ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, August 03, 2014

And why might that be?

Charles Krauthammer, an American Jew, laments the resurgence of world anti-semitism. And yet, neither he nor anyone else ever seems to ask the obvious question: why is it resurging now? Are we expected to believe that it is a complete coincidence that various peoples around the world suddenly appear to have developed, apropos of nothing at all, a sudden and simultaneous dislike for a relatively small group of people?
[T]he other problem for Israel has been the inability to win over public opinion around the world. “The rest of the world's reaction to what's happening in Gaza is Orwellian,” Krauthammer said. “It is shocking, especially in Europe. It is a resurgence of anti-Semitism not seen since the `30s, this is a recurrence, it's all over the world, and don't tell me its anti-Zionism. You listen to the slogan, you see the sign, Hitler was right in Germany, a sign in Germany saying that this is a veneer that is a front for anti-Semitism and it is back. It's all over the world. And that's what we're now beginning to face.
I've been warning of this resurgence for several years now, as I picked up the first signs of it during the 2008 financial crisis. Now that it's being mentioned in the mainstream media, perhaps more people will begin to take the matter seriously. The first thing people have to understand is that emo-posturing and affecting shock and horror accomplishes absolutely nothing. The guilt trip simply doesn't work anymore and it's time to abandon the Holocaustian dodge. The Shoah wasn't the worstey worstest event in human history; far worse genocides, both in terms of absolute numbers and percentages of the people being targeted, have occurred since. It's not even the worst thing to have happened to the people of Israel in their history, 11/12 being considerably more than half.

One would do well to reflect upon why the Roman treatment of the Jews was so much harsher than their treatment of nearly every other people they conquered from Britain to Egypt, aside from the Carthaginians. Were the Romans mysteriously anti-semitic too or did the Jews manage to upset them in some manner? Regardless, the fact that nearly everyone with any direct experience of the Endlosung is now dead, combined with the fact that the world is considerably less Eurocentric than it was, means that virtually no one gives a damn about the Holocaust anymore. That card is played out.

Try it on the Chinese. Or the Cambodians. You're going to expect tears, cash, and prizes for six million people killed during the biggest war on the planet seven decades ago when the Chinese more recently offed eight times that many of their own people over nothing more than resource allocation and lunatic political theory? Ask the average half-illiterate 80-IQ American public school student about the Holocaust and he's as likely to think it has something to do with slavery or Palestine as World War II.

Another American Jew, Richard Cohen, is aware of perspectives changing: "A recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that among Americans age 65 or older, 53 percent blame Hamas for the violence and 15 percent Israel. For those ages 18 to 29, Israel is blamed by 29 percent of those questioned, Hamas by just 21 percent." 

Second, understand that the resurgence of anti-semitism is happening for a reason. What that reason may be is up for discussion, but not that logic dictates its existence. Anti-semitism can be irrational but it is not always so, and pretending otherwise is both disingenuous and futile. The world knows what Ben Bernanke did last summer, so to speak. The world knows who is funding President Goldman Sachs and it understands why the head of a petty state in the Middle East can tell him off and expect him to fall in line. The world knows that the U.S. Congress is Israeli-occupied territory. The world knows who owns Hollywood, the U.S. media, and the bailed-out banks. The world knows who has been flooding its nations with third-world barbarians who don't even understand the concept of indoor plumbing.

And the world doesn't like it. Not one little bit. Actions have consequences; the problem is that the consequences are not always proportionate.

It's absolutely useless to try to continue hiding behind claims of Jewish wonderfulness, supercapability and work ethos. First, virtually no one buys it. Too many of us know how the game is played; too many of us have seen incompetent, inept, and lazy Jews advanced in tribal fashion over far more capable, competent, and responsible Gentiles. Too many of us observe that Germany and China appear to be doing rather well these days despite lacking the benefit of Jewish guidance. Second, and much more importantly, no one cares why.

Does this mean that I endorse this rising tide of anti-semitism? No, of course not, otherwise I wouldn't have warned Jews of it in the first place. If I were anti-semitic, I would smile like a helpful SS-Totenkopfverbände officer meeting a train and tell every nervous Krauthammer and Cohen on board not to worry, everything is just fine, everything is in order, isn't it shocking that some of those terrible animals in the Holy Land can't seem to get over their irrational hatreds of your wonderful people!

But I understand why the hatred exists and I know that it is, to a certain extent, merited. It observably is. Jews don't have to like that fact, they don't even have to accept it, but they will have to deal with it nevertheless. And I also suspect that the growing hatred is going to get out of hand as the global economy worsens, that the innocent will be caught up in the angry tide along with the red-handed guilty.

The idea that post-nationalism and demographic divide-and-conquer would make the Jews in America safer was intrinsically wrong, as wrong as the idea that amassing vast wealth and political influence serves as an effective form of community protection for a small minority. People like helpless refugees. People rather like grateful immigrants who settle quietly in their own communities and gradually integrate over time. People hate rich people who tell them what to do. And people really, really hate rich and powerful foreigners with supremacy complexes who tell them what to do while settling criminally-inclined aliens in their neighborhoods.

In successfully attacking the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant nature of America, Jews destroyed the American exceptionalism that offered them protection. Now that it is essentially gone, Jews have not only lost a reliable Gentile shield against global anti-semitism, but aside from Christian Zionists like Sarah Palin who fly the flag of Israel in their churches, the white Anglo-Saxons who previously defended them are no longer much inclined to do so. And, contra Spengler, I very much doubt that the Chinese are likely to serve as an adequate substitute for white American Christians. Reflect on what the Han have done to the peaceful, harmless people of Tibet and then think about how well they are likely respond to tribal gamesmanship.

You can argue if you like. You can call me names if you like. You'll hardly be the first. But look at it logically: if anti-semitism is like the weather or cancer, then the world will just have to suffer it forever without much hope of anything changing until such time as the Jews finally go the way of the Amalekites. My perspective is actually the optimistic one, because if the rise in anti-semitism is largely a rational reaction to material Jewish actions, it should be possible to avoid its most dangerous forms, outside of those implacable sentiments genuinely inspired by the ongoing territorial conflict in the Middle East.

If you seek pro-Israeli propaganda, you'll have to go elsewhere. If you wish to read anti-semitic rantings, this isn't the place to find them. On this controversial subject, as with all others, I am only interested in the truth and its probable ramifications for the future. If I am incorrect, by all means, feel free to show me how and I will modify my thinking. But if you have nothing but groundless assertions and fervent personal opinions to offer, you needn't bother.

Labels: ,

358 Comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 358 of 358
Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 12:19 AM  

It doesn't only assure the destruction of those who attack Israel, but also ensures the destruction apparently of those who are neutral and don't come to Israel's aid.

Yeah, they're like comic book villains. "That's a nice human race you have there. Shame if something were to happen to it."

Anonymous The other skeptic August 04, 2014 12:36 AM  

That's a pretty chicken shit policy. Even the USSR during the Cold War never threatened to nuke non-aligned nations. Ditto for the USA.

That's a rabid dog policy.

Anonymous H August 04, 2014 12:39 AM  

A reasonable explanation of why a Leftist media, with a large Jewish influence, could now turn on Israel is because those secular Jews created a Frankenstein monster of Political Correctness, and they've lost control of it. Now the monster is trashing their laboratory.

Anonymous EH August 04, 2014 12:39 AM  

The idea that there is anything but pro-Israeli propaganda in the TV news, let alone "outrageously unbalanced pro-Hamas propaganda" is truly insane, psychotic, an utter break from reality. It is not that there is any pro-Palistinian bias at all, rather, the spectacularly criminal nature of the conduct of Israel is so outrageous that even the constant flood of lies of the Zionist mouthpieces cannot cover it up.

Israel spies upon the US. It gets the raw NSA data. It uses this tho blackmail and pressure members of Congress to slavishly obey Israeli interests. Those who step out of line are smeared by the Jewish-owned and -run media. Israel has attacked the US (e.g. the USS Liberty), spied on the US and sent the information to the Soviet Union, and used illegal methods to pressure our government into enormously expensive wars which have greatly damaged US security and standing in the world.

We have been Israel's ally, they have never been ours. Israel is in practice the most dangerous enemy of the United States, and any US citizen who aids Israel or gives cover for its crimes is guilty of treason against the US.

You are no fool, Mr. Wright, so I can only judge you a traitor to your nation.

Anonymous Eric Ashley August 04, 2014 12:57 AM  

11B,
Is 'adversely affected' code for tens of millions dead?

If I were a small nation, surrounded by nuts worldwide who rather than deal with their problems, blame me (like those Irish protestors), and I thought those nuts had contributed to the utter destruction of my nation, then yeah, I'd seriously consider punching the button.

Course, I would have burned Fallulah to the ground, and salted the ground with radioactive dust.

As to your list of points...you're worried about the UN? Really? Really? Bulldoze that building, and turn it into a pier for garbage scows. The UN's incessant nattering on Israel is one of the proofs of its utter worthles....no, its worse than worthless. Its perverse. If t he UN hates me, I am glad.

Anonymous 11B August 04, 2014 1:13 AM  

Is 'adversely affected' code for tens of millions dead?

I don't know if tens of millions of non-American, non-Soviets would have died had the USSR and USA taken each other out. Presumably the fallout would have caused deaths, but I don't know about tens of millions. On the other hand, Israel appears to want to deliberately target nations whose only crime is they did not fight for Israel.

This would be like the USA nuking Israel in the event the USSR attacked us, and Israel did not come to our aid. Or if the USA nuked Brazil, Mexico and any other non-aligned nation who was not involved in the conflict.

If I were a small nation, surrounded by nuts worldwide who rather than deal with their problems, blame me (like those Irish protestors), and I thought those nuts had contributed to the utter destruction of my nation, then yeah, I'd seriously consider punching the button.

And how exactly have the Italians contributed to Israel's problems? Remember Van Creveld specifically mentioned taking out Rome if Israel were threatened by Iran. Not even Stalin planned on doing that.

And borrowing your phrase, "...and I thought those nuts had contributed to the utter destruction of my nation, then yeah, I'd seriously consider punching the button," probably describes a lot of people in the USA who have seen a nutty ethnic group force open our borders to hordes of third worlders. Many of us feel our nation is being destroyed. I don't see Israel being destroyed at all. They are stronger than ever.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 1:16 AM  

About a decade ago, the turning point in how I saw Israel was indeed understanding what the Samson Option actually is. And what's ironic is that it was brought to my attention by a Finnish, pro-Israel preacher, as an argument for why we should be helping them.

At that point I went "Wait, what? No. OBVIOUSLY no. And fuck you."

Anonymous 11B August 04, 2014 1:25 AM  

@Markku

How did you learn English so well? You appear to have spent some time living among English speakers. I can't imagine you learning it this well through books alone.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 1:28 AM  

You appear to have spent some time living among English speakers.

My total time spent among English speakers in my life is probably around three weeks. I'm just good at languages. I got the best grade in Swedish and German too.

Blogger Sherwood family August 04, 2014 1:29 AM  

But Mr. Wright, it is not all ridiculously biased pro-Hamas propaganda packaged as news.

I was watching CNN (about a week ago) and the program went to great length to explain that the Israelis were taking care not to harm Palestinian non-combatants and that the only reason there was collateral damage was because Hamas was using the civilian population as human shields. CNN preemptively exculpated the Israelis for killing civilians.

CNN then went on to do a glowing segment on the 700+ U.S. citizens fighting in the Israeli army and about how some had already made the ultimate sacrifice to defend Israel.

I do not say any of this to say that these assessments are incorrect or should not be aired, I only say it to point out that not everything is anti-Israeli propaganda, even in the mainstream media. I was surprised by the coverage on CNN. Some of it was down right propagandistic in my opinion, only in the other direction.

The Israelis are getting their message out through the media. But unlike 10-15 years ago where one could count on more of a pro-Israeli knee jerk response, we are seeing that there has been a shift in how people think about the issue.

I certainly have little enough love for the methods the Palestinians have engaged in more or less forever and at one time I would have counted myself very pro-Israel.

However, I am much less sanguine these days about picking a side. There is too much manipulation in the media for me to trust assessments from either of the sides. I do not want the Israelis to suffer, nor the Palestinians.

But most of all, I do not want the United States involved. I do not think it is healthy for us to spend tax payer revenue to give aid or supplies of any kind to either side. I am sorry they've chosen this year to kill each other but if they are going to do so we should at least let them do it without spending the taxpayer's money on it.

Anonymous Anon123 August 04, 2014 1:32 AM  

Others have already said this in these comments, but the Israeli Samson Option is not limited to the Middle East. As Martin van Creveld and other high profile Israelis have alluded to over the years, European capitals from Rome to Moscow are all held hostage. They fully intend to take us down with them.

Blogger Unknown August 04, 2014 1:44 AM  

At the risk of being put on a list somewhere, if the Samson option were actually implemented, surely the Jews worldwide are smart enough to know that it would be open season on them in every country they live in until they are truly exterminated. I think perhaps that "option" was leaked by a very scared and small nation that miscalculated the rewards of that particular manipulation.

It's like the runt whose daddy is rich that says he is taking his toys home with him if he isn't invited to the party. Since as I said before, Jews are zero-sum actors in a very closed system of their own narcissistic making, they cannot possibly see how threatening the children of other lessor races for the sole reason of not being involved would rouse hatred.

This, if true, more than anything illustrates why there has been thousands of years of misunderstanding, rage, and then violence against them.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 1:48 AM  

At the risk of being put on a list somewhere, if the Samson option were actually implemented, surely the Jews worldwide are smart enough to know that it would be open season on them in every country they live in until they are truly exterminated.

Obviously they expect the goyim to fold, not call. And I sort of fear they are right.

But still, they are that tiny nation, we are THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. I mean, doesn't it seem like we have at least a fighting chance here?

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 1:55 AM  


Eric Ashley/03Aug14@11:32PM,

"Everyone wants......face"

'Southrons' are funny, lotta bigmouthin', bad talkin', & by Goddin, just like the Yankees they so vehemently despise. Cracks me up every time I see/hear it, another funny similarity's how both groups tend to get real spooked when they realize that the person they've been jacking around takes terminal exception to their antics & can't be blustered/talked/otherwise dissuaded out of rendering them ambient temp.

A sho' nuff hoot, I gairontee!


Cassandra (of Troy)

Anonymous GreyS August 04, 2014 2:03 AM  

Hmmm.. "anti-Jewish". I used the term myself regarding the news coverage, but when I think about it, I realize that's not true. A lot of the news media is definitely anti-Israel, but if they were anti-Jewish we'd see all sorts of propaganda---- as there is, agree with the slant or not, a LOT to work with in that regard.

We see plenty of anti-Israel stuff, but virtually zero anti-Jewish stuff. If the news media was against the Jews simply as Jews, they could find plenty subjects to harp on (true or not) and hundreds if not thousands of individuals to "expose" (guilty or not).

So it seems to me that something else is going on. Whether it is to make America the Jewish homeland or simply to keep the arms companies in business or another half dozen reasons??

What we NEVER see is anti-Jewish TV and films (outside of a tiny few indies) and virtually no anti-Israel tv and films. With all the supposed anti-Jewish fervor, you'd think there would be a glut of shows, movies, and novels against Jews but we see nearly zero.

Anonymous Eric Ashley August 04, 2014 2:22 AM  

I keep saying 'not neutral', and you keep on having me say 'neutral'. Most of the world is not neutral.

Cassandra, considering the greatest warriors in the world are Southrons....you must have run into a runt who was drunk, and sick with the flu, and had just finished beating up ten Europeans, and was out of breath.

Anonymous Discard August 04, 2014 2:25 AM  

It seems to me that as a nation that once (still?) had serious plans for nuking it out with the Soviet Union, we would find decapitating a nation the size of Riverside County with a first strike well within our capabilities. Perhaps we could justify it politically by setting off A-bombs on Wall Street and Capitol Hill and blaming Israel.

Anonymous Jeigh Di August 04, 2014 2:43 AM  

If you did that, the reaction might not be what you anticipate.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 2:49 AM  

Heh heh, yes. Ok, revised plan: Israel gets the Super Bowl canceled somehow.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 04, 2014 2:52 AM  

My problem with this analysis is that I'm old. What I mean by that is that as I remember it this didn't really start as antisemitism. It started - I _think_ - with a mix of the pro-Soviet western left, and more or less stateless (or wish they were stateless, so long as they could still get state protection) Tranzis, to the extent those differed, objecting to a) nationalism, in general, especially insofar as it made internationalism look ineffectual, b) wars of conquest, which Israel's done a lot of, and c) mostly white people killing fair numbers of off-white people, and doing it so humiliatingly _easily_, etc. Makes the sainted third world look bad, doncha know? They hated Israel for being our ally, too, rather than the Soviet's. (Ally? Sortakinda, yes, I remember the Liberty and, no, I have no doubt but that it was deliberate.)

Now since then any number of antisemites have latched onto the thing, and some have probably become antisemitic because of it. But if all the genuine antisemites keeled over, deader than Haman, the anti-Israel sentiment would still be there, pretty much unabated. If all the old left, pro-Soviet, Tranzi based anti-nationalist keeled over dead one would see - well, after we finished popping champagne corks and dancing, I mean - that the antisemites would be pretty ineffectual.

I think.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 04, 2014 2:56 AM  

Oh, and, yes, I am _still_ pissed about the Liberty.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 2:56 AM  


Vincent Castrillo/04Aug14@1:44AM,

Genesis 12:3's what has most Christian Americans by the short & curlies, the House of Judah knows it, & like any good extortionist is running the game as far as it can be run. What's always puzzled me is how many Judaics are pushing atheism which, if adopted worldwide, would result in even more & nastier woe for them w/o the threat of supernatural retribution to restrain it.

It'd be funny to see their reaction if they were told "Ya know, you're right about there being no God, & since there's no Deity that'll rain fire & brimstone on anyone who dares to hassle you/yours you'd best watch yourselves from now on if you don't want to be extincted along w/ your co-belligerant Islamic buddies. This is your final warning, & don't even think about doing something stupidly spiteful since non-Jews handle more losses than you can".

Woo, what fun THAT would be!


Cassandra (of Troy)

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 2:59 AM  

So, Tom, did they shoot it for the lulz, or was there something to be gained from it?

Blogger Tom Kratman August 04, 2014 3:00 AM  

"is how many Judaics are pushing atheism"

I understand that we can easily MISunderstand what Jews mean when they say "secular." It doesn't mean atheist. (Yes, there are a fair number of Jewish atheists, too, of course...for certain values of "Jewish".) It may well mean believing and _almost_ observant Jew, who considers himself a Jew but who doesn't follow the Rabbinical law with any great precision or devotion, or actively rejects it, while still believing in God.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 04, 2014 3:05 AM  

I think they were concerned that we were scoring diplomatic points with the Arabs by passing on intel. I think, too, that if we were not already almost totally commited to Vietnam and Germany they'd have been afraid to have done it, because we're nucking futz (sic). It is by no means inpossible that we _were_ passing on intel to the Arabs. Really don't care about that though. Want the men responsible or, if dead, their eldest living sons or grandsons, turned over to us for hanging. No, I don't care about the justice of THAT because the _really_ _insuperable_ moral point here is that WE AND OURS ARE NOT TO BE FUCKED WITH. EVER.

Blogger Joe Katzman August 04, 2014 3:14 AM  

"Were the Romans mysteriously anti-semitic too or did the Jews manage to upset them in some manner?"

Yes. They waged an insurgency so determined that it took 2 full legions to suppress, despite the tiny amount of territory involved. Which explains why that Jesus guy scared them so very much. King of the Jews? Oh, Mithras, here we go again... and the rest, as they say, is history.

Jews also wouldn't bow to Roman gods. At all. Now, the Romans were pretty tolerant of other gods, but a religion that ipso facto denied the core basis of that... Diversity... didn't go over so well. So yeah, the Romans had some definite complaints.

As I recall, early Christians weren't big favorites either, except on Sundays when you went to the stadium to see their team play the Lions. Same intolerance of The Divine Diversity, and a more insidious insurgency. The Romans stopped the Jews from proselytizing for converts (so well that the conditions is still operative 2,000 years later), but the Christians just would not stop talking about that Jesus guy, and people kept listening. Drove the Romans nuts.

In the modern day? The riots in Europe are heavily Muslim, plus leftists. North America, ditto. Muslims have always hated Jews, and Christians (note Mosul), and Hindus, and... well, it goes on. But if Muslims ran around burning down churches in Europe, they'd face serious armed pushback from the state (or in America, just be shot dead on the spot). It's much easier to concentrate on the Jews.

As for the Leftists, they know who the traditional symbols of international capitalism are, and that's the phenomenon that *killed their God.* In the case of the Soviet Union, it's even true that the "we win, they lose, support anti-Soviet revolution" policy shift backed by a partly-Jewish group called the "Neoconservatives" played a notable role. Sic transit gloria Soviet, unless they can achieve The Resurrection in the USA. Beliefs about deicide produce predictable behaviors.

Read me now, see it later, and believe it next year - the burning of the Christian churches in Europe will come. Probably pretty soon. But they have to work their way up to it first.

I offer that warning here in the same sincere spirit as Vox's. Do NOT take your eye off the Enemy's servants, by believing that there is anything special about their targets.

You are next, just as soon as they can manage it.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 04, 2014 3:28 AM  

"Yes. They waged an insurgency so determined that it took 2 full legions to suppress"

Which one are you talking about. The first one took five or six legions, plus support. Bar Kochba took six or so legions plus vexilations from many, many more.

But all of that was after Jesus. Still, it was a troublesome and mostly unprofitable province.

Blogger Joe Katzman August 04, 2014 3:31 AM  

As for mindless Jewish worship of the Left, that deserves another post entire. For starters, ask yourself: which Jews am I talking about? Next, think Middle Earth.

Suffice to say that a notable percentage of Jews are drifting away from Judaism - knowing little, practicing less, and refusing to believe anything that conflicts with the real religion they follow (Leftism's Golden Ass). In other words, they're converts to an opposed religion in all but name. That's true in more than a couple of Christian sects as well. Not the first time - does the name Isaiah and stuff about "The Remnant" ring a bell?

Meanwhile, American Jewish demographics strongly favor the Orthodox, who are another matter entirely. They have families, stay Jewish, and prioritize that over secular gods, while the Leftists intermarry and so their few children disappear. In Israel, even non-Orthodox are becoming more observant (dati), and there's a replacement birthrate around 3.1. Tech + kids + religion is a combination that will structurally break the balls of leftist tyranny. Throw in Muslim intransigency, and it may not surprise you that the Israeli Left is already waning.

Here, in the now, we live in a dark time. As in the books we read of Middle Earth, in such a time it is the fate of all creatures, of all kindreds, to choose. True for Jews. True for you.

Many Jews have chosen... poorly. Others are choosing wisely. Their numbers are growing, and their fight within and beyond their own culture will offer both lessons and resources for others to use.

All of you face your own choices, too, on multiple levels. May I suggest that the course of the wise is an extended hand of friendship to those who would fight beside you?

It is the nature of enemies that one will find them in the places one looks. It is the nature of friends that they oft arrive unlooked-for. True friendship is something the Darkness will never understand, which is why The Diversity is its twisted mockery. If the Darkness is to be beaten, which is no sure thing, it will be by frith and friendship.

What will you?

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 3:34 AM  

Friends don't point nukes at friends.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 04, 2014 3:43 AM  

What the real case is there, Markku, is hard to say. Van Creveld very likely has some pretty firm connections to every aspect and agency of the IDF. This does not, however, prove that Israel intends to nuke Rome or anyplace else but the Moslems, for any reason he stated. I know it's a shocker but people - can you believe it? - actually _lie_ for effect.

On the other hand, it may have a very different kernal of truth: "We are someday going to have to go full Auschwitz on the wogs, a simple example-setting Lidice or two won't do. We know you could probably defeat us if you really tried, and you might try under pressure of the ICOTESCAS (International Community of the Ever so Caring and Sensitive). That will be the end of us, of course, and so if you try we're going to kill your people in job lots. So when we go Endlosing with the Palis, keepa you fucking hands off!"

Blogger Tom Kratman August 04, 2014 3:49 AM  

That's KYFHO for those that recognize the allusion.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 3:51 AM  

Obviously they wouldn't just go "SURPRISE NUKES, CATCH!" But rather, they would threaten it, if we didn't send our sons to die for them in satisfactory numbers.

And then we would hopefully call their bluff, because one does not negotiate with terrorists. Even when they are channeling Caligula.

Anonymous VD August 04, 2014 3:52 AM  

So you list for me the religious and tribal identities of some Hollywood bigwigs and not others.

I listed the biggest four. Now I'll include the other two to be complete: Jeffrey Immelt of GE (not Jewish) and Leslie Moonves of CBS (Jewish) . Those six men between them control 90 percent of the media in the USA. Three of the six are Jewish. I assume they are Liberal, but I don't actually know that.

Do the Jews who own Hollywood corporations act in concert?

They appear to with regards to certain subjects on the basis of their similar outputs. Christianity is regularly mocked. Catholicism is usually portrayed in a sinister light. Judaism is inserted into far more TV shows and movies than would be statistically indicated. Compare, for example, how many Jewish characters one sees to those that are Southern Baptists, despite the latter outnumber the former about 3:1. Homosexual characters and interracial relationships are considerably overrepresented. Husbands are primarily portrayed as buffoons.

Do they act in concert for a goal?

I do not know. I know the expressed aims of some of the Jewish organizations, but I don't know if the powerful individuals running those media corporation actually share those goals or not.

Do they act in concern toward a goal that advantages them to the disadvantage of the interests of the United States?

That depends upon your position concerning the benefit of things they appear to be attacking regularly and the things they appear to be reliably promoting. I don't see how those things would actually advantage them, but then, people act in a self-destructive manner on a regular basis.

We hear from the prosecution and not from the defense. A slant to the news is to be expected. A overwhelming slant reaches the point where it is pure propaganda. Having heard nothing but pure and extraordinarily vehement anti-Israeli propaganda, I read on your site your conviction that the Jews control the media.

When Jews own or run 50 percent of the American media as well as influential social media companies such as Google and Facebook, I fail to understand how that statement can be reasonably disputed, regardless of whether one regards the fact for good or for ill. I don't watch any TV news, so I can't speak to that. I can say that the American newspapers and Internet sites are observably far more pro-Israel than the European ones. However, I note that not everyone shares your observation that the US media is pro-Hamas. The source is likely biased, but the metric is objective:

"A media monitoring group, Palestine Center, recently analyzed CNN’s reportage of Israel’s eight-day attack on Gaza in November 2012. It revealed that a total of 45 Israeli officials were interviewed by CNN, compared to just 20 Palestinian officials. An ongoing, but incomplete, analysis of this year’s violence by the Palestine Center shows that this is happening once more. Between 30 June and 9 July, CNN interviewed a total of 17 Israeli officials, but just one Palestinian official. There is an extensive body of literature on US media coverage of Israel-Palestine. Nearly all of the studies point to the same thing: Israeli perspectives are highlighted and legitimated, while Palestinian perspectives are marginalised."

And this NBC journalist clearly disagrees with your perception of US TV news, at least on her own channel.

Anonymous Discard August 04, 2014 3:53 AM  

Tom Kratman: My understanding of the the attack on the USS Liberty (1967 for you young 'uns) was that Israel, having smashed the Egyptian forces, was ready to take on Jordan and get Old Jerusalem. King Hussein being a cautious fellow, had not joined in the war and had given no provocation to justify an Israeli attack. To get him in the game, Israeli intelligence faked messages from Nasser (Egypt's head man) to King Hussein, telling him that the Jews were beaten and retreating. Figuring that if he wasn't in the fight, Egypt and Syria would get all the spoils, Hussein took the bait and Israel whipped him.
The USS Liberty apparently picked up these conversations and Washington immediately barked at Israel's bad form. Israel looked around to see who could possibly been listening in, spotted our ship and attacked. You've seen pictures of the ship: Enough antennae and wire on the masts to look like a square rigger. Israel poured fire on it from jets and patrol boats, hoping to sink it before they could send out a distress call, but our people got out a message to the 6th Fleet and got a response, so little Israel had so say "Our bad" and feign error.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 04, 2014 3:55 AM  

No, they absolutely have no need of Finns, Germans, French, or anybody else to fight for Israel. They're not supermen, no. They're widely considered in US forces to be third rate amateurs with a bunch of tanks fighting fifth raters, with more but poorer tanks. But, third rate, against the Arabs, is plenty good enough. Really; I can't imagine where that conceit comes from; they do not need you.

Nope, most they'll want is KYFHO while they settle their local issues in a very real and permanent way.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 3:58 AM  

I didn't mean "we" as in we Finns, but whatever countries they announced they would nuke. We as in Europe.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 04, 2014 3:58 AM  

Well...that's a similar scenario to the one I painted, but it's got enough convolution to it that I'll keep a little reserve skepticism.

I believe I asked the question here a week or two ago, "How did Israel first acquire M113 APCs?" That was how; booty from Jordan.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 04, 2014 4:00 AM  

They don't need any of you to fight for them, Markku. I mentioned the biggies, did I not? They just need KYFHO, while they prepare and then use the gas chambers and ovens.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 4:11 AM  

So, what then would be the intended effect, in your view, if this indeed were a lie? I mean, threatening a mass murder of at least tens of millions has a negative effect on the threatened. It would have to be something useful enough to be worth it.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 04, 2014 4:20 AM  

I think it means that, to the extent it's believed, that Europe and the Euro contingent of ICOTESCAS will cluck disapprovingly and do precisely nothing while the Jews settle their problems. At least that's seems to me both the intent and the likely outcome, because without US leadership - oh, and ammunition supply points, too, of course - Europe can't wipe it's figurative ass, miitarily. That may change, but it won't change the Israeli approach, indeed, a more credible Euro military would make the Israeli approach seems the more sensisble.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 04, 2014 4:21 AM  

If, indeed, I am reading this right. I see no particularly good reason to doubt myself, actually, though, as ever, I am willing to listen to counterpoints.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 4:28 AM  

That doesn't explain the motivation for devising the lie, if indeed it is such. And furthermore, when your political market segment is that of a holocaust victim, then it would seem odd to threaten an even bigger holocaust for, according to one's own words, doing exactly nothing. That would just seem like shooting oneself in the foot with an orbital cannon.

Unless it is, again, for the lulz. Which motivation I can at least understand.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 04, 2014 4:34 AM  

Couple of reasons: One is to get it set in Euro minds that Israel can and will. And crying "Holocaust," as Vox correctly notes, is played out; nothing to lose there. Another is that by raising the specter, Europeans may restrain their enthusiasm for supporting / encouraging the Palis, since the more support, the more problems the Jews have, and the closer Endlosungtag comes, hence the closer to a potential nuking of Europe. I don't say those are necessarily the reasons, though I think theyr're plausible. They're much more plausible than the notion that Israel would nuke Europe for not sending help Israel doesn't need and likely doesn't want...hell, can't even imagine wanting.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 04, 2014 4:35 AM  

Be back tomorrow, Markku.

Anonymous Discard August 04, 2014 6:01 AM  

Kratman: I've never heard that the real object of the Samson option was to keep Europe from interfering when Israel goes for their own final solution of the Palestine Problem, but I'm not well versed in the subject. Sounds plausible enough. My own interest is, what would a nuclear Israel do if we Goyim in the USA carried out our own final solution to the Wall Street-Hollywood-Washington DC problem?

Blogger CostelloM August 04, 2014 6:04 AM  

Satan really does hate jews it seems. He always has and he always will. I'm a gentile myself and I don't label myself a zionist but I can't help but notice that no matter the time or place the Jews are always either attacking or being attacked. The Swiss they are not. The reasons change like the seasons, the dates, the names, but the music is always the same. Whether it be through their own conduct or by whatever machination you want to label they always seem to be in danger of being exterminated for one reason or another. It may not be proper to feel sorry for them as you can trace the hatreds to their own actions but for me at least the fact that they still exist shows GOD's mercy.

Blogger Brad Andrews August 04, 2014 6:49 AM  

You seem to hold the Us motives in the Liberty a bit high Tom. I am sure more than enough blame can be spread around. Thinking we had pearly white hands goes against too much history.

I remain unconvinced that we didn't provoke the attack, even if they were not pure.

Anonymous Hunsdon August 04, 2014 8:22 AM  

@ Brad Andrews: I remain unconvinced that we didn't provoke the attack, even if they were not pure.

I'd love to hear the theory.

Anonymous ck August 04, 2014 9:15 AM  

"Anybody who knows the history of the conflict knows that the Jews intended to take the land of Palestine from the indigenous inhabitants regardless of their religion."

Including European Jews taking land from Arab Jews.

Blogger Brad Andrews August 04, 2014 10:45 AM  

Hundson,

Passing intel onto one's enemies makes one an enemy, even if only of the moment.

I haven't studied it enough to be a firm source, but I know this is the same military that is governed by the US Government that sunk its own ship in Cuba to generate a war with Spain, among many other things.

Would you have stood by if a "supporter" was sending vital intel to the enemies who were trying to push you into the sea and out of existence?

Anonymous Hunsdon August 04, 2014 11:17 AM  

Brad Andrews,

Assuming facts not in evidence. IF we stipulate that the Liberty was channeling sigint to Arab states, THEN of course it becomes a more rational decision to attack the Liberty. Query: is there any such evidence?

The theories I am somewhat familiar with include a) hiding the planned violation of the cease-fire with Syria, and b) the Soviets having access to US comms and channeling them to Syria. Neither (to my mind) justify the attack from the Israeli side, and neither justify the American response.

As for trusting the USG, well, hah. But that seems to be a non-sequitor in the event of the Liberty incident.

Anonymous Discard August 04, 2014 11:21 AM  

The USS Liberty was not passing intelligence to the Arabs. It was reporting Israeli skulduggery to the Pentagon, and our government objected to Israel's suckering Jordan into the Six Day War. In any case, passing on intelligence is not an act of war. If it were, we would have burned Israel to the ground for selling our secrets to the Soviet Union. If you don't want interested neutrals telling your foes what you're doing, learn to keep your secrets.

BTW, the U.S. did not sink its own ship in Cuba. The Maine exploded, most likely from a coal fire, and the politicians simply exploited the incident.

Anonymous Stilicho August 04, 2014 11:38 AM  

My problem with this analysis is that I'm old. What I mean by that is that as I remember it this didn't really start as antisemitism. It started - I _think_ - with a mix of the pro-Soviet western left, and more or less stateless (or wish they were stateless, so long as they could still get state protection) Tranzis, to the extent those differed, objecting to a) nationalism, in general, especially insofar as it made internationalism look ineffectual, b) wars of conquest, which Israel's done a lot of, and c) mostly white people killing fair numbers of off-white people, and doing it so humiliatingly _easily_, etc. Makes the sainted third world look bad, doncha know? They hated Israel for being our ally, too, rather than the Soviet's. (Ally? Sortakinda, yes, I remember the Liberty and, no, I have no doubt but that it was deliberate.)

Now since then any number of antisemites have latched onto the thing, and some have probably become antisemitic because of it. But if all the genuine antisemites keeled over, deader than Haman, the anti-Israel sentiment would still be there, pretty much unabated. If all the old left, pro-Soviet, Tranzi based anti-nationalist keeled over dead one would see - well, after we finished popping champagne corks and dancing, I mean - that the antisemites would be pretty ineffectual.

I think.


I think you are correct.

As for the Liberty, I "heard" it die, from a couple of POV's. It was deliberate.

Anonymous Samuel Scott August 04, 2014 11:49 AM  

Anti-Semitism arises when goyim discover what kind of teachings are found in the Talmud.

How many times do I have to say this? The Talmud is a different type of document than the Christian Bible. You cannot read it the same way.

The Talmud is not "holy writ" in which every line is something like "the Word of God." The Talmud is in large part a recording of debates between the rabbis of old. Just because a rabbi said something does not mean that it is "the" opinion of Judaism (which largely does not exist to begin with).

And you know why some rabbis said those things about Jesus? They were more than a little pissed off at Christians. The Talmud was written over the first couple of centuries CE -- just as Christian persecution of Jews was gaining steam.

Anonymous Stilicho August 04, 2014 12:10 PM  

the first couple of centuries CE -- just as Christian persecution of Jews was gaining steam.

I am complete unaware of such persecution in that period. Do you have any support?

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 12:11 PM  

Quoting Scott from earlier thread, because it will no doubt amuse:

"And here I'll never understand why so many Christians have a reflexive hatred of the Talmud part of Torah." (Emphasis mine)

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus August 04, 2014 12:22 PM  

Markku: "Quoting Scott from earlier thread, because it will no doubt amuse..."

It does. :D

Anonymous Samuel Scott August 04, 2014 12:24 PM  

Of course I cannot understand. I cannot understand how people can retain a reflexive hatred of the Talmud once they understand that it is not what they think it is. It's not logical.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 12:27 PM  

What it apparently is, is a "part" of Torah.

Now, what is the meaning of the word Torah, please?

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 12:33 PM  

Samuel Scott

" . . . .a reflexive hatred of the Talmud."

'Reflexive hatred ..." this is key .... it is important to understand what the Talmud is and what it is not. A little informed research would be helpful ..... I recommend the Soncino Hebrew/English version which provides very nice elucidations and detailed introductions, something which may prove helpful to the uninitiated ... it may at the very least temper the 'reflexive hatred' of some .....

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 12:37 PM  

Markku

Torah is most often translated as 'Law' (and refers to the first five books of Moses).... but there other connotations as well. The Hebrew root 'yorah' simply means 'to point' ... as in the point the way or provide direction. Judaism also maintains the understanding of the written Torah and the oral Torah ... the Talmud (Mishneh and Gemara) make up the bulk of oral law ....

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 12:40 PM  

I meant Schottenstein Version not Soncino .....

Anonymous Samuel Scott August 04, 2014 12:40 PM  

Torah is the Law. The Law is comprised of the Written Law (the first five books of the Bible) and the Oral Law (the Talmud). When a Jew says he is "studying Torah," it can refer to either of the two. When someone "studies the Talmud" specifically, he is often studying the debates to examine all sides of a given issue.

Here's a pretty fair piece (I think, after skimming) on Jesus and the Talmud: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

Gotta go. It's almost Tisha b'Av -- the memorial day for the destruction of the First and Second Temples and other bad times in history. See you tomorrow.

Oh, and police are searching around the Tel Aviv port for someone who threatened a terrorist attack here in this city. Fun times.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 12:53 PM  

Exactly, so it isn't "holy scripture" as you put it, only in the sense that it isn't written, but rather spoken. It is still considered "the law". Which is exactly why you used the word "part".

Now, this isn't actually the reason for what you call "reflexive hatred". This is merely why what the Talmud happens to say, MATTERS. Much more than if it were just some random interpretations of some random, learned people.The reason for the actual hatred is that the Christian perspective is that the Talmud exists as a vehicle for disobeying the REAL Law, as per:

Mar 7:9 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! (...) 13
thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do."

Now, obviously you don't believe that this is the case. But that is the REASON. Which is what you asked.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 12:59 PM  

Markku

A question: How would you describe or define the New Testament documents?

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 1:01 PM  

A question: How would you describe or define the New Testament documents?

As Holy Scripture, every scroll equal to the other. For example, Acts would be as authoritative as the Gospel of John.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 1:02 PM  

Fair enough ... what makes them 'authoritative'?

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 1:06 PM  

And all of them equally authoritative to what you'd call the written Torah. (Trying to not needlessy insult by using the OTHER name). However, with that said, you'd have to read it while understanding the context: That this is what God authoritatively said to Israel at a given time. Which doesn't mean that everything just AUTOMATICALLY applies to a Gentile Christian. Any given passage COULD, but you'd have to give an argument for why in specific.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 1:10 PM  

OK ... so my understanding is that through most of the first century, the New Testament documents were largely letters that were circulating (ie. Paul's epistles, John's epistles, Peter's epistles etc) Judea and various communities outside of Judea prior to being 'canonized'. Did the content of the these letters derive their authority from the 'written' Torah? When did they become 'Holy Scripture'?

Anonymous Samuel Scott August 04, 2014 1:11 PM  

This is merely why what the Talmud happens to say, MATTERS

The Talmud doesn't "say" anything per se because it is only a record of debates. If you don't like what a rabbi said about Jesus, then blame that rabbi and not the Talmud as a whole.

Example: CNN makes a videotape of a presidential debate between two candidates. Candidate A says Jesus is good. Candidate B says Jesus is bad.

Videotape = Talmud
Candidate A = Some rabbi
Candidate B = Some other rabbi

Now do you see why it'd be as stupid to blame CNN for what one candidate says as it is to blame the Talmud (or Judaism) for what one rabbi says?

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 1:17 PM  

Fair enough ... what makes them 'authoritative'?

a) Being convinced that Jesus satisfactorily proved himself to be the only-begotten Son of God, so he would know all that information, and
b) That one of his most important followers (according to his own words) called at least Paul's letters "scriptures"*. That is the chain of authority.

*2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (emphasis mine)


We don't have such explicit words about any of the other scrolls, but if merely Paul's letters to congregations are scripture, then it would make sense as the default assumption.

Where we could theoretically be wrong in the reasoning is, a) That we were deceived by Jesus and he, in fact, DIDN'T know what he was talking about (which would make the entirety of it not authoritative), or b) There are some letters in there that the apostles wouldn't have called scripture (which would make those letters not authoritative).

Ostensibly, b) could happen by finding some new writings from the first century, from the apostles or Paul, that said so. Say, that a particular letter was a forgery and not from whom the early Christians think it was.

Anonymous Samuel Scott August 04, 2014 1:20 PM  

Just for the record (recalling my college course on early Christianity): In the first century, there were tons of letters and stories and writings floating around Judea about Jesus that were all purported to have been written by the apostles. Different groups followed different writings.

Fast forward a few centuries. The Council of Nicea (or another council, I forget) decided which ones were "canonical" and made it into the Christian Bible. There is the Gospel of Thomas and many others that did not make it it in. That's the simplified answer.

So, what makes something "authoritative"? Objectively speaking, because the Christian authority of a given time said it was so.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 1:22 PM  

I'd say you are almost certainly wrong about the century. Because that was indeed the case with the Gnostics. Their arrival on the scene caused an explosion of such letters, with every one of them carrying the name of some bigwig apostle. But that was not first century.

Anonymous Samuel Scott August 04, 2014 1:23 PM  

Sure, I may have the century wrong, but it's the idea that matters.

Now, do you understand my point about what the Talmud is with the videotape example? :)

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 1:26 PM  

Is it fair to say that Paul's statement in Timothy about all Scripture being God breathed and authoritative is a reference to the law and the prophets and the writings (ie. the entirety of the OT scriptures) ... after all, when Paul wrote that statement, not all of the NT documents had been written let alone canonized. If that assertion is true, is it fair to say that what the apostles and gospel writers wrote and documented derived their authority from the God breathed and authoritative Scriptures Paul is referring to in Timothy ie. the OT?

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 1:27 PM  

I understand what you are trying to claim, but "blaming the Jews for Talmud" isn't really an accurate understanding of the situation. Rather, what we suspect, is that you in fact DO think those things are authoritative, only you are lying to us because you think it politically expedient in the current situation. Otherwise you wouldn't be calling it the "oral law" and "part" of the Torah. You would be calling it "interpretations" of the law.

An interpretation is not part of a law, unless it is an authoritative interpretation. For example, that of the US Supreme Court about the Constitution.

Anonymous Samuel Scott August 04, 2014 1:37 PM  

Otherwise you wouldn't be calling it the "oral law" and "part" of the Torah.

OK, I'll try to explain further. It's just hard because there are no parallels in Christianity.

The Talmud is a huge collection of writings that contain debates on almost every conceivable topic. Some debates are just intellectual in nature ("Was Jesus a good guy?") but most are debates on the practice of Jewish law ("We have this thing called electricity now. Can we turn a light switch on and off on Shabbat without violating the prohibition on lighting a fire on Shabbat?").

When the Talmud is showing a debate on Jewish law specifically, there are majority and minority opinions and a decision is made. That decision is then binding. The other debates, such as on Jesus, are not relevant to the practice of Jewish law and are mere intellectual exercises.

Now, why is the Talmud referred to as Oral Torah? Because Jewish tradition teaches that God gave all future decisions that would occur on the practice of Jewish law to Moses. Moses then told everything to Joshua, who told the Elders, and so on and so forth. So, it was first an "oral tradition." Eventually, this oral tradition was compiled into written form many, many centuries later and compiled into the book form of the Talmud.

Does that make sense?

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 1:40 PM  

Is it fair to say that Paul's statement in Timothy about all Scripture being God breathed and authoritative is a reference to the law and the prophets and the writings (ie. the entirety of the OT scriptures) ...

Yes, there is no reason to believe that Paul was, at least at the time, thinking about anything other than the OT. Peter's calling them "scripture" is sort of an after-the-fact curveball to it. The certain thing is, that IF Peter knew what he was talking about, THEN Paul's letters are on par with the OT. Theoretically there could be two ways in which that wouldn't be the case: a) Jesus wasn't who he claimed he was, or b) He was, but he kind of screwed up with choosing Peter to lead the project of getting the religion started.

If that assertion is true, is it fair to say that what the apostles and gospel writers wrote and documented derived their authority from the God breathed and authoritative Scriptures Paul is referring to in Timothy ie. the OT?

I wouldn't use the word "derived", but "in the same continuum". They derive their authority from Jesus, and the evidence of Jesus's authority is the resurrection, combined with what he claimed to be. If that evidence doesn't check out, then the authority project doesn't even get started, and the religion is just false. Nothing else matters at that point.

But here's what I mean by the "continuum": Jesus revealed some completely new information. For this, he needs authority of his own. That of the OT is not adequate for this end. However, it is NECESSARY, because its correctness was a part of the claim. Jesus's arrival is an insertion of some new authority into the picture. If that new thing is wrong, then Christianity would be wrong, but Judaism could still be right. Or, if the original authority is wrong, then both fail.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 1:42 PM  

"Jesus revealed some completely new information."

Examples? "New" in what sense?

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 1:45 PM  

The thing that overshadows everything in importance is that Gentiles get access to salvation, beginning from his death. THAT one, you couldn't possibly figure out just by interpreting authoritative documents, without authority of your own.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 1:50 PM  

" . . .you couldn't possibly figure out just by interpreting authoritative documents . . "

How is it then that in Acts that the apostles, as they went from synagogue to synagogue, were proving demonstrably 'from the Scriptures" (ie. Torah, OT, prophets, writing) that Jesus was the Messiah? I don't think they were using Romans or I Corinthians or II Peter ....

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 1:54 PM  

Obviously because the authority of the Torah was the common ground. Both parties in the discussion agreed on that fact. It's exactly the same thing as I'm doing with you: I'm only quoting the New Testament as the authoritative document for what the truth-claims of Christianity are. I wouldn't quote it in the sense of "see, it says this, so I expect you to believe it!" I would to another Christian, though.

And which is what I would do with the Torah, because that is our common ground. But to an atheist, I wouldn't quote even the Torah, except to demonstrate the contents of the beliefs.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 1:58 PM  

"...the truth-claims of Christianity..."

So then, do the truth claims differ from the truth claims of the OT? How do the truth claims of the NT relate to the truth claims of the OT? Any ones that you see as antithetical to one another? You mentioned a continuum earlier ....

Blogger Mark Andrew Edwards August 04, 2014 2:03 PM  

Put me down as pro-zionist. I'm Norwegian, ethnically, so I don't have any blood ties to the region. But I can judge how both sides of this conduct themselves, in and out of combat, and I can see who the good guys are. And they aren't Hamas. Or Fatah, for that matter.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 2:05 PM  

So then, do the truth claims differ from the truth claims of the OT? How do the truth claims of the NT relate to the truth claims of the OT? Any ones that you see as antithetical to one another? You mentioned a continuum earlier ....

They differ by there being more of them. But the set of OT truth claims has to be entirely contained in the set of NT truth claims. Genuine contradiction is not allowed. Now, I'm very familiar with many (I'd even dare say, most) of the claimed contradictions. I just haven't encountered the one I think checks out.

But, here is the falsifiability of the religion from the Jewish perspective. We're not allowed to come back with some stock response, like "it doesn't matter, I have the burning in the bosom" like the Mormons. We have to address the specifics of the apparently contradicting passages.

Which is, I have a feeling, what we're about to do in the very near future.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 2:09 PM  

Hence my earlier question about "New" information you had mentioned earlier .... "New" might imply information that makes the "Old" obsolete or the New may somehow nullify the old ... but you had argued for a continuum which would imply no contradictions or nullification .... if I understand your position correctly ...

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 2:13 PM  

New in the sense of the old having not spoken on the issue, or merely quickly referenced it in a way that isn't useful.

For example, it might look like the Law is obsoleted, but that isn't exactly the case. Rather, it was never even given to the Gentiles. In this case the new information would be that a gentile can get saved by following these NEW instructions.

Anonymous The Truth is Libelous August 04, 2014 2:14 PM  

How many times do I have to say this? The Talmud is a different type of document than the Christian Bible. You cannot read it the same way.


I don't. But I read enough of it that my interactions with many Jews in real life made a lot of sense once I understood the basic attitudes and beliefs regarding your peoples beliefs in being God's chosen people, while the rest of humanity are not even considered human.

And you know why some rabbis said those things about Jesus? They were more than a little pissed off at Christians. The Talmud was written over the first couple of centuries CE -- just as Christian persecution of Jews was gaining steam.

It goes far beyond the simple invective of garbage like Jesus is boiling in a vat of excrement in hell or that his Mother Mary was a whore. Vile as it is, I can accept your premise here regarding those passages.

But the number one thing that can be gleaned from the Talmud, is the Jewish belief in racial supremacy and that goyim are nothing but cattle, free to be exploited, used, abused and discarded without any moral compunction. This absolutely permeates the Talmud. With regards to monotheistic morality and how men must treat our fellow men, the Talmud is great...when it concerns Jews treating with their fellow Jews. But the Talmud's free dispensation of no moral restraint in dealing with Goyim?

Sorry Samuel, you will not so easily explain this away to those of us who have actually read your damnable documents.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 2:16 PM  

"We have to address the specifics of the apparently contradicting passages."

The claims about the identity of the Messiah and his work should not contravene the Torah ..... so, yes, addressing the specifics is important .... the apostles proved demonstrably from the Scriptures Who the Messiah was ... shouldn't Christians be equipped to do the same?

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 2:16 PM  

But the number one thing that can be gleaned from the Talmud, is the Jewish belief in racial supremacy and that goyim are nothing but cattle, free to be exploited, used, abused and discarded without any moral compunction. This absolutely permeates the Talmud.

This is precisely my impression also, and the point is driven home a LOT more emotionally by the threat of being nuked for doing absolutely nothing.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 2:20 PM  

".... that a gentile can get saved by following these NEW instructions."

So, prior to these NEW instructions the gentile was SOL?

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 2:21 PM  

shouldn't Christians be equipped to do the same?

Have at it, if you want. I put it a bit sardonically because I could see it coming a mile away and I was getting a bit tired of the traditional dance. It took longer than it usually does. But I didn't mean I would refuse.

As for the question as it is literally stands, yes, and they generally don't. This is a legitimate failing of Christendom, and something should be done about it.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 2:23 PM  

I am not dancing ... I just want to understand your position and I have appreciated your candor and responses so far ... I am not trying to set you up for anything ... but enjoying an intelligent and respectful dialogue -- kudos to you ...

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 2:23 PM  

So, prior to these NEW instructions the gentile was SOL?

Except for an extremely tiny minority that converted to Judaism, yes. I believe that eternal hellfire was in store for the gentile. But this, of course, is one of those issues that is probably going to demonstrate just how much - almost comically much - religious diversity we have here on this forum. And I already threw another conversational grenade earlier, that will be leaped on by p-dawg and Mark Call. This is going to be "fun".

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 2:26 PM  

IF ANYBODY INSULTS MY INTELLIGENCE BY PRETENDING I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORD "GEHENNA" REFERS TO, I AM GOING TO BE VERY CROSS!

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 2:27 PM  

What about those prior to Abraham who are commended for their 'faith' in Hebrews 11, I believe it is? Abel, Noah, etc. Was this NEW information available to them or was hellfire and damnation there destiny as well?

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 2:30 PM  

NT explicitly states that they (or some of them) were "saved by faith". The Mosaic Law had not come at that point, so they were not breaking any commandments by not doing some of the things it would later command. They followed the information they had. The Mosaic Law was an injection of new information, just like the arrival of Christ would be later.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 2:34 PM  

I also allow (but not require) for a small amount of saved gentiles in OT times, based on how Paul says that their conscieneces would witness on behalf of some of them at the final judgement. But it could also be that it merely makes the punishment more lenient. Which it is, is unknown at this time.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 2:37 PM  

"They followed the information they had . . . .the Mosaic Law was an injection of new information . . "

So, let me see if I understand ....

Prior to Abraham (and the Mosaic law), salvation by faith .... subsequent to Abraham (and Mosaic law) salvation by Mosaic law (ie. injection of new info) .... gentiles must now convert to be saved, so most gentiles SOL until new injection of info with Jesus Christ?

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 2:44 PM  

What are we to make of this statement in Hebrews:

For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them,[a] not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. (Heb. 4:2)

Gospel is mentioned .... us and them is mentioned ..... and faith is mentioned .... the context of the chapter also appears to be addressing salvation ..... hmm ....

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 2:44 PM  

Well, it would have been the same situation before Moses and after, for MOST gentiles. God basically closely manages one lineage from Adam onwards. (And especially starting from Jacob a.k.a. Israel). Anyone outside that would have grown among idolatry, and essentially barbarism. Moses just made the rules more difficult to follow. So, for anyone who didn't come in contact with that lineage, SOL would essentially be the case. After all, "saved by faith" implicitly means "saved by faith in Yahweh". Not just faith in general.

Then, after Jesus, being in contact with the tribe of Israel was no longer a necessity, because God's presence was no longer exclusive to it.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 04, 2014 2:46 PM  

"[W]hat would a nuclear Israel do if we Goyim in the USA carried out our own final solution to the Wall Street-Hollywood-Washington DC problem?"

They might applaud.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 04, 2014 2:48 PM  

"I remain unconvinced that we didn't provoke the attack, even if they were not pure."

I think I expressly conceded that we may well have provoked it, Brad.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 2:49 PM  

"So, for anyone who didn't come in contact with that lineage . . ."

My question boils down to this:

Do you believe that Jews and non-Jews are redeemed, saved, whatever differently? ie. a part from faith in Yahweh, the God of the bible etc. It seems to me that Paul holds Abraham and his faith as the basis for being credited with righteousness and that this same basis would then hold true for subsequent (and prior for that matter ) generations.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 04, 2014 2:50 PM  

"As for the Liberty, I "heard" it die, from a couple of POV's. It was deliberate."

Yeah. I friend of mine, now passed, was Navy Crypto on a sister ship. He got to hear _all_ the recordings.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 2:52 PM  

Remember that the chapters and verses are arbitrary. They are not in the original scrolls. So, often you have to trace a particular discussion to previous chapter, or even chapters. First, let's see who is "we" and who is "they".

Heb 3:14 For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end,

-> Ok, "we" is Christians.

3:17 And with whom was he provoked forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
3:18 And to whom did he swear that they should never enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient?
And then finally
4:2 For good news came to us just as to them; but the message which they heard did not benefit them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers.

So, "we" would be Christians, who would be having salvation. "They" would be Israelites who did not convert to Christianity. They would not be having salvation.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 2:53 PM  

Do you believe that Jews and non-Jews are redeemed, saved, whatever differently?

Unequivocally no.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 2:53 PM  

Markku ...

Our discussion drifted off point of the original post ... I have enjoyed it very much .... my email address is below if you are interested in further discussions ... I am not opposed to continuing through the medium of the blog ... all that to say this is a discussion I am very much interested in continuing ... at your pleasure .... rebbaruch10@gmail.com

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 2:56 PM  

"They" would be Israelites who did not convert to Christianity. They would not be having salvation.

But why does the text in Hebrews 4 state "they" did not have salvation .... they heard the same message, the same message was preached to them somehow - but they simply failed to combine the message (ie. gospel, good news, whatever) with faith .... at least according to the text in question ie. Heb. 4 .... am I right?

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 3:03 PM  

""They" would be Israelites who did not convert to Christianity. "

Are you saying there was a Christianity to convert to? Are 'they' not the Israelites in the desert?

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 3:05 PM  

Well, RSV and KJV fall on the literal side of the translation spectrum. It appears to just be a Koine Greek idiom. NIV, which is somewhere in the opposite end, simply says "because they did not share the faith of those who obeyed".

So, it just means "We both heard the same thing. We believed it, they didn't."

Also remember, the name of the letter is "The Letter to the Hebrews". As in, it is addressed to the Jews (both by ethnicity and by religion). The message of that passage is, "We both know our* forefathers have a track record of not listening to God. So, PLEASE, listen this time!"

*Remember, the speaker is a Jew by ethnicity

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 3:10 PM  

I guess the fascinating thing to me is that Paul claims the good news was somehow preached to our forefathers in the desert ... that much seems clear ..... and it would also seem that you yourself would equate the good news with the new information you mentioned earlier in our discussion ... therefore .. this new info was somehow available to our forefathers prior to the coming of Jesus ... curious ....

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 3:12 PM  

Are you saying there was a Christianity to convert to? Are 'they' not the Israelites in the desert?

In the first verse where "they" is used, yes. But then it says:

"And to whom did he swear that they should never enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient?"

So, this is the sense of the next "they" I get. The writer (apparently Paul) first uses the Israelites in the desert as one example of disobedience. And then, extends the principle to any disobedience. That the "disobedient" will not enter God's rest, as exemplified by the Israelies in the desert.

And the disobedience he has in mind next, is that of hearing the Gospel, and not believing it.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 3:14 PM  

Ah, I see. You're not as used to Paul's flow of thought as I am. This is a recurring way of arguing for him.

a) Take an example from the Old Testament
b) Argue that it is, in fact, a more general principle
c) Apply the principle to the issue at hand.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 3:19 PM  

And I might take your offer about the email. Usually my frustration is that it all eventually comes down to "are the Jews saved by Judaism", and for honesty's sake, I have to identify myself as not a dispensationalist. At which point it usually all goes to hell... But that is just the plain fact of the matter. I theoretically COULD be wrong (though I think that unlikely in the extreme), but it wouldn't make sense to LIE about what I think the text plainly says. That is just cowardice, and even if I were wrong about the matter, it would still reveal that I don't take what I THINK God says seriously.

If the facts turned out to be less inflammatory than I think, the fact would remain that I thought this was the truth, yet remained silent or lied.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 3:21 PM  

" . . Paul's flow of thought . . "

OK ..... help me understand the flow of this thought:

For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them ... (Heb 4:2) ....

"Us" = Paul, his audience, contemporaries, etc.

"Them" = Israelites in the desert who were disobedient ... did not listen to the message ....

"Gospel" = good news, new info, Jesus, ....

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 3:29 PM  

Markku:

"And I might take your offer about the email."

Either way ... this was fun and I appreciate your time and willingness to dialogue ... I am sure we'll 'chat' again ... thx.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 3:41 PM  

Perhaps it would be more clear if you just read it starting from 3:1. Preverably in ESV or RSV. The archaic language of KJV is kind of brutal if you're not used to it. Here's a little roadmap.

3:1 Therefore, holy brethren, who share in a heavenly call, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession.
-Here is the first pitfall. If you read it quickly, you might think "holy brethren" is Christians. No, it's Israelites. Because see verse 8: do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness, And again, remember the name of the letter.

So, the "you" of the text is those Israelites who have not converted, at the time of writing. Then we come to 14, which identifies the "we" as Christians. So, this is essentially Christians talking to Jews (by religion) here.

Then, verse 16, a "they" is brought into the picture. Being the Israelites on the desert. So, it might be easy to think that "we"=Christians, "you"=Jews by religion, "they"=Israelites at the desert, for the entirety of the discussion to come.

But, here is where Paul's little linguistic idiosyncracy enters into the picture. He argues for a general principle in verse 17. That it wasn't just INCIDENTALLY these particular Israelites, but it is GENERALLY anyone who is disobedient. And then he continues to use this sense of "they" in the next sentences. From verse 17 on, "they"=Anyone who is disobedient towards God in any way.

Why? Almost certainly because he wants to avoid using "you" in what he says next, as it would sound so much more accusatory. He's worried about the reader's immediate reaction, if he writes it this way:

For good news came to us just as to you; but the message which you heard did not benefit you, because it did not meet with faith in you.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2014 3:53 PM  

It's very important to read the NT as you would read a letter. To try to follow the train of thought, instead of treating it as a sequence of isolated verses.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 3:56 PM  

Good advice for anything we read I should think .... context, context, and context.

Blogger Joe Katzman August 04, 2014 5:54 PM  

"The world knows what Ben Bernanke did last summer, so to speak. The world knows who is funding President Goldman Sachs and..."

Given the volume of campaign contributions funded by credit cards with no verification code, my suspect list was long. I figured China or Russia as best bets. Do you have some enlightenment to offer?

Beyond that, I see a ton of non-Jews on Wall Street who benefit from Fed access and government debt related fees, plus Silicon Valley (so... it's a conspiracy from India?), plus public employee unions, as a new oligarchy. Not rocket science.

"...it understands why the head of a petty state in the Middle East can tell him off and expect him to fall in line."

Because most American allies have concluded they can tell Obama to take a hike and it won't matter. Hell, even Georgia is doing it. That one is popping out all over these days. Not even hard to guess why.

"The world knows who owns Hollywood, the U.S. media, and the bailed-out banks."

You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. It's a big accusation. Please do the research and provide the list. I believe you'll be surprised at the distribution.

Back it up, retract it, or admit that a rational discussion was never your agenda.

"The world knows who has been flooding its nations with third-world barbarians who don't even understand the concept of indoor plumbing."

Please explain how this mechanism works in Europe, whose Jewish communities are miniscule. I seem to recall that the decision was taken by European "leaders" who wanted a) to suck up to Arabs with oil; and b) to to fund their welfare state fantasies despite low native population growth. It was anti-Jewish then, and its fruits have become more so. Blaming the Jews for this is moronic.

In America, the answer is "the Democratic Party" - and to some extent "The Chamber of Commerce." You may be surprised to discover that the Democratic Party has many important and influential constituencies beyond the Jews, and that the Chamber is not even remotely a Jewish institution.

You cannot fight what you do not understand.

Blogger Joe Katzman August 04, 2014 6:04 PM  

Tom Kratman....

I wish there were nested threads here. I went back and looked at the early Zealot activities around the initial census, etc., and they were smaller than that. My confusion, you are correct. I will say that by Jesus' death, there was a real and growing concern re: Zealot activities and what an "unofficial" King of the Jews might trigger.

After Jesus, and the Roman-Jewish wars that tied down all 6-7 legions, the phenomena I describe do answer Vox's question re: why the Romans treated Jews (and "Jewish Christians") so badly. They were intolerant of The Divine Diversity, had caused a massive amount of trouble in their revolts, and people were listening when they proselytized.

The Christian branch did end up taking over Rome, so one could argue that the Romans had been correct to worry.

Blogger Joe Katzman August 04, 2014 6:07 PM  

Back to Vox...

"The idea that post-nationalism and demographic divide-and-conquer would make the Jews in America safer was intrinsically wrong,"

IS intrinsically wrong. All who worship the Left, whatever their origins, still believe it. It is no less stupid to believe it as a single woman living near an urban core, in an age of deep economic instability.

The whole idea is deeply stupid, as it always makes a nation deeply unsafe. Smaller minorities, and those less trained and inclined to violence, are made especially unsafe by this process.

"...as wrong as the idea that amassing vast wealth and political influence serves as an effective form of community protection for a small minority."

Jews have tried poverty and no influence, and that didn't work out either. Only a nation of laws not men, with strong protections against tyrannies of men or mobs, offers such protection. Such a fabric was indeed part of America's Protestant structure - but then, so was The Cathedral's long jihad.

"People like helpless refugees."

Someone didn't like them, or they wouldn't be helpless refugees. And the Central American kid gang-bangers down south? Not seeing a ton of liking. While you're at it, ask the Italians how they feel about the boat people from North Africa. Vox, this one dies at the hands of observed reality.

"People rather like grateful immigrants who settle quietly in their own communities and gradually integrate over time."

Which the Jews did. The Hollywood of John Wayne, patriotism, and all that? Not a solely Jewish creation, but the grateful Jewish immigrants who were part of it certainly played a role in making it that way. The integration trend continued, and modern intermarriage rates of 70%+ in non-Orthodox communities demonstrate integration to the point of disappearance.

Vox's complaint is that the Jews lean to the Democratic Party, which is a long generational hangover triggered by initial prejudice from the Right. You can see the exact same thing at work among the Irish. It's passed on through generations as "These people don't like us", and is hard to remove. The first big break among the Jews was the idea-based revolt/split after the 1960s (vid. Commentary Magazine), which contributed to the policy counter-offensive that came to full fruition in the Reagan years (see also non-Jewish National Review, Heritage Foundation, etc.). Other cleavages have happened since, most notably 9/11.

It is reversible. Jews in Canada once voted for the Liberal Party every bit as reliably, but have become a reliable voting bloc for the Conservative Party over the last decade. You might want to ask Prime Minister Harper how he did that, because he did a similar thing in the Asian community.

"In successfully attacking the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant nature of America, Jews destroyed the American exceptionalism that offered them protection."

Are the Irish also on that list? The big shift in the 1920s and 1930s wasn't just about Jews. Or even mostly so.

"People hate rich people who tell them what to do. And people really, really hate rich and powerful foreigners with supremacy complexes who tell them what to do while settling criminally-inclined aliens in their neighborhoods."

So, like Asians? Who voted for Obama in greater proportion than Hispanics (but those are citizens, not foreigners), and publish "Tiger Mom" books? Odd. I'm not seeing a ton of hate directed at Asians.

Maybe you mean the President? In which case it makes sense.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 8:19 PM  


Eric Ashley/04Aug14@2:22AM,

"I keep......'neutral'.

?

"Most of the world is not neutral."

Troo dat.

"Cassandra,......Southrons...."

Arabs say that as do a lot of gangbangers, don't make it true.

"you must......breath."

1st instance: 6'2"x210# w/ the only fat being between his ears. His chippie sidled up to me & asked me to show her how to shoot pool, I said okay, we went to an empty table, I took 2 cues from the wall rack, gave her one, racked the balls, & began explaining what the game (odds & evens) & the 2 main shooting styles,: The V/thumb & porthole bridge. She kept trying to get me to wrap my arms around her & guide the cue, I kept telling her I couldn't instruct her that way & eventually gave up. Sally Sue didn't like that & when Jimmy Joe came in she told him some BS that whereupon he decided to get chesty. Fella came over where I was sitting, told me he was "gonna whup my a** fur messin' w/ his wommun & would drag me from my booth if I didn't get out & fight". Jimmy Joe then turned to look at a thoroughly excited Sally Sue, a major mistake. When he turned back to face me I put the muzzle of a Govt Model type Llama .38 Super under his cojones, quietly asked if he wanted to hear what really happened or die ignorantly, & smiled a fetching smile.

After realizing that he was on the ragged edge of Eternity & that his sweet thang might've fibbed a lil' bit, JJ chose wisdom & longevity, heard my side, decided his baybeedawl lahd, apologized, went back & began to slap the snot out of her then kicked her out the door. Heard a pickup truck door open/close, then rapidly drive off w/ much intensity. 2d instance was similar to the first except for location & that Billy Bob never got closer than +/- 12' before deciding to choose his life over her BS. Mighta been my slightly bored look/voice tone, maybe he caught the vibe that sumpin' was horribly askew, dunno. Either way, he asked "what tha f***" I was doin'", I told him, we looked at each other, he went inside to express his displeasure on her.

My cousin said we should didi & became severely frightened when I said I'd wait to see if Billy Bob wanted to resume our confab so I could drop him stone dead. BB didn't (unfortunately) & we split. Btw, BB was roughly the same size as Jimmy Joe. Last instance involved 3 bigger big ol' good ol' boyz sans chickie, who said I was a "Goddamn Yankeh", that they were (3, 2, 1) "gonna whup (my) f***in' a**". They reconsidered their slur & position after a .45ACP Combat Commander suddenly appeared in my hand. One actually said I wouldn't use it which earned him a non-A.M.A. approved amputation of his left ring finger/a hole in the left thigh, had ta hurt sumpin' fierce as the round was a 185gr Silvertip. He screamed, they screamed, he feh down, they apologized/pleaded to leave, I let 'em, they did, I did, end of story.

You see, Eric, I'm a born/bred Westerner who's carried/used guns since I was 15yrs old & has more than a bit of experience w/ energetic encounters & NO patience w/ tuffies. My culture says that displays of 'manliness' common to Southern (& Latino) males are to be resolved w/ fatality, the principle being if it's worth fighting for it's worth dying for thus one should be circumspect about starting things. You don't bother me/I don't bother you/you don't get dead/evahboddy hoppy. Comprende?

Hope that clears things up.


Cassandra (of Troy)

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 8:55 PM  


Tom Kratman/04Aug14@3:AM,

Herr Oberstleutnant/Oberst Kratman, Esq.,

You apparently misapprehended the tone of my comment likely due to my inability to type italics. Be advised that I get the diff between the varieties of Judaics & wasn't referring to 'lapsed' Jews, I meant straight-up atheists of Jewish persuasion like Noam Chomsky/similar. I categorize such as ethnic instead of religious Jews meaning that their Judaism's hereditary not spiritual & that distinction in the former case applies to the majority of U.S. Jews & includes those whose Jewish identity's mainly ethno-political, i.e., 'Passover Jews'. Same same for American Erinese/Italians w/ Catholicism & most American Prots.

That should clarify things & if not I'm willing to expound further. Danke & bon jour.


Cassandra (of Troy)

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2014 9:02 PM  

Not enough here's former French president Sarkozy (Jew) pushing for French racial interbreeding but ensuring the Arabs remain racially pure in their homelands.

http://youtu.be/X-RWbDU0rjM

Blogger Tom Kratman August 04, 2014 11:16 PM  

Oddly enough, it's not clear to me that Noam is an atheist. I don't think it's clear to him, either. He's never said so, that I'm aware of. In any case, when I mentioned to him lighting a candle before mass for his late wife, he was quite gracious about it, actually.

But, again, yes there are atheists whose ancestry includes Jews.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 04, 2014 11:17 PM  

"I will say that by Jesus' death, there was a real and growing concern re: Zealot activities and what an "unofficial" King of the Jews might trigger."

I'm pretty sure that's true, yes.

Blogger Akulkis August 05, 2014 12:19 AM  

You're going to expect tears, cash, and prizes for six million people killed during the biggest war on the planet seven decades ago when the Chinese more recently offed eight times that many of their own people over nothing more than resource allocation and lunatic political theory

Lunatic political theory originally concocted by Karl Marx (Germany, you-know-who), and then implemented by Mao, under the tutelage of his two close advisors Sidney Rittenber, Frank Coe, Israel Epstein, Elsie Fairfax-Cholmely, and Solomon Adler google search results

Anonymous Anonymous August 05, 2014 12:20 AM  


Joe Katzman/04Aug14@3:31AM,

"As for......entire."

Perhaps this, this, &/or this may prove helpful in that effort.

"Suffice to say......Ass)."

See this item, this item, & this item.

"May I......beside you?"

Such as?

"It is......unlooked-for."

The behavior of most American Judaics suggests a pathological fixation on the former regarding Christian Americans & a reluctance bordering on outright refusal to believe the latter about that same group of Americans. Puzzling at best, enraging long term, stupid generally.


Cassandra (of Troy)

Blogger Akulkis August 05, 2014 12:48 AM  

I'm loathe to take the fundie approach that I used to have since I suspect that the anti-christ will be a half-jew whenever he eventually shows up. Plus, just as with ourselves, the Jews are historically their own worst enemy covenants and promises notwithstanding. They seem to be the Lord's whack-a-mole.

Read the Babylonian Talmud. It is the teachings of the Pharisees drawn from the oral history of rulings of Jewish judges over hundreds of years, and put down into writing around 500 AD (no, it is not 500 CE.... f*uck tha noise!), which is the most significant ethical guide used by the Ashkenazim. It turns ALL of the teachings of Moses on its head, and is above all else, PRECISELY why the Ashkenazim have been kicked out of country after country after country and pogrommed and hunted.

Oh, by the way, they ALSO hold that any Gentile who reads the Talmud should be put to death. Considering the hair-splitting rationalizations for doing wrong, it's not a surprise they would want any non-Jew who has read it to be put to death.

To wit -- there is rationalization for slaying a 3-year old girl after being raped by a Jewish man -- because of all the inconvenient fall-out for the rapist after his deeds became known. Stealing from Gentiles is permitted. A Jew may kill a Gentile, without consequence, but if a Gentile strickes a Jew, he should be put to death.

Any oath or vow is legally binding, and anything which is deliberately misrepresented to sound like an oath or vow shall be treated as an oath or vow... (sounds pretty reasonable, right?... then you get to the next part) A Jew may swear any oath or vow, and not be held to it, as long has he or she has, within the previous year, he or she has taken part in the Kol Nidre ceremony --(in which the participants renounce any obligation to uphold any vow or oath taken within the next year) and remembers at the time of making the vow or oath that he/she participated in a Kol Nidre ceremony. [Of course, who knows if someone remembered to invoke their mental "crossed fingers" excape from responsibility or not when asked about it later... they certainly aren't going to tell the other parties at the time that they just remembered that they do not consider themselves bound by their own vow or oath that they just gave only moments before].

There's also all sorts of justifications for bizarre and disgusting sexual acts.

And it's all predicated on the idea that God's will as CLEARLY stated in Genesis and Leviticus is obviously not at all what God meant.

Knowing this, it is no wonder that Jesus stood in front of the Temple and insulted them with all sorts of vile descriptions, and that the idea of "love your neighbor as thyself" was not only a revolutionary concept in Jerusalem 2000 years ago, but radical enough to piss off the Pharisees enough to want to see him dead, Dead, DEAD!!!!

Anonymous Anonymous August 05, 2014 12:50 AM  


Tom Kratman/04Aug14@3:55AM,

"They're widely......poorer tanks."

I'm curious what the Limes, Germans, & Ivans think about the U.S. military. I've heard for years from various sources, some off the record, some from anecdotal conversations, that the Ingwish still don't consider Americans 'prahpuh sowljahz' because of our reliance on air power & our tech fetish. Not enough eyeball to eyeball gallantry for them, I've also heard/read that when we let loose on an enemy they deem us = to/worse than Germans i.e., 'bloody butchers'.

Franz from what I've picked up also doesn't think much of our mil but they envy our innovation & capacity &, occasionally, are impressed w/ our willingness to lay waste to opponents. Ivan holds views similar to those of Colin & Franz, from what I've heard/seen. Moishe's attitude, otoh, is a concentrated combo of the aforementioned, in sum, they envy/despise us BIG time & seldom let the opportunity to express such go by. The Arabs/Islamics are terrified of us/"They're worse than their Jewish masters!", the Persians not so much because Allah/72 virgins, the Afghans are a mixed bag as are the Indies.

As you quite likely have better info than I it'd be interesting to hear your comments.

3:58AM: M113s

I'm at a loss to understand why so many countries like that self-propelled BBQ, I know lots of guys who've (barely) survived its flaws & curse it to this very day.


Cassandra (of Troy)

Blogger Tom Kratman August 05, 2014 1:18 AM  

Germans, Brits, etc., _when_?

The Germans had four different and sometimes conflicting experiences with us. In the Great War, there is some reason to believe we scared the living shit out of them. Not that we weren't amateurs with much to learn, but that we were generally better shots than they'd seen since overwhelming the British regular army in 1914, had the courage of innocence, were not necessarily given to taking prisoners, and there were so many of us, so quickly, with more coming. In WW II it's hard to say what they thought, really. I think the ones who were in France were eventually kind of impressed, in the sense that POWs and the dead are often impressed. Postwar, we discovered we liked each other better than either of us liked any of our other enemies..._or_allies_. Vietnam was a problem because the Army in Germany became worse than rabble. By about 1983, or so, we had our problems sorted out and were no longer rabble. That said, I detested 7th Army as the worst trained, least tough and disciplined, most initiative-impaired part of the whole Army. Now the German Army is really rather small, albeit bigger than Weimar's, but not so much professional as politically correct. I have reports from Afghanistan that show the Huns in a very poor light. And, no, it isn't all a tight - "keep the casualties down" - governmental leash.

I do wish we'd found an occasion to go to war with Prussia circa June, 1865, so we could have disabused Moltke the Elder of some of his sillier prejudices.

Brits and us...it's an odd relationship. Some of them like and admire us. Some of them detest us. The smartest understand that we're just different, but amazingly combative, even while combining a volunteer army and the ethos of a willing citizen-soldier army. They know we don't have the kind of social cohesion their battalions have - nobody does - but we have enough. My impression of working with them, closely at one time, was that there was a mix of envy of our wealth in equipment and training facilities, pure shock at our logistic capabilities, resentment - sometimes fierce - from some that we'd taken over the Empire, but on the whole a general liking, as for any other cousins.

I couldn't speak to the others, but if you google around you can find a translated letter from a French infantryman who was simply awestruck at our grunt, in Afghanistan.

The diesel 113 isn't a fire trap. I don't think I've seen a petrol 113 since the mid 70s or so. What it is is simple, reliable, cheap, maneuverable - with excellent cross country capability. All the bugs have been worked out. We know how to use them and to train the troops to use them. It is also comparatively cheap to train the troops with them, so we can train a lot. And because of the simplicity and reliability - oh, and cheapness - it is possible for mechanized infantry mounted in 113s to remain very good infantry, and in sufficient numbers. This is not true of M3 mounted infantry. On the down side, they're not that well armored, though there are kits for that.

Anonymous Anonymous August 05, 2014 1:55 AM  


Markku/04Aug14@2:26PM,

"IF ANYBODY......VERY CROSS!"

And will no doubt express your ire w/ A STRONGLY WORDED LETTER TO THE EDITOR, right?

;~)

@2:30PM: There was also that whole God being in contact w/ them on a regular basis thing to consider, rather handy when the time comes to get definitions/clarifications.


Cassandra (of Troy)

Blogger Tom Kratman August 05, 2014 2:11 AM  

Akulkis, I'm betting that neither you nor I are particularly fluent in Hebrew or Persian, Aramaic or Koine. So we are each relying on one or another translator or commentator. Just out of curiosity, who's yours and what are the cites for the particular passages you mention?

Anonymous Anonymous August 05, 2014 2:55 AM  


Tom Kratman/04Aug14@2:46PM,

"They might applaud."

You might not be all that wrong as the tone of this item & this item demonstrates. Funny thing is that Jews have been instrumental in fomenting the same kind of behavior against the U.S. in the U.S., not so humorous when one's spawn go Ouroboros on their 'parents' is it.


Cassandra (of Troy)

Anonymous Wise Cave Owl August 05, 2014 3:22 AM  

"anti-semitism" is Zion's most self-aggrandizing product. It frightens Diaspora Jews into moving to "Israel". It is purposeful, not accidental. Krauthammer, a war-mongering neo-con Israelite, is certainly aware of this. One grows so...damn...tired...of the Jew crying out in pain every time he strikes someone.

Anonymous Anonymous August 05, 2014 5:35 AM  


Tom Kratman/05Aug14@1:18AM,

"In the......them."

The Win 97 & 12 shotguns made quite an impression, Colin, Franz, & Jacques found their use highly disturbing to their 'civilized' sensibilities from what I've read/heard. Poison gas? Well, hey, ya know. But SHOTGUNS, I seh Old Chep/Himmel/Mon Dieu, such things are for ANIMALS! I've also read that some of our troops use of tomahawks/Bowie knives was deemed particularly barbarous & confirmed their opinion of us as 'savages', quite funny when considered against the uproar the third item from the bottom caused. I read once that the IGA's consternation about American accuracy caused some of its higher-ups to wonder if the American army was composed of snipers, guys like McBride & York gave 'em fits.

"In WW II......impressed."

I don't have the cite/can't remember where I heard it, but Rommel thought Americans were pretty good when well lead & was particularly approving of our ability to improvise & that we could fix damned near anything w/ next to nothing, i.e., baling wire/pliers/a roll of tape/a wad of gum & PRESTO the car/jeep/tank/plane's up & running! "Ah ALL zee Amerikanische truppen mechanics und inventors?" Colin, however, was VEDDY annoyed but didn't let that get in the way of allowing us to fix their gear & a great many Brit civvies were quite appreciative of that ability.

"Postwar,......allies."

I've heard that, but also that more than a few held grudges from WW1/their recent defeat. Also, they understandably weren't fond of our guys whoring after their frauleins/fraus & that the ladies kinda liked it. A rahthuh Ingwish attitude, ja? I'm given to understand that Franz occasionally thought we were alternately too kind/too murderous but that when the time came to plant the stiffy we'd, as Patton said, know what to do & do it w/ verve. The Germans REALLY liked (feared) cousin Georgie, said if the American military had more like him/LeMay & fewer of Ike/Bradley we could've defeated them much earlier. Put him right up w/ Guderian, Rommel, Dietrich, & Peiper, although as you can imagine comparison to the last 2 wasn't received all that well.

"Vietnam......rabble."

A cousin was sent to Germany in 68 & after 6mos requested assignment to Nam in a mech unit ideally but as 11B if that was the only slot open, told his CO if he didn't get out of Deutschland soon he'd be a drunken junkie so the CO put the paperwork thru & he arrived just in time to join the VC's Tet celebrations. He said it was better than Germany & cleaned him right up, neither drank/got high while there (2 tours) nor afterward in fact. Interesting note,: He was blown out of 2 tanks/1 M-113 & the only injuries were from tree limbs/some kind of thorned vine, went straight up thrice & came down (relatively) intact.

"I have......leash."

Probably resulting from a combo of WW 2/post-war Leftism, met a bunch of Germans similarly afflicted. Reticent to talk at first, but after realizing I wasn't hostile they loosened up & we had a fine time. Having a big chunk of German in my bloodline didn't hurt either, although some thought I was a tad too, uh, unforgiving, regarding impromptu altercation resolution. Ah well, can't please everyone.


Cassandra (of Troy)

Anonymous Eric Ashley August 05, 2014 9:53 AM  

Cassandra,
I'm going to assume you're not just making stuff up to be an internet tough guy.

By your account, you threatened a man with a gun when he was offering you fisticuffs. I'm sure it was neccessary as he was Bigger, Tougher, and Southron. Heh.

And then when you were further threatened on another occassion (do you frequent dives?) instead of doing as your culture dictates, and killing someone, you merely wounded him.

Who are the greatest warriors? Hmmm, Alvin York, George Washington, Robert E. Lee, the Swamp Fox, Forrest of 'get there the fustest with the mostest',......much of the current US Armed Forces. Southrons.

Also, for police, the most dangerous areas are not the big cities, but the suburbs and places of the Southrons. This is because of two factors. 1) In the Northern cities, a bad man gets a hundred cops to show up. Not so much in the South. 2)Less tendency to back up.

Now, while Westerners have heroes of their own, they may not be as good warriors because of a more Libertarian streak. Conservatives tend to be more dangerous than Libertarians who are more about lawsuits than lethality, and getting the other guy to do the deed than doing it themselves. But hey, that rancher standing off the Feds, that was pretty cool.

Blogger Matamoros August 05, 2014 1:37 PM  

Any body know if this quote is accurate?

"The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy, and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this new world order the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition.

The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property, and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands" (Baruch Levy, in a letter to Karl Marx, La Revue de Paris, page 574, June 1, 1928).

Blogger Shimshon August 05, 2014 2:09 PM  

""The Jewish people as a whole..."

Well, see, you lost me right there, before the first sentence finished.

I'll grant that there could indeed be a super-secret cabal running the world (and no doubt twirling their mustaches or whatever it is that evil cabals do) that happens to be Jewish. But "the Jewish people as whole?" Seriously? As Samuel Scott pointed out elsewhere, the last election had something like 30 parties running for Knesset, with about 13 crossing the threshold. If it is exists, no one I know is aware of it. I'd sure like to know more though. I could use some nicer digs. About time I get a piece of the action for being a member of the tribe.

Anonymous Anonymous August 06, 2014 1:21 AM  


Eric Ashley/05Aug14@9:53AM,

"Cassandra,"

Yes?

"I'm going......guy."

Your assumption's correct.

"By your......fisticuffs."

Incorrect & disingenuously so. I responded to a valid threat of violence w/ the valid reality of violence. But acourse a good ol' boah lak you/yer buddehs woulda KNOWD ol' JJ was jist a funnin an sat thar agrinnin' lak a possum eatin' s***, raht? And your pseudo-innocuous portrayal of the valid threat of a severe & possibly crippling or fatal beating as 'offering fisticuffs' is at best a stupid ploy.

"I'm sure it was necessary"

Correct.

"as he was Bigger,"

Correct again.

"Tougher,"

Sure looked that way to me, but acourse you/yer buddehs wouldna thot thataway about summin who had bahseps tha sahzatha calfuh yer laig, wouldyih. Nawww.

"and Southron."

Incorrect. The ethnicity/creed/physical size/martial ability/sex/politics/carnal preferences/grooming habits/educational level/income/social status & to an extent age of anyone who makes it known that he/she/it/they is/are going to do me harm is immaterial, I'm a firm believer in treating everyone equally.

"Heh."

Hoo.

"And then......him."

Your apparent unfamiliarity w/ Western culture, other than distorted depictions you may have seen in movies/on TV, de facto disqualifies you from rendering an intelligent assessment of the dynamics of the encounter I described. IOW, EA, that feller/his buddehs jest needed a ruhmahndr about what his/their mawmuh taught about manners an that's wut he/they got. And no, I don't patronize establishments like those referred to in Gimme 3 Steps unless required to for business reasons. Further, your assumption that events such as those I described are restricted only to certain locations is another demonstration of your ignorance.

"Who are the greatest warriors?"

Matter of opinion.

"Hmmmm,......Southrons."

There are many more than those you listed.

"Also,......cities,"

Depends on the situation.

"but the......Southrons."

And what League of the South(R) True History(R)(C) comic book told you that, EA?

"This is......South."

Yet more from the aforementioned publication.

"Less tendency to back up."

?

"Now,......own,"

Troo dat.

"they may......streak."

While you're doubtless correct in some circumstances, it's unwise to regularly assume that reluctance to immediately go hot indicates a lack of ability. Lotta people have found out differently & not survived their enlightenment.

"Conservatives......themselves."

See previous response.

"But hey,......cool."

Didn't know ol' Cliven held off the Vile Yankee Hordes(R) all by his lonesome, I'll have to ask the 20 odd people I know who were there why the media made it look otherwise. Thanks, EA.

TTFN


Cassandra (of Troy)

Anonymous Anonymous August 06, 2014 4:45 AM  


Tom Kratman/05Aug14@1:18AM,

cont.

"I do......prejudices."

1880'd be better as the Win 73, Colt Peacemaker, & improved/enlarged Gatlings would be available for deployment along w/ lots of folks w/ a great deal of recent combat experience from service in the Civil War & Indian conflicts. Imagine his surprise......

"Brits......relationship."

At minimum.

"Some of......us."

I've seen/heard more of the latter than the former.

"The smartest......enough."

I've been told that last part has surprised/irritated them for a long time & especially post-segregation which is odd considering their positive experience w/ the Gurkhas, but then we're not all that pure either.

"My impression......capabilities,"

That last part's strange as it's the direct result of the first part that makes them envious, furthermore, their technical/manufacturing abilities, naval dominance, & ownership of large parts of Africa enabled them to easily surpass us long ago. E.g., take the Colt, Gatling, & Winchester. Why they couldn't have come up w/ them/something similar if not better is puzzling & when their proximity to Europe/its technical expertise is factored in it's even more so. Hell's bells, TK, they bought the aforementioned weaponry in bulk, were thoroughly familiar w/ their operating principles/metallurgy, & somehow failed to get exploitable ideas from them. Recall their shock/anger about Maxim! Weird, simply weird.

"resentment......Empire,"

Understandable given their (humiliating) need for us in WW 1 & 2/the imo extortionate repayment terms of Lend-Lease 1 & 2, Palestine, Suez, India, then there's our by comparison late Cro-Magnon stage culture de facto erasing their Enlightenment level one in just over a century,: "Good GAWD, Trevor, the bloody Yanks are on the MOON!". Now we're getting a taste of what they've been going thru & are just as POd about it. The karma, it BURNS the Preciousssss........

"but on......cousins."

Due to my overwhelmingly negative experiences w/ most Ingwish & Canadians &, to a lesser extent, Ozzies & Kiwis, you'll understand my skepticism about the genuineness of the impression they gave you. May be different w/ their mil, but in the civvy world their hostility toward us is blatant & unadulterated.

"I couldn't......Afghanistan."

Is this the one? OMLT eh, leave it to the French (& maybe the Italians) to come up w/ a mil acronym involving food. Magnifique!

The M-113

The gas version's what I was referring to but the diesel one isn't a confidence inspirer either. I mean, ALUMINUM armor? A hardening kit isn't going to alleviate a basic weakness like that, I can come up w/ a great many ways to bust that Alcoa box that don't rely on assists from DuPont or Alliant. Thanx, but I'll pass. I favor the BMP-3/BMD-4/BTR-80M, the German Puma, & LAV-25, but as I've no experience w/ them my opinion's irrelevant. Also understand that my mind tends toward the guerrilla & so my perspective's a touch off by regular G.I. standards.

That's all from my end, Col, I thank you for your courtesy & the very informative response, it's much appreciated.


Cassandra (of Troy)

Blogger agraves August 06, 2014 9:32 AM  

As we have been told: palestinian deaths 2,000+, Israeli soldier deaths 70? How many palestinian deaths were actual fighters, not women and children, maybe 10%. So it appears that it terms of actually fighting soldier to soldier the hamas showed up to the fight, given the complete dominance in fire power for Israel: tanks, air power, training, ammo, intel, etc. Remember 2006, when Israel fought Hezbollah, they got fucked up, merkabha tanks and all. I am tired of conservatives saying Israel is the U.S. We are America occupied by Israel.

Anonymous Eric Ashley August 06, 2014 9:48 AM  

Cassandra,
And the sarcasm goes sailing over your head. So what we have is a Southron male threatened you with a beatdown, and you overreacted. Thus proving you're not the superior warrior.

Heh was my claiming a point. But for you, you can say 'touche''. It being French and all.

'Matter of opinion'....well, since that was what this insult match was about, and since I offered evidence, and you didn't.....Heh.

Many more warriors in the South than those I listed.....well, now I'm shocked. Either you're reccommending the South as a warrior culture, or you're expecting me not to realize the totally obvious. Hard to say.

Depends on.....no, its a general rule.

The next three are backed up by an autobiographical book of short stories by a Southern policeman, and by common sense.

Streak....of course they have. I do not deny that the Westerners can be tough and dangerous. I merely assert the obvious, that the Southrons are the premier warriors in the world. If you wanted to argue that Westerners were in the Top Twenty, I would not object.

Conservatives.....well, here we're a bit more sticky. Libertarians have some definite tendencies, and although they'd like to believe they're in Gordon Dickson's universe with them as Dorsai and Conservatives as Friendlies, that's usually the opposite way around to a large degree.

Hunh? Where did I give the impression that I thought it was Clive and his trusty six shooter all by himself in the middle of the street at high noon? Cause I sure don't t hink thats what I meant.

Anonymous outsider August 06, 2014 5:38 PM  

Is any of this true, or at least the moral blame part?
I do not have the faintest idea.

Blogger Akulkis August 06, 2014 6:25 PM  

Akulkis, I'm betting that neither you nor I are particularly fluent in Hebrew or Persian, Aramaic or Koine. So we are each relying on one or another translator or commentator. Just out of curiosity, who's yours and what are the cites for the particular passages you mention?

Digital scans of an English translation done by some rabbis about 100 years ago, posted on the website http://come-and-hear.com

Blogger Akulkis August 06, 2014 7:13 PM  

ALUMINUM armor? A hardening kit isn't going to alleviate a basic weakness like that, I can come up w/ a great many ways to bust that Alcoa box that don't rely on assists from DuPont or Alliant."

Study up on penetration ballistics. I used to think the same thing about the aluminum armor in the M113. What I found out, however, is that when it comes to metals, what matters most is mass. Because steel is 3x as dense as aluminum, 3" of aluminum is interchangeable with 1" of steel.

Why aluminum was chosen over steel, I don't know. It doesn't save weight, and just makes the walls thicker. Maybe someone decided that thicker, less-dense walls made for better design parameters. I imagine that when adding applique armor, thicker walls will hold the applique armor in position better (less wiggling)

Blogger Akulkis August 06, 2014 7:25 PM  

""The Jewish people as a whole..."

Well, see, you lost me right there, before the first sentence finished.


The lack of an all-inclusive conspiracy among the parties does NOT rule out the existance of a common agenda among most Jews to
A) outlaw private property and make it all property of the government, and then
B) holding overwhelming numbers of positions of powers within the state, take the "nationalized" property and resources and put all of that to use in ways which are both beneficial to the Jews and directly against the interests of the rest of the citizenry, from whom all was confiscated.

And if you don't believe me, look at what has so recently happened in the U.S. The citizens' money is being used to buy up 95% of the small arms ammunition. Federal police agencies with barely 300 armed personnel are buying up ammunition at rates which EXCEED the entire Iraq Theater of Operations during 2007-2009. The feds are claiming that their OPERATIONAL (as opposed to training) expenditures of ammunition are greater than 2000 bullets/day.

2000 small arms discharges by Federal law enforcement PER DAY in the U.S., That amounts to 40/day PER STATE of the Union. Where are the Feds having all of these shoot-outs in which they shoot dozens of rounds, and yet nobody, not even the press hears about them?


It's obvious what's going on, and it's obvious what is being planned. Don't play dumb, it just makes you look even more insulting than it does dishonest.

Anonymous Anonymous August 06, 2014 9:35 PM  


Akulkis/06Aug14@7:13PM,

"Study......steel."

Am well acquainted w/ the topic thus the nature of my comment. Was astonished at a deceitful demonstration of the 'power' of the M-193 round made by a Sgt,: The old shoot the closed water-filled ammo can & see it explode. Impressed those ignorant of ballistics & hydraulics, others who knew about such things weren't. Opened quite a few eyes about the veracity of instructors. Too bad the Sgt didn't do the "it doesn't kick either, watch while I put this M-16 on my mouth & fire it a few times" thing, would've been hilarious to see how he would've avoided losing teeth w/o the use of a mouth protector & juiced ammo.

"Why aluminum......parameters."

That may be it, but my inclination's more toward the cost effective/ease & rapidity of manufacture position. Remember McNamara & not hard chroming the chamber/bore of the the M-16 & not issuing cleaning equipt for it?

"I imagine......wiggling)."

That's what I've heard, people've told me that the Brass squawked when crews hung sandbags on them as a 'field expedient enhancement'. Didn't do much good against 2 man RPG-2 killer teams or a concerted DShK attack.


Cassandra (of Troy)

Anonymous Anonymous August 06, 2014 11:15 PM  


Eric Ashley/06Aug14@9:48AM,

"And the sarcasm goes sailing over your head."

If you say so.

"So what......beatdown,"

So to you/similar it's wrong for the object of a valid threat of imminent physical attack to resist, yes/no.

"and you overreacted."

So to you/similar resistance to a threat of imminent physical attack is an "overreaction", yes/no.

"Heh was my claiming a point."

See first response..

"But for......all."

Mighty white of you to allow me to do what you want, but I decline.

"'Matter of opinion'...."

Indeed it is.

"well,......about,"

Interesting that you see our interaction that way, EA.

"and since I offered evidence,"

So to you/similar conjecture & opinion = factual evidence, yes/no.

"and you didn't....."

See first response.

"Heh."

Hah.

"Many more......listed....."

Undoubtedly, & elsewhere as well.

"well, now I'm shocked."

Since you made the claim you shouldn't be, EA.

"Either......culture,"

One of many.

"or you're......obvious."

I'm not.

"Hard to say."

See first response.

"Depends......rule."

See first response.

"The next......sense."

See response #8.

"Streak....of course they have."

Show proof that I claimed differently.

"I do......dangerous."

I agree, but unlike you I don't place limits on that description.

"I merely......world."

In your opinion.

"If you......Twenty,"

Uninterested in arguing about anything & especially about the opinions others hold.

"I would not object."

As before, that's mighty white of you.

"Conservatives......tendencies,"

Glad to see you agreeing w/ me, EA.

"and although......Friendlies,"

See response #20.

"that's......degree."

See response #20.

"Hunh?"

?

"Where did......noon?"

Show proof that I made such a claim.

"Cause......meant."

See first response.


Cassandra (of Troy)

Anonymous PaleFace August 07, 2014 4:44 AM  

Joe Katzman:

"Please explain how this mechanism works in Europe, whose Jewish communities are miniscule."

This is a line Whiskey plays too. Those "miniscule" communities just happen to have supplied a recent president of France, the current leader of the British Labour party, the current two chairmen of the British Conservative party, major funders of politics across Europe and writers of "hate-crime" legislation, uncountable Marxist and crypto-Marxist media-owners, journalists, academics, "activists", propagandists, etc, etc. Oh, and the charming Barbara Lerner Spectre:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ

Blogger Tom Kratman August 07, 2014 6:46 PM  

Akulkis:

A search of that site, using the terms "three year old girl rape kill" does not produce evidence of your claim. Got a better search? Additionally, it would appear to be a less than objective site to begin with. For one thing, the Talmud is like Clausewitz and moot court; you can find a statement in support of anything because it is comparing unlikes. Thus, for example, the thing about three year old girls and virginity isn't about the righteousness of boffing 3 year old girls (who, it seems to me, would be somewhat unlikely to survive the experience anyway) but about the nature of virginity, specifically with regard to whether a divorved woman is entitled to X payment or less than X.

Anonymous Anonymous August 08, 2014 3:03 PM  


From the Dept. of Karmic Consequences/Jewish section files, this item.:

The Biter Gets Bit & Doesn't Like It.


Cassandra (of Troy)

Anonymous Anonymous August 08, 2014 3:35 PM  


From the research division of the House of Judah's Ministry for Public Information, the results of a recent study.:

More Proof That All Who Do Not Unequivocally Praise & Support Jews Automatically Hate Them.

And yet Jews can say/do anything they want against other religions & everyone's supposed to thank them.


Cassandra (of Troy)

Blogger Akulkis August 08, 2014 11:12 PM  

https://www.google.com/search?q=site:come-and-hear.com+three-year-old+girl+OR+3-year-old

Anonymous Discard August 09, 2014 2:30 AM  

Akulkis: As I understand it, the problem with aluminum armor is that when hit by an RPG, the instantly powdered aluminum amplified the blast. When I was young we would make our own black powder for home-made fireworks. Substituting aluminum powder for charcoal would make the stuff more volatile and give it a much brighter flash, so the story sounds plausible to me.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 10, 2014 12:19 AM  

Yeah...no. That search doesn't seem to lead to what you claimed, specifically: "there is rationalization for slaying a 3-year old girl after being raped by a Jewish man." Can you narrow it down some?

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 358 of 358

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts