Hitler's gas chambers mere fiction?

[Alex Jacob]

Sorry Dan, I deleted all those photos, leaving links in the place of some. It's that Img button, you see...

[Dan Rowden]

Thanks Alex.

[Faust]

Iaolus,

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

By converting them?

why not? They were spreading Talmudic Jewry by converting them into Jews, simple fucking concept you know.

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

ok. However modern Tribal Judaism makes NO SENSE BECAUSE only descendants of Jacob would be the only meaningful identity. Khazarians don't have a genuine Jewish tribal identity, this is the paradox with "authentic" Judaism. What does tribal identity mean for Jews if they're not descendants of Jacob??? NOTHING.

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.

more trash. 1300 years ago doesn't mean shit if the identity is not genuine and bullshit, IE Khazarian Jew. To be together as a particular people of a particular religion? This means SHIT with Khazarians, because they're not DESCENDANTS OF JACOB!!! WTF is her identity if she's not an original descendant???? WHAT? That she was part of some obscure group that converted to Judaism because they used to be pagans???? She doesn't need a religious identity, perhaps because she's a woman she needs it to find her existential existence by surrounding herself with collective tribal groups. How do you know part of her family may be from the original Jewish tribes??

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.

yes I have slandered the black race. However, I don't condone violence against them or conquering them or pillaging them or considering them to be "animals" and so on and so on. This the Talmud does condone. Are you a Torah Jew then?? Khazarians were converted by Talmudic Jews.

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

WHAT??? WTF does domesticated species mean??

[Leyla Shen]

The Jew who apparently prefers being called Alex wrote:

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.

That’s because you are insane--or Jewish. Take your pick.

Aside from that, I recommend you ditch Machiavelli and grapple with Kant. (I know, Trevor, but I’m not yet convinced that Kant actually considered noumena as anything more than a constituent (a priori) part of mind--not that I’m anywhere near done with reading him.)

I’ll give you my Kantian perspective on your ultimate position on the subject. One to “balance” your anti-philosophical and idiotically popular, Jungian animus crap.

You seem to be searching for a noumenal Jew, and I will describe such a thing thus: the search for universal (thing-in-itself) Jewishness is utterly deluded and this is the sole reason you find yourself and everything about you riddled with contradiction. If you were able to disabuse yourself of such a deluded mental activity, you would clearly see how reason and rationality (that is, the absence of contradiction) exist---and just how superior to your mentality they are. But what happens with you is that your own entirely egoistic search for this universal (noumenal) Jew-self fails, and since it does so, you irrationally conclude that everybody else, except you, is stupid. Course, you ultimately realise this and try to temper your accusations, but you’re not at all convincing to me--only ever self-contradictory. You don’t find it incredibly odd that you would think me an idiot for not knowing what a Jew is, but that you--as a self-proclaimed Jew--cannot define it and find it “problematic,” etc.? I think it’s hilarious, myself. Yet, you think the primary problem is my “animus”……

So, until you sort this out, do yourself a favour; give yourself a good shake and count yourself as utterly inferior to me.

(Sorry, but I can‘t be bothered with the rest of your post, right now. Your foundations are so damned rotten...)

[Alex Jacob]

Leyla,

Definition of animus:

1. Strong dislike or enmity; hostile attitude; animosity.
2. Purpose; intention; animating spirit.

If I were attempting the Jungian definition of 'animus', as in 'animus-possessed', I would have used that term. I have already said that I think your animus reflects and expresses deeply seated 'issues' with Jews, both in idea and in fact, and that, I assume because I have no absolute way of knowing anything about you, this animus hinges into psychological issues. And in that I see anti-semitism as essentially a psychological problem, an issue of malaise in the psyche if you will. (Personally, I don't find a great deal of use in Jungian analysis, and I don't think I would ever say to someone that they were anima or animus possessed, in the sense he meant it. It is not a term appropriate to discourse in any case).

I am not really searching for anything, in fact I rather think you are searching for the 'noumenal Jew'. I don't need to define a Jew because a Jew is so many different things. More than anything, I guess, I see Jewsishness as a choice one makes. For me (and only for me since I am not defining Jewishness for anyone else) being Jewish is a way of being, a way of thinking. Some Jews think there is such a thing as a 'Jewish soul' and I don't share that belief. I see our phenomenal existence as a sort of theatre, to be quite truthful. What we call our self, our 'I', is a story in so many ways. The nature of the story determines the roles one will play, and stories interact with other stories. It seems to me that our 'story' is the most defining element in terms of the life we lead, and is a central feature, a core feature, to all of us. There is no way to get out of story, not in this world.

The story-line of Jewishness is one of the strangest ones going, and to define oneself as a Jew is and has been an especially 'problematic' and difficult role. There is just so much that one can say about it, so many different angles to look at it, and while one does that one can examine so many other roles, stories, narratives and definitions.

Selah...

I stand behind what I said about the contradictory nature nature of the human being, and not just a human being who defines him/herself as a Jew, but all beings. I don't personally think there is really a central self, but a conglomeration, yet I have no way of proving that, nor any interest in doing so. It is just a hunch. Sometimes I think my ideas about the self have been influenced by 'hinduism' (having spent a portion of my childhood in India) and also by my reading of post-modernism and a recognition of living in a post-modernistic paradox. I also think that the psychadelic experience will certainly give one a great deal to think about as it pertains to the 'idea of self'.

"Jewishness is utterly deluded and this is the sole reason you find yourself and everything about you riddled with contradiction. If you were able to disabuse yourself of such a deluded mental activity, you would clearly see how reason and rationality (that is, the absence of contradiction) exist".

If according to you Jewishness is 'utterly deluded', what definition or idea about the self---even a self as actor---is beyond delusion? Do you extend this to all identities?

To my way of seeing things, ipso facto, there is never 'absence of contradiction', and our world gives evidence of this constantly. I don't think this is a sign of mental illness, and I have sometimes thought that a tendency to enforce 'rationality' on irrational existence is actually a sort of mental disease. Existence defines itself through experience, and we do not define existence through analysis. That is the best way I know how to put it.
_____________________________________________

Issues of Jewish identity (a valid question):

http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/945_reg.html

"In their Introduction, the authors observe what while there is a strong commitment to Jewish cultural and self-definition, the very diversity of Jews throughout the world raises in an especially acute way the general question of what it means to have a cultural identity. Other essays examine Judaism as a religion, the defining experience of the Holocaust, the centrality of Israel, and the "duty by kinship" to sustain culture. Several articles discuss the cultural condition of wandering, both physical and psychological, that has characterized the Jewish people and continues to foster fierce independence. These philosophers suggest that the diasporic condition of the Jews may be seen to symbolize the post-modern cosmopolitan and nomadic condition."
_______________________________________________

http://thedubliner.typepad.com/the_dubl ... berg_.html

David Goldberg writes in another article:

"Nor, as he seems to think, did Jewish life cease in Palestine after the Roman captivity of 135. Not all Jews were taken off as slaves. Although Jewish existence since then has been predominantly in the Diaspora, a sizeable Jewish community remained in Palestine under successive Roman, Christian and Muslim rule. Its numbers declined during the Middle Ages, but Jews were always settled there, and under benign Ottoman jurisdiction they had become, by the 1850s, the single largest religious grouping in their most holy city of Jerusalem.

"Keating’s second point is to question whether all the world’s Jews today are descendants of those Jews of two thousand years ago. Of course they are not. Are all the Irish today descendants of the original Celts? Ah ha, says Keating, that therefore invalidates any Jewish claim to the land and the right of return. He throws in another misleading literary reference to Arthur Koestler’s book The Thirteenth Tribe, which no scholar takes seriously, fancifully to suggest that all Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the legendary conversion of the Khazar kingdom in the 8th century."
_______________________________________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8Ya9h2eMAE
_______________________________________________

Leyla recommends:

"...give yourself a good shake and count yourself as utterly inferior to me."

On the ground looking up!

[Iolaus]

AJ

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.

I'd have to think about that. Is it stronger than in other traditions?

And in his relationship with sorrow, he feels he understands Jesus Christ.

But probably he overemphasized that aspect of life and of Christ, due to his own situation. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, as it allowed himto explore it to the depths, without the usual admixture of good cheer (sorta like pms).

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.

Even without this emphasis on power, it is impractical to do more than a small percentage of time. Perhaps Jesus was really talking to the rich.

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.

You seem to think building terrestrial power is a good thing, whereas I see it as mostly evil.

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,

I don't even begin to relate to this. sure, there would be some narrow minded, overly pious, stunted types who would grovel like this, but not the general run of humanity.

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.

Well, this is true so it is important to be clear about it, and to realize that words can only go so far. The best way to communicate, though, is when the other person(s) have had the same experience, and then when you use words, albeit they are inadequate, yet the other person knows quite well what you mean. It is for this reason, I think, that a person who makes great spiritual strides will suddenly say that now they understand some spiritual passages that meant nothing, or were incomprehensible to them before.

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.

That is just what Lazslo does, brings it to a modern understanding. I didn't speak of Akashic records, by the way, but of a field. he calls it the A field for short, and I think there has to be such a thing. I can no longer conceive of reality without it. wouldn't make sense.

People are still invested and still invest in outdated metaphysics

But why do you assume they are outdated? Did people have no ability to arrive at truth in ages past? If they had any such ability, then what truths they gleaned will be always true.

I don't know how to address an apparent confluence of ancient metaphysics and modern physics, but maybe it is possible.

Really, this is definitely an area of current interest, exploring this very question.

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).

Sure you are, but I would need specifics as to what you have in mind.

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

What other option is there?

All I meant was, that since we have already discovered with the very sense-extending instruments you mentioned, that our senses give us but a small slice of the pie, and our brains filter out much as well simply to keep us from going mad, yet people balk at understanding that perhaps we've not gotten all that close to bottom yet. That's all.
There's nothing supernatural, there's just some things we don't have a clue how they might work and can't reproduce and control at will (yet).

"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.

But I didn't say I had the answers. I said that if there is efficacy to prayer, then there is a mechanism by which it operates.
I don't usually think in terms of a personal deity who responds to prayers. I got away from that, but I may return. I am only beginning to explore the power of the mind, and to accept that I may have some such power. But one answer as to how it works is the A field. All things are connected in some subtle way. Being connected, there is interaction possible. If there were total separation, no interaction could occur. Things cannot be truly and completely separated. All things are of one source. there is no state of nothingness. If I engage in prayer, it is a matter of maintaining an inner awareness of the presence of God. On a good day, I see the divinity pouring through everything, and it is very humorous, too.

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

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

what are you talking about? It's pure new age!

There is something about our psychology that is highly polarized between the demonic and the angelic.

We are on the path of knowledge of good and evil. It's quite a ride.

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..

Nah, I think it's a made up name but a wonderful book. Two books. It's called Enlightenment, the Damndest Thing. Great read.
I agree that entheogens are vitally important.

[Iolaus]

Faust,

They were spreading Talmudic Jewry by converting them into Jews, simple fucking concept you know.

It's just that you keep insisting that there isn't any meaning to being a Jew if you aren't a descendent of Jacob and that Jews wouldn't want to mix their race.

1300 years ago doesn't mean shit if the identity is not genuine and bullshit, IE Khazarian Jew. To be together as a particular people of a particular religion?

Yes, exactly - together as a people who converted to a religion and joined up with that people. Their were converts in the OT, too, you know. And why, if it means shit, would the real Jews have converted them?

WTF is her identity if she's not an original descendant???? WHAT? That she was part of some obscure group that converted to Judaism because they used to be pagans????

Yes, exactly.

She doesn't need a religious identity,

She has a religious identity, she belongs to the eastern orthodox church.

How do you know part of her family may be from the original Jewish tribes??

I didn't say I know it - but it's possible because some of them were from Turkey. Original, diaspora Jews from Israel lived throughout several countries, even including parts of europe.

Are you a Torah Jew then??

I'm not really any kind of a Jew. I don't identify with the religion, and my mother converted to another religion, which apparently means I cannot immigrate to Israel. Furthermore, I have made it clear that I don't have the right attitude toward the Torah, interesting though it is. Plus, I was not aware that there was this distinction, Torah Jew and Talmudic Jew.

WHAT??? WTF does domesticated species mean??

Well, dogs are a domesticated species. Darwin apparently remarked that humans looked more like a domesticated species. Either we domesticated ourselves, or it was done to us.

[Leyla Shen]

I see our phenomenal existence as a sort of theatre, to be quite truthful. What we call our self, our 'I', is a story in so many ways.

And you call me a post-modernist!?

Tell me something, do I assume that since you provide the qualifier "phenomenal" to existence you entertain the idea that there is some other kind of existence? Differently worded, why do you find it necessary to use that qualifier? Is there the possibility of something else under the mask of the Phantom of the Opera?

[Alex Jacob]

Hi Leyla,

I didn't call you a post-modernist. I think post-modernism is a sort of regrettable condition of us all.

I meant 'phenomenal existence' just in the sense that it is a world of phenomena, but not in a Buddhist sense or Hindu sense.

There are many things under the mask of the Phantom of the Opera otherwise he wouldn't be a phantom and it wouldn't be an opera, isn't that right? What should be of primary interest to you is my annotated copy of the Babylonian Talmud, how it guids and directs my discourse...

;-)

[Alex Jacob]

Anna,

Yes, after thinking about it I think there is something different in Christianity (and in Judaism) from many other religions, and I do think that in Christianity there is an especial focus on awareness of suffering, the disadvantage of others, and that this stems directly from Judaism, which has that strong social focus, even a clan focus if you prefer. It seems to me that Christianity asks one to focus on the sufferings and troubles of others and to provide comfort, and this does seem to be one of its special features. Although Christianity focuses on the transcendental in a pretty extreme way (Judaism far less so), there is still a concern and a focus on the here-and-now and concrete activities of a special sort. The whole idea of exodus is a very Judeo-Christian idea: the idea of moving literally from one place to another in real time, in the here-and-now, a physical relocation and movement, that seems unique compared to other religions. This seems to extend itself to the whole (very Christian) idea of a literal betterment of the world, a Kingdom Come and all of that. There are many special features of Christianity, unique features (not that other religions are not similar, but each has its focus, its thrust).

Alex: "People are still invested and still invest in outdated metaphysics".

Anna: "But why do you assume they are outdated? Did people have no ability to arrive at truth in ages past? If they had any such ability, then what truths they gleaned will be always true."

'Truths' are not necessarily true things, or concrete facts. 'Truths' can actually be things that aren't at all true, and yet they are, at least for those who hold them as true. Science confronts us with a very new sort of knowing, and this knowing effectively challenges other known things and certainly 'truths'. On some level, perhaps, I might agree with you that, say, 'spirits' exist, and we might say that spirits are composed of some sort of refined matter, a subtle matter as the yogis say. While I cannot, obviously, deny that there might be soe unperceivable subtle matter that only spiritual sorts can perceive, I am forced to consider that maybe the whole description, bound to an old metaphysic, is simply an allusion, a metaphor. So, our language and our mental structure is riddles with all these old metaphysics, and we tend to interpret them into hard facts as we are forcved to do with the material sciences. But material science and these other metaphysics, I think, have little in common. I think this is one of the problems of 'alchemy': in the end the spirit that moves in alchemical processes is a manifestation of our psyche, and they are somehow separate realms.

"Really, this is definitely an area of current interest, exploring this very question."

I don't think these new ideas jibe with the old school of thinking, the old metaphysic. They are independent.

Alex: "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."

Anna: "I would need specifics as to what you have in mind."

The most major one is the theory of evolution, and the way that beings morph and change. The proposals that suggested that we don't live in a heliocentric universe. There have been all sorts of ideas about how beings got here and how they arrived at their present form, and all of them are 'untrue'. The way we see things now appears to be true and accurate, and the way thingd happen is completely distinct from our spiritual and religious ideas. That has been a severe blow for the religious lens on the cosmos, don't you think?

The old metaphysics just don't function, it seems we are on the verge of something entirely new. If we are faithful people (people of faith) we struggle to find a new way of apprehending and expressing the truths of faith.

"There's nothing supernatural, there's just some things we don't have a clue how they might work and can't reproduce and control at will (yet)."

I think you are minimizing the severe blow done to theology and metaphysics by science.

"I said that if there is efficacy to prayer, then there is a mechanism by which it operates."

Sure, but attempt an answer and I think you will see what I mean. What was taken as granted and as true as rain, is no longer so easily describable. The whole edifice of faith is under attack, or has gotten itself treed.

"You seem to think building terrestrial power is a good thing, whereas I see it as mostly evil."

Here you encounter one of the main differences, generally, between OT and NT thinking. In the OT economic success is associated with religious and even spiritual success, and one of the main ideals was to succeed on all levels. To be wealthy, to have a big family, to have resouces, and to excel in learning and religious life (over-all defined differently than in Chistianity) is the goal. You can find a similar view in the early Vedas.

If you (or anyone) see terrestrial power as 'mostly an evil thing' you (and anyone) is sort of fucked right from the start, and that is what I mean about Christianity setting up impracticable ideals.

(Too lazy to correct typos).

[Faust]

It's just that you keep insisting that there isn't any meaning to being a Jew if you aren't a descendent of Jacob and that Jews wouldn't want to mix their race.

yes, because...IT'S A FACT THAT THERE IS NO MEANING TO BEING A JEW IF YOU AREN'T AN ORIGINAL DESCENDANT. Seriously, it's fucking easy to understand. What would it mean to be a Jew if you aren't a descendant??? You might as well be a Christian, it's the next step. Jews aren't a race, unless you count descendants of Jacob, but we don't even know who those are today.

Yes, exactly - together as a people who converted to a religion and joined up with that people. Their were converts in the OT, too, you know. And why, if it means shit, would the real Jews have converted them?

together as a people who converted to a religion and joined up with that people??? WTF IS THIS? They didn't JOIN up with them at all, Khazarians stuck with Khazarians. It's pretty pathetic to find your identity with rubbish tribes and collective groups, much worse if those tribal identities are not authentic and are bastardizations. Talmudic Jews converted them, and the Talmud was written by Rabbis who had a political agenda to conquer the world.

F: WTF is her identity if she's not an original descendant???? WHAT? That she was part of some obscure group that converted to Judaism because they used to be pagans????

Iaolus: Yes, exactly.

and thus it shows the treachery and absurdity of your Jewishness.

She has a religious identity, she belongs to the eastern orthodox church.

who cares? She's a lamo who cannot live a solitary philosophical life, so needs to find her identity with collective and tribal superstitious imbecile groups to immerse herself in and annihilate her ego with. How the FUCK can she be a religious Jew and an Orthodox Christian at the same time???

I didn't say I know it - but it's possible because some of them were from Turkey. Original, diaspora Jews from Israel lived throughout several countries, even including parts of europe.

Just because some of them were from Turkey doesn't mean shit. How do you know original Jews lived in parts of Europe??? Give me evidence. We don't even know what the fuck exactly happened to them. Apparently most went to Babylon and intermingled with the population. Don't you think they should have recorded what happened to them? There's no evidence that any tribes went to Turkey.

I was not aware that there was this distinction, Torah Jew and Talmudic Jew.

apparently there is. Search "True Torah Jews."

Well, dogs are a domesticated species. Darwin apparently remarked that humans looked more like a domesticated species. Either we domesticated ourselves, or it was done to us.

WTF does this have ANYTHING to do with the orign of different races???? Who else could have domesticated us other than ourselves anyway?

[Faust]

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.

WTF?!! WTF is 'irrationality over it`? I know it's not necessary to deconstruct Jewish identity to disqualify Israel, I do it because it's a MAJOR disqualifier, it attacks the heart and beliefs of Zionism and modern Israel.

[Iolaus]

Hi AJ,

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.

I haven't accessed just one source, and the two main sources have many references.

I had been experimenting with different search categories, and was surprised what came up under the term 'talmudic jews':
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?

I seem to come away with a rather different impression. I don't find it funny at all and I do find it very worrisome. No doubt, you found some absurdities in some of the links, I only checked out about three of them, but certainly I have seen this sort of thing before. [And I think I have heard there are at least a few very similar things in the Koran] I wonder if you have the ability to look at it with fresh eyes, that is to say, pretend you're a nonJew and never heard of any of this before. I'd be happy to see the other side, see some refutations of that and of the material I am talking about - very happy. It is odd, very odd, that you lack the interest to ascertain the verity of these claims for yourself. Are these things in the Talmud or not?

Mind you, I do not refute that this may be a tiny part of the Talmud, and many fine philosophical discussions no doubt take place there. I've read about a few spiritual greats of old Europe among the Jews nor do I think most devout, scholarly Jews are likely to take some of those quotes too seriously at least in this day and age - but some might, and they might have done so more in ages past, not too distant a past. It is entirely possible that there is a cabal of Jewish banking families who are inspired by the Talmud and Torah to control the world via Israel, without most Jews knowing about it, or being culpable in any way.

I'll admit that Leyla and Foust seem to be antisemites, except that term makes not sense so I'll say anti Jew, but I do not find my sources to be that way at all, in fact several are Jewish. You can't hide behind the antisemitism card any more than the blacks at work who use the race card when they don't get the schedule they want, should do so. Do you believe that all Jews at all times are incapable of any great mischief in the world? Because if you look at history you will note that peoples seem to take turns running amok and then subsiding into relative obscurity. But it is never the entirety of the people who do it anyway, but the leaders, who use the people to some extent, yet most people live ordinary lives.

I've certainly had very little trouble with Jews, and far more with Christians, especially if they're outspoken about it. You may think antisemitism is a disease, but it may be that Zionism is a disease, turning otherwise good and decent people into grasping and amoral ones.

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?

We need to take an honest look at whether it has taken two to tango, or not. What if the Jews actually have some responsibility for provoking antisemitism? Is that remotely possible?

I'll look up your book recommendations on amazon. I'd buy them only if I can see them, so maybe if they are at Barnes and Noble. Because they might not actually answer the accusations at all, but wax endlessly philosophical and talk around and around the points.

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 learned a fair amount about in a book on the history of kabbalah. But anyway, the facts of Jewish history in Europe is not going to be a simple one, because opinions differ markedly. It's not that I'm anxious to exonerate Christians. I think you can see, and I haven't even started on the inquisition, that I am fairly hard on christianity and their behaviors at times. The Greeks, for example, were overtaken by the Turks for about 400 years, and are known to have said that had it been the Catholics who ruled them, their religion would never have survived.

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?

Well, then it would be lies and antisemitism. So the question is, then, should we assume they are distortions, or should we examine the situation impartially?

[Iolaus]

By the way, if it's any comfort to you, David Icke hardly mentions the Talmud because he thinks that the global elite, as he calls them, are a group of families who have been intermarrying and have been the royalty for millenia and that they are cultists. They may be Jews outwardly, as the gentile ones are Christians outwardly.

Divide and conquer being one of their favorite techniques, and if so you can see they're winning here.

[Iolaus]

Faust,

yes, because...IT'S A FACT THAT THERE IS NO MEANING TO BEING A JEW IF YOU AREN'T AN ORIGINAL DESCENDANT. Seriously, it's fucking easy to understand. What would it mean to be a Jew if you aren't a descendant??? You might as well be a Christian, it's the next step. Jews aren't a race, unless you count descendants of Jacob, but we don't even know who those are today.

Well, this is an answer to your below question, where you ask about irrationality. If the above is true, then the Talmudic Jews wouldn't convert a huge chunk of pagans to their religion. No one ever said the Jews were a race, this forum is the first I've heard of it.

and thus it shows the treachery and absurdity of your Jewishness.

You are full of hate and nastiness. Are you being deliberatly provoking as well? Why do you speak of 'my Jewishness' when I already said I don't particularly identify as a Jew? Why does the word treachery come into this?

How the FUCK can she be a religious Jew and an Orthodox Christian at the same time???

She's not a 'religious Jew'. She's a Jewish person who converted to Christianity. Like Shardrol said, a lot of Jews convert to Buddhism. There seems to be an attraction. So when they convert to Buddhism, they do not suddenly become Japanese.

How do you know original Jews lived in parts of Europe??? Give me evidence.

Foust I'm losing respect for you fast. There are many detailed historical accounts of groups of Jews going from place to place, country to country, from the time they were driven out by the Romans, (and some were already in diaspora) and continuing for many centuries. Including the centuries before the whole khazarian thing every happened. Ever heard of the Sephardim? Are you aware that there are and have been groups of Jews living throughout the middle east? They are still there.

Apparently most went to Babylon and intermingled with the population.

That was 1500 years earlier...the lost tribes. But fast forward to the year AD 70 or so, and this is the time frame we are talking about.

WTF does this have ANYTHING to do with the orign of different races???? Who else could have domesticated us other than ourselves anyway?

Do you foam at the mouth, too? Think about it. If we are a domesticated species - what could this have to do with the rather odd and mysterious origin of races. Let's see. What does the domestication of dogs have to do with the variety of dog appearances? Have you noticed that domesticated species have more variety and not tied to any natural survival need? Who could have domesticated us? Some people think that people from another planet came here and jump started the human race using their genes. Every single ancient civilization claims that to be the case, and the Old Testament is filled with evidence compatible with it.

[Leyla Shen]

Ye fucken gods, man!

Anna wrote:

She's not a 'religious Jew'. She's a Jewish person who converted to Christianity. Like Shardrol said, a lot of Jews convert to Buddhism. There seems to be an attraction. So when they convert to Buddhism, they do not suddenly become Japanese.

Why not? Man, Jews are amazingly mystical beings! If you convert to Judaism, you can even be an Ethiopian Israeli!

Judasim is a RELIGION, Anna. They believe in Yahweh and the HOLY land--the Promised Land. You are so incredibly confused it's truly beyond contempt. The kind of insanity a Jew creates in a man, obviously, is the same kind Woman does. This thread has certainly served to deepen my appreciation of Weininger!

(Faust, you’ll love this. They‘re racist against even “their own.” Course, if they could only agree on what a Jew actually is. Stupid Jews! Politically, however, seems if they don‘t keep slaughtering the Palestinians, they‘ll never have enough room for all their Jewish brothers and sisters…)

Excerpt

Definition of 'Jew' confronts Israel
Thousands of Ethiopian Jews who were pressured to convert to Christianity are waiting to move to Israel.

Her critics, however, argue that during past waves, including that of hundreds of thousands of North African Jews during the 1950s, cost was never an obstacle. "When did the state of Israel ever make economic calculations about immigration?" says Avraham Neguise, head of an advocacy group for Ethiopians. "They travel the world trying to encourage immigration from Russia, the United States, and Canada, but for Ethiopians, they do not have enough money. I do not want to say this is racism. I prefer to call it a misunderstanding"...

Ethiopian Israelis, who number 85,000, many of whom arrived with great fanfare during epic rescue operations, are the worst-off group among the country's Jewish population. Despite some success stories, many Ethiopians have had trouble adjusting. Twice as many Ethiopians drop out of high school as other Israelis, and 47 percent of Ethiopian adults do not participate in the labor force, twice the national average, according to a 2002 survey.

~

…and the Old Testament is filled with evidence compatible with it.

Um, what? Give me one piece of evidence from the OT of anything. Do you know what the term “circular argument” means, Anna?

[Edited to add to excerpt]

[Leyla Shen]

There are many things under the mask of the Phantom of the Opera otherwise he wouldn't be a phantom and it wouldn't be an opera, isn't that right?

Not quite. The only thing under the mask is deformity, which is precisely why the opera.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Wow. Who would think that people could be so passionate about how the word "Jew" is to be used? So what if it describes both someone who is a descendant of people who hold the Jewish faith, and someone who themselves holds such a faith. Insofar as we recognize both uses, and what context indicates which usage, it shouldn't matter how the sounds and scribbles are used. That a term like "Christian" isn't used in the same way is irrelevant. Though, we can use it in such a way if we like. For instance, I am a Christian. This is due to my parents being Christian. I'm an atheist Christian, but a Christian nevertheless. Hooray. Who cares?

On the other hand, a gentleman who wants to win respect from his fellows doesn't use the term "Jew" in a bigoted way. This is simply because it's widely recognized that anti-Semites are fools, and nothing is gained from coming off as one. So, if one wants to condemn the actions of Israel, they should speak in a manner that obviously indicates that they speak of the nation. It is just confusing to invoke "Jews" in general in such circumstances. Also, if one wants to condemn the Jewish faith, they should be sure to indicate that they are talking about the Jewish faith. A wise man doesn't risk his reputation on semantics. Furthermore, it behooves nobody to sow bigotry. Even if such a thing isn't intended. It is, after all, better to use language that will lead someone to love than to hate (if there is to be confusion at all).

[Alex Jacob]

Anna wrote:

"You are full of hate and nastiness. Are you being deliberatly provoking as well? Why do you speak of 'my Jewishness' when I already said I don't particularly identify as a Jew? Why does the word treachery come into this?"

By Nazi standards, you are still a Jew Anna. And it makes not a bit of difference if you 'identify' or not. I suggest to you that if you continue to identify yourself 'genetically' as a Jew, the sort of irrational anger you are receiving here is par for the course. The nature of this hatred is irrational and very, very strange.

That by the way...
_____________________________________________

When I said not just to rely on one source I meant to access information outside of this particular loop of world-view, which in my opinion (and I am speaking of Icke and beyond Icke) hinges into Judenhass. The 'references' argument, to my mind, is not really valid because anyone can tart-up their papers to appear 'scholarly'. A downside of the internet medium is that anyone can place information in cyberspace, but not all of it conforms to certain rigors that are, more often than not, typical of 'real scholarship'.

Tell me if this is basically the Icke you are familiar with:

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

"I wonder if you have the ability to look at it with fresh eyes, that is to say, pretend you're a nonJew and never heard of any of this before."

I have been telling you what I see: a medieval frame of mind with a demonological metaphysic at the core. This is deeply psychological and symbolic material that---if I may use your own words---is a slumbering, an asleep and dreaming. 'This is the stuff that dreams are made of', but dreams turned dark. I submit that you can't select from this material what sounds cogent and reject its more far-out features: you have to look at the entire structure, it has to be taken whole. I submit that these are dangerous ideas because they are ideas which have reflections of truth in them, some 'real things', but it is all surrounded in a mystifying fog, apocalyptic paranoia, potent subconscious symbolisms. And I suggest again that at the core is a 'demon Jew', and this is more or less the psychology that operates in Faust and Leyla (if I may be so bold, dear ones). It looks as if Icke veers away from a more open judenhass (Jew hatred or Jew hating), but I suggest to you that the symbolic content is constructed of the same material, and even if (at best) Icke is not a Jew hater, he is playing into mind games that hinge very directly into Jew hatred. The results of this are always bad.

You want me to look at this stuff through unprejudiced eyes? Well, I just read the Wiki citation and...I guess I can't. No pun intended....but 'enlighten me' as yo how I might do this? And why?

"I'd be happy to see the other side, see some refutations of that and of the material I am talking about - very happy."

If that is true, I again suggest, get ahold of The Devil and the Jews which traces the growth and development of a demonology where the Jew is a central figure and is seen as an agent of Satan. This narrative, this deeply psychological vision of reality that is part and parcel of Medieval Christianity, has successfully evolved through time and now, in 'modernity', still has an existence, and that existence can be traced. This primitive world view pits demons against angels in a battle for the soul of man, and also the domains of the Earth. Much of this Medieval demonology can be traced directly to the Gospel narratives.

"Are these things in the Talmud or not?"

What things? Reptilian implants? ;-)

I will agree with you that the term 'anti-semite' is sometimes used inappropriately, as for example in the YouTube video with David Goldberg who is a critic of Israeli policy, he mentions that. But before you could reject the term I think you'd have to understand what it refers to, and if you were to read a little, it would go at least some ways toward a fair definition.

"but it may be that Zionism is a disease, turning otherwise good and decent people into grasping and amoral ones."

There are some Jews who did not accept Zionist ideals, and who still don't. There are various reasons why they had this opinion. Those reasons can be looked into, considered and discussed. But if you (Anna) do not know the history if the Zionist movement how could you participate in that conversation?

"We need to take an honest look at whether it has taken two to tango, or not. What if the Jews actually have some responsibility for provoking antisemitism? Is that remotely possible?"

If you were to get some background on the history you could actually venture a qualified opinion. You are arguing a shadow point; you are not even certain what you are referring to. On that basis you ask a completely rhetorical question, 'Is that even remotely possible?' Jewish scholars have written at considerable length on something identified as 'diaspora pathology' that goes far, far beyond any of these cartoonish characterization presented by some posters in these pages. But you'd have to have the willingness to look into it, and not just skim the surface. The fact of Jewish presence in Europe and the Mediterranean as a result of the exile of 135 is vastly complex. It does not render itself up to binary, simplistic interpretations. I suggest to you that you are asking more or less ignorant questions, and I don't in any sense mean to offend you. The cure for ignorance is knowledge, and knowledge is rather easily gained.

"I learned a fair amount about in a book on the history of kabbalah. But anyway, the facts of Jewish history in Europe is not going to be a simple one, because opinions differ markedly."

If your history has been gained through reeading one book on Kabalah that traced some of diaspora history I don't see how you can really have much of an opinion on the matter. But if you knew some of the history you would then know just to what degree opinions differ markedly.

"Well, then it would be lies and antisemitism. So the question is, then, should we assume they are distortions, or should we examine the situation impartially?"

Do you mean you or do you mean me? ;-) My opinion so far is that you don't have enough information to make an impartial judgment.

http://www.booksellersnow.com/abebooks.htm

[Dan Rowden]

Where do people who love to hate Jews fit?

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Dan,

That really depends on what you mean.

[Dan Rowden]

I don't really know how to take this thread. Its actual purpose is beyond me, other than catharsis for the participants. I think I can simplify this but maybe not:

You're all fucked up.

[Leyla Shen]

Thanks for that enlightening contribution, Dan! Racism and religious lunacy is a difficult thing to confront, ain't it?

Anna: You are full of hate and nastiness. Are you being deliberatly provoking as well? Why do you speak of 'my Jewishness' when I already said I don't particularly identify as a Jew? Why does the word treachery come into this?"

Well, it’s interesting, but she does say “particularly.” She obviously conceives of being “generally” Jewish.

Alex: By Nazi standards, you are still a Jew Anna. And it makes not a bit of difference if you 'identify' or not. I suggest to you that if you continue to identify yourself 'genetically' as a Jew, the sort of irrational anger you are receiving here is par for the course. The nature of this hatred is irrational and very, very strange.

Truly, you Jews get to have it all, don’t you? Given your above comment and Israeli policy---enter the newly evolved "Nazi Jew"?

As previously quoted:

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.

So, even if you’re Jewish but you convert (that is, don’t identify as a religious Jew), you’re still Jewish but not given preferential treatment in immigrating to Israel.

And if you point this all out, you’re anti-semitic (some form of psychological disorder) or, if you’re a Jew, a self-hating Jew (obviously a related psychological disorder).

Do you think then, Alex, that religious Jews are Nazis since they don't disqualify converted Jews--that is, people who don’t identify as religious Jews--from preferential treatment? I mean, I really don't think Hitler thought up the whole thing himself, ya know...

[Faust]

Wow. Who would think that people could be so passionate about how the word "Jew" is to be used? So what if it describes both someone who is a descendant of people who hold the Jewish faith, and someone who themselves holds such a faith. Insofar as we recognize both uses, and what context indicates which usage, it shouldn't matter how the sounds and scribbles are used.

actually it does matter, for people who want to see the absurdity of it. You being the raving lunatic that you are, in so far that you care not for precision and honesty, would not bother to investigate this conundrum. You missed another category: descendant that doesn't hold the faith but is "jewish," which is also arbitrary. The whole thing is arbitrary because the Jewish faith is arbitrarily designated to an arbitrary group of people who are arbitrarily segregated from the rest of the Semitic populations.

That a term like "Christian" isn't used in the same way is irrelevant.

boy, now THAT'S a RETARDED statement. it's like saying, just because A doesn't equal B, it's irrelevant. Nothing that signifies things is irrelevant you belligerant jackass. infact, in philosophizing, nothing is irrelevant.

For instance, I am a Christian. This is due to my parents being Christian. I'm an atheist Christian, but a Christian nevertheless. Hooray. Who cares?

it's obvious that Wittgenstein was of no help in your linguistics. You cannot be a Christian just because your parents are, there's NO SUCH THING in Christianity. This is why you're an idiot and cannot make this absurd example. Religion is supposed to be chosen out of your own logical choices, NOT out of parental lineage. Therefore, you CANNOT be a Christian atheist!!!!! That is so FUCKED. The term itself is impossible to exist!!!! Religion and race, are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

On the other hand, a gentleman who wants to win respect from his fellows doesn't use the term "Jew" in a bigoted way.

WTF? a gentleman who wants to win respect from his fellows WTF? This has no place in honest philosophy.

So, if one wants to condemn the actions of Israel, they should speak in a manner that obviously indicates that they speak of the nation. It is just confusing to invoke "Jews" in general in such circumstances.

wow, I have never seen this MUCH lunacy from expectantly before. We're not condemning just the actions of Israel, we're rightfully concluding that it has no right to exist in the first place, you belligerant jackass. There's nothing confusing about invoking "Jews," perhaps for you because you're a lazy idiot. In such circumstances???? These are PERFECT circumstances.

A wise man doesn't risk his reputation on semantics.

HAHAHHA. Wise men don't have reputations, which is why they're wise.

Furthermore, it behooves nobody to sow bigotry.

it's not bigotry you belligerant idiot, it's showing conclusively how absurd it is. Not to mention the fact that there are, "self-hating" (ridiculous term) "Jews" who say the same thing!! ie Weininger.

better to use language that will lead someone to love than to hate (if there is to be confusion at all).

wtf. Truth will cause people to hate, so be it. Israel and the Talmud has racist policies that causes people to hate.

[Faust]

Well, it’s interesting, but she does say “particularly.” She obviously conceives of being “generally” Jewish.

HAHAHAHHA, HOLY SHIT THAT'S HILARIOUS!!! I realized that too, laughed my ass off!!! High-5 Leyla.

Alex: By Nazi standards, you are still a Jew Anna. And it makes not a bit of difference if you 'identify' or not. I suggest to you that if you continue to identify yourself 'genetically' as a Jew, the sort of irrational anger you are receiving here is par for the course. The nature of this hatred is irrational and very, very strange.

Leyla: Truly, you Jews get to have it all, don’t you? Given your above comment and Israeli policy---enter the newly evolved "Nazi Jew"?

HILARIOUS.

the "Nazi Jew" doesn't even exist.

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.

now that is a most FUCED up "law." 100% Jewish in nature!!

"it grants immigrant status to individuals who are not Jewish but are related to Jews."
NOT JEWISH BUT RELATED TO JEWS?????