GENIUS FORUMS

Iolaus wrote:I think you misunderstood me. First, when I said we were all tribal, I did not mean 'we' as in 'we Jews' with whom I have never really identified. I meant 'we' human beings - the tribe is the human social organization from which nations and civilizations arose. The Jews, unlike most people in civilization, have held onto their tribal identity.

this is why being an Individual Jew is so hard. Jews expect atheist Jews to still remain Jews. Judaism should be considered an idea, that many groups could share.

Weininger says:

It would not be surprising if to many it should seem from the foregoing arguments that "men" have come out of them too well, and, as a collective body, have been placed on an exaggeratedly lofty pedestal. The conclusion drawn from these arguments, however surprised every Philistine and young simpleton would be to learn that in himself he comprises the whole world, cannot be opposed and confuted by cheap reasoning; yet the treatment of the male sex must not simply be considered too indulgent, or due to a direct tendency to omit all the repulsive and small side of manhood in order to favourably represent its best points.

The Jewish race has been chosen by me as a subject of discussion, because, as will be shown, it presents the gravest and most formidable difficulties for my views. . . .

I must, however, make clear what I mean by Judaism; I mean neither a race nor a people nor a recognised creed. I think of it as a tendency of the mind, as a psychological constitution which is a possibility for all mankind, but which has become actual in the most conspicuous fashion only amongst the Jews. Antisemitism itself will confirm my point of view. . . .

We hate only qualities to which we approximate, but which we realise first in other persons.

Thus the fact is explained that the bitterest Antisemites are to be found amongst the Jews themselves. . . .

I do not refer to a nation or to a race, to a creed or to a scripture. When I speak of the Jew I mean neither an individual nor the whole body, but mankind in general, in so far as it has a share in the platonic idea of Judaism. My purpose is to analyse this idea.

That these researches should be included in a work devoted to the characterology of the sexes may seem an undue extension of my subject. But some reflection will lead to the surprising result that Judaism is saturated with femininity, with precisely those qualities the essence of which I have shown to be in the strongest opposition to the male nature. . . .

The true conception of the State is foreign to the Jew, because he, like the woman, is wanting in personality; his failure to grasp the idea of true society is due to his lack of free intelligible ego. Like women, Jews tend to adhere together, but they do not associate as free independent individuals mutually respecting each other's individuality.

As there is no real dignity in women, so what is meant by the word "gentleman" does not exist amongst the Jews. The genuine Jew fails in this innate good breeding by which alone individuals honour their own individuality and respect that of others. There is no Jewish nobility, and this is the more surprising as Jewish pedigrees can be traced back for thousands of years.

The familiar Jewish arrogance has a similar explanation; it springs from want of true knowledge of himself and the consequent overpowering need he feels to enhance his own personality by depreciating that of his fellow-creatures. . . .

The faults of the Jewish race have often been attributed to the repression of that race by Aryans, and many Christians are still disposed to blame themselves in this respect. But the self- reproach is not justified. Outward circumstances do not mould a race in one direction, unless there is in the race the innate tendency to respond to the moulding forces; the total result comes at least as much from a natural disposition as from the modifying circumstances. . . .

. . . The Jew is not really anti-moral. But, none the less, he does not represent the highest ethical type. He is rather non- moral, neither good nor bad. . . .

So also in the case of the woman; it is easier for her defenders to point to the infrequency of her commission of serious crimes to prove her intrinsic morality. There is no female devil, and no female angel; only love, with its blind aversion from actuality, sees in woman a heavenly nature, and only hate sees in her a prodigy of wickedness. Greatness is absent from the nature of the woman and the Jew, the greatness of morality, or the greatness of evil. . . . In the Jew and the woman, good and evil are not distinct from one another.

Jews, then, do not live as free, self-governing individuals, choosing between virtue and vice in the Aryan fashion. They are a mere collection of similar individuals each cast in the same mould, the whole forming as it were a continuous plasmodium. The Antisemite has often thought of this as a defensive and aggressive union, and has formulated the conception of a Jewish "solidarity." There is deep confusion here. When some accusation is made against some unknown member of the Jewish race, all Jews secretly take the part of the accused, and wish, hope for, and seek to establish his innocence. But it must not be thought that they are interesting themselves more in the fate of the individual Jew than they would do in the case of an individual Christian. It is the menace to Judaism in general, the fear that the shameful shadow may do harm to Judaism as a whole, which is the origin of the apparent feeling of sympathy. In the same way, women are delighted when a member of their sex is depreciated, and will themselves assist, until the proceeding seems to throw a disadvantageous light over the sex in general, so frightening men from marriage. The race or sex alone is defended, not the individual.

It would be easy to understand why the family (in its biological not its legal sense) plays a larger role amongst the Jews than amongst any other people; the English, who in certain ways are akin to the Jews, coming next. The family, in this biological sense, is feminine and maternal in its origin, and has no relation to the State or to society. The fusion, the continuity of the members of the family, reaches its highest point amongst the Jews. In the Indo-Germanic races, especially in the case of the more gifted, but also in quite ordinary individuals, there is never complete harmony between father and son; consciously, or unconsciously, there is always in the mind of the son a certain feeling of impatience against the man who, unasked, brought him into the world, gave him a name, and determined his limitations in this earthly life. It is only amongst the Jews that the son feels deeply rooted in the family and is fully at one with his father. It scarcely ever happens amongst Christians that father and son are really friends. Amongst Christians even the daughters stand a little further apart from the family circle than happens with Jewish girls, and more frequently take up some calling which isolates them and gives them independent interests.

We reach at this point a fact in relation to the argument of the last chapter. I showed there that the essential element in the pairing instinct was an indistinct sense of individuality and of the limits between individuals. Men who are match-makers have always a Jewish element in them. The Jew is always more absorbed by sexual matters than the Aryan, although he is notably less potent sexually and less liable to be enmeshed in a great passion. The Jews are habitual match-makers, and in no race does it so often happen that marriages for love are so rare. The organic disposition of the Jews towards match-making is associated with their racial failure to comprehend asceticism. It is interesting to note that the Jewish Rabbis have always been addicted to speculations as to the begetting of children and have a rich tradition on the subject, a natural result in the case of the people who invented the phrase as to the duty of "multiplying and replenishing the earth."

The pairing instinct is the great remover of the limits between individuals; and the Jew par excellence, is the breaker down of such limits. He is at the opposite pole from aristocrats, with whom the preservation of the limits between individuals is the leading idea. The Jew is an inborn communist. The Jew's careless manners in society and his want of social tact turn on this quality, for the reserves of social intercourse are simply barriers to protect individuality.

I desire at this point again to lay stress on the fact, although it should be self-evident, that, in spite of my low estimate of the Jew, nothing could be further from my intention than to lend the faintest support to any practical or theoretical persecution of Jews. I am dealing with Judaism, in the platonic sense, as an idea. There is no more an absolute Jew than an absolute Christian. I am not speaking against the individual, whom, indeed, if that had been so, I should have wounded grossly and unnecessarily. Watchwords, such as "Buy only from Christians," have in reality a Jewish taint; they have a meaning only for those who regard the race and not the individual. I have no wish to boycott the Jew, or by any such immoral means to attempt to solve the Jewish question. Nor will Zionism solve that question . . . before Zionism is possible, the Jew must first conquer Judaism.

To defeat Judaism, the Jew must first understand himself and war against himself. So far, the Jew has reached no further than to make and enjoy jokes against his own peculiarities. Unconsciously he respects the Aryan more than himself. Only steady resolution, united to the highest self-respect, can free the Jew from Jewishness. This resolution, be it ever so strong, ever so honourable, can only be understood and carried out by the individual, not by the group. Therefore the Jewish question can only be solved individually; every single Jew must try to solve it in his proper person. . . .

The Aryan of good social standing always feels the need to respect the Jew; his Antisemitism being no joy, no amusement to him. Therefore he is displeased when Jews make revelations about Jews, and he who does so may expect as few thanks from that quarter as from over-sensitive Judaism itself. . . .

. . . According to the definition of Schopenhauer, the word "God" indicates a man who made the world. This certainly is a true likeness of the God of the Jew. Of the divine in man, the true Jew knows nothing; for what Christ and Plato, Eckhard and Paul, Goethe and Kant, the priests of the Vedas, and Fechner, and every Aryan have meant by the divine, for what the saying, "I am with you always even to the end of the world" - for the meaning of all these the Jew remains without understanding. For the God in man is the human soul, and the absolute Jew is devoid of a soul.

It is inevitable, then, that we should find no trace of belief in immortality in the Old Testament. Those who have no soul can have no craving for immortality, and so it is with the woman and the Jew.

. . . Jewish monotheism has no relation to a true belief in God; it is not a religion of reason, but a belief of old women founded on fear.

you should comment on his ideas, http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/sexcharh.html#j

I wouldn't mind, but I just don't think that's true.

you don't think what's true? You're probably of Khazarian descent, which isn't from the tribe of Israel at all, which therefore isn't genuinely Jewish, now what?

See, if Judaism were only a religion, there would not be concern about lineage. I already explained why the mother was important - it was becauase paternity is in doubt but maternity is not. I think that rule is overblown. If you want to be Jewish, and your of mixed lineage or doubtful lineage, you can be considered Jewish if at least your maternal lineage is known.

All Jews should be doubtful of their lineage. We don't even know what happened to the lost tribes if there was such a thing. And the Khazars make it much worse.

I'm not sure why the idea of the Jews being a tribe bothers you so much. It isn't really that important. For example, is there anything terribly cohesive about being French or English? They are all mixed up to one extent or another. Would you consider the gypsies a people?

The French and English have different cultures and different genetics to an extent. The Jews on the other hand, don't have a culture of their own, just a religion. They aren't a "nation" like the English. Is there such thing as a Jewish culture outside of the religion???? Weininger thinks there is, he calls it their lust for material goods and sexual fantasies. The problem with Judaism is that there are many Jews who don't originally come from the "land of Israel." The gypsies on the other hand know where they're from, and they have a culture.

Hello. I'm coming in late to this discussion but I wanted to interject the idea that there actually are genetic markers at least for Ashkenazi Jews (who form the majority of Jews in Western countries). There is an interesting article on Ashkenazi Jews in Wikipedia from which I quote below (bold added by me):

DNA Clues

Efforts to identify the origins of Ashkenazi Jews through DNA analysis began in the 1990s. Like most DNA studies of human migration patterns, these studies have focused on two segments of the human genome, the Y chromosome (inherited only by males), and the mitochondrial genome (DNA which passes from mother to child). Both segments are unaffected by recombination. Thus, they provide an indicator of paternal and maternal origins, respectively.

A study of haplotypes of the Y chromosome, published in 2000, addressed the paternal origins of Ashkenazi Jews. Hammer et al[12] found that the Y chromosome of some Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews contained mutations that are also common among Middle Eastern peoples, but uncommon in the general European population. This suggested that the male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews could be traced mostly to the Middle East.

The first research on Ashkenazi maternal ancestry was less conclusive. A 2002 study by Goldstein et al[13] found that "the women's origins cannot be genetically determined", but that "his own speculation" was that "most Jewish communities were formed by unions between Jewish men and local women."

More recent research indicates that a significant portion of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is also of Middle Eastern origin. A 2006 study by Behar et al[1], based on haplotype analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), suggested that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women. These four "founder lineages" were "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool" originating in the Near East in the first and second centuries CE. According to the authors, "The observed global pattern of distribution renders very unlikely the possibility that the four aforementioned founder lineages entered the Ashkenazi mtDNA pool via gene flow from a European host population."

Both the extent and location of the maternal ancestral deme from which the Ashkenazi Jewry arose remain obscure. Here, using complete sequences of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we show that close to one-half of Ashkenazi Jews, estimated at 8,000,000 people, can be traced back to only four women carrying distinct mtDNAs that are virtually absent in other populations, with the important exception of low frequencies among non-Ashkenazi Jews. We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry, underwent major expansion(s) in Europe within the past millennium.[1][14][15]

There has been some intermarriage between Ashkenazi Jews & others but since this is discouraged by traditional Jewish culture & since the European Jews were to a great extent isolated, the genetic lines have remained more coherent than one might expect.

Faust wrote:Leyla, how come your very insightful and comical post was titled "Paganism: 'Western' Hubris & Foreign Policy?

In this context, I was using its rather narrow Abrahamic conception--polytheists, that is. And where is the connection between that and "Western" hubris and foreign policy? The answer lies in the rhetoric of "the West" and the fact that there are at least two gods in Judeo-Christianity to the keen observer---and one of them is definitely and obviously (at least to me) false. As to further clarifying my reason, it goes something like this--and I’ll start with a quote of our resident self-proclaimed Jew:

Alex Jacob wrote:In Western culture, there are two notable poles: that which has arisen from the Judeo-Christian, and that which has arisen from the Greek (this is to put it very generally). It is a folly of sorts to try to extricate or unbind them since they are so intertwined in Western thought, but if this is your penchant I wish you 'godspeed' with no pun intended.

Fantastic, ain’t it?

Let’s take a look at a couple of key concepts: “Judeo-Christian” (as opposed to just plain ol’ Christian) and the “notable pole” which has arisen from “the Greek.”

Yes, that is indeed to put it generally. And, why? Is it not possible to be clear about such things for a mind interested in clarity and reason? Of course it is. Just takes a bit of elbow grease. But, that's a thing religionists tend not to do. Rather, their efforts result in something more akin to dishpan hands.

“Judeo-Christianity” & Jesus

Alex Jacob wrote:But in the briefest terms---and this idea did not originate with me---the culture of Christianity is intimately connected with Judaism and is not a separate entity. It is a similar and not a dissimilar entity,...

Oh, how true. How true it is that the culture of Christianity is intimately connected with Judaism and has nothing to do with any wisdom which might otherwise be gleaned from the New Testament.

Jhn 4:9Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

Jhn 4:10Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Jhn 4:11The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?

Jhn 4:12Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?

Jhn 4:13Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

Jhn 4:14But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Jhn 4:21Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

Jhn 4:22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Jhn 4:23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Are we to forget that the Jews denounced Jesus as the messiah--as their “Mashiach”--the king who would rule the Jews according to Jewish law?

Jesus rebuked the Jews, and they had him killed for it. Just like the Greeks did with Socrates.

I will address “the Greek” and your following questions as soon as time permits:

Are you accusing Paganism for this problem? Let me guess, that old Testament bit "among the gods" is distinctly pagan because it seeks to turn man into god?

Edit: Apologies. Originally left out pertinent clauses John 4:21-23.

Fuast,

this is why being an Individual Jew is so hard. Jews expect atheist Jews to still remain Jews. Judaism should be considered an idea, that many groups could share.

What would the idea be? I don't believe Jews are responsible for monotheism. Although they did come to it sooner than some of the locals, but other people have figured out monotheism a well. There is concern over ethics and justice.

Some atheist Jews feel strongly about being Jewish; no doubt a bunch couldn't care less, but for at least one generation there is going to be identification because there is no other thing to be. My mother, for instance is a Jewish person who has converted to Chrsitianity. But she's Jewish. I guess she could call herself Khazarian. Most of my maternal grandfathers were rabbis, then in one generation they became atheist. Now, for 4 generations they are strong zionists, but for 3 they are atheists. Some have emigrated to Israel. They live for Israel. My uncle worships the Jewish people instead of God, although of course he is not aware of it. The holocaust has caused or at least encouraged this unhealthy obsession. Atheism for a Jew does not really make sense, but then atheism makes no sense in light of anything. I dont believe the holocaust didn't happen, although it may be exxagerated, rather I think it was engineered to create just the situation we have.

I read the Weininger stuff. I'm sorry, I just don't respect him much, and I think his ideas are not his own anyway. Some of it has a certain amount of merit. If it is really true that the illuminati are behind the development of world fascism, and there is a strong Jewish element within it, then I would agree with the accusation of feminism becuase of the subterfuge which is more in the nature of the feminine.

Weininger disrespects those who do not possess a strong desire for immortality, yet most of the people here are atheists who have no soul and are busily denying their desire for immortality.

you don't think what's true? You're probably of Khazarian descent, which isn't from the tribe of Israel at all, which therefore isn't genuinely Jewish, now what?

I don't think it is true that I am Turkish and Russian. Now, is Ashkenazi another word for Khazarian Jews? Yes, I know the Khazars are not of the tribes of Israel, (unless they are of course - the fact that they were pagan is evidence but not conclusive evidence because we are talking about some 1000 years.) But the point I can't seem to get across to you is that the Khazarians, unlike the peoples nearby in eastern europe, seem to be of middle eastern descent to a fair extent. Shardrol's post seems to point to that as well, although they concluded that these four women were probably of Hewbrew descent, and I think that is a stretch. Middle eastern, yes, Semitic perhaps.

Oh, and why do you say the Khazars aren't real Jews if Judaism is a religion?

The gypsies on the other hand know where they're from, and they have a culture.

Where are they from?

Leyla,

Let’s take a look at a couple of key concepts: “Judeo-Christian” (as opposed to just plain ol’ Christian) and the “notable pole” which has arisen from “the Greek.”

I've long thought that the reason for the superiority of the Eastern Orthodox Church over the Roman Catholic is due to the greek influence in the east, and the roman one in the west, and the judaic one seems stronger in the west as well. At least the harshness of Jehovah is stronger in western theology, but that could be roman as well.

Oh, how true. How true it is that the culture of Christianity is intimately connected with Judaism and has nothing to do with any wisdom which might otherwise be gleaned from the New Testament.

That's far too harsh, but I look at the Old Testament stuff as a poison, a dead weight that prevents the best wisdom from really taking hold. Of course, it looks like Faust prefers the Jehovah type of Christ but I think that Jesus taught pretty much the opposite of Jehovah.

and the fact that there are at least two gods in Judeo-Christianity to the keen observer---and one of them is definitely and obviously (at least to me) false.

How interesting that you think so. I wonder if you are referring to the evil of Jehovah? Personally, I think that what's wrong with the Jews is their bondage to an imposter god who calls his own name Jealous.

If you ask me, the giveaway is this obsession with child sacrifice. Christians defend the massacres of Jehovah because the people practiced infant sacrifice - how then does this god demand that Abraham sacrifice his son? And how come Abraham wasn't all that shocked? Just to confuse the hell out of the human race? Is it any wonder the Jews joined in with human sacrifice until at least 600 BC?

What was your point re the woman at the well?

we should be careful of using Wikipedia for religious/political/historical/Zionist/Jewish information, since it is a Zionist organization with full of propaganda and lies for Crypto-Jewish and Crypto-Zionist supremacy at the hands of the globe. http://judicial-inc.biz/wikipedia.htm

Both segments are unaffected by recombination

what does this mean exactly?

Hammer et al[12] found that the Y chromosome of some Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews contained mutations that are also common among Middle Eastern peoples, but uncommon in the general European population. This suggested that the male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews could be traced mostly to the Middle East.

the Middle-East is a large place, even Turkey is in the Middle-East where the Khazars possibly came from, but neither of this points to coming from the "Tribes of Israel."

The first research on Ashkenazi maternal ancestry was less conclusive. A 2002 study by Goldstein et al[13] found that "the women's origins cannot be genetically determined", but that "his own speculation" was that "most Jewish communities were formed by unions between Jewish men and local women."

If the women's genetics cannot be determined, that's even worse for identifying their origins.

More recent research indicates that a significant portion of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is also of Middle Eastern origin. A 2006 study by Behar et al[1], based on haplotype analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), suggested that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women. These four "founder lineages" were "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool" originating in the Near East in the first and second centuries CE.

Once again, the Khazars had Middle-Eastern and Turkish origins.

According to the authors, "The observed global pattern of distribution renders very unlikely the possibility that the four aforementioned founder lineages entered the Ashkenazi mtDNA pool via gene flow from a European host population."

Rightt, that's why one author speculated that most Jewish communities were formed by unions between Jewish men and local women.

Both the extent and location of the maternal ancestral deme from which the Ashkenazi Jewry arose remain obscure.

Interesting.

Here, using complete sequences of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we show that close to one-half of Ashkenazi Jews, estimated at 8,000,000 people, can be traced back to only four women carrying distinct mtDNAs that are virtually absent in other populations, with the important exception of low frequencies among non-Ashkenazi Jews. We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry, underwent major expansion(s) in Europe within the past millennium.

hmmm

There has been some intermarriage between Ashkenazi Jews & others but since this is discouraged by traditional Jewish culture & since the European Jews were to a great extent isolated, the genetic lines have remained more coherent than one might expect.

Righttt, that's why one author speculates: most Jewish communities were formed by unions between Jewish men and local women

Anna:

I've long thought that the reason for the superiority of the Eastern Orthodox Church over the Roman Catholic is due to the greek influence in the east, and the roman one in the west, and the judaic one seems stronger in the west as well. At least the harshness of Jehovah is stronger in western theology, but that could be roman as well.

I am fairly certain that I have not understood the significance of the idea/s you present here, but I have something to say about it in the meantime.

The trouble with greatness, whether good or evil, is that it comes in the form of an individual, not a collective. When we speak of a thing such as “Greek influence,” really we speak of a few good men (or memes, if you prefer) who influenced thousands--not the other way around. If it were the other way round, that literally the superiority of which you speak belonged to the category Greek, what would there be there to influence?

In the Eastern Orthodox Church such greatness attempts an officiated realisation of this greatness through organised religion in the form patriarchs and archbishops in Eastern/Greek Orthodoxy and papal infallibility in the Roman Catholic Church. Judaism, with its rabbis, is not so different in essence here. We are, after all, talking about organised religion.

I wonder exactly what you mean by “superiority of Eastern Orthodoxy over Roman Catholic.” They all have the OT in common and thus share Jehovah as a god---but how many of them see Jehovah as Jesus? More like the OT serves them as the mean ol’ dad figure who will punish them if they stray--heaven and hell, et cetera; except in the case of the Jews. In the case of the Jews, Jehovah is their god and no-one else’s; the god of the Israelites. The only way by which Jews are monotheists is if you define monotheism to be a belief in only one of many gods. Either that or you have to accept that everyone else but Jews are godless; goyim -- cattle.

That's far too harsh,

I beg to differ. It’s well and truly time the blinkers are removed.

…but I look at the Old Testament stuff as a poison, a dead weight that prevents the best wisdom from really taking hold.

Oh, so that’s the benchmark for appropriate harshness? :) With an understanding of Jehovah, not too much different to what I said, is it?

Of course, it looks like Faust prefers the Jehovah type of Christ

I think you have misunderstood Faust.

…but I think that Jesus taught pretty much the opposite of Jehovah.

Now, we start to tread on shaky ground a bit, here. One has to decide whether they believe in a wise Jesus or an historical one before one can discern who is teaching what. The latter is not necessary for the former, since we all understand the nature of self and other, right? If, however, you are going to opt for an historical Jesus, then you might just find it impossible to prove he was ever wiser than the next man.

The greatest difficulty people have in letting go of the idea of an historical Jesus is letting go of their own fantasies. You know, the miracle stuff rooted in fear of death--stuff like physical resurrection, healing leprosy and blindness at the touch of a hand and so forth. For that is the only price one would have to pay in giving up such a pursuit. (As if wisdom itself weren’t a miracle worthy enough.)

More later.

Hi Faust13

Faust13 wrote:we should be careful of using Wikipedia for religious/political/historical/Zionist/Jewish information, since it is a Zionist organization with full of propaganda and lies for Crypto-Jewish and Crypto-Zionist supremacy at the hands of the globe. http://judicial-inc.biz/wikipedia.htm

The passage I posted was meant to indicate that there is some evidence that Judaism is not just a religion & culture but that there are recognizable genetic markers associated with groups of Jews, in this case the Ashkenazi (who are the largest group in the US).

Both segments are unaffected by recombination

what does this mean exactly?

It means that both of the genetic components to which the article referred - the male & female - are not part of the process that causes new combinations of genes in offspring that did not occur in the parents. So it is the kind of thing that is stable as a genetic characteristic over time & despite exogamy.

I'm not arguing that all Jews came from a particular place, I was pointing out that part of the reason that this 'Jewish' meme persists is an intuitive feeling that Jews have something bigger than religion in common. This is supported by the idea in the article that at least some Jews - & a greater number than the group of those who follow the religion - share genetic characteristics. I first read about this in The Economist, in a much better article than the one in Wikipedia but I couldn't quote it since I no longer have the magazine & am unwilling to pay to read it online.

I know in my own case my grandparents were Jewish but my parents were atheists & followed no religion, so this is how I grew up. Now I am a Buddhist, which apparently is such a common path for ethnic-though-nonpracticing Jews that there's even a word for it: JuBu.

I'm not going to argue genetics but it appears you have some kind of emotional investment in debunking the idea of Judaism as anything other than a religion. For the record, I don't use the term 'The Holocaust' because it gives too much airplay to this one particular holocaust, as if none of the others matter. It's similar to the way many Americans view 9/11 as the beginning of terrorism. And I do think that putting someone in jail for having an unpopular (well really taboo in this case) view is reprehensible, to say the least.

Shardrol wrote:I'm not going to argue genetics but it appears you have some kind of emotional investment in debunking the idea of Judaism as anything other than a religion.

It isn't anything but a religion, any emotionalism Faust may or may not have on the subject notwithstanding. Particularly since this commonality amongst the majority of Jews is shared with millions of Muslims.

For the record... :)

Iolaus wrote:Some atheist Jews feel strongly about being Jewish; no doubt a bunch couldn't care less, but for at least one generation there is going to be identification because there is no other thing to be.

another proof for how pathetic Judaism is. It makes no sense for Atheist jews to feel strongly about being Jewish. Judaism is nothing but a hardcore religion, what is there to feel strongly about?

I guess she could call herself Khazarian.

which makes it even more absurd

My uncle worships the Jewish people instead of God, although of course he is not aware of it.

Many Jews are like this, some are aware of it.

atheism makes no sense in light of anything.

it makes much more sense than theism. There's no evidence that a God exists, even if he did, he is very indifferent to the suffering of innocent people. God does not have an origin, therefore why should the universe on its own have an origin?

I dont believe the holocaust didn't happen, although it may be exxagerated, rather I think it was engineered to create just the situation we have.

if it was engineered that means it didn't happen. There's so many contradictions and absurdities in the holocaust story that any banning on its investigation is highly suspicious.

I read the Weininger stuff. I'm sorry, I just don't respect him much, and I think his ideas are not his own anyway. Some of it has a certain amount of merit.

His ideas may not seem to be his own because others have reached the same conclusions. If some of it has a certain amount of merit, then what is it you don't respect about him?

the subterfuge which is more in the nature of the feminine.

what's your idea of the nature of the feminine?

Weininger disrespects those who do not possess a strong desire for immortality, yet most of the people here are atheists who have no soul and are busily denying their desire for immortality.

What we mean of immortality is by knowing the Infinite and Ultimate Reality, since this is unchangeable, our knowledge of it makes us 'immortal' metaphorically. This is much more noble than the physical immortality of the religious desperates.

I know the Khazars are not of the tribes of Israel, (unless they are of course - the fact that they were pagan is evidence but not conclusive evidence because we are talking about some 1000 years.)

the fact that they were originally pagan is conclusive undeniable evidence that they weren't a tribe of Israel, it has nothing to do with 1000 years ago.

But the point I can't seem to get across to you is that the Khazarians, unlike the peoples nearby in eastern europe, seem to be of middle eastern descent to a fair extent.

that's because they were partly Turks. Turks are also middle-eastern, yet not at all a tribe of Israel.

Oh, and why do you say the Khazars aren't real Jews if Judaism is a religion?

because if you're talking about modern Israel, a Real Jew that you would even consider to live in Israel would have to be from the tribes of Israel, not just any religious convert.

Where are gypsies from?

Gypsies are Romani descent people. Although they do seem to be spread out throughout Eastern Europe and Asia. However, their ethnic descent is much more clear than Ashkenazis, and gypsies have a culture that is outside of their religion, which Judaism does not have, which doesn't qualify Judaism as a "nation."

it looks like Faust prefers the Jehovah type of Christ

Leyla was definitely right that you misunderstood me. I don't know how you drew this conclusion, in fact, I don't even know what a Jehovah type is.

Leyla,

When we speak of a thing such as “Greek influence,” really we speak of a few good men (or memes, if you prefer) who influenced thousands--

Yes, I suppose you are right. But nonetheless, the Greek culture in my opinion was a greater ne than the Roman, whose greatness was more administrative than philosophical, and greek ideas influenced Christian theology, and that influence was retained better in the east, whereas the harshness of Roman law meshed with the harshness of Jehovah, or at least that is my understanding.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church such greatness attempts an officiated realisation of this greatness through organised religion in the form patriarchs and archbishops in Eastern/Greek Orthodoxy and papal infallibility in the Roman Catholic Church. Judaism, with its rabbis, is not so different in essence here. We are, after all, talking about organised religion.

Yes, organized religion is mostly a blight, esp in the west. Nonetheless, the Roman church is more outrageous with the papal infallibility nonsense and vicar of christ on earth nonsense. Judaism has an even less authoritarian structure than eastern orthodoxy, but they have only the old testament, which is filled with negativity.

They all have the OT in common and thus share Jehovah as a god---but how many of them see Jehovah as Jesus?

No, they don't see Jesus as Jehovah. But how much good does it do to have Jesus when the ultimate authority is cruel and has created an eternal cosmic nightmare? That's why Christians focus on Jesus. The Father isn't a nice guy, really.

In the case of the Jews, Jehovah is their god and no-one else’s; the god of the Israelites. The only way by which Jews are monotheists is if you define monotheism to be a belief in only one of many gods.

Some people might say that the Old Testament shows the development of monotheism. At first, they were definitely henotheists, meaning they woshipped a particular god, but understood others existed. This describes the OT throgh and through, but what's worse, is that several statements of Jehovah indicate that he also considered himself one of many.

Also, it is odd how often the people ran away from Jehovah. that certainly isn't how people behave nowadays. People are fairly steadfast in their religions. that's why they persist. Yet even Solomon, who personally spoke to god or his angel and was in actual, linguistic communication, and supposedly given the gift of wisdom, worshipped other gods with some of his wives. Isn't that really, really odd?

Either that or you have to accept that everyone else but Jews are godless; goyim -- cattle.

I think that sort of thing is mostly in the Talmud. There are some really good passages in the OT about blessing all the peoples of the world. The word goy doesn't exist in the OT.

I beg to differ. It’s well and truly time the blinkers are removed.

You insist then that none of the wisdom of the NT has penetrated into Christian culture at any time?

Me, …but I look at the Old Testament stuff as a poison, a dead weight that prevents the best wisdom from really taking hold.

You: Oh, so that’s the benchmark for appropriate harshness? :) With an understanding of Jehovah, not too much different to what I said, is it?

Can't understand your thought.

Now, we start to tread on shaky ground a bit, here. One has to decide whether they believe in a wise Jesus or an historical one before one can discern who is teaching what.

I don't know whether there was an historical one, and I am aware it is hard to prove, but I tend to think there was someone, or perhaps a couple of people, who led to the christian movement. But I am talking about the recorded words of Jesus, which taken as a whole, have a very different attitude than Jehovah usually does (the OT Jehovah seems to have been a mixed character. Not completely bad, just usually bad.)

Leyla said to Shardrol,

Particularly since this commonality amongst the majority of Jews is shared with millions of Muslims.

So we have a group of people in europe and america who share genetic markers of middle eastern origins. In other words, they are not indistinguishable from the europeans. In other words, I am not half Russian/Polish/Turkish.

It's one reason the word antisemitism is erronious. Because the majority of the worlds semites are arabian. The palestinians are semites, which makes the jewish zionists antisemitic. hey, I like that! Good point if I do say so myself.

Faust,

It makes no sense for Atheist jews to feel strongly about being Jewish. Judaism is nothing but a hardcore religion, what is there to feel strongly about?

A shared historic adventure, I guess. And then, too, people often do have strong feelings about their nation's people, even without insisting that their nation is racially unique.

I guess she could call herself Khazarian.

which makes it even more absurd

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.

it makes much more sense than theism. There's no evidence that a God exists, even if he did, he is very indifferent to the suffering of innocent people. God does not have an origin, therefore why should the universe on its own have an origin?

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

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.

if it was engineered that means it didn't happen. There's so many contradictions and absurdities in the holocaust story that any banning on its investigation is highly suspicious.

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?

what's your idea of the nature of the feminine?

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.

the fact that they were originally pagan is conclusive undeniable evidence that they weren't a tribe of Israel, it has nothing to do with 1000 years ago.

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.

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?

Gypsies are Romani descent people. Although they do seem to be spread out throughout Eastern Europe and Asia. However, their ethnic descent is much more clear than Ashkenazis, and gypsies have a culture that is outside of their religion, which Judaism does not have, which doesn't qualify Judaism as a "nation."

I think they are Egyptian, actually.

Leyla was definitely right that you misunderstood me. I don't know how you drew this conclusion, in fact, I don't even know what a Jehovah type is.

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?

Anna, to complete my earlier reply:

L: ...and the fact that there are at least two gods in Judeo-Christianity to the keen observer---and one of them is definitely and obviously (at least to me) false.

A: How interesting that you think so. I wonder if you are referring to the evil of Jehovah? Personally, I think that what's wrong with the Jews is their bondage to an impostor god who calls his own name Jealous.

Of course it is. I mean, who in their right mind would trust a person who believed that such a god was and is his creator and saviour? I certainly wouldn‘t!

A: If you ask me, the giveaway is this obsession with child sacrifice.

More remnants of paganism.

A: Christians defend the massacres of Jehovah because the people practiced infant sacrifice - how then does this god demand that Abraham sacrifice his son?

Well, that must be Judeo-Christians, then. Otherwise, how is it that a Christian can suddenly turn around and believe in the same imposter god of the Jews?

A: And how come Abraham wasn't all that shocked? Just to confuse the hell out of the human race? Is it any wonder the Jews joined in with human sacrifice until at least 600 BC?

No, it's no wonder, because the OT does have its roots in pagan ritualism. How can it not? That was the sort of stuff said to be going on. Frankly, I would have hoped someone had turned up a little sooner than they did on the matter--these things take time, I suppose…

What was your point re the woman at the well?

So this be the character of the Jew & the Israelite: In an earlier post I spoke of Jacob’s (which name was changed to Israel, later, just like contemporary efforts to change Palestine--Palestina/Philistine in the biblical texts--to "Israel") deception in Genesis whereby he stole Esau‘s birthright by taking advantage of Isaac's blindness on his deathbed and pretending to be Esau--the birthright is the family name and titles (physical and spiritual--and recall that the Palestinians are descendants of Esau, along different lines). Here in John (NT) we find Jesus being questioned by the woman about whether or not he is greater than Jacob (Israel), who “gave us the well [stolen, per Genesis]…etc” to which Jesus rather clearly replies:

Jhn 4:13Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

Jhn 4:14But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Jhn 4:21Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

Jhn 4:22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Jhn 4:23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Leyla,
So tell me a little more clearly what you had in mind by saying there are two Gods in the bible and one is false.

Well, that must be Judeo-Christians, then. Otherwise, how is it that a Christian can suddenly turn around and believe in the same imposter god of the Jews?

Well, that's the deception. They don't really go together, in fact they're incompatible. But they dragged that whole chunk of stuff along and called it scripture. A triumph of the bad guys or the low minded, or what I call interpreting spiritual things in a material way. Christians are afraid to examine it. The thing is set up to numb their minds. Christianity peddles fear, and the frightened mind is a shut down one.

I was not aware that Palestinians are considered descendents of Esau, and you seem to be saying that Palestinians are the Philistines? But I had noted in any number of places in the bible that things are not too kosher, like having Pharaoh's heart hardened. In the Esau story, Jacob disappears more than twenty years and when he returns he is afraid of Esau, but Esau was openhearted and happy to see him.

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, 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. After this she asks which group is right about the correct mountain 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.
The Samaritans ware a splinter group of Jews, I don't think they were Palestinians.

One of the interesting things about this sort of conversation is to watch for and try to separate out what may be (or rather is) called anti-semitic anger, the stuff on which anti-semitism burns, from what are considerable ideas; ideas or criticisms that can be put on the table and talked about by 'rational people'. (For example the benefits or deficits of a belief system like Judaism, in comparison to, say, the various religious trends on the Indian subcontinent; or the policies of Israel).

I personally accept that there are large dimensions of ourselves (me an' you) that are arational and irrational, and it is these areas that might actually control and drive us, less our conscious selves, what we mostly identify with. And it is also true that we can be driven and controlled through our irrational, unconscious selves, as that dammed Jew Freud pointed out (fucking Jews!)

Both Faust and Layla seem to me to be motivated, moved and impelled, by a sort of irrational, driven anger, and for that reason it is useless to engage them in conversation because their purpose is just to express anger and to condemn in a blanket manner the Jews and these 'Abrahamic religions'. Layla seems pretty upset about Israel's existence and Israeli policies against the Palestinians (who she has conflated with the Biblical Esau, as if the Biblical story is an historical narrative). Her purpose seems to be that 'our resident Jew' should demonstrate a certain 'shame', or as she writes: "How, as a Jew, will you distance yourself from this aspect of your character, whilst your brethren in Israel continue to mow down a line of Esau’s descendants in your name and the name of a god who would turn you against your own father and blood brother?"

I don't know if I will be successful in making my point, which is not the point I started with on this brilliant thread on a Genius Forum, but it is this sort of 'logic' that drives anti-semitism; that raw, unprocessed, upbubbling anger against those 'stupid Jews'. There is no way to enter into a conversation with it, because it has no real purpose, and anyway no conversation could ever be productive because there is no intention to seek productivity.

Probably most of Jewery worldwide accepts Israel and supports Israel, that is true, but there is a sizable faction within non-Israeli Jewry as well as factions within Israel itself that have many issues with Iraeli policies. One edition of Ha'aretz will clearly show the range of opinion within Israeli society, which is wide indeed. But that wasn't what we started talking about, now was it? (I do know that this doesn't matter and a good proportion of this conversation has to do with one thing and one thing alone: it is called Jew-baiting and it is a carefully, but crudely, fashioned 'game'. It has absurd 'rules' of course, but it functions like a game, and the baited Jew (or the defender, whether Jew or not) is always slated to lose. I guess it must be fun to play...

Otto Weininger is generally dismissed as a simple anti-semite, but not all his ideas are so readily dismissable, apparently. (Hitler himself, referring to Weininger, wrote: "There was only one decent Jew, and he killed himself.") In some sense this may illustrate my point: that just because a given thinking or belief system has flaws, it does not follow automatically that every aspect of that system is flawed. And since there is no perfect thinking system, and no perfect religion---no perfect anything---we are left to sort out what we find valuable from what is not. I have spent a good deal of time examining so-called pagan religions (Hindu for example) and find much of merit and a great deal that is not so great. There is no tradition, religion, science or philosophy that does not have deficiencies.

There are many, many positive features to Judaic thought (which is varied) and Jewsih traditions, and not everything within the religion is dismissable. All that can be discussed by 'rational' people, but if people are possessed by unconscious, unexamined impulses, there is really nothing you can do for them or with them. It is useless to engage in those conditions.

If you are reading this brilliant and thought-provoking thread and find yourself sitting on the fence---on the one hand you see the absurdity of the 'logic' in the ideas presented, and the danger of giving energy to this style of 'thinking', yet on the other you yourself feel an unconscious, blind, Medieval rage against these satanic Jews who have ruined life for all the rest of the world---I guess I sympathize with you. Examining those unconscious impulses (we all have them, they are in fact what mostly drive us, so it is said) is possibly the most productive work we can do, but the most difficult.

Alex:

Jews are bigots, plain and simple. I grew up on the periphery of Jewry, and I've experienced this bigotry. When you intentionally segregate yourselves (to the point where my second-cousins weren't allowed to play with me because my dad is not a Jew), you are going to be pissing a lot of people off -- particularly anyone who lives under premise that all men are equal. Jews segregate themselves, and get treated like garbage because of it. I have no sympathy for the largest supporters of institutionalized racism when they complain that others treat their "race" differently. You reap what you sow.

You can call this anti-Semitism, but I would make it much more broad than that. I am anti-nationalism, anti-racism, and anti-elitism. Consequently, I must be anti-Semitic, for the concept of anyone being a "semite" -- as opposed to just another regular old human being -- offends my delicate morality.

When the Jews stop calling themselves "Jews", as though that makes them God's Magically Special Race (Entitled Thereby to Any Country That Their Ancestors Happened to Walk In), there will be no reason to treat them any differently, and they will no longer suffer persecution.


ps. I realized you were full of bullshit the second you lumped Leyla with Faust. Unless I missed some startling new development in the last month, I can't even comprehend how these two might have even remotely similar philosophies. Leyla is subtle and ironic, whereas Faust reminds me of some kind of heavy, blunt instrument. I can't imagine they agree on very much.

"When the Jews stop calling themselves "Jews", as though that makes them God's Magically Special Race (Entitled Thereby to Any Country That Their Ancestors Happened to Walk In), there will be no reason to treat them any differently, and they will no longer suffer persecution."

You have pretty much hit the nail on the head, I think. Joseph Telushkin and Dennis Praeger wrote a book called 'Why the Jews?---The Reasons for Antisemitism' that says the same thing, but with a different spirit of course. According to Telushkin the only way for a Jew not to be hated is if he stops being a Jew. It doesn't matter if there is or is not an Israel, if Jews are rude or friendly, if they are helpful or not helpful, aloof or welcoming, if they contribute or do not contribute, as long as a Jew is a Jew he is sure to encounter the sort of anger that you express.

I have no doubt that you have experienced bigotry, bigotry is a fairly common feature of all humans. Just as there is bigotry in any human community, so there is bigotry in the Jewish community. But the criterion for addressing this bigotry is not to...stop existing. I know that this 'conversation' has nothing to do with reason and everything to do with impulse, but if you were to examine the logic you might see how absurd your conclusion is. Jews can behave any damm way they want, and so can Catholics, Protestants, American Indians, Hindus, etc. If you were interested in trying to discover some of the reasons why the Jewsih community is closed, yet I don't think you are, there are some reasonings that could be offered, and they are not bad reasonings.

Many people segregate themselves, even in a society founded on the notion that 'all men are created equal'.

So, your second cousin couldn't play with you because your dad was not a Jew? That is a pretty serious offense. (Fucking Jews!)

"I am anti-nationalism, anti-racism, and anti-elitism."

I understand, I think, the logic of these positions. Personaly, even if I agree in principal, I find idealistic positions untenable, and so have rejected them. Nations exist and for the foreseeable future will go on existing, racism is more or less an on-going social reality, and it will not stop with you or I no matter what we say or think, and the same with elitism. Because these things now exist, and will likely continue to exist, the best we might do is to modify or soften them.

I hope you-all are not going to get pissed at me when I stop participating here? It is not that I don't find some of this interesting, it is that I think it is useless to engage when the positions are so...hardened.

PS: I don't know either of them, and while I agree that Faust might be compared to a blunt instrument, I was not able to recognize Layla's light and ironic touch. So, instead of a 200 lb Red Kangaroo you are implying she has been flying in circles around me more like a Rainbow Lorikeet?

Most of what I have read on this forum so far seems...blunt to me. Could you direct me to the threads where light and subtle geniuses hang out?

;-)

Well I grew up in a moderately Jewish area and I've never seen any evidence of Jews segregating themselves any more than blacks or whites or whatever, I've never seen any evidence of any Jewish conspiracy to take over anything that's any more conspiratorial than anyone else, so with all due respect, I think all you antisemites are a bunch of fucktards!

The other forum tends to have the genius threads. This is just worldly whining.

I have a perfectly sound reason to find Jews -- as I find any other grouping -- offensive. As well, a Jew who considers himself a Jew is quite a bit different than a Catholic, since it involves ideas of race. It is much closer to ideas of white supremacy than freedom of religion. The saving grace of most people of the Jewish faith/race is very few of them have a complete picture of their own religion. They end up not really being Jews anyway.

In some countries, especially where more conservative, Biblical Jews thrive, you can see their voluntary segregation. Parts of Israel can be pretty bad, and I imagine this would have been the situation in pre-war Poland, Germany, etc. where Jews formed communities based solely on the implied fact of "shared Judaism". Total bullshit.

I do have problems with every single religion, since they run counter to the entire philosophic enterprise (or, rather, the philosophic enterprise runs counter to all religions). My extra problem with Judaism is the racial component. You are a Jew from the moment they chop your dick, then a super-Jew when you memorize a bunch of nonsense from the Bible, then super-duper-ultra-Jew when you get married. I think the last component of Judaism is when you have a Jewish funeral, where there are strictures down to the type of materials you are allowed to use in the casket (no metal, since everything around you needs to biodegrade so you can climb out when the Messiah comes...)

I don't even want to get into the "Kosher tax" which, for no medical reason, forces businesses to abide by nonsensical Jewish laws -- under threat of losing a huge consumer base.

Anyway, no, I won't hate you if you if you leave. This place is very eclectic in principle, and that's very hard for some people to appreciate.

If you are the type of person who believes that "eclecticity" works ("you must be the best of the best of the best! I have seen maggots with more guts than any one of you pansies!"), then -- and only then -- are you likely to find this place agreeable. If you'd rather philosophy in a subtle, relaxed, academic setting -- if you find, say, a couch more comfortable than running around the city at 3 in the morning after smoking ridiculous amounts of methamphetamines just to prove you can -- if you honestly think that philosophy can be learned without engaging life whatsoever -- then you will be perfectly justified in leaving.

A book is a poor substitute to a well-lived life, though.

If I leave it will be because the conversation has just grown boring...as when people trot out and rehearse the same old judenhass in some new form. Hell, it really isn't a new form, it's the same old garbage. C'mon, be inventive!

(Look up Tribal Review or New Tribal Review, I forgot, if you need some new material to fuel psychological deficiencies and frustrations. I'm just trying to help people...(Fucking Jews!)

Up till now this has been only a working through mere basics, the typical junk.

I would be far more concerned, as so many and classical anti-semites were, that the 'Jewish ideologies' and the power of these discourses represent a threat to the nation-host and must be expelled. I mean if I were going to come up with a discourse of hatred and try to meme it out (sell it, replicate it), that would be the angle I'd pursue. Now another good one---and you can work this both ways so it is deviously delicious---is to implicate Jews and America-Israel in a scheme to rule the world through capitalist mechanisms, and everyone has an opinion about a Jew and his money (another cliche), so if you have some vague sort of leftist idealism, you can locate in Jews and Israel, and America run by the Jews, a literal metaphysical Satan who holds the world back from social orgasm, some sort of socialist world-state overseen by the UN. (Etcetera...yawn).

But if you detest socialism, all you have to do is flip this around and then its the socialist-totalitarian-commies who are rife with Jewzies, and you can excite and direct all your rage at that. Uuf! There are so many opportunities!

And this is pretty much the angle that Faust is pursuing, it seems to me, which is a deep-seated sort of Medieval paranoia inculcated for generations by Christian priests on uneducated peasant tribes of Europe.

I was more or less raised up in the Leftist camp, and in no sense have abandoned some of its idealisms, I just think they are impracticable, but I think there are some very distorted discourses floating around out there too, and that the issue of Palestinians and Israel is far more complex than fits into a simple, binary narrative.

But anyway, there is a Jewish critical position of Israeli policies, just for the record.

One of the sweeter morsels of honey-dipped ad hominem I have tasted in recent history. You must be a natural Jew. The fact that you cannot analyse and argue rationally against the points I raise here is not because I have some unconscious “medieval hatred” for the Jews (I am more consciously acquainted with the unconscious than you are capable of noting); the deficiency is precisely yours and precisely because they are your scriptures, Mr Jacob, and not mine--and you think you would be nothing without them.

Stop whining like a woman and actually say something substantial.

“Tweet, tweet.”

~

Anna, reply forthcoming...

I suspect it's easy to find out all the evil things Jews do because like everyone else, they are constantly doing evil things. The problem is not with the camera. Whether you are on the left or the right, Jews are doing evil things. The problem is the fact that the camera is focusing on the evil of the Jews, while missing the evil of everyone else. Wait a minute: the camera is noticing the evils of everyone else, and the Jews -- like everyone else -- are presenting problems. So the problem is, obviously, with everyone... and probably me as well.

A startling intellect wrote:

"One of the sweeter morsels of honey-dipped ad hominem I have tasted in recent history. You must be a natural Jew. The fact that you cannot analyse and argue rationally against the points I raise here is not because I have some unconscious “medieval hatred” for the Jews (I am more consciously acquainted with the unconscious than you are capable of noting); the deficiency is precisely yours and precisely because they are your scriptures, Mr Jacob, and not mine--and you think you would be nothing without them.

"Stop whining like a woman and actually say something substantial."

You raised points? Not in respect to anything I wrote. I have not bothered to read in depth anything else you have written, I glossed it and found nothing of interest, so I only felt I needed to focus on what you wrote in response to me, which was just some half-baked and badly thought-out junk.

But if you'd like, I'l go through what you did write:

"How to spot a Jew camouflaged in Jesus’s robes

"I can’t believe the magnitude of ignorance on this subject by the religiously herdish.

"Stupid Jews."

Is there some part of this I should consider 'substantial'? It is not even clear enough that I completely get it. Are you referring to me? Or do you think that all Jews immitate Jesus? What is the camouflage that you refer to? Is this the 'subtlety' referred to earlier? Dressing up your prose in cheap rhinestones has not improved it, you wombat of rhetoric...

Now, as to the 'religiously herdish'...are you referring to me? Or, are you taking a swipe at all who think in religious terms, or even to those who are influenced by the terms of religious discourse, which is something else? One gathers that you consider yourself above and beyond any herding? I don't know you, and I may be proved different, but I suspect you are immersed in ideas and attitudes that are derived, and therefor in your own way you are herded along.

"How you can sit there, Alex JACOB, basking in supposed glorified virtues of Judaism and Christianity missing the whole point of the thing is beyond me. Do you just sort of ignore as insignificant such aspects of the Torah and the Old Testament as this (excerpt courtesy KJV):"

What 'point' have I missed? You really have a pretentious style. The point you seem to want to make...is ridiculous. You are quoting scripture to what end? I really am not getting the reference to this deep commentary of yours, it seems merely assinine to me.

You write:

"In Genesis, Jacob (the pretty son) deceives Isaac at the behest of his mother--Esau being Isaac’s favourite, and Jacob Rebekah’s--and, in so doing, attains what was Esau‘s (the warrior/protector son) birthright. Jacob is a thief and a liar, encouraged into such an action by the wife and mother of those whom he would deceive! Why do you choose to distance yourself from such a core teaching when this is the very ancestral lineage, your heritage and legacy, you make claim to as a Jew? Why, whilst your fellow Jews and Judeo-Christians wage war upon the sons of Ishmael, accusations of evil-doing dripping from the haunting and hypocritical tongues of the same ancestry you seek to claim? How, as a Jew, will you distance yourself from this aspect of your character, whilst your brethren in Israel continue to mow down a line of Esau’s descendants in your name and the name of a god who would turn you against your own father and blood brother?"

First, there is a Jewsih dissident position against occupation of 'Palestine' and against the treatment of Palestinians. What possible function does this Biblical story have in this context? Your reading of it seems very superficial. What is one to glean from this? Do you think this explains the post-war Jewish takeover of ertswhile Palestine?

There is such a heavy inflection in all this, and now the use of 'Mr Jacob' and gilding the lily of high-faluting prose.

What reaction do you expect, my sugar glider?

http://australian-animals.net/

And the final cliche---stunning!---a woman accusing a man of behaving like a woman. Did you think that one up yourself? Next you'll deliver a karate chop or something...

;-)

"I suspect it's easy to find out all the evil things Jews do because like everyone else, they are constantly doing evil things. The problem is not with the camera. Whether you are on the left or the right, Jews are doing evil things. The problem is the fact that the camera is focusing on the evil of the Jews, while missing the evil of everyone else. Wait a minute: the camera is noticing the evils of everyone else, and the Jews -- like everyone else -- are presenting problems. So the problem is, obviously, with everyone... and probably me as well."

Trevor, I feel you're slipping on me. You are moving into the wishy-washy relativist position. Jews are the author of evil, don't you get it? Didn't you see (Fucking Jews!) Mel Gibson's flick? Haven't you read the relevant Gospel, say Luke? Just as humankind was betrayed by that devilish serpent and so flung from Paradise, Jesus was betrayed by Judas' kiss, and Judas is none other than the same slimey deceiver. Jews are the Devil's people, Trevor, and we have a special relationship with Evil. We represent it, we carry it, and we use all our intellectual tricks to confuse you poor gentile galoots (except for a notable Australian bad-ass who eats Jews for breakfast). You might say to me that the story of the Wandering Jew is just a silly myth, but the Wandering Jew was there when Christ was murdered! He saw and he heard, and he was punished by God himself to wander the Earth until the Savior returns and to tell the Truth about the Jewish infestation!

There is Zionist conspiracy (I know this because I am part of it, and I go to the meetings, I've already told you that I receive checks) to control the whole Earth. In order to control the whole earth, and to have our way with you, the poor goy-steer, we have to control all ideas, and we do! Jews dominate ideas, frame all discourse, and so keep you mystified and weak! (Until you begin to 'think like a man' and then you simply turn over the whole table in your Righteous Indignation).

But this domination by us is not carried out through 'manly' force, but through feminine cunning. Eloquent discourse. Tricky discourse. (Just try to imagine a drooling gentile Polish peasant who can't read who gets so turned around when the literate Jew opens his mouth. Then you'll understand the sort of power we all have, and the power that must be resisted, except with some of our Australian sisters! Wow!)

Get with the program. If you can't locate and brand evil, if you can't clearly distinguish and name the Evil of the Jew, if you can't distinguish the Good (you) from the Evil (us), you are lost.

You heard it from a Jew...

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