GENIUS FORUMS

What astonishes me is that out of all genocides, the one we must not forget is the Jewish genocide. 3,000,000 Christian Poles were killed -- and they barely get a mention in the avalanche of literature on “The Holocaust.” Kind of like incidentals, you know?

Naturally, though, we all must be constantly and openly reminded lest we forget that unlike any other race on Earth the history (and, therefore, karma) of the Jews begins and ends with with the Holocaust. It was such a tremendously painful birth that some 3,000,000 Christian Poles who were killed at the same time barely get a mention. They weren’t born on that day, unlike the Jews -- they simply died on it, like after-birth, tossed in the bin.

Course, too little attention is given the fact that this race -- “Jew” -- is not, in fact, a race. It is a religion. Yet, in all matters they are referred to as if they are a race. What is the difference between a European Jew and an Arab Jew? These people have no land to hail from. Is it any wonder they, in insisting on their Jewishness, hold so dearly to the idea of G-d and their consequent status as the “Chosen People”?

So, we gave them “Israel” -- the “Jewish” state.

Funny that the US should be pro separation of church and state in the homeland and directly anti it otherwise, implicit in financial and military support.

I reckon the Turks in Germany should be sent back to the Middle East -- Palestine -- and the European Jews should go home. The Arab Jews and the Arab -- well, to be consistent with the idiotic mentality used to set these people apart, the Arab Arabs, got on rather well prior to that.

When we go back into the archives of history, what do we find? On what grounds do we decide to support “Israel” over “Palestine”? Well, we find that in the Hebrew scriptures Joshua conquered Canaan: “the Promised Land.” Promised by Yahweh, the God of War, whose promise to them was held good, apparently, by virtue of their victory in this case; and all to preserve the lineage through which the messiah would come. This omnipotent God having to “preserve” a lineage. I mean, what sort of a wank is that? Is it only considered preservation when it comes to the “Jews”? Oh, that’s right, they’re the Chosen People.

“Cities Alloted to the Levites,” Hebrew Scriptures:

43 So YHWH gave to Israel all the land which he had sworn to give to their fathers. They took possession of it and settled in it. 44 YHWH gave them rest on every front just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of their enemies remained facing them. YHWH gave them power over all their enemies. 45 Not one promise of all the good promises that YHWH spoke to the house of Israel remained unfulfilled. Everything came true. (21:43-45)

Need we delve further, really, except to ask, who were the Canaanites and what was done to them, according to this same biblical account of history?

Now, these Chosen People were required to commit such heinous crimes, such genocide, as:

Numbers 31
(Bible quotes courtesy of the KJV)

1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people…

17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

But what happened before this? God, being really peeved over all the evil in the world, decided to make it rain forty days and forty nights.

Then, there was a lot of begatting and begetting, and the sons of Noah, Ham, Shem and Japheth repopulated the Earth. Apparently, God’s plans fucked up again. Canaan, son of Ham, ended up with the following territory:

Genesis 10

19And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.
20These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.

32These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

But the warring God who upon seeing the world in the grips of evil and causing a flood to cleanse it, still wasn’t satisfied:

Genesis 11: The Tower of Babel

4And they [the people of the Earth; the descendants of Noah et al] said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Ya, the Holy Babble, indeed.

That was fantastic, Leyla. Though I wish I had read it in the New York Times, a full page and not hidden in the editorial section. How much would that cost, I wonder. I'll put up a few bucks.

Recall Sharon, his recent illness, you couldn't turn on American news and avoid it, every burp and fart he made was reported, and over again, I kept thinking "Shit, is this the president of the united states dying there in that hospital! Why the fu*k should we care about that fat jewish criminal, shit what is it, do the jews own CNN and the BBC or something? Shit, who gives a rats-ass what happens to that piece of jewish shit, even if he were a saint? How many people in America give a shit? Maybe a few million at most, maybe 5%. That guys from another country, we never hear so much about the lives and death of other allies' heads of state, do we? I dont think so. Shit! Whatafuc...."

By the way, is he dead yet? ;)

I can't help think, what's the point of all this, what does it matter, oil and all, what does it matter if we are literally destroying the planet itself, to the point it cannot sustain higher life. If all our subterranous exploration, if we're removing stuff essential for the planet to hold itself together, if the oil and gas is essential to keep things in balance, to keep the waters cool and the hurricanes mild, to keep the plates from sliding and earthquakes to a minimum, none of this chatter is necessary, fruitful. Are we even discussing the most important topics here? Dont forget, of course, the poisioning of the air and athmosphere. Doesnt is seem justified and reasonable that a greedy thoughtless people would eventually destroy their own world and then pay the ultimate price for it, pay with their own lives?
If anything else should happen I personally would be surprised.
The oil, the wars, the strife, the nationalism, the advancements, enlightenment its all pale in comparison, kids stuff.

Lenny! [slap]

I think I prefer your manic hues over the depressive ones.

From where I sit, this doesn't make any sense:

The oil, the wars, the strife, the nationalism, the advancements, enlightenment its all pale in comparison, kids stuff.

In comparison to what?? You haven't really left much to the imagination -- I reckon that pretty much covers everything, no?

Is that what they call legalism, Leyla?
Perhaps someone else got something out of my post. There's no need to understand every word, you know.
Nevertheless, you're a smart girl, try stretching your imagination a bit more.

Well, you have to admit, it was a pretty good indictment of apathy. :)

Australian Jewish News (AJN) Online

February 24, 2006
EDITORIAL
Denial imprisoned

THERE are few Jews, if any, who will shed a tear over the conviction and imprisonment of Holocaust-denier David Irving in Austria this week. Although he conveniently and disingenuously expressed regret and remorse at the very last minute, for far too many years Irving had lent a respectable academic veneer to the reprehensible and patently-antisemitic practice of denying the Holocaust.

Irving was stripped of his academic credentials when he lost his famous libel suit against American historian Dr Deborah Lipstadt in 2000, and his morally-justified punishment will now continue in the confines of an Austrian jail. The Irving verdict, it must also be said, comes at an especially opportune time, sending an unequivocal signal of the western world’s emphatic rejection of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s outrageous Holocaust denial.

Austria, the birthplace of Adolf Hitler and a cornerstone of the Third Reich, is eminently qualified to render judicial notice on the historical veracity of the destruction of the Jews.

Nonetheless, Irving’s imprisonment should also arouse a distinct sense of discomfort for Jews. We concur with the concern voiced by Dr Lipstadt that Irving might now ironically rehabilitate himself and re-emerge as a martyr in the eyes of his Jew-baiting and Holocaust-denying admirers. We might also note Austria’s zeal in prosecuting a British tourist compared to its historical complacency in exposing its own past Nazi war criminals.

Finally, at a time when the western world is campaigning for freedom of speech as an absolute value, in the context of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, the trial of Irving might be construed as a glaring inconsistency. There are only 11 countries in which Holocaust denial is an explicit crime — including the obviously-justified [hm] Israel, Austria and Germany. Common-law countries, including the US, UK and Australia, have refrained from specific legislation against Holocaust denial. On balance — judging by the effectiveness of public opinion and racial vilification laws in stamping out denial, or at least relegating it to the gutters of civilised discourse — it is a model which seems to be working.

~

Wow. Talk about bald-faced. Gutters of civilised discourse? What an entirely propagandist statement -- way too ambiguous for my liking.

(Emphasis in italics and bold and "hm" in square brackets, mine.)

"There are only 11 countries in which Holocaust denial is an explicit crime"

It's a worry.

If we outlaw all outrageously false views, then all creationists would have to be imprisoned, followed by all Christians, and then all lovers.

I believe there would be a lot more hard evidence than there is if a systematic genocidal campaign to wipe out six million people had occurred.

I don't deny that 1-2 million were killed in concentration camps, mass shootings and burials, and through starvation and violence in ghettos.

I wouldn't deny for a second that Nazi Germany had perverted elements such as the Einsatzgruppen. But there were also noble elements in it. Hitler was no doubt a pretty fucked-up guy, but not completely without a single redeeming quality because of that. It's easy to judge his entire being on a few (if majorly) warped elements, but as Weininger said, everyone is a mixture of cosmos and chaos anyway.

The main issue I have is that leaving aside a million Jews exterminated through means other than gas chambers, there remains the question how in less than three years (since Wannsee in 1942 when the Final Solution was supposedly decided upon [despite the absence of any existing documents proving that]), a staggering 5,000,000 Jews were supposedly cremated. In 1,000 days (1942-45), supposedly an average of 5,000 Jews were gassed and cremated daily, every single day.

Cremationists will tell you it takes around 3-4 hours to fully incinerate an average-sized human body so nothing but ash remains. A maximum of 6-8 bodies per crematorium or furnace could therefore be fully disposed of in any one day. There would need to be 625 furnaces operating 24 hours a day to handle 5,000 bodies daily. There would have been thousands of witnesses to this (i.e. gas chamber and crematorium operators). But we've hardly seen any interviews with them, or anywhere near that amount of furnaces in all the concentration camps combined.

If the reports on genocides during the more recent civil wars in Yugoslavia and Iraq are any indication, official numbers often wildly vary and become very hard to verify after the fact, especially if there's a lot of warfare, dislocation and bad administration occurring simultaneously. Error margins with factors of 5x, 10x and 100x are not uncommon. Mass graves filled with "hundreds of thousands" (and quoted as such by politicians and initial researchers) have been changed to tens of thousands later on (when the political requirements changed) and sometimes went even back to a mere couple of hundred or thousand, but probably reported a hundred times by different people.

Even without being able to verify the facts myself, it's quite likely the scale of such emotionally and politically charged events, like genocides always are, is quite likely in reality smaller than commonly is assumed. This fuels the idea, as raised by Iran, that the holocaust functions currently more as myth than as historical reality. It's not a black and white situation (extermination real or not), it's about numbers in relation to all other suffering in WW2 by so many. Or the civilian suffering in the Vietnam war, or the civilian suffering during the Iraq sanctions (by the UN) and bombing countries (by the US or NATO).

So there's a motive here to prevent anyone doubting the official figures of the Holocaust or genocides by Saddam or Milosevic: we don't want to go into the topic of the possibility 'genocides' are occurring that are as well organized by the 'allied forces' themselves. We want to remain the 'good' ones, the victims.

It's a worry.

If we outlaw all outrageously false views, then all creationists would have to be imprisoned, followed by all Christians, and then all lovers.

I'd love to be able to say that I really hate to be what might be considered pedantic, but -- truth be known, I don't. (Just in case this is not obvious, by now.)

What is the difference between a creationist and a Christian, and why would you kill off other creationists before Christians?

Do you mean to imply that there is a category of creationist that is more outrageously false than Christianity? If so, please specify details.

PS: are you a Christian, Kevin?

Leyla Shen wrote:What is the difference between a creationist and a Christian, and why would you kill off other creationists before Christians?

Not all Christians are creationists. Creationism is a result (generally speaking) of a literal interpretation of Genesis, and a rejection of evolution as being contrary to Genesis.

I haven't heard of any non-Christian creationists, but wouldn't be that surprised of there were some; people have all kinds of wacky beliefs.

I'm not clear on whether there are still any Flat Earthers, but the motivation is the same as with Creationism (the Bible said it, that settles it).

Dave Hodges wrote:

Not all Christians are creationists. Creationism is a result (generally speaking) of a literal interpretation of Genesis, and a rejection of evolution as being contrary to Genesis.

So, you are saying that Christians who believe in evolution but maintain their religiosity according to the New Testament, which is hinged on the Old Testament and is, at best, a more euphemistic translation of it but far from an outright denial, are less creationist than "creationists."

Is Kevin a Christian? If not, why not?

US 'planning attack on Iran'
From correspondents in Washington
April 10, 2006

PLANS are under way for a massive US bombing strike on sites where Iran is believed to be enriching uranium before President George W. Bush leaves office in less than three years' time.

Both Mr Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney regard Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a new Hitler who cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons and carry out his fantasy of wiping Israel off the map.
Although they hope diplomatic efforts to restrain Iran will succeed, "it is not in their nature to bequeath the problem to their successors", a senior White House source said of the issue last week.

The Pentagon is believed to be considering options that would allow it to destroy facilities such as Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz in a single night of bombing.

A leading neo-conservative, Richard Perle, said an attack on Iran could "be over before anybody knew what had happened. The only question then would be what the Iranians might do in retaliation".

A story by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker magazine claims the Pentagon is also considering the use of a tactical nuclear weapon. The US refusal to rule out the nuclear option has reportedly led some officers to talk of resigning.

"There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," Hersh quotes a Pentagon adviser as saying.

"This White House believes the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war."

Hersh reports that one option involves the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to ensure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz.

But military analysts believe that a strike with conventional weapons is much more likely. By 2008, a new bunker-busting missile called the Big Blu should be available to the US air force. The 13,600kg behemoth is being designed for dispatch by the B-series stealth bombers and can penetrate 30m under the ground before exploding.

Trident ballistic missiles, newly converted to carry conventional warheads, may also be available by 2008, providing Mr Bush with more attack options.

The Bush administration has been inviting military consultants and Middle East experts to the White House and Pentagon for advice.

The favoured scenario is an assault using a small number of attack aircraft flying out of the British dependency of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The British would have to approve the use of the US military base there for an attack, and would be asked to play a supporting role by providing air-to-air refuelling or sending surveillance aircraft, warships and submarines.

Senior Pentagon planners advised the White House recently they did not yet have accurate intelligence on the whereabouts of all Iran's nuclear enrichment sites and said several were buried under granite. At present an attack could hope to set back the Iranians' nuclear program by only two years.

US officials remain divided about the wisdom of a military strike. A senior White House source said opinion was in a "state of flux" and added: "We can bomb the sites, but what then?" It was important to plan for an escalation of the conflict, the source said.

White House insiders scoff that Bill Clinton left al-Qaeda unchecked. A nuclear-armed Iran, they believe, is too dangerous to be left to a potential Democrat president.

One date is said to be etched in the minds of military planners - 2008. Word has gone out that the Iranian nuclear crisis must be resolved by then or the Government of Mr Ahmadinejad, with its Israel-baiting rhetoric, will face dire military consequences.

The assumption that British forces would take part in an attack on Iran will be deeply embarrassing to the Blair Government. The Foreign Office has insisted a diplomatic solution is still possible.

Citing unnamed US officials and independent analysts, The Washington Post said yesterday no attack on Iran appeared likely in the short term, but officials were preparing for a strike as a possible option and using the threat to convince Iranians of the seriousness of US intentions.

Although a land invasion is not contemplated, military officers are weighing alternatives ranging from a limited air strike aimed at key nuclear sites to a more extensive bombing campaign designed to destroy an array of military and political targets, the Post said.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, is due in Iran on Wednesday to discuss Tehran's nuclear program. The IAEA's inspectors in Iran inspected the country's uranium enrichment facility in Natanz at the weekend.

The move comes after Mr Ahmadinejad restarted Iran's nuclear enrichment program, placing the country in breach of its international obligations and on a collision course with the West.

Seemingly emboldened by Washington's problems in Iraq, Mr Ahmadinejad continued his baiting of the West by staging ostentatious military exercises in the Gulf last week.

The hardware on display - missiles, torpedoes and rockets - may be no match for US weaponry, but it served as a warning of the disruption the Tehran regime could cause to the global economy by blocking the Straits of Hormuz, the corridor through which much of the Middle East's oil flows.

Revelling in the international spotlight and oblivious to his growing pariah status in the West, Mr Ahmadinejad will this week up the ante by hosting an international conference focused on Palestine and "the Holocaust myth".

The Sunday Times, Reuters, AFP

Leyla Shen wrote:So, you are saying that Christians who believe in evolution but maintain their religiosity according to the New Testament, which is hinged on the Old Testament and is, at best, a more euphemistic translation of it but far from an outright denial, are less creationist than "creationists."

Yes. They are still insane, but to a less extreme degree. They are willing to back off from some dogma if it is blatantly false.

Is Kevin a Christian? If not, why not?

That's for him to say.

If he considers himself to be Christian, it is some Kierkegaardian version of Christianity that is far from the mainstream, and certainly not of the hardcore literalist variety (which seems to be much less common outside the US).

Dave,

I really do like you, but…

That's for him to say.

No it’s not.

Can Kevin be a Kierkegaardian Christian and still be Kevin?

Both Mr Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney regard Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a new Hitler who cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons and carry out his fantasy of wiping Israel off the map.

[Nods] Mm-hm.

Thanks for that post, Martin. :)

Leyla Shen wrote: I really do like you, but…

I know, I know. We'll just be friends.

That's for him to say.

No it’s not.

Can Kevin be a Kierkegaardian Christian and still be Kevin?

You threw me for a bit of a loop there. I'm probably still missing what you are getting at.

Kevin has not answered the question as to whether he considers himself a Christian, but from

Kevin wrote:If we outlaw all outrageously false views, then all creationists would have to be imprisoned, followed by all Christians, and then all lovers.

...it's probably fair to assume that Kevin does not consider himself a Christian.

To me, the term "Christian" doesn't really mean a whole lot. In general, to me, it means "someone who calls himself a Christian," (albeit with negative connotations for me). There are plenty of people who consider themselves Christians who are not considered Christians by other people who think they are the real Christians.

DHodges wrote:

I know, I know. We'll just be friends.

Hell, now that I know this is like a university coffee shop: eh! I have you in my little black book in case I’m ever in your neighbourhood and in need. Just don't ask me to grow a beard.

You threw me for a bit of a loop there. I'm probably still missing what you are getting at.

...it's probably fair to assume that Kevin does not consider himself a Christian.

To me, the term "Christian" doesn't really mean a whole lot. In general, to me, it means "someone who calls himself a Christian," (albeit with negative connotations for me).

Yes, well -- I’m hoping to pull something together this weekend. The idea is tying in nicely with a few other threads happening at the moment.

There are plenty of people who consider themselves Christians who are not considered Christians by other people who think they are the real Christians.

[laughs] Indeed. And there would be some that do not consider themselves Christians but are considered real Christians by others.

I thought we were discussing Iran.

I am pretty disturbed by the Bush sabre rattling toward Iran. Up to now, a large part of the American populace only suspected Bush was mad. If we are to believe Seymour Hersch -- and I see no reason not to believe him -- Bush does not care much about the 2006 elections. He sees himself as a man of destiny with a window of opportunity to attack Iran.

I have always suspected that Bush was nuts. But, if he makes a move toward Iran -- with huge deficits and the US still dependent on oil -- well, that is the act of a madman. Big time.

It still astonishes me how the US public has finally turned against Bush. Took long enough.

I will not allow either my son or daughter to be drafted into the military for any Bush war.

Recently, someone here voiced the opinion that my concern about the draft is ridiculous -- because there is no draft. I am very cognizant that that could change at any moment.

The same person, I think, chastized my opinion that there is no middle class. I see only rich and poor. What used to be middle class is now poor. The other part that used to be middle class is now rich.

The influx of illegal labor in the US is creating a Third World US.

Faizi

Marsha wrote:

I thought we were discussing Iran.

Well, yeah. But then someone said "Nazi." So, this is a simplified version of how the discussion is still about Iran even though it appears not to be:

Iran=Nazi=anti-semitism=Jesus=Christianity=maybe kevin=kierkegaardian Christian=maybe not kevin....=A

No offense to Kevin but I basically don't give a shit whether he is or is not this thing or that thing.

I mistakenly thought this was a fairly serious discussion of the possibility of invading Iran.

Shows what I know. I apologize for butting in.

Thanks.

Faizi

That’s the second time you’ve felt you’ve butted in on a conversation I‘ve been involved in. I don’t ever feel you have “butted in.”

And, I am serious, Marsha.

If discussing Iran was as straightforward as you seem to be implying, there would be no Iran to discuss.

I dare say there are those who would consider your arguments on the subject not to be serious. I am not one of them. Do you think Kevin is?

If discussing Iran was as straightforward as you seem to be implying, there would be no Iran to discuss.

I think that discussion of Iran is straightforward. Iran is a country that recently claimed to have nuclear capability. That is what I have been discussing. I thought this was a political discussion. There is an Iran to discuss because there is an Iran that could be attacked by the US.

I dare say there are those who would consider your arguments on the subject not to be serious. I am not one of them. Do you think Kevin is?

No, I don't.

I do think that Kevin is much better at wisdom than he is at understanding politics and the root causes of war. I think it must be wonderful to be detached completely from the world but the world does exist. You can be Buddha and you can be Jesus. You can die on a cross a billion times and ignorance will persist.

People cry, "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus" and yet are ignorant these past two thousand years.

Followers of Buddha and Muhammad are ignorant. Buddhism is a fashionable religion -- The Religion of the Stars!!

Rather than stuffing one's beleagured arse down the philosophy hole, it may make some sense to educate oneself.

Beyond that, I could not care less what Kevin Solway thinks of what I write or think.

A few years back, I wrote extensively about Islam in a very seriously investigative way.

I gather that you have been writing to Kevin privately.

Faizi

...Beyond that, I could not care less what Kevin Solway thinks of what I write or think.

Yes, I see that. And I understand you on this subject, which is why I rarely comment on the things you say.

A few years back, I wrote extensively about Islam in a very seriously investigative way.

I remember seeing signs of it.

I gather that you have been writing to Kevin privately.

I have only ever corresponded with Kevin privately once, and that was to get a password for this forum. I have never initiated private messages to anyone on this forum, and continued only one such correspondence for any significant length of time.

I am interested, what made you gather that?