ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, December 02, 2012

Palestine is a recognized state

I'm sure the David Frum, Jon Podhoretz, and other advocates of open immigration will be eager to defend the right of the world's newest nationals to freely immigrate to Jerusalem now:
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas Sunday promised someday the PA flag would fly over “Jerusalem, eternal capital of the state of Palestine.” Thousands of people greeted Abbas rapturously upon his return from the United Nations, where the General Assembly granted the PLO, representing the PA, upgraded status as a nonmember observer state.
It seems strange that so many people are obtaining the right to self-determination around the world, with US support, with the noticeable exception of Americans.

Labels:

84 Comments:

Anonymous Cheddarman December 02, 2012 5:15 PM  

I wonder how much more land the Israelis will annex in the West Bank, to show their support for Palestinian statehood.

Sincerely,


Cheddarman

Anonymous realmatt December 02, 2012 5:20 PM  

We have another world war to go through before Vulcans get here, so just wait it out, guys.

Anonymous JT December 02, 2012 5:29 PM  

"It seems strange that so many people are obtaining the right to self-determination around the world, with US support, with the noticeable exception of Americans."

Amen.

Anonymous Sexual Chocolate (friend of Elmer) December 02, 2012 6:28 PM  

@realmatt December 02, 2012 5:20 PM

The Vulcans huh? [1] [You mean the ones with the pointy ears]



--------------
[1] Check out the editorial board, and writers/correspondents staff.

Anonymous Stilicho December 02, 2012 6:29 PM  

Next year, AlQuds.

Anonymous zen0 December 02, 2012 6:45 PM  

Also in the irony department, Israel had a ceremony today celebrate the stemming of illegal immigration and the human trafficking that accompanied it.

The U.S. State Department lists them as one of the top nations fighting illegal immigration and human trafficking.

I wonder where the U.S. is on that list?

Anonymous zen0 December 02, 2012 7:06 PM  

I wonder how much more land the Israelis will annex in the West Bank, to show their support for Palestinian statehood.

The day after the vote, they approved 3,000 more building permits for Judea-Samaria and East Jerusalem.

Heh heh.

Anonymous A Visitor December 02, 2012 7:11 PM  

"It seems strange that so many people are obtaining the right to self-determination around the world, with US support, with the noticeable exception of Americans." Unfortunately, the powers that be in DC view it as in our (collectively speaking the U.S. government's) interests to promote such action.

I'm not stupid to think even for a second that they'd grant any part of the U.S. wanting to peaceably self-determine the same privilege. Double standards...*sigh*

Anonymous todd December 02, 2012 7:22 PM  

I had an argument with an Israeli jew on election night.

He was going on and on how immigration was good for the US (he was elated Obama won). So I turned it on him:

"Just imagine how peaceful the middle east would be if Israel opened up it's borders ... if immigration is good for the US it would be great for Israel!"

He went spastic about how Israel was different.

Anonymous zen0 December 02, 2012 7:24 PM  

The U.S. has enough enemies that if a part of it wanted to go to the U.N. for a vote, they might get enough publicity and support to get people thinking about it.

Anonymous Heh December 02, 2012 7:41 PM  

Palestine probably does have an open borders policy, but for some incomprehensible reason nobody wants to emigrate to a shithole full of dirty imbeciles who are utterly in thrall to a medieval death cult and who incessantly provoke their powerful neighbor. (Hey, that sounds like just the place to start a business and raise the kids!)

Anonymous Idle Spectator December 02, 2012 7:46 PM  

(Hey, that sounds like just the place to start a business and raise the kids!)

Explosive vests in red, green, blue, and for the ladies, mauve. Dynamite or C4 options.

One size fits Al-Khaheed.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein December 02, 2012 7:53 PM  

medieval death cult

Don't you think you are being a little harsh on Orthodox Christians?

Anonymous The other skeptic December 02, 2012 8:13 PM  

Meanwhile, MA city offers Germs for Guns

Well, allegedly inactivated germs.

Anonymous swiftfoxmark2 December 02, 2012 8:45 PM  

It seems strange that so many people are obtaining the right to self-determination around the world, with US support, with the noticeable exception of Americans.

Yep, that about sums it up.

Anonymous Grinder December 02, 2012 8:50 PM  

Palestinians were dispossessed of their homeland. Since they were not impressed with that change and continue to resist in whatever manner they can, jews keep whining about 'terrorists'. I suppose when the formerly great United States is converted to an anyone-but-whites country or countries the decent thng to do will be to curl up in a ball and cry softly and not provoke your stronger neighbours (Mexico, Aztlan, Socialist (Black) Republic of America, or various autonomous United Nations protectorates of Islamics, aboriginal tribes, Chinese, Utah, etc.

Blogger tweell December 02, 2012 8:50 PM  

So, Palestine is a nation. Launching rockets at Israel (the #1 Palestinian sport) is now officially an act of war. Nations that lose wars historically lose territory.

I'd be tempted to announce a territory/attack policy, with additional penalties for injury and death, land to be taken at Israel's leisure. If they did that, the Palestine state would be entirely gone in less than five years.

Anonymous Oh well December 02, 2012 8:56 PM  

@tweel,

"This will give the Palestinians something to lose, and therefore they will behave better" was the theory behind the Oslo Accords.

Didn't work out that way. Instead, the Palestinians thought that getting half a loaf meant they would soon get the other half.

Anonymous zen0 December 02, 2012 9:17 PM  

Palestinians were dispossessed of their homeland.

Really. Who was the Monarch or President of the State of Palestine before more Jews showed up in an area that has a continuous Jewish presence for the last 3500 years?

The North American natives have more of a claim to the land usurped by the plundering Europeans than Arabs that gravitated to the area after the Jews made the land a viable countryside, able to support more of a population than wandering bedouins.

The inconvenient history of the area is readily available for study, if one is interested in doing other than swallowing and regurgitating Big Lie propaganda.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 02, 2012 9:30 PM  

The Army can help protect Palestinians from the Israelis

Anonymous Luscinia Hâfez December 02, 2012 10:06 PM  

What is this, surround bollocking?

Anonymous Stillicho December 02, 2012 10:17 PM  


Really. Who was the Monarch or President of the State of Palestine before more Jews showed up in an area that has a continuous Jewish presence for the last 3500 years?


Mehmed VI. Although it was merely a part of his empire and not a state.

Anonymous zen0 December 02, 2012 10:30 PM  

Mehmed VI. Although it was merely a part of his empire and not a state.

And when the British took it over in 1918, the same year Mehmed VI was exulted in the Ottoman Empire, it still was not a state.

So the point is?

Anonymous LuxLibertas December 02, 2012 10:35 PM  

@zeno any reading recommendations?

Anonymous Grinder December 02, 2012 10:52 PM  

zen0December 02, 2012 9:17 PM
Palestinians were dispossessed of their homeland.

Really. Who was the Monarch or President of the State of Palestine before more Jews showed up in an area that has a continuous Jewish presence for the last 3500 years?

The North American natives have more of a claim to the land usurped by the plundering Europeans than Arabs that gravitated to the area after the Jews made the land a viable countryside, able to support more of a population than wandering bedouins.

The inconvenient history of the area is readily available for study, if one is interested in doing other than swallowing and regurgitating Big Lie propaganda.


I said aboriginals. I am a native Canadian by virtue of my having been born here of two parents who are citizens and I am a european. Also, I didn't say Palestinians have a just claim to land occuppied by Israel. All land belongs to whomever is the strongest and can take and hold it by Natural Law. What I meant was that Palestinian resistance by whatever means possible is only to be expected and is unlikely to end until Israel or the Arab nations are destroyed. All jewish claims of believing in a just peace are the real Big Lie Propaganda since all their proposals include the Palestinians never regaining Arab East Jerusalem as their capital. I don't expect the jews to offer a just agreement, but they should do as they please without dragging USA, Canada, UK and the other ZOG zombie states into their mess.

As for dismissing the Arabs of the region as mere 'wandering Bedouins', are you deliberately ignoring the islamic sites in Jerusalem, many of which were constructed Arabs under the Umayyad Caliphate before the Ottomans came on the scene? Jews didn't build them and jews didn't make Israel habitable without American taxpayer funding. With enough of someone else's money, I could make the moon habitable - complete with a big crystal pressurized dome.

Anonymous zen0 December 02, 2012 10:52 PM  

Its not possible to get a narrative completely clean of some kind of bias or other, but it can be useful to get an overview that goes back into the 19th century. People argue their positions by choosing how far back they want to start in the continuum so try this as an intro, but note it has some information that could be argued differently:


http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000635#ottomans

Also search From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters. There are many pdf downloads available.

Anonymous Grinder December 02, 2012 10:59 PM  


I'd be tempted to announce a territory/attack policy, with additional penalties for injury and death, land to be taken at Israel's leisure. If they did that, the Palestine state would be entirely gone in less than five years.


Suits me fine. In fact why wait 5 years? Why don't they just take all the land right away? If they do, they can declare the Palestinians as a subject peoples, push them into the sea, push them into Jordan or exterminate them in gas chambers - as long as they don't send them to Canada as our traitors in Ottawa will take them willingly.

Anonymous zen0 December 02, 2012 11:05 PM  

all their proposals include the Palestinians never regaining Arab East Jerusalem as their capital.

Capital of what? There were no states, so no capitals.

If you want to know the condition of the area before the Jews who were not already there began to come back, read Mark Twain Innocents Abroad. It was desolate.

jews didn't make Israel habitable without American taxpayer funding. When did all this funding begin in relation to the return of the Diaspora Jews beginning in 1882?

Anonymous stats79 December 02, 2012 11:05 PM  

"Really. Who was the Monarch or President of the State of Palestine before more Jews showed up in an area that has a continuous Jewish presence for the last 3500 years?"

You are so full of shit. Even the most basic of research will shot that by 1914 there was a population of about 657,000 in Palestine. Of this, about 8% were Jews.

Even at the beginning of the 1800s there was a population of about 350,000. And most historians agree that most of the population increase between 1800 and 1900 was natural, not from immigration.

I guess you gleen your knowledge of Palestine from the John Haggee book club. I'm impressed.

Anonymous Grinder December 02, 2012 11:11 PM  

zen0December 02, 2012 10:52 PM
Its not possible to get a narrative completely clean of some kind of bias or other, but it can be useful to get an overview that goes back into the 19th century. People argue their positions by choosing how far back they want to start in the continuum so try this as an intro, but note it has some information that could be argued differently:


http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000635#ottomans

Also search From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters. There are many pdf downloads available.


You are such an obvious jew lover. And like many jews do, you are trying to reframe the discussion to your benefit while still pretending to be (mostly) objective. In your previous comment you brought up the 'continuous Jewish presence for the last 3500 years' as cementing jewish ownership of the land Israel occuppies and now you would prefer instead to focus on the period from sometime in the 19th century to the present. Perhaps only the last decade of that century matters as the Zionist Movement was founded in 1897.

Blogger JohnG December 03, 2012 12:07 AM  

"As for dismissing the Arabs of the region as mere 'wandering Bedouins', are you deliberately ignoring the islamic sites in Jerusalem, many of which were constructed Arabs under the Umayyad Caliphate before the Ottomans came on the scene? Jews didn't build them and jews didn't make Israel habitable without American taxpayer funding. With enough of someone else's money, I could make the moon habitable - complete with a big crystal pressurized dome." - Grinder

You do the same sh*t everybody else does and cite a claim based on a year, but don't look at the history. The Jews have the claim before the Arabs even figured out what a boat was in Yemen. You'll be the same turd that argues that the Mexicans have a legit claim on Arizona. The Pals are a bunch of terrorist squatters. The "Jews" would have been better off ethnically cleansing, why not, how many Jews are in Gaza or the West bank?

Nobody loves Jews on this site, not even God loves the Jews (most of them) based on what happens in Revelation. But get your facts straight.

Anonymous kh123 December 03, 2012 12:38 AM  

As a not-too-far aside, anyone have firsthand experience with how agriculture has fared in the land under Israelis and the Pioneers as opposed to the Arabs beforehand.

The Encyclopedia Judaica and the like claims that the farming practices between the two were quite different in terms of efficiency, the type and timing of respective plowing practices for instance; etc. Upshot is that where there was once wilderness, there is now productive, fertile land.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 03, 2012 12:56 AM  

The U.N. recognized a bunch of murderous thugs as a State?

So what else is new?

Anonymous Gen. Kong December 03, 2012 12:57 AM  

I've always been a bit mystified in a way at the hostility towards Israel from folks like Grinder, who as I recall is a National Socialist. Israel is the world's only successful example of a National Socialist polity on the planet. It's really quite educational to go and read the positions of all but the most extreme leftist parties in Israel. They are overtly nationalist in a manner which far exceeds the nationalism of the BNP in the UK-okrug of the EUSSR. Also interesting is how socialistic the "right-wing" parties such as Likud are in terms of their domestic economic policies. The only parties in the Knesset which are not genuine Israel-firsters are the tiny Arab parties and the hard-left Marxists (also very small). Grinder and most of his pals on the WN right are so furious at the machinations of leftist Jews here in the west (which is something like 95% of Jews) that they are quite blinded to the reality of National Socialist Israel - a place they should be holding up as a model. I suppose it's understandable, but it's really a symptom of magical thinking.

Israel recently launched a huge expulsion of African illegal aliens there, to a deafening silence from the Ministry of Truth (owned by guess who) here in the Banksta Banana Republick. As JohnG noted, there's not a great deal of sympathy here for this massive tower of hypocrisy Jews have erected. For a tiny example, the African migrants are referred to as "illegal infiltrators" there - could you imagine how 'Pinch' Sulzberger of the New Duranty Times, the ADL and SPLC would react if such an accurate, factual term applied to the conquistdores of our local La Raza colony? That said, it's important to remain consistent. Nations have a sovereign right to decide who will be allowed in and who will not be. That includes Israel. Of course the Podheretz/Kristol/Foxman crowd will inevitably try to have it both ways - but it's just their fundamental nature to be lying genocidal hypocrites. One might as well expect a poisonous serpent not to strike. It's the high percentage of rich goyim (described by one of the old-line rightists as "pork-eating Jews") who've allowed them to practice such hypocrisy completely unchallenged are the ones I find more annoying.

Anonymous 11B December 03, 2012 1:01 AM  

As a not-too-far aside, anyone have firsthand experience with how agriculture has fared in the land under Israelis and the Pioneers as opposed to the Arabs beforehand.

Yeah, I've heard that line of reasoning before that the Jews made the desert bloom and such. Funny, how white Americans never seem to be able to use that in defense of ourselves. Just compare what we have done with our share of the New World with those south of the Rio Grande.

Blogger IM2L844 December 03, 2012 1:09 AM  

One thing is clear, Palestinians are not a people indigenous to the area.

If there is some corroborating historical records that support the notion that there were hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the area during the 1800's, I would be grateful if someone could direct me to it.

Everything I've seen supports the claim that it was mostly desolate with a sparse population comprised of a Jewish majority and a few migrant Bedouin tents pitched here and there until, according to the British authorities, massive illegal immigration began to occur around the turn of the century and continued through the 1930's and beyond.

It doesn't really matter much to me one way or the other. I won't change my opinion that Israel or anybody else shouldn't be getting any of the money the government stole from me. Sooner or later, it's all going to work itself out exactly as prophesied anyway.

Blogger Beefy Levinson December 03, 2012 1:09 AM  

I am an ignorant fool so perhaps one of you learned ladies and gentlemen can help me. Why haven't the Israelis ever formally annexed Gaza and the West Bank and said "Right of conquest, bitches?" I mean, that's pretty much how every nation on earth has settled its borders, especially when they're on the winning side of a war.

Anonymous kh123 December 03, 2012 1:26 AM  

" Funny, how white Americans never seem to be able to use that in defense of ourselves. Just compare what we have done with our share of the New World with those south of the Rio Grande."

True, and agreed. Although I've heard the reverse of this: "Israel always justifies their claim by saying that they cleaned up the land; no one was doing anything with it. What gives them the right? Nothing but problems there." "Right, but wasn't America founded on the same stuff ultimately?" "Well, that's different - America was successful, you see."

"Everything I've seen supports the claim that it was mostly desolate with a sparse population comprised of a Jewish majority and a few migrant Bedouin tents ..."

Somewhat ties in to the earlier question about agriculture. Hoping some of the resident Israelis can field these.

Anonymous kh123 December 03, 2012 1:32 AM  

"Why haven't the Israelis ever formally annexed Gaza..."

If I remember correctly, they did during one of the two famous wars, along with the Golan Heights to the north. They gave up the former ultimately; large expanse that's difficult to border patrol effectively, so I'd figure. As much this as a seeming political concession to the katyusha crowd, in the hopes that they'd civilize themselves with self governance (which turned out to be Hamas later on down the road).

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 03, 2012 1:39 AM  

"Palestinians were dispossessed of their homeland."

"Really. Who was the Monarch or President of the State of Palestine"

A homeland does not have to be a political "state". A state is an arrangement whose limits are agreed to amongst the powerful; a homeland is the physical de facto location of a people, a volk.

Everyone should realize by now (I mean, long ago is more like it but I guess that's asking too much) that it is not possible to discuss these matters rationally. We should simply give up, disentangle ourselves from the whole mess seeing it is spectacularly not our business, and let the interested parties do whatever it is they're going to do. The one thing we should forbid them from doing is coming here.

Just build a giant plutonium-steel wall around the whole region and turn it into Thunderdome. Let the locals hammer it out, they seem to have nothing better to do and they seem to love to fight for the sheer hell of it, so let them. Who will survive? I. Don't. Care.

Just, whoever survives, or whoever loses, or whoever is happy or unhappy with the outcome.... Don't. Come. Here.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 03, 2012 1:45 AM  

Put more simply: both Arabs and Israelis, both Muslims and Jews, wish us mortal harm, wish us sickness unto death and eradication from this world, and both work overtime like busy little beavers to achieve this evil hate-filled goal. Both are our deadly enemies. Why we should take sides in their pathetic disputes, or support one over another, or risk so much as a toenail clipping on the behalf of either one, is utterly beyond me. Our only policy towards the Middle East should be to make sure that a healthy part of our nuclear arsenal is pointed directly at all of these wicked peoples.

I believe Colonel Kurtz had the correct outlook on this problem.

Anonymous Kyle In Japan December 03, 2012 1:47 AM  

Heads up dudes, Throne of Bones is on the Marcher Lord store. Just downloaded my copy.

Anonymous Grinder December 03, 2012 1:58 AM  

I don't have a problem with how Israelis run their own country. It is closer to the National Socialist ideal than any white country and I have never said otherwise. They could never be a trusted ally to anyone, especially to white nations. Who has spied on the U.S. more than zionist jew American citizens? The white race does not need the jews for survival. The jews are the biggest threat to white survival. The jews, on the other hand, cannot survive as an independent nation. They need us like a tick needs a host to drain blood from. They are a parasitic race. Their nation is a parasite that draws its lifeblood from white nations. Before the transfer of $billion$ in aid there was ample donations from the wealthy jews already established in europe and america. And how did the richest jews become rich? By the sweat of their brow and honest labour?
Even keeping their illgotten seed money, they could not survive as a state if they had to leave every white country and could no longer pass their burden to the dumb goyim.

Anonymous Grinder December 03, 2012 2:05 AM  

Both are our deadly enemies. Why we should take sides in their pathetic disputes, or support one over another, or risk so much as a toenail clipping on the behalf of either one, is utterly beyond me.

Yes. And this is where I break with a lot of WN folk. While they recognize the danger of jews to our survival, they believe that it is worthwhile to ally with muslims and/or arabs as in 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Arabs practise torture, like jews. If you sleep with dogs you're liable to get fleas.

Anonymous Anonymous December 03, 2012 2:32 AM  

Maybe some group of people calling themselves the provisional government of the New Texas Republic can walk up to the UN building and demand a free and fair vote of residents of the Zionist puppet state of so called Texas as to whether to stay or become independent. As long as you throw some version of Zionist this or that, I am sure the resolution for a vote on independence will pass easily. This will set up the great Texas/Israeli war spoken of in the holy SF novel.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 03, 2012 2:54 AM  

I can think of at least three rational, peaceful, reasonably just political arrangements that would permanently settle the Israeli-Palestinian "conflict" to the mutual benefit of both sides, and result in a peaceful, prosperous and stable region. But all of my proposals would be rejected out of hand as absolutely unacceptable, because they conflict directly with the religious beliefs and prejudices (inescapable and largely unalterable), and the perceived (but false) racial and ethnic interests, of the people in the region.

They're never, ever going to think clearly about these things; sometimes human beings simply don't do that with respect to certain topics -- family, for instance. Plus they'll never trust each other, and they both have a long list of instances to illustrate why. Plus (pace game theory) each side secretly believes that if they can just hold out long enough, they can win 100%, so why give in too soon?

The US policy should be to say to them both: OK knuckleheads, enough is enough. Here is our final offer to arbitrate: it's rational, it's reasonable, and it looks completely unlike anything you nitwits have discussed or thought about before. Take it or leave it. If you leave it, we walk, and you can play amongst yourselves from now on, without any of our help or counsel or interference.

When they refuse the offer, as of course they will, then America walks away, never to return, never to contribute another dime, and never to take another phone call from these moronic savages. Forever.

And life Stateside suddenly becomes much more pleasant.

Anonymous Krul December 03, 2012 3:55 AM  

Scoob-both Muslims and Jews, wish us mortal harm, wish us sickness unto death and eradication from this world, and both work overtime like busy little beavers to achieve this evil hate-filled goal. Both are our deadly enemies.

It never fails, whenever a post mentions Israel or the Jews these vague anti-Jewish accusations pop up everywhere. I've asked before and I'll ask again - what specifically do you have against the Jews?

The sources I've seen that are meant to provide evidence for the position either revolve around the USS Liberty and the claim that modern Jews are wealthy and left-wing, or they're conspiracy BS that essentially claims that everyone in history, from the Medici to the Jesuits to the Nazis, were are really somehow Jewish or Jewish controlled. The latter is absurd and the former is frankly weak; such anti-Jewish people have less hatred for Muslim Arabs than Jews in spite of their much more devastating and well known hostile acts against us.

So I've got to ask - why the anti-Jewish talk? It just seems totally irrational to me.

Anonymous Jesus H. Christ, aka your Savior. December 03, 2012 4:01 AM  

"We just had a democratic election, you fucking moron!!!"--Jesus H. Christ, cheating on Glenn Beck's anus in Kirk Cameron's anus.

Anonymous Grinder December 03, 2012 4:32 AM  

So I've got to ask - why the anti-Jewish talk? It just seems totally irrational to me.

Ask the jews - "What's up with all the marxist, anti-white policies you promote and support?"

Anonymous Krul December 03, 2012 4:36 AM  

Ask the jews - "What's up with all the marxist, anti-white policies you promote and support?"

More vagueries. Not all Marxists are Jews, you know. Besides, they're free to be Marxists if they want, what business is that of yours?

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 03, 2012 4:55 AM  

"what specifically do you have against the Jews?... why the anti-Jewish talk?"

I reject the basis of your question, and the way you've phrased it, which is designed to steer the discourse so as to make your opponents seem like obsessed irrational sociopaths. There's nothing "anti-Jewish" about what I've said, and as I've stated before, I don't have anything at all "against" "the Jews"; my views stem from analysis of the situation in front of me as I observe it critically. If it all sounds a bit heated to your ears, (and maybe it is a bit purple, it's a blog, I'm not giving an address to the Royal Society) that is merely because the critical discourse in this country is severely circumscribed in such a way as to keep a lid on a pot. Look up what steam does, some time.

I don't know anything about the USS Liberty, which hardly matters a whit in comparison to the work of say Emmanuel Celler and his backers; and I resent the suggestion that it's all a matter of bats-in-the-belfry conspiracy. A conspiracy is not at all necessary where a common interest, a common identity and a common animus can be shown to exist. Were the Bolsheviks a "conspiracy"? Were the Japanese ultranationalists? No, they were actual historical actors, with origins and goals and preferred strategies, and real-world outcomes.

Ask a more specific and intelligent question in a more thoughtful manner and in a more respectful tone, and leave your subtext of smirking contempt some place out of my line of sight, and maybe then I'll engage you in greater depth. Cheerio.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 03, 2012 5:10 AM  

There are many policies and positions taken by the Catholic Church which its critics find damaging to their own interests, or to the public good as they conceive it, or which are otherwise theoretically or practically wrong-minded in their view. So long as such criticisms are offered in moral and intellectual good faith, and are not merely a lot of babble about the "papists," then regardless of whether the criticisms are sound or not, it is ridiculous and rhetorically cynical to label them "anti-Catholic" or that critics of the Church have something "against" the Catholics, as if it were all simply the easily-dismissed product of an animus or a delusion.

Rather, the Catholic Church is a very visible actor on the world-historical stage: it consciously does things, and those things have real outcomes and effects, and so the actions of the Church can reasonably be sifted and analyzed and criticized and even opposed.

It's an analogy. You see where I'm going with this?

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 03, 2012 5:21 AM  

"they're free to be Marxists if they want, what business is that of yours?"

Now if that doesn't win some sort of trophy for Retard of the Month Club, I don't see what else possibly could. Granted, the month is young, yet I am confident in my pick.

I think Krul could reasonably be said to have taken some sort of decisively self-disqualifying action with that one. It deserves only a cream pie, delivered with gusto as to his facial direction, in reply.

Anonymous Krul December 03, 2012 5:23 AM  

Well, Scoob, it looks like you're evading my direct question with the excuse of a "smirking subtext" that exists only in your mind. The actual subtext of my question is a combination of genuine curiosity about a historical anomoly - anti-Jewish sentiment - which my reason tells me must have a cause, and frustration at the obstinate refusal of people like yourself who use anti-Jewish rhetoric without ever offering a substantial basis for it.

There's nothing "anti-Jewish" about what I've said, and as I've stated before, I don't have anything at all "against" "the Jews"; my views stem from analysis of the situation in front of me as I observe it critically.If it all sounds a bit heated to your ears...

Well maybe if you offered some actual evidence instead of baseless assertions you would come off as a critical analyst instead of a "heated" blog commenter.

I resent the suggestion that it's all a matter of bats-in-the-belfry conspiracy.

A suggestion I never made.

A conspiracy is not at all necessary where a common interest, a common identity and a common animus can be shown to exist. Were the Bolsheviks a "conspiracy"? Were the Japanese ultranationalists? No, they were actual historical actors, with origins and goals and preferred strategies, and real-world outcomes.

In the first place I'm not saying that it's all conspiracy BS, I'm saying that all I've seen is either conspiracy BS or weak sauce. Because people like you refuse to offer evidence, and then complain about being perceived as irrational.

Ask a more specific and intelligent question in a more thoughtful manner and in a more respectful tone, and leave your subtext of smirking contempt some place out of my line of sight, and maybe then I'll engage you in greater depth. Cheerio.

I do not want to engage you anymore than is absolutely necessary. I only want evidence. If you can't provide it, as far as I'm concerened your anti-Jewish rhetoric is irrational and unworthy of respect as a legitimate, reasoned position.

Anonymous YIH December 03, 2012 5:32 AM  

Delete this comment as you see fit Vox, but I have to say it anyway.
I now understand why you now treat WND as less and less serious as time goes on.
Because it is less and less serious. First it was Chuck Norris (eh, so what?) then John Rocker (wait, what?) now Frothy. No, I'm not kidding, Frothy.
It seems Joe is now embracing the nickname ''World Nut Daily''.
I don't blame you Vox, but as soon as the checks stop clearing, tell Joe ''Yo homes, smell 'ya later!''

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 03, 2012 5:35 AM  

I come here for the conversation, not to write a manifesto or to give you history lessons. That sort of thing is time-consuming and expensive, and everybody at this place works for free. I'm not a research assistant, alas.

If I am unworthy of your august respect, well that's somehow fine with me. Guess I'll just live with that dreadful burden the best I can, like some sort of sad Red Skelton clown who's in the throes of some terrible grief he can only express by doing pratfalls into a mud puddle.

Ah, fate, thou cruel master!



Anonymous dhurka December 03, 2012 5:38 AM  

Meh the Israelis and the Palestinians deserve each other. Never have I seen a better example of divine justice or karma or whatever you want to call it. These ones can't stop attacking civilians and those ones can't stop brutalizing old women. Can't even work out which ones I'm talking about where. Whatever.

Anonymous Krul December 03, 2012 5:46 AM  

Rather, the Catholic Church is a very visible actor on the world-historical stage: it consciously does things, and those things have real outcomes and effects, and so the actions of the Church can reasonably be sifted and analyzed and criticized and even opposed.

This does make sense, but there are a couple of problems. First of all, the RCC is a centralized beaurocratic organization, whereas the Jews are a decentralized ethnic/religious group. The RCC does have official positions and policies that apply to the entire group, whereas the objectioable actions of individual Jews, even if they are explicitly intended to benefit the Jewish people as a whole, are not necessarily representative of Jewish people as a whole.

Anonymous Krul December 03, 2012 5:47 AM  

Errata: ^"bureaucratic" and "objectionable"^

Anonymous Krul December 03, 2012 5:49 AM  

And the question remains the same, just what are the objectionable historical actions of the Jewish people, and why are they considered intrinsic to the Jewish identity itelf instead of the actions of nonrepresentative outliers?

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 03, 2012 6:16 AM  

Well at least now you're taking a stab at being thoughtful.

"whereas the Jews are a decentralized ethnic/religious group."

Ah, here we go.

"It's not a religion, it's just an ethne!"
"It's not an ethne, it's just a religion!"
"It's a floor wax!" "It's a dessert topping!"
"It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!"

A group which is capable of formulating the very old, and very cogent and automatically understood question "Is it good for the Jews?" and a group which has a colorfully disparaging vocabulary for the 99.89% of the world population which is Not Them*, and yet which insists on living among those who are Not Them despite vigorous historical evidence that they aren't exactly welcome among the Not-Thems, doesn't have a strong moral claim to being innocuously decentralized or ingenuous as regards its identity. This is merely a bit of simpering misdirection. Islam has no centralized authority either, but everyone knows an Islamic interest when they see one. The Chinese in Malaysia don't take orders from Beijing (well not ALL of them), yet they remain mysteriously Chinese, and understand that there are Chinese interests which differ from Malay interests. How could this possibly be?

The Jews may not have a pope, but they have a nation-state, a large body of commonly-accepted theological and theoretical dogma, a large of body of commonly-accepted cultural assumptions and prejudices, numerous well-funded organizational cat's-paws within the US whose government they consciously exploit, as Jews, in order to advance consciously Jewish interests, and an absurd level of over-representation in the corridors of power of all forms of power in American life, much of which leverage is exerted consciously on behalf of "what's good for the Jews."

None of this is factually open to dispute. So I don't really accept the "I didn't dood it" line of defense. My personal observation is that the majority of Jews really don't spend all their time, or even much of it, or often any of it, beavering around deliberately trying to undermine the goyim; but they do somehow manage to pay quite a lot of experts to do exactly that on their behalf, and they're not disinclined to reap the fruits of it.

You can't seriously disagree that the level of Jewish and Israeli influence on the US government, both overtly and covertly, is positively off the charts, and that it is exerted on behalf of consciously Jewish interests: sometimes these will coincide with American interests, but when they do not, we know whose interest will prevail, in their minds and in their conduct. Even if Jewish and US interests were 100% congruent, the very phenomenon would still be extremely unhealthy for the biomechanics of democracy and a sound American state. It is not well for a people to grant so much power to a very small and differently-self-identifying group who in secret have a great deal of contempt for those who granted it to them.

* -- it will be countered that every group has their disparaging terms for the Outsider, but note the difference. The Greeks called non-Greeks the barbaroi, but they didn't insist on living in say Scythia or Ethiopia in large numbers. When they settled among a foreign people, it was as colonists or conquerors, or perhaps a trading settlement. The Lakota word for the Choctaw is invariably going to mean something like "enemy" or "sub-human," but the Lakota did not live within Choctaw lodges and use this word to their hosts' faces.

Anonymous zen0 December 03, 2012 6:26 AM  

You are so full of shit. Even the most basic of research will shot that by 1914 there was a population of about 657,000 in Palestine. Of this, about 8% were Jews. stats79

Please point out where I stated they were a majority. I said continuous presence. What continuous presence did the Europeans have in NA before taking over the place?

Also, you failed to give me a name of a previous leader of the state of Palestine. That should be easily researched. You could always look into the population of Jerusalem over the years, you know, the eternal capital of Arab Palestine.

The Jewish population of the U.S. is about 2%, and they control the whole country, right?

Anonymous zen0 December 03, 2012 6:49 AM  

You are such an obvious jew lover. And like many jews do, you are trying to reframe the discussion to your benefit while still pretending to be (mostly) objective. In your previous comment you brought up the 'continuous Jewish presence for the last 3500 years' as cementing jewish ownership of the land Israel occuppies and now you would prefer instead to focus on the period from sometime in the 19th century to the present. Perhaps only the last decade of that century matters as the Zionist Movement was founded in 1897. Grinder

You are such an obvious Jew hater. I was asked for some reading material. Seems pretty efficient to offer something of an overview for starters. If you bother reading any history you would know that the movement for Jews back to the homeland started before the Zionist movement. More like 1882. I never said a continuous presence "cemented" ownership, either.
Its funny how people complain about the continuous presence factoid when the narrative used to be that all the Jews were kicked out by the Romans and then were forced upon the peace loving Arabs after WWII.

Did you check the link? It is a timeline of the area. Hardly a polemic.

And I am not a knee-jerk Jew lover. I just don't like being fed b.s. I used to wonder why the Middle Easterners weren't just allowed to go at it without all the interference, and mused how one solution would be to turn the whole area into nuclear rubble.

That was before I actually started reading up on the subject.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza December 03, 2012 7:08 AM  

Well, everyone has to live someplace, so let them build...

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 03, 2012 7:35 AM  

"And the question remains the same, just what are the objectionable historical actions of the Jewish people, and why are they considered intrinsic to the Jewish identity itelf instead of the actions of nonrepresentative outliers?"

Well, as a sort of introduction to a provisional answer (and I'm sorry but I really have no intention of writing a textbook or a manifesto, you should spend a year or so delving through the archives of Kevin MacDonald and Occidental Observer if you want some of that) let me ask you a question, too... are you familiar with Ian Fleming's maxim "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time, it's enemy action"?

Anonymous Krul December 03, 2012 8:02 AM  

Well Scoob, in US politics the name of the game is demanding and obtaining handouts and recognition for your preferred pressure group, using PR and campaign contributions and so forth. If the Jews are better at it than other pressure groups, then "don't hate the player, hate the game." It's whites Anglos who set up the game, and that's where the real underlying problem lies, not in the success or failure of any group in the game.

* -- it will be countered that every group has their disparaging terms for the Outsider, but note the difference. The Greeks called non-Greeks the barbaroi, but they didn't insist on living in say Scythia or Ethiopia in large numbers. When they settled among a foreign people, it was as colonists or conquerors, or perhaps a trading settlement.

I don't begrudge them their racism (to whatever extent it exists) because I reserve the right to be racist myself. And what's the difference between the Greeks conquering with force of arms and the Jews conquering with politics? Is it the pretence that it isn't conquest?

I mean, if we're under the rule of pressure groups anyway, then why are the Jews worse than any other?

let me ask you a question, too... are you familiar with Ian Fleming's maxim "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time, it's enemy action"?
Nope, but it makes sense. So what are the three times?

Anonymous LES December 03, 2012 9:07 AM  

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe, Israeli historian and professor

Whose Land? Whose Promise? by Gary Burge, NT professor, Wheaton College

Christian Zionism by Stephen Sizer

On The Road To Armageddon by Timothy Weber

What Price Israel? by Alfred Lilienthal, Jewish American served in US military, stationed in Egypt during WW2, http://www.alfredlilienthal.com/

The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by John Mearshimer and Stephen Walt

Blogger Morrison December 03, 2012 9:43 AM  

Open season on Jews, huh?

Just remember, Jews are going to simply quietly line up for extermination this time.

Look up THE SAMSON OPTION.

Blogger Morrison December 03, 2012 9:47 AM  

In the first century the model for action was Masada.

In the 21st century the model for action is THE SAMSON OPTION.

The Wiki article on this subject quotes a politician who asks if the world is ready to endure a Nuclear Winter merely for the satisfaction of sitting back and watching a Second Holocaust.

Anonymous Heh December 03, 2012 10:19 AM  

Good thing Nuclear Winter is made-up bullshit. It was the 1980s version of global warming; not actually science at all, merely a transparent effort to give scientific authority to political beliefs.

Anonymous Luke December 03, 2012 10:48 AM  

I would like to see Mohammed Abbas asked this question on live TV:

"Your country has declared Jerusalem to be its capital. Don't nations normally control their capital cities? This seems a lot like Greece declaring their capital to be Constantinople."

Anonymous Heh December 03, 2012 11:01 AM  

I think the krauts insisted that Berlin was the capital of Germany during the Cold War, even though they didn't control it.

Anonymous Anonymous December 03, 2012 11:14 AM  

"I think the krauts insisted that Berlin was the capital of Germany during the Cold War, even though they didn't control it."

You must be under 35. The capital of West Germany during the Cold War was Bonn.
- Meistergedanken

Anonymous LES December 03, 2012 12:11 PM  

The Population of Palestine Prior to 1948

http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm

As I Christian and an American I resent my taxes and my government being used for ethnic cleansing
in order to create a a nation for a single ethno/religious group.

Anonymous Heh December 03, 2012 12:13 PM  

You must be under 35. The capital of West Germany during the Cold War was Bonn.
- Meistergedanken


You must be someone over 35 who is ignorant. Bonn was referred to as the provisional capital of West Germany, but the Bundestag insisted that it would move back to Berlin as soon as free elections were carried out in East Germany. In 1956, the Bundestag passed a nearly-unanimous resolution that "Berlin is the capital of Germany".

Thus, during the Cold War, West Germany did not control what it regarded as its "real" (rather than its "provisional") capital city.

The analogy for the PA would be Ramallah = Bonn and Jerusalem = Berlin.

Anonymous Ah shaddap December 03, 2012 12:45 PM  

As I Christian and an American I resent my taxes and my government being used for ethnic cleansing
in order to create a a nation for a single ethno/religious group.


The US did not create Israel. If anything, the USSR created it. The US in 1948 simply recognized reality.

As for the cleansing, since the Arab population in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, has tripled since 1948, they ain't being cleansed (and Israel was foolish to fail to do so if you ask me).

Anonymous antonym December 03, 2012 1:00 PM  

It doesn't really matter which party has the better historical claim to the land. Questions of Israel's right to exist are beside the point - the real issue is whether or not Israel should be destroyed. If so, how and by whom?

Anonymous Stilicho December 03, 2012 2:16 PM  

Sorry for the delay, Zen0. you wrote:
And when the British took it over in 1918, the same year Mehmed VI was exulted in the Ottoman Empire, it still was not a state.

So the point is?


The point is a snarky way of poking you in the eye while agreeing with you. That portion of the Levant has been a part of one empire or another since the Romans took over. It has no more historic claim to being an independent state than does the Jersey shore. More unfortunately, the two regions share a taste for greasy couture.

Anonymous Stilicho December 03, 2012 2:42 PM  

If the Jews are better at it than other pressure groups, then "don't hate the player, hate the game."

Facepalm time. Run with that line, Krul, it will make you really popular in your host country. Again.

I mean, if we're under the rule of pressure groups anyway, then why are the Jews worse than any other?

They are demonstrably better than some. However, it is a dangerous position for a group that celebrates its apart-ness as openly and as vehemently as Jews often do. If it were merely a matter of individuals, this issue would not arise that often, but when it becomes one of groups, especially non-assimilated groups of "others" who are widely perceived (even if only due to a vocal sub-group) as acting obnoxiously in their own self-interest (See, e.g. Abe Foxman) to the detriment of the majority, a push back tends to follow.

Anonymous 11B December 03, 2012 3:58 PM  

I am an ignorant fool so perhaps one of you learned ladies and gentlemen can help me. Why haven't the Israelis ever formally annexed Gaza and the West Bank and said "Right of conquest, bitches?" I mean, that's pretty much how every nation on earth has settled its borders, especially when they're on the winning side of a war.

The only way they could do this, and not demographically destroy themselves, would be to annex those territories, and either expel the Palestinians, or keep them as non-voting second class citizens.

I believe Israel proper is about 80% Jewish. And if you were to add the populations of Gaza and the West Bank into one bigger Israel, that percentage would drop to about 55%. So unless they can figure out a way to remove the Palestinians from those territories, it doesn't make sense to grab the land.

PS. As an American I have a nightmare that one day the Israelis will actually convince the USA to take in the 2 million or so Palestinians in the spirit of helping to make peace in the middle east. I mean we already have 310 million people. So another 2 million won't hurt, right? And it would make us even more diverse. Of course if having diverse Palestinians is necessary to keep striving for the future, then why again won't the Israelis take..........

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 03, 2012 4:06 PM  

'let me ask you a question, too... are you familiar with Ian Fleming's maxim "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time, it's enemy action"?'

"Nope, but it makes sense. So what are the three times?"

Well well, talk about your Swing-A-Dead-Cat Theater. Just from this very thread alone:

1. "In the first century the model for action was Masada. In the 21st century the model for action is THE SAMSON OPTION."

2. "And what's the difference between the Greeks conquering with force of arms and the Jews conquering with politics?"

3. "...the name of the game is demanding and obtaining handouts and recognition for your preferred pressure group... If the Jews are better at it than other pressure groups, then "don't hate the player, hate the game."

Those are certainly three, now aren't they. As Gary Snyder once wrote, "When making an axe handle, one recalls that the model is ready to hand." I'd send you a formal engraved invitation to Listen To Yourself, but somehow I think it would do no good. "They have ears to hear, yet they do not hear" and so on.

And thus ends our little colloquy. Presumably you are no more enlightened now than you were before. I am not bothered by this in the least.



Anonymous stats79 December 03, 2012 8:02 PM  

"The Jewish population of the U.S. is about 2%, and they control the whole country, right?"

So I guess you would be cool if the U.S. Jews, with the aid of say, China, forced most Americans on to cramped, dirty reservations and took over the other 85% of the American landmass for their own purposes?

Anonymous Tad December 04, 2012 11:20 AM  

@Grinder



Really? This is a jewish trait? It's not practiced by non-jews. Your research is impeccable!!

Anonymous Anonymous December 05, 2012 9:39 PM  

I like how people trying to make it seem like Israel is an ally to the US. Nothing could be further from the truth. Someone already touched on the fact that Israel takes American military technology that it bought from the US with money from American taxpayers, then sells it to China and India, destroying the power balance in Asia. But they also spy on American businesses for personal gain. The USS Liberty was mentioned, but one also has to remember the Lavon Affair. Not to mention the failed assassination attempt on American ambassador John Gunther Dean by Mossad.

Israel has never been a friend to the US. It is run by users, nothing more. If the US goes the way of the Romans, they would just as easily turn around and starting kissing up to next superpower. And they already have a headstart with the arming of the Chinese and Indians. Of course theres no white guilt to prey on, so theres that.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts