's about historical sleuthing for facts that have been covered up. You know, like Iran-contra on a bigger scale.

Yes, I agree that we don't know how much of the gospels were based on truth, and I believe that both the OT and the NT have deeper meanings and allegories not intended for the masses.

I speak AS IF they were all true, but I don't think Leyla or I believe that they are all literally true. We are speaking about how these roughly historical events and the worldviews it gave to people, have affected history.

We seem to be a small conscious bubble (our mind)floating on a sea of image, impulse and psychological content. All the more reason to find some sort of bedrock and find a way to atttach ourself to it.

Well put. I agree. Yet it has little to do with David Icke's historical sleuthing. Or perhaps it does. Because most people live like little bunny rabbits - unquestioning. Everything is just as it appears. A little cartoon world.

David Icke is not medieval, although perhaps he is new age, yet he isn't really that either. he's into enlightenment. Although perhaps not the way these guys are, (which is not a bad thing!)

Do you believe that the earth is being controlled by reptilian humanoids?

No. I ignore that. It is quite irrelevant to the facts he presents in The Truth Shall Set You Free, which predated his reptilian stuff. I wonder if he talks about the reptiles to ward off getting killed. I avoided him for years because I thought he was a nut.

I think it stems froma scientific fact that in embryonic development we humans pass through a reptilian stage.

Good God, do people still believe that?

No one asked me to describe what I think is flawed in that system,

Yes, tell us.

[Alex Jacob]

Well, allow me to hold back from the critical position until I have sufficiently filled out what I think is the positive aspect of monotheism and the Jewish religion, and also the historical project of the Jews. That is of course my role, as the Resident Jew. I know that there is a great deal of hatred, paranoia and outright contempt for Jews and Judaism---I can accept that if it is upfront and candid---but so far all I've heard is a bunch of the same old cliches, which are stupid. I try not to associate with stupid people, and that is why I chose a forum with this name.

;-) (Except your keeper does not allow smileys, what's the matter with you?)

I came to this list, somehow, after randomly finding a tract by Makow dealing with feminism. I tried to point out that that is how I ended up finding this site, after following some links. I might gloss his articles about Hitler, the Global Elite, etc., but I also might not. Generally speaking if one construct is out of whack, there is a strong likelihood that the other constructs, because constructed similarly, are also out of whack. Anyway, ferreting out global conspiracies isn't a way I like to spend time. My real interest is literature anyway.

"Sure but didn't I say that any global conspiracy, or the zionist movement, is not about all Jews?"

As far as I know, Zionism is the movement that brought Jews back to Palestine, so it is pretty exclusively a Jewish thing. If there is a 'global conspiracy' I am not sure that Jews are heading it up. And I'd be leary of speculation on the matter, for the psychological reasons that should be apparent. But those are the tenets of some branches of anti-semitism, or perhaps a fave of the conspirationists.

"Did these things happen, are the people he quotes made up or are they true? It isn't a small amount of stuff, and he isn't the only one saying it."

I am not sure what you are referring to, so I can't comment. If you post a link to whatever you want to examine, I'll offer my opinion. If you are referring to all the terrible things people say about Jews, I completely disagree. To understand the Jewsih perspective, you'd have to be willing to examine some material. Malcom Hay for example (Europe and the Jews) or Joshua Trachtenberg (The Devil and the Jews). Malcolm Hay is not a Jew by the way, so his history may be considerable to those who are suspicious of anything written by a Jew. The only way to understand the Jewish perspective is to examine some of the material that describes what anti-semitism is, how it came into being, and why it continues to function as it does.

"How about don't believe everything the media tells you?"

Generally speaking, this is a given for me. I do trust them with a temperature reading though.

"It's not about ideas. It's about historical sleuthing for facts that have been covered up. You know, like Iran-contra on a bigger scale".

I think it is about 'ideas', mostly. The problem or a problem with this fact-finding and sleuthing is that that is a subjective process and cannot be separated from ideology. For example, and I don't know if you are familar with this material, but take Eduardo Galeano's 'Open Veins of Latin America', or Noam Chomsky's 'Year 501---The Conquest Continues'. Euardo Galeano's book was received in a way that might be comparable to the Gospels, insofar as it looks and feels like a 'history'. But it is both far less and far more than that. It is an ideological position, it is a lense of perception, and in some sense it is 'romantic historicism'. It captures, it hooks, it grabs. It sells more than some facts and figures, it sells a complete orientation, a perspective, a mood if you will. You might think that you are convinced by the 'facts' but you have been taken over emotionally. It is tied up with 'ressetiment' and ressentiment (Nietzsche's ressentiment-resentment) is a vetry complex emotional area. So, I don't think there can be a pure sleuthing or a simple matter of getting to the covered-over facts, as if revelation will arise from that. In other words, in their way, David Icke is ideologically driven, and so are Leyla and Trevor. And you and me too. I don't intend to defend an obscurantist position, that is not my interest, I only want to point to some of the problems in some of these positions that suggest they represent a kind of clear-seeing. I am not at all sure they do.

"Yes, I agree that we don't know how much of the gospels were based on truth, and I believe that both the OT and the NT have deeper meanings and allegories not intended for the masses. I speak AS IF they were all true, but I don't think Leyla or I believe that they are all literally true. We are speaking about how these roughly historical events and the worldviews it gave to people, have affected history."

I thik one can readily examine the ideals of Christianity in its context and discover what it set itself against and why. I guess it depends on what your orientation is, or who you trust. I have been reading, but haven't yet gotten through it, Leo Baeck's Judaism and Christianity, and am especially interested in the essay "Romantic Religion' which deals on some of the deficits of Christianity. Many Jews feel that Judaism, over-all, is superior to Christianity, and I think in most senses I share that opinion. What is great in Christianity is that it is essentially Jewish, and these ideals are Jewish. But ideals are always dual, and complex, and intimately tied up with their opposites. Fundamentally, I identify 'spiritually' as a Jew because it is that general system that gives me the most freedom, but in no sense should this be taken to mean I am a 'believing Jew' in a limited sense, or a typical sense. You could also examine Christianity (and Judaism I reckon) from a psychological position, such as Fromm in 'The Cult of Jesus' with his sort of Nietzschean investigation of 'ressentiment'.

How you could have a conversation about something you fundamentally don't believe in, as if you believe it, must be a gentile passtime. Key me in, I'd like to understand...(A wee bit of a joke).

Medieval thought requires explanation. Maybe I'll be able to get to that, it is relevant to our thinking, and to views that we come in contact with every day.

"The Truth Shall Set You Free".

Please explain, what is the truth that sets us free? (According to Icke or you, or anyone).
_______________________________________________

I am not presenting this because it is my belief, but only because it present some views quite in contradistinction to som eof the wacky opinions one hears around here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jkO1Ys0rtU

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Alex,

Well, allow me to hold back from the critical position until I have sufficiently filled out what I think is the positive aspect of monotheism and the Jewish religion, and also the historical project of the Jews. That is of course my role, as the Resident Jew. I know that there is a great deal of hatred, paranoia and outright contempt for Jews and Judaism---I can accept that if it is upfront and candid---but so far all I've heard is a bunch of the same old cliches, which are stupid. I try not to associate with stupid people, and that is why I chose a forum with this name.

You are assuming that Jews exist before you prove their existence. This is a circular argument.

Why should I accept the label "Jew" in the first place? Does it describe a fact? And, if so, should Jews be treated differently?

Otherwise, I only see a lot of insecure name-dropping. Please shorten your posts and reduce the number of complex ideas you try to present in each. Your posts are starting to lose coherence.

[Alex Jacob]

Jews don't exist, Trevor, so how could some people tell your cousins twice removed that they couldn't play with them because your dad was not Jewish? Think about it (but grease the wheels of your mind so it doesn't fry itself).

You can't give 'special treatment' to something that doesn't exist, Trevor.

Do you think referring to books and such indicates exclusively insecurity?

I will make every effort to do as you command...The last thing I'd ever want is to become incoherent.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Very easily Alex: they were bigots.

You are a rambler. Jews quite simply have no reason to believe that they exist as a genuine class of people. They are being bigots, just like White Supremacists.

The classification system that white supremacists use to separate themselves from niggers does not exist, either. That is their delusion.

Do you think referring to books and such indicates exclusively insecurity?

Yes I do, especially when you don't have an idea of your own.

[Faust]

For heaven's sake what's absurd about it? The nation from which she came was a kingdom at one point, named Khazaria. If you have stopped being a Muslim, have you stopped being Iranian? I wouldn't mind being Russian. I've been hanging out with them all my life and my kids are half Russian. But I don't think it's quite true.

You don't get it. To be a Khazarian Jew doesn't mean anything because Khazars weren't a lost tribe of Israel!!!! It means that you're a Khazarian that is all.

My, my, I've heard that little speech word for word before. Do they make you memorize it?

no everyone uses it because it's such a good case against religion.

No, wait, you changed it a little. Depends on what you mean by universe. The universe may or may not be synonymous with God, but that which is originless is by definition God. So the question becomes, Is God more than his body? and I think the answer is yes, just as you are more than your body. But to each his own.

we may not be more than our body, and recent evidence is pointing to this. Regardless, the problems of an indifferent and also vengeful God still persist.

Well it ididn't happen like they say, yes. But Jews were subjected to suffering and death. and I think that what they are afraid of is not that the numbers of dead Jews was exaggerated, but rather the whole ball of wax could be unravelled - who supported and promoted Hitler? (Like Prescott Bush) How were the nations lied to and manipulated into the war and for what purpose? Why were some of those supporters and promoters Jewish and how does it relate to the establishment of the state of Israel? And if Israel loses its gloss, what else might we discover about their real face?

doesn't the fact that Zionists exploit Jews make the Talmudic Jewish nature even more dispicable?

I was referring to the tendency I noted in small children for girls to do surreptitious damage, do it in secret, whereas boys don't. Not all girls do that, but a noticeable percentage do. but in many ways I find the philosophy here crazy and destructive.

what's crazy about it? That we speak the ugly truth perhaps.

The captivity took place 1200 years before their 700 AD conversion to Judaism. They could have gone pagan centuries earlier. Maybe the returning tribes took all the books with them. Even the Hebrews constantly participated with local people in their religions.

what captivity???? Khazarians were tired of Paganism and when they came into contact with some Talmudic Jews the rest is history. Why would lost tribes of Israel become pagan, even if some did that's not what the Khazarians did. Hebrews participated in non-Jewish religions?? All this still doesn't refute the fact that Khazarians were not a lost tribe of Israel, the fact is so simple and harsh that Jews do not wish to hear it.

But I'm not particularly stuck on the tribe of Israel thing. I'm just open to finding out the truth. Perhaps you want to make sure that the modern jews have no claim on the land of Israel. But a 2,000 year absence, in this case a 2500 year absence, does not really give anybody the right to displace a bunch of people. They took it by force the first time, too, didn't they? Or was that just marauding before they got to this land of milk and honey?

the truth is that we don't know what happened to the lost tribes, if there was such a thing. Perhaps you should do serious research to see what happened. The settling of Israel was very complex, both sides were violent. Regardless, it was founded by criminals for many criminals.

I am supposing that you dislike the 'feminized' Jesus who gave the sermon on the mount, for example. Or what did you have in mind?

i don't know what the sermon on the mount is, i should look it up. what is the Jehovah type of Jesus?

[Leyla Shen]

Anna, you partially quoted me as follows:

That’s because--at heart--your ideas stem from those of an ignorant and puritan Christianity who wants appear distant from any significant relationship between the unpalatable OT and the NT,

And replied:

Leyla this is not only unnecessarily insulting, it's crap. I am not a christian, and never was a puritan type. And further, my thoughts on this are mostly my own, or partly gleaned from very nonmainstream sources. The average puritan Christian believes that the entire ball of wax is 'the word of God.'

Since you claimed to be raised as a Christian, I assumed that that is what you meant. Hence the statement that “your ideas stem from….” Asterisked para below further indicates the likelihood the statement was correct coupled with the fact that you also indicate having since undertaken your own study on the matter from external sources. External to what, then, I must ask?

Course, the difference between what I mean by "appear distant from...etc" and what you mean by "entire ball of wax is the 'word of God'" probably could do with some further clarification, but I'll not attend to it right now.

The balance of what I wrote:

…despite such connections being abundantly clear. But, Anna, this is impossible---unless you think there's more validity to a form of Christianity that picks and chooses random quotes to preach a bit-and-piece-Christ situational morality without regard for the whole context. These folk, in my view, simply have too short an attention span to deal with the whole thing.

Anna wrote:

I never said there were no connections. There are historic and other connections between OT and NT.

I don’t agree that the connections are “historical.” On this, Mr Jacob and I appear to be in agreement--like with all religious movements, they are ideological--and deludedly so. If they were historical, one would have to have absolute evidence that today’s Jews are the direct and pure descendants of the ancients. But, one would also have to ask why this was necessary and so very important. Are they trying to avoid incestuously fucking each other again?

I said that a lot of the stuff in the OT is (1) rather evil, (2) inconsistent with itself and with the new, and (3) leads, as Trevor said, to an incoherent God concept.

Let’s assume that there has been maintained in all of this a pure Jewish blood line dispersed across the globe since the exile of the ancient Jews to today. Hebrew lineage begins with Abraham, through Isaac and Jacob and, voila!, 12 tribes. Then, out of jealousy, Jacob’s son’s sell his favourite--Joseph--to the Ishmaelites as a slave (Gen 37:28) for 20 pieces of silver! whence, in Egypt, Joseph and his descendants become slaves. Then Moses and the exodus, plague, blah blah--and the covenant with Yahweh of a Hebrew (descendant of the Abraham-Isaac-Jacob lineage) nation. Moses gets them to the promised land and they live according to Judges, followed by Kings and then they became divided again and were conquered by the Romans. Then the lectures on worshipping pagan gods. And then…Jesus (rejected, of course, by today’s and yesterday’s “Jews” as the messiah because they‘re essentially god damned pagans!)

What’s inconsistent about the Bible when understood like this?

*Actually, I do think it is time to start doing some picking and choosing. But that's me. So far, few agree with me.

Not sure what you mean. You’re just going to ignore all that and go for preaching random quotes for a bit-and-piece-Christ situational morality? Sure looks like it.

(Need sleep. Will get back to the rest of your post soon.)

[Edit: repaired quotes]

[Faust]

The classification system that white supremacists use to separate themselves from niggers does not exist, either. That is their delusion.

Actually, what doesn't make sense about the theory that we're all from Africa is how our aesthetic and mental changes would take shape???? I don't believe the PC propaganda that the climate and the sun's heat change our skins. What about the shapes of our faces and many other traits???? If a group of Negroes go to Scandinavia and only breed amongst themselves for 1000 years, they aren't going to be blue-eyed blondes with Scandinavian-like faces.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Exactly Faust: Darwin's theory does not apply to intentional agents. With modern technology, dark Africans (say, from Somalia) would actually have to almost universally* find blond hair and blue eyes more attractive to have any influence in the direction of fair skin and blue eyes. It would be an aesthetic change with no clear practical value (although there are an infinite number of post hoc excuses for any change in any direction).

Otherwise, and just to top off what I saying earlier: the elite that stole the eastern Mediterranean from the poor locals, and arrested the Australian for speaking out against the significance of the number 6 would likely not be considered followers of Abraham, despite their circumcisions and Bar Mitzvahs. They are just rich assholes. In their favour, I can't see why any sane person would want to follow Abraham.



*Eeeks, I realized this is pretty non-specific. "Almost universally" has to mean "the largest single unit" for this to be true.

[Tomas]

Alex,

Well, allow me to hold back from the critical position until I have sufficiently filled out what I think is the positive aspect of monotheism and the Jewish religion, and also the historical project of the Jews. That is of course my role, as the Resident Jew. I know that there is a great deal of hatred, paranoia and outright contempt for Jews and Judaism---I can accept that if it is upfront and candid---but so far all I've heard is a bunch of the same old cliches, which are stupid. I try not to associate with stupid people, and that is why I chose a forum with this name.

You are assuming that Jews exist before you prove their existence. This is a circular argument.

Why should I accept the label "Jew" in the first place? Does it describe a fact? And, if so, should Jews be treated differently?


------


Otherwise, I only see a lot of insecure name-dropping. Please shorten your posts and reduce the number of complex ideas you try to present in each. Your posts are starting to lose coherence.

------


-tomas-
No doubt. The long-winded (long-minded?) dialogue was getting sidetracked onto area of who showed up first... the cat or the dog OR who wagged the tail first.

It was annoying enough when Donna (avidaloca) started this rambling thread... now, it's which version of (holy scrip) is the better version of events for each and every one of us.

I've shown up every now and then to see where this is going, think i'll check out til page 9 shows up.

Later, kiddies.


Tomas (the tank)



.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Wait, Tomas, before you go: will we all be wiser for the experience? :)

[Faust]

With modern technology, dark Africans (say, from Somalia) would actually have to almost universally* find blond hair and blue eyes more attractive to have any influence in the direction of fair skin and blue eyes. It would be an aesthetic change with no clear practical value (although there are an infinite number of post hoc excuses for any change in any direction).

what does this have to do with modern technology? I think there are plenty of good reasons for practical value.

arrested the Australian for speaking out against the significance of the number 6

what?

I brought up this issue because many people wrongly think the "Race" concept is purely social and has no actual reality. The fact that blacks in Scandinavia would not turn Scandinavian because of the climate seriously refutes the PC concept of humanity first emerging from Africa, which has serious implications about the origins of humanity and races.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Faust,

what does this have to do with modern technology? I think there are plenty of good reasons for practical value.

With modern technology, I don't care how black your skin is, you aren't going to suffer problems in the north. We have furnaces.

However, it is possible to come up with an infinite number of good reasons for the practical value of any adaptation. That does not mean there actually are an infinite number of reasons.

As to the rest: I wasn't speaking to you. I should have cut that into two posts, or been more clear, but I'm someitimes very lazy.

[Alex Jacob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo