GENIUS FORUMS

This entire thread reminded me of a thought I had way back in high school when I first started to seriously pay attention to world affairs. If the Jews were as mistreated by history as they themselves believe to be the case, why would the Jews want to have a specific location on the world map - i.e., a state - now that nuclear weapons exist? Not just nuclear weapons, but thermonuclear weapons? The devastation of a thermonuclear event is so much more widespread that precise targeting is almost unnecessary. If history has been so bad to the Jews, why would they think it is a good idea to be all in one place in a thermonuclear age?

Everything would have gone so much more smoothly for the Jews if they hadn't picked Barabbas.

Many people don't know this, but there were 3 choices, not just two, as was recorded. There was Jesus of course, Barabbas, and Weisenheimer.

Three-quarters of the Jews assembled clammored for Weisenheimer and THAT was the cause of all future problems.

.


-Alex Jacob-
Many people don't know this, but there were 3 choices, not just two, as was recorded. There was Jesus of course, Barabbas, and Weisenheimer.

Three-quarters of the Jews assembled clammored for Weisenheimer and THAT was the cause of all future problems.

-tomas-
Yeah, yeah, suppose it was 'the jews Inc.' who imported [the macaw] from South America? They run the export/import business at the crossroads of Europe, Asia, Africa.

One of the two main reasons for all the warfare. That parcel of land controls the trade routes of three continents. A real reason for British (european influence) in the area.

Hijacking commercial ships laden with crude, grain etc. is just the latest way European interests are upping the ante. These "pirates" are paid off by big business to do this very thing we see unfolding. Interesting they are being sent to Kenya, of all places, for trial. Guess this is as good as any venue to set a legal precedent...

Studying geography - what a beautiful choice!

Tomas Note: 'christian puppets .ca' - nice web find, Alex :-)

PS- I'll reveal the second reason in another post if or when it becomes apparent that that is where the discussion is going.

.

.

Tomas Note: Had you on 'ignore' for a while. Was a bit miffed about some comments in the Biden/Palin thread. You are temporarily-on-reprieve. However, I reserve the right to resubmit you to Herod (QRS) and their lions den.

Anyway, who's running the show?

.......................................................


-Alex Jacob-
Now, I see Barack Hussein Obama as little less than the Anti-Christ. I repudiate him, I say 'Get thee behind me, Barack!'

-tomas-
Checking out today's cabinet selections, looks like my old buddy Tom Daschle is getting the Health and Human Services post. Guess he's being paid back for authorizing the 2nd attack on Iraq, in 2002. For those not in the loop, he was majority leader of the Senate, because some stupid senator switched party's in mid-2001. Yup, some "new blood" in Obama's 'Change' government.

Eric Holder, another fresh face! Hillary at State - my my, another Saul Alinsky disciple...




-Alex peers into his black mirror-
There will come a day when we all have direct 'feeds' right into our minds, no need for an electronic intermediary.

-tomas-
Get rid of those mercury fillings...




-Alex surmises-
Just like today, with Blue-tooth gadgets, you see people walking down the street talking to themselves,

-tomas-
Oh wow, thought I was in the Alzheimer thread for a moment :-/


-Alex furrows his brows-
in the Obamaian future the 'feed' we receive will function as our lens for the interpretation of this entire reality,

-tomas-
I've been having a couple of LSD flashbacks lately, hmmm....




-Alex-
and THAT is when Space Captain Yahweh will come back to set up his infernal kingdom.

-tomas-
How is that one different from Steve Miller's 'Space Cowboy'? Bet you weren't ready for that...




-Alex questions The One-
Why didn't we listen to Tomas!?! Why?!?

-tomas-
I'll get back with ya on that (as I'm in the middle of a very important call).

.

.

The Devastating Obama Depression

Dow plunges below 8000

http://finance.yahoo.com

Tomas Note: Look for crude to bottom out at $40 bbl.

.

What the hell has that got to do with Obama, Tomas?

A web-site that offers an intersting slice-of-life in Israel.

Givat Haviva, one of my favorite Israel Foundations. Worth looking over their program.

Dan Rowden wrote:What the hell has that got to do with Obama, Tomas?

Middle Eastern Affairs namely Israel Inc.

By the time this fellow reaches the White House on January 20th, 2009, the people will be clamoring for this "change" to happen. The Dow has been tanking most every day since the election. He isn't gonna "change" a thing. The more (former) Clinton appointees he nominates .. Wall Street will continue its downward spiral. Word is out that Larry Summers will be the next Treasury secretary. They're just cleaning out the last of the suckers stupid enough to invest their life savings... The G-20 Summit proves it.

It's much like where this thread is going, what does the Middle East have to do with Barack Obama (perhaps) being next president of the U.S.?

I guess the thread should be retitled to Alex's musings on Israel & the jews...

PS - Can the thread be retitled since Samadhi has been permanently banned? I realize threads go off topic :-| .. and probably stay that way. Or, when he does take over, maybe his first order of business will be to send [surge] the American army towards Jordan and Afghanistan. The borders of Israel will be shaved back to 1949 according to what the Saudi's are proposing. The troops will be needed to quell the palestinians living in Jordan. The King of Jordan is nothing more than a created-pawn of the House of Windsor lead by QE2. Oh, this thread is supposed to be about Brother Barack. Oh no, wait a minute, the new White House Counsel is another "change" retread (Castro's lawyer) Gregory Craig. Didja hear that Al-Qaida calls Obama 'House Negro'? Ummm... McCain wins Missouri by 3,632 votes out of 2.9 million cast. Eeks, the Republicans are trying to steal the election like they did with Florida in 2000! I demand a recount .. all Al Gore had to do though, was win his home state of Tennessee. Dang! The Republicans stole the 2004 election with vote fraud in Ohia (blah bla). Geez, what happened? How come it didn't happen in 2008? Oh yeah, the armies (barbarians) are approaching the Gates of Jerusalem! Where is that tin-foil hat when I need it? Yeah yeah, I've retitled a couple (more like 27-28 threads) of mine to "change" [revolve] with the times..

PS - to Alex - let's hear some of your musings on the giant fat boy from planet x that's gonna come down and start the inferno..

Edited twice: to make even less coherent and more or less on-topic

(I picked the Lender's bagel with arsenic spread).

War - always the taxpayers choice!



.

I don't think you've demonstrated any causal link between Obama's election and slides in the Dow.

Dan Rowden wrote:I don't think you've demonstrated any causal link between Obama's election and slides in the Dow.

I went back and added since you posted this.

PS - to Alex make that Space Captain Yahweh... not the giant fat phrat boy from planet x.

PS - I love you Alice B Toklas :-)

.

Dan Rowden wrote:The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories

Gawd dang already, this website is making me uneasy. Tomas, get yer M-16 and M-79. The leftwing fascist storm troopers are banging on your door.

In reality, reminds me of VietNam. The hut to hut searches anyway. Though, I didn't butt any civilians.

Thanks Dan, really.

Human Rights are only for the unborn.

.

Dan, Tomas's dittoing.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/ ... guest.html

I went through almost the whole site and thought it was very good. I am going to make a point of calling them and talking to them.
An interesting aside---maybe it has relevance and maybe it doesn't---is the following: If the people who run that organization---committed Israelis and Jews---were to read what you have written about European anti-Semitism, your views on the Holocaust, and perhaps if you were to mention this choice line:

"The reality of the various camps was complicated and how people were treated tended to vary significantly depending on the location. But certainly labour was a factor for some. At least people didn't die from boredom"[my added italics]

...it is my personal opinion that they'd recognize you instantaneously for what you are.

I don't have the impression that your endeavor, whatever it is, would be recognized as having any sort of link to helpfulness. Here's another personal fave of mine:

"Germany decided even before the war got under way that the Jews were a social enemy. The origins of that view are themselves socially complex and cannot be simply swept aside with glib remarks about anti-Semitism [italics mine]".

How would you explain yourself to Rabbis for Human Rights?, one of the groups that supports B'Tselem? I mean, what would you say? I detest your 'dopey religion' but let us all work together to...end the human rights abuses in the Occupied Territories? How do you think they---committed, religious Israelis---would receive the bearded pontificator of righteousness from Australia?

The whole purpose of this conversation, of my participation in it, was to outline constuctive, common-sense routes to real peace alternatives, and to separate out the jack-asses, those who without really having concern for the issue become the champion of tirades about it, tirades against Israel and Jews and Jewishness, yet set themselves up as if they have something helpful to contribute. But as I said, whose opinions often reduce to defining Jews out of existence or, at some core, denying their state the right to exist. It is a destructive work, a burrowing under, something rodent-like.

Alex Jacob wrote: The whole purpose of this conversation, of my participation in it, was to outline constuctive, common-sense routes to real peace alternatives, and to separate out the jack-asses, those who without really having concern for the issue become the champion of tirades about it, tirades against Israel and Jews and Jewishness, yet set themselves up as if they have something helpful to contribute. But as I said, whose opinions often reduce to defining Jews out of existence or, at some core, denying their state the right to exist. It is a destructive work, a burrowing under, something rodent-like.

It is true, the issue is politically, symbolically, economically, culturally a terribly loaded basket.

In the most general sort of way I say that those who show interest in this question must demonstrate a real interest, an unbiased interest, in understanding it and, after understanding is gained, then working toward proposing solutions. If any proposed solution has to maintain Israel as sovereign Jewish state, or defining Jews as a unified historical people, then right from the start one easily recognizes that one is talking to some species of moron, and there can be no conversation. Indeed, one actually must resist such a moron, oppose him and discredit him.

[You see now I hope, Alex, how pointless your own writing is when you have read it from the other side yourself as it goes nowhere. Anybody can say these things and avoid any progress in debate.Which is probably exactly what is desired by those wielding it; exclusion by rhetorical means]

An article with questions about Obama's Israel position. (From Electronic Intifada)
____________________________________________________

Yes, Diebert. These are very contended issues, and I will repeat what was stated in the video "Blood & Tears": the conflict encompasses a vast group of problems and clash of world-views. I believe that the conversation should be as open as possible, and that I find such an open conversation in even mainstream Israeli media, such as Ha'aretz, where Israelis are attempting to grapple with it, and to solve it. I don't find you engaging in that open conversation, and I see in what you write no knowledge of a more centrist Israeli position, nor do you seem even aware of Israeli security concerns, nor have you even even mentioned the known fact that many surrounding countries and factions have sworn their intention to destroy Israel if they can. If you were to acknowledge these things, which would mean that you'd have to actually look into them, to understand them, and if you were to them re-approach the issue, your position would likely be more balanced.

Because you don't include this other view, this other reality, because it is deliberately absent, one assumes---I assume---your desire and your hope is something else, that you are involved not in a program of constructive helping but of destructive under-burrowing, and that there is a sort of darker motivation to your interest in these issues. What that is, I cannot say, so I only say I suspect this is the case. The reason I state this is not because I suppose I will or can influence you---one hardly imagines one could influence such geniuses as we have running around here---but because I believe there are many different people who read here, and perhaps they might be influenced away from destructive programs and toward constructive programs.

brad walker wrote:Dan, Tomas's dittoing.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/ ... guest.html

Brad,

No, haven't listened to his show but when he first started out like, 1992-1993 or so. Nor read his website save for one I caught on a different "news service" provided in my incoming email box that I subscribe to.

However, I'd like to play a round of golf with him, he's slimmed down you know. Think it was Al Franken who was on his case (at some past time) with some book he'd written.

He's quite learned on sports though, usta work for the Kansas City Royals baseball organization back in the 1980s.

Comes from a family of lawyers, his brother was is? on the Arkansas (or Missouri) state supreme court.

After listening to a couple of his radio-tv shows all those years ago (early 1990s), found him to be rather annoying (kinda like you). :-)

Don't follow/read his stuff at all.

He's just another well-paid off leftwing fascist posing as a rightwing fascist.

.

Dr. Akbar Ahmed on Dialog.

brad walker wrote:Dan, Tomas's dittoing.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/ ... guest.html

Good grief. Good ol' Rush, the bigoted moron's thinking man. Such people make the idiots of the left look really smart.

Alex Jacob wrote:Dr. Akbar Ahmed on Dialog.

The dialogue between Islam and Judaism already exists. Indeed, there's no real conflict between the two (aside from each necessarily thinking the other to be religiously misguided). The problem is that Zionism represents a significant departure from the classic relation the two have had because of its political and complex ethnic and cultural nature. The main problem is that many Muslims don't perceive Zionism as an expression of Judaism at all. Therefore, dialogue is difficult to achieve.

Alex Jacob wrote:The whole purpose of this conversation, of my participation in it, was to outline constuctive, common-sense routes to real peace alternatives, and to separate out the jack-asses, those who without really having concern for the issue become the champion of tirades about it, tirades against Israel and Jews and Jewishness, yet set themselves up as if they have something helpful to contribute. But as I said, whose opinions often reduce to defining Jews out of existence or, at some core, denying their state the right to exist. It is a destructive work, a burrowing under, something rodent-like.

The problem, as I see it, Alex, is that Zionist protagonists come to this "dialogue" with an attitude that makes it nigh impossible. That is, one of their absolute rectitude in all things. They want to set the entirety of the agenda and not accept even the slightest criticism. That's a huge stumbling block. Every time you post you scream this mentality from the mountain tops.

Talking about the right of the Jewish state to exist seems like a meaningless thing to me. It exists. The question is when the hell are they going to compromise properly and allow a Palestinian state to likewise exist. The bellicose bullshit from neighbors about the destruction of Israel stems from this impasse. Bellicose bullshit is also part of the rhetorical manner of the region.

B'Tselem is an excellent and well balanced resource for information on these issues. And I don't give a fig what they'd think of my views.

Dan wrote:

"The dialogue between Islam and Judaism already exists. Indeed, there's no real conflict between the two (aside from each necessarily thinking the other to be religiously misguided). The problem is that Zionism represents a significant departure from the classic relation the two have had because of its political and complex ethnic and cultural nature. The main problem is that many Muslims don't perceive Zionism as an expression of Judaism at all. Therefore, dialogue is difficult to achieve."

Where does this 'dialogue' exist? Jewish scholars and historians, at least of 30-40 years ago, pretty much dismiss the tenets of Mohammedanism, and they describe Mohammad himself as an illiterate drunk who robbed wealthy Jews to get his organization up and running. I am sure it is not entirely fair, but that is how the story goes. And what do they say about Jews? ;-)

It doesn't, in fact, really hinge on how Muslims 'perceive' Zionism, if by Zionism you mean Israel nationhood. This is actually a big part of the point. The state of Israel, historically, begins in outright opposition to the will of Muslims. It is an audacious error of history, and an error that has to be corrected. And, dialogue to have any meaning, has to start from one core premise: Israel exists and will continue to exist. There is no negotiation about this. There, in that core, is the 'basic power principal' in operation. This is the core position of Israel and Jews that has to be accepted.

Definitions of 'Zionism'
Arabs and anti-Semitism
________________________________________________________

B'Tselem is nowhere near as unbiased and angelic as you may think. It has received a good deal of criticism for various reasons. Commitee for accuracy in Middle East Reporting has taken issue with elements of their work, so at the very least, and as usual, the ideological battle continues, and it is not all perfectly decided.

Because these issues are so polarized, even among Israelis, it is always difficult to get to the bottom of things, yet I would certainly not dismiss them (B'Tselem). I called them today but their offices were closed. I'd like to see what they have to say for themselves. Myself, I grew up with the political left (B'Tselem is undoubtedly a Left-leaning organization), and these were the first concoctions I drank. I can honestly say I know these narratives quite well. Personally, I remain socially progressive but now I never, ever approach the Left narratives uncritically. It is natural and habitual to examine the narratives of the Right and to look at their presentations with a jaundiced eye. In respect to the Left, you have to find out what the 'under-structure' of the thinking is, and if it turns out is some branch of Marxism or 'anarcho-socialism' (Chomsky's drink-of-choice)---that longs for a universal classless world society or what-have-you---then you can work your way back through the whole position, and in my case at least, see where it is deficient.

Nevertheless, the Left and the Leftist view-structure can be very useful. I consider it essential to read Chomsky, for example, for much the same reason that it is relevant and necessary to read Machiavelli: they are experts at diagnosing the core power principal in politics. But, overall, it is a lopsided political philosophy that always seems to attract lopsided individuals, conflicted individuals with unreal idealism, idees fixes, and often an unrecognized ressentiment. Often, political romanticism runs through all these discourses and it attracts romantic idealists.

Alex Jacob wrote:You misunderstood, most likely because you want to or need to. There are oppressed people in many, many states all over the world, possibly millions, and no one focuses on them because they have their preferred area of interest.

It's more interesting to examine the dungeons of minority oppression: its whole of psychological dynamic. What I propose here is that the oppressed are finding themselves in that situation for two distinct reasons:

1. They are in the minority and weak and that makes oppression doable. Just that, nothing more. There's this drive in humans, call it evil if you want, to home in and punish just because it's possible, as a means to assert, dominate, thrive or at least give instinct driven, less sublimated expression to it. Lets call it the omega effect, but while in animal groups the omega functions mostly as lightning conductor for group anxieties, with humans there seems to be a twist and although this could indicate anxiety levels are much higher, it might just as well demonstrate that instincts are fucked up and reflected in some distorted moral. Gay bashing is in the same way not just an attempt to prove manhood but a homing in on what is seen through deeper instinctive reasoning (not necessarily accurate) as omega.

2. They are in the minority but strong. Their presence could be seen as actual danger for the coherence and well-being of an entity. One attempts assimilation and if not succeed annihilation, which can take form of disabling the minorities chances to prosper and grow. This is now about group survival, in a twisted way exampled by the Nazi ideal of racial purity - a pseudo-scientific front for the naked drive to identity, national brotherhood to supply strength when all else is weakening.

Through this prism one could analyze structural oppression of Jews in the same way as Roman Gypsies, Serbs and Palestinians. It's never about the bad element they contain [there always is something terrifyingly dangerous present] but it's about how far this element can serve as justification to act out the raw principle of domination.

I wonder sometimes what could happen if genuinely concerned people really were to educate themselves in a fair and balanced way, and if they made precisely the same demands on Israel's opponents as they make on the Israelis, and if there were a mechanism of enforcement that would satisfy real Israeli apprehensions. That is the road that could open up to solutions.

Do you really have the impression this is lacking? You should be mindful however for insisting perfect equality in situations where the balance power (money, cloud, know-how) is so skewed as here. With greater power comes greater responsibility. If Israel doesn't desire this responsibility let them give it up to those willing to carry the load and act wisely.

but I do also see Israel's situation as one of survival. It is after all only 60 or so years old. Personally---again personally, just my opinion, other opinions are possible---I am very, very happy that the Israelis have this weapon and not, say, the Iraqis or the Iranians. Absolutely! Notice that it has not been used.

It has not been used, so that means what? Huh? I've contacted to a hit man in your area but I haven't payed him yet, he just hangs around - just in case. Notice he has not been used. Oh, the moment you do notice it, you might not notice it really.... :)

I am really, really sorry that the world is as messed up as it is, Diebert. I sense that you want to hang so much responsibility for that on the Israelis. If I misread you then I will retract that assessment, but this is what I see in your writing.

The world is not messed up in my eyes, but the reasoning, deep down sanity level, of what seems to be a majority of its inhabitants. The world of course, always being the others, the sum of all our perception management, the grant total of our emotions.

Alex Jacob wrote:.. I see in what you write no knowledge of a more centrist Israeli position, nor do you seem even aware of Israeli security concerns, nor have you even even mentioned the known fact that many surrounding countries and factions have sworn their intention to destroy Israel if they can. If you were to acknowledge these things, which would mean that you'd have to actually look into them, to understand them, and if you were to them re-approach the issue, your position would likely be more balanced.

Absence of an argument is not an argument in itself. If a Palestinian was in here defending the use of attacks on civilians the discussion could be different and he would be challenged on his reasoning.

Of course you like to sit in some hyper-centrist view, overarching the discussion, playing both sides perhaps when needed but you should realize and remember the start, which was about Obama surrounding himself with remarkably many pro-Israel Jews, which provoked you in celebrating the alliance between Christendom, the United States and Israel. And my main argument always was that this didn't seem to benefit the USA at all, that they had a few crucial and diametrically opposing interests on the geopolitical stage. A question you didn't seem to be able to deal with seriously.

Only now you try to make this discussion about something else entirely, some analysis who is right and wrong in the conflict around Palestine. While I do think that Israel is dealing with the conflict entirely irrational at the moment and most of all unproductive, this doesn't mean there are no causes outside the borders [and which borders? that's another problem, a generation spanning identity crisis..]

I could expect some change from an emerging Palestine state too, but for real change one needs power first, otherwise one keeps reacting only. This leads to the greater question of which participant will recognize its lack of power, and the politics of resentment and fear that grow out of this.