Wednesday, February 25, 2015



What does the term
“The Alienated Jew”
mean to you, personally, 
and what effect might the phenomenon, if, indeed, it is a phenomenon, had on the development of Western Civilization and Current Events?

 
In this 15th century woodcut, Jews are depicted as murdering the child Simon of Trent. This "murder" is one of the sources of the Medieval blood libel: the allegation that Jews used Christian children's blood to make matzoh (unleavened bread) during Passover. The Jews can be recognized by the circular patches sewn on their clothing and by the money bags they carry.

[SOURCE: From a facsimile of Hartmann Schedel's Nuremburg Chronicle or Buch der Chroniken, printed by Anton Koberger in 1493. Both the Buch der Chroniken and the facsimile are located at Kenyon College.]

56 comments:

  1. What does the term“The Alienated Jew”mean to you, personally...?

    Nothing negative. Two of my excellent medical providers, my OB/GYN and my retinal surgeon, are Jewish, and there are no better doctors in the world. I dread the day that my OB/GYN will retire. Thankfully, my retinal surgeon is much younger than I.

    Several of my best friends are Jews, conservative politically -- although several of these best friends are Jews for Jesus.

    I have noticed one odd thing about the Jews for Jesus in the homeschool group. They are very sensitive about Shakespeare's character Shylock. The phrase "my pound of flesh" offends them -- even though Shakespeare's intent is not, as far as I can discern, meant to be offensive. The Merchant of Venice is satirical and comedic.

    As I think about this post, I realize that I did have serious run-ins with the Jewish owners of the last private school where I worked for one year, the last year I taught in the traditional classroom. These two women were difficult with whom to work -- especially the senior in the partnership. She was a hopeless alcoholic! I got along better with her when she was mellowed out on booze.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shakespeare never makes his intentions completely unambiguous, but Merchant has certainly been used by antisemites -- the Nazis put on many productions and broadcast it over German radio shortly after Kristallnacht, for example.

      Delete
    2. What Shakespeare may or may not have "intended," and what other people have CHOSEN - presently CHOOSE - or MAY possibly CHOOSE in future to make of his work in regard to the Jews are two entirely different things.

      Certainly the Jews, themselves, -- or rather we would say a highly vocal element among them who have a made a virtual profession of touting, defending and promoting their Jewishness as such -- against real or imagined evidence of "anti-Semitism" by ceaselessly casting aspersions at gentiles and others not of the Jews' singular, self-styled brand of humanity -- have spared Shakespeare and many many others no end of vilification in their ceaseless attempt to promote what-may-be called for-want-of-a-better-term The Jewish Agenda.

      The term "anti-Semiism" has been spectacularly useful to the Jews in helping them achieve unprecedented power and influence entirely disproportionate to their numbers along with virtual immunity from criticism.

      They use it incessantly to bully he rest of us into submission.

      Delete
    3. Well, I think it's possible that AoW's friends' offense is genuine, but I wouldn't let that deter me from putting on a production of Merchant. That said, a production which emphasised Shylocke's villainous aspects (which the text supports) would make me uncomfortable. For what it's worth, the woodcutting you present here makes me uncomfortable too. I'd be very surprised if Medieval Jews drank Christian blood, so I consider this to be a vicious propaganda, designed to support the prevailing antisemitism of the period.

      Delete
    4. People who make a career out of capitalizing on their feelings of being offended -- real or imagined -- frankly offend ME. I despise "Offendism" with all my heart. It is the root of Political Correctness, the tool of would-be Control Freaks, the genesis of a new form of despotism.

      I believe PC is rooted in the horror perpetrated by the Nazis, and has caught on like wildfire with every other Grievance Group imaginable since the end of WWII brought us the Civil Rights Era.

      PC is an illegitimate means of wresting control of the levers of power away from their natural, rightful heirs.

      There is something innately revolting and immoral in the presumption formerly aggrieved people have that they should forever be EXEMPT from criticism or accountability for their actions. Having once been a victim -- or a member or descendant of a once persecuted group -- does not, should not and CAN not confer IMMUNITY from RESPONSIBILITY for one's present day activities.

      Delete
    5. How far is an individual responsible for the actions of his ethnic group?
      Who are the rightful heirs of power? I consider PC to be a useful tool to help reverse entrenched disadvantage. You could restate that as PC eroding entrenched advantage, but in a meritocracy that's a good thing.

      Delete
    6. "I consider PC to be a useful tool to help reverse entrenched disadvantage."

      You WOULD, of course, and that is precisely why we never have, and never could ever get along.

      Delete
    7. Jez,
      ...Merchant has certainly been used by antisemites...

      Yes.

      However, The Merchant of Venice is also one of the most-performed Shakespearean plays in Israel -- or used to be, anyway. According to The Friendly Shakespeare (1994): "The Merchant of Venice is the most popular play in Israel" (page 100).

      BTW, I highly recommend the book The Friendly Shakespeare. Nobody should try to teach Shakespeare's plays without this trusty book.

      Delete
    8. Well, consider what we had before PC. You may think the entrenched disadvantage was deserved, but that doesn't contradict my statement. Do you disagree that PC tends to remove entrenched disadvantages?
      AOW: didn't know that, but it doesn't surprise me.

      Delete
    9. Do you disagree that PC tends to remove entrenched disadvantages?

      YES!

      I would agree only that PC has sought from its inception -- and is well in its way to establishing -- a NEW and DIFFERENT set of "ENTRENCHED (DIS)ADVANTAGES" designed to gain TOTALITARIAN POWER and CONTROL for the cruelest and most abusive set of "MASTERS" the world has yet seen.

      Without stooping to calling you names, Jez, I can see -- very clearly -- that in Orwellian terms you are very much an advocate -- and may possibly be ONE of -- the PIGS who WALKED UPRIGHT.

      What has ANY "Revolution" EVER accomplished but the Replacement of One Form of Despotism with Another -- usually far less agreeable and even more crushing?

      The SOLE exception that I know of, has been the AMERICAN Revolution of 1776, and frankly I'm not really certain that even THAT was worth what it cost -- especially in light of the TRAIN WRECK, the insidious specious logic of the Hegelian-Marxian-Fabian-Commumist-Socialist-Progressive-Liberal-Statist-Dictocratic movement(s) -- the TOXIC HASH -- they have made of the our Founders elegant, brilliant, profoundly humanistic Vision.

      Delete
    10. Which would entail removing the pre-existing entrenched disadvantages. That far we agree. (A bit more patience and you would have seen that for yourself.)
      Where we differ is your belief that PC can deliver (and entrench?) advantage to some other set of people. In my opinion you'd need to do something else to grab power, PC is not enough.
      Maybe we disagree about what PC is. I think it is -- at worst-- a kind of institutionalized politeness. Hardly revolutionary. You see it as a coercive, confining thing. I see it as a liberating one. The petty racism it replaced: THAT was confining. Mentally dismissing every Asian as "a ting-tong from somewhere or other" -- that's a habit that you're freer without.
      Don't expect to convince you, but vainly hope to relieve you of your misconception that all opponents to your doctrines must be evil or support tyranny. I don't believe I am or do.

      Delete
    11. Your beliefs and the TRUTH are wildly at odds and aways will be.

      Enough said. I don't wish to discuss it any further.

      You will, of course, claim my lack of willingness listen to any more of your arrogant, condescending brand of opinion as a "victory."

      All you have done, however, is what your side always does, you "win." if that's what you want to call it, through ADAMANCY, OBDURACY and ATTRITION –– nothing more nothing less.

      In short you've worn me out. Congratulations!

      Delete
  2. Judaism is the religion of genealogy, of succession of generations; when, in Christianity, the Son dies on the Cross, this means that the Father also dies (as Hegel was fully aware) – the patriarchal genealogical order as such dies, the Holy Spirit does not fit the family series, it introduces a post-paternal/familial community. In contrast to both Judaism and Christianity, the two other religions of the book, Islam excludes God from the domain of the paternal logic: Allah is not a father, not even a symbolic one – God is one, he is neither born nor does he give birth to creatures. There is no place for a Holy Family in Islam. This is why Islam emphasizes so much the fact that Muhammed himself was an orphan; -Slavoj Zizek, "A Glance into the Archives of Islam"

    So, IMO, an "alienated Jew" is alienated from his Father/father AND alienated from his "tribe". He is seeking a new "group" to attach himself to. Blood ties are no longer a requirement for "preference" and/or conference of "favour".

    ReplyDelete
  3. On alienation:

    This is why the attitude of “understanding-each-other” has to be supplemented by the attitude of “getting-out-of-each-other’s-way,” by maintaining an appropriate distance, by a new “code of discretion.” European civilization finds it easier to tolerate different ways of life precise on account of what its critics usually denounce as its weakness and failure, namely the “alienation” of social life.” Alienation means (also) that distance is included into the very social texture: even if I live side by side with others, the normal state is to ignore them. I am allowed not to get too close to others; I move in a social space where I interact with others obeying certain external “mechanical” rules, without sharing their “inner world” – and, perhaps, the lesson to be learned is that, sometimes, a dose of alienation is indispensable for the peaceful coexistence of ways of life. Sometimes, alienation is not a problem but a solution: globalization will turn explosive not if we remain isolated of each other, but, on the opposite, if we get too close to each other. - Slavoj Zizek, " The Antinomies of Tolerant Reason: A Blood-Dimmed Tide is Loosed"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "True" fundamentalists do not "envy" the "others" jouissance. It doesn't care about the "other's jouissance".

      Islam is an anomaly because it is a "universal" monotheism, not a "tribal-blood" monotheism like Judaeism. And the only way that it can love "all" who worship Allah is by "hating" the ones who do not.

      Delete
    2. Islam is an ideological/repressive "mask" that obscures its preferred-real cultural practice of endogamy (marriage from within families) by practicing a religion that deny's the family.

      Delete
    3. Could it possibly be that Islam originated as a REACTION to and rebellion AGAINST J-U-D-A-I-S-M which is seen -- rightly or wrongly -- as the Mother of Christianity -- a religion Islam also hates and wants desperately to obliterate?

      I am a Christian and will die a Christian, but I have ENORMOUS problems with the Old Testament, which in truth IS The JEWISH Bible. The virulent hatred, advocacy of extreme violence, sadism, mass murder, savage immorality, theft of other peoples' lands, and the insufferable ARROGANCE, CONCEIT and vehement EXCLUSIVISM in the OT -- Leviticus and Deuteronomy particularly -- should have served as a WARNING to all decent, kind-hearted people who wish to serve a God of Love.


      I have a HUGE problem with Christian Fundamentalists who pride themselves on being "Bible-Believing," while openly scorning what-they-call "New Testament Christians." They fanatically support the establishment of Modern Day Israel, which has functioned primarily as a THORN in the SIDE of the Entire World since its inception.

      Delete
    4. Zizek see's Islam as a progression of monotheism... Judaism, Christianity, Islam. A reaction, no doubt about it.

      François Regnault defined Jews as our objet a - but are here not Muslims this a-sexual “partial object”? We usually speak of the Jewish-Christian civilization – perhaps, the time has come, especially with regard to the Middle East conflict, to talk about the Jewish-Muslim civilization as an axis opposed to Christianity. (Recall a surprising sign of this deeper solidarity: after Freud published his Moses booklet in 1938 depriving Jews of their founding figure, the most ferocious reactions to it came from the Muslim intellectuals in Egypt!) Was Hegel not already on the trace of it with his insight into the speculative identity of Judaism and Islam? According to a commonplace, Judaism (like Islam) is a “pure” monotheism, while Christianity, with its Trinity, is a compromise with polytheism; Hegel even designates Islam as THE “religion of sublimity” at its purest, as the universalization of the Jewish monotheism:

      In Mohammedanism the limited principle of the Jews is expanded into universality and thereby overcome. Here, God is no longer, as with the Asiatics, contemplated as existent in immediately sensuous mode but is apprehended as the one infinite sublime Power beyond all the multiplicity of the world. Mohammedanism is, therefore, in the strictest sense of the world, the religion of sublimity. [2]

      This, perhaps, explains why there is so much anti-Semitism in Islam: because of the extreme proximity of the two religions. In Hegelese, what Islam encounters in Judaism is ITSELF in its “oppositional determination,” in the mode of particularity. The difference between Judaism and Islam is thus ultimately not substantial, but purely formal: they are the SAME religion in a different formal mode (in the sense in which Spinoza claims that the real dog and the idea of a dog are substantially one and the same thing, just in a different mode).[3] - Against this, one should argue that it is Judaism which is an “abstract negation” of polytheism and, as such, still haunted by it (there is a whole series of clues pointing in this direction: “Jehovah” is a plural substantive; in one of his commandments, God prohibits Jews to celebrate other gods “in front of me,” not when outside of his gaze; etc.), while Christianity is the only true monotheism, since it includes self-differentiation into the One – its lesson is that, in order to have truly a One, you need THREE.


      [2] G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Mind, Oxford: Clarendon Press 1971, p. 44.

      [3] Even Hegel’s logic of triads seems to get stuck into a deadlock here: the triad that offers itself, but that Hegel cannot admit, of course, is that of Judaism – Christianity – Islam: first the immediate/abstract monotheism which, as the price to be paid for its immediate character, has to be embodied in a particular ethnic group (which is why Jews renounce all proselytism); then Christianity with its trinity; finally Islam, the truly universal monotheism.

      -Slavoj Zizek, "A Glance into the Archives of Islam"

      Delete
    5. FT,
      Could it possibly be that Islam originated as a REACTION to and rebellion AGAINST J-U-D-A-I-S-M which is seen -- rightly or wrongly -- as the Mother of Christianity -- a religion Islam also hates and wants desperately to obliterate?

      Not from the research that I have done can I agree. My two cents on that topic.

      Delete
    6. It seemed a tenable theory, AOW. I thought it a question worth asking.

      Somewhere, somehow, someone MUST some day provide a rational explanation of why, despite their being highly intelligent people capable of impressive achievements, the Jews have functioned throughout history as a MAGNET for dislike, distrust, contempt, out-and-out hatred, rejection and persecution.

      THEY would claim it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with ANYTHING that THEY have ever done. Logic -- and the Law of Averages -- says otherwise.

      Returning to the beginnings of Islam: What DOES your research indicate about the founding of the virulent, malignant force called?

      Delete
    7. FT,
      What DOES your research indicate about the founding of the virulent, malignant force called?

      I'm not sure that I understand your question. But I'll answer what I think that you might be asking me?

      The Quran was compiled by Uthman, who picked and chose what to include. What agenda did Uthman have? Simply put, he wanted a caliphate.

      We know very little about the man Mohammed, who wrote down nothing.

      Delete
    8. FT,
      the Jews have functioned throughout history as a MAGNET for dislike, distrust, contempt, out-and-out hatred, rejection and persecution

      A few thoughts:

      1. It seems to be human nature to try to find scapegoats for one's problems, be those problems self-made or otherwise.

      2. People who are not accepted (i.e., well liked) often "dig in" to make themselves even more disliked.

      3. Could it be that the Lord deliberately chose "a stiff-necked people" to be the ancestors of the Christ? Jesus could not, then, lay claim to royalty. His Kingdom is not of this world, so I would think that he should have descended from those who had an earthly kingdom.

      Delete
    9. Sorry, I meant to type What DOES your research indicate about the founding of the virulent, malignant force called ISLAM?

      My typing skills -- never very good -- have deteriorated badly in the past few months thanks to increasing stiffness in my poor old right hand.

      How these things get started is always of great interest to me, but even more important, I think, is WHY and HOW do they CAtCH ON?

      From my experience observing the world from my peculiar perch I can only return again and again to Oscar Wilde who said, "Whatever is popular is wrong."

      Delete
    10. 1. It seems to be human nature to try to find scapegoats for one's problems, be those problems self-made or otherwise.

      FT: That's certainly true, AOW. It's a very human trait to be sure, but the question no one ever wants to attempt to answer still hangs heavily in the air:

      Why have the JEWS -- and according them, ONLY the Jews -- been singled out more than ANY OTHER PEOPLE -- for this kind of rough treatment? It stands to reason that it MUST have SOMETHING to do with the way THEY tend to act.

      2. People who are not accepted (i.e., well liked) often "dig in" to make themselves even more disliked.

      FT: That is certainly true of The Chosen -- and to a certain extent the Irish -- but of all the immigrant groups who arrived on our shores in the late-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries ALL of which were given -- and GAVE EACH OTHER -- a hard time virtually ALL assimilated and became full-fledged Americans within a generation or two. But the JEWS have chosen very deliberately, I think, to remain SINGULAR -- APART -- IN-but-never-OF the mainstream. No other group has ever operated QUITE this way before -- until recently with the enormous, deliberately planned and engineered, influx of non-whites, and of course the recent, frankly-terrifying COLONIZATION of MUSLIMS who have planted themselves -- or have BEEN PLANTED -- in our midst and have NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of ASSIMILATING, but instead lurk waiting for their numbers to grow sufficiently so they can TAKE OVER and tyrannize US with their damnable SHARIA LAW.

      Now WHO do you suppose is largely responsible for initiating and promoting the diabolical congressional scheme to destroy our White Christian Majority, and transform the USA into a Non-White, Pagan nation none of our grandparents could possibly recognize? Who was it who PUSHED Ted Kennedy into implementing this foul agenda?

      3. Could it be that the Lord deliberately chose "a stiff-necked people" to be the ancestors of the Christ? Jesus could not, then, lay claim to royalty. His Kingdom is not of this world, so I would think that he should have descended from those who had an earthly kingdom.

      FT: That seems a bit of a rationalization to me, AOW. Our creed doesn't say Jesus Christ was made a JEW; it says "and [HE] was made MAN." We like to refer to Him as "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" NOT as King of the Jews, and Suzerain over the Seven Tribes of Israel.

      If anything, I believe Jesus in every way possible did everything He could to compel the Jews to CEDE their sense of "specialness" -- of being "exceptional" -- and join the ENTIRE Human Race as EQUAL-but-NOT SUPERIOR.

      The Jewish Rejection of the THEIR Messiah and OUR Lord and Savior MUST be the reason their entire existence has been beset by woe ever since. No one could deliberately set himself against GOD and expect to win anything but trouble, heartache, misery, grief and perpetual dissatisfaction with life.

      It is the dogged determination of Jews to regard themselves as SEPARATE and ABOVE the rest of humanity that is the source of the eternal DISSONANCE they generate wherever they go.

      Put simplistically they have a manifest SUPERIORITY COMPLEX. Is it any wonder they attract so much unfavorable attention, DESPITE their many admittedly brilliant, life-enhancing accomplishments?

      Delete
    11. FT,
      Why have the JEWS -- and according them, ONLY the Jews -- been singled out more than ANY OTHER PEOPLE -- for this kind of rough treatment?

      Only the Jews? I'll have to think about that assertion. Other groups have certainly caught hell over the ages.

      You mentioned: I believe Jesus in every way possible did everything He could to compel the Jews to CEDE their sense of "specialness" -- of being "exceptional" -- and join the ENTIRE Human Race as EQUAL-but-NOT SUPERIOR.

      I agree. Jesus ministered primarily to the Jews, but -- believe me -- the Romans were an arrogant bunch as well.

      You also mentioned: It is the dogged determination of Jews to regard themselves as SEPARATE and ABOVE the rest of humanity.

      My response: Other groups have done the same. Tribal (or clannish) thinking, if you will. I've known Gentile Germans who do the same -- as well as other groups, including the Welsh.

      I still stand by my Number 3 above:

      Could it be that the Lord deliberately chose "a stiff-necked people" to be the ancestors of the Christ? Jesus could not, then, lay claim to royalty. His Kingdom is not of this world, so I would think that he should have descended from those who had an earthly kingdom.

      The idea did not originate with me, but rather came from a Bible study in which I participated decades ago. Put bluntly, as one participant in the Bible study did, "If God can love the Jews, He can love anyone!" That was actually uttered. I kid you not! I've always remembered the moment -- right down to the furniture in the basement where the statement came forth.

      Delete
    12. And, now, back to the snow dragon here. ;^)

      Delete
    13. Since Exodus, Jew has been a Master-Signifier representing the internal "other".... the "hard kernal" that fails to assimilate into the host culture.

      Delete
  4. A broad-rush condemnation of Jews, per se, that does not recognize that there are many factions, warring factions even, that constantly label and bicker amongst their select groups, ultimately ending with the insult of the other being a "self-hating Jew", should be recognized. Or perhaps it's just a phony internal squabble intentionally brought to the public forum to distract the gullible goyim.

    There is indeed a strong case to be made for the over-representation of Jews in positions of supreme influence in most Western countries, especially in the United States, where their influence over the public sewage of Pop Culture purveyed via the media into the public consciousness 24/7/365 should be obvious to the most myopic observer. Add to that the even more deadly influence of Jewish control over the Federal Reserve controlling the actual life blood of the economy and permitting a stranglehold over every aspect of life in America should also be obvious.

    Next looming over the immediate horizon is the Department of Homeland Security under the watchful eye of "The Chertoff Group" might well be the tool that will drive home the real end game absolute tyranny to which the country has been careening for the last century.

    People always decry the marginalizing of Christianity in America today. Somehow it's always "the left" perpetrating this atrocity. But it's the enshrinement of multi-culturalism in the Western countries that has led to this state. Unspoken though is the increased influence of Judaism in America, at least if erecting a large menorah on the lawn of the White House to celebrate Hannukah while abolishing any remnants of the Christian religion displayed publicly.

    This stuff does not happen by accident. it's an ongoing long term process which is reaching the "desired end" of those set on bringing about the downfall of Western Civilization.

    Calling anyone critical of evident influence of Israel and Jews will of course only leading to loud shrieks of "anti-Semite", even if the criticism comes from a fellow Jew. And it is Jews themselves who have had the enormous courage to have ripped aside the curtain to expose the ugly truths about the Zionists who operate only in their own interests while undermining the societies and countries in which they live. It is these Zionists who are behind the greatest atrocities of the 20th Century, including imposition of communism on countries like Czarist Russia where the perpetrators came from Western Europe and mainly form the Lower East Side of New York.

    Ergo: Zionism is Communism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Waylon. AOW's motto applies very well here -- distasteful though it may seem to many -- "The TRUTH is NOT HATE SPEECH."

      I may not agree with everything you said, but in the main I think you have it right.

      Christ Jesus spoke Truth to the Jewish Power Structure of His time. As a result He got Himself CRUCIFIED. His Purpose, course was to speak clearly and decisively against the corrupt, self-serving entity the Jewish Establishment had become. In so doing His mission, if you want to call it that, was to save His people -- and by extension ALL peoples -- from the worst aspects of themselves.

      His people REJECTED Him and in so doing bought themselves a legacy of bitter disharmony with the rest of the world and endless woe. Their tragedy is their unwillingness and apparent inability to accept culpability for anything they do that's wrong.

      Delete
    2. I suppose one can conclude that the power of the money changers has carried forward across time from then until to today. Any challenge to the to the power of the money changers has met with a similar fate.

      Oddly enough the most vehement defense of the indefensible comes from the so-called Christians themselves, those unwilling and unable to see the reality of what the Talmudic rabbis actually think of Christians. It's pretty clearly spelled out in their own words.

      Delete
  5. I read somewhere that Jews became the money lenders because Christians back in the day refused to handle "filthy lucre." Don't know if what I read is true, but I know that I have read that information on more than one occasion and from more than one source.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Today we are inundated with Islamic hatred allegedly coming from the writings in the Koran. The Talmud precedes the rise of Islam and the writing of the Koran by several centuries. Comparing the hatred issuing forth today from Islam it almost seems that today's scripts of hatred were cut from the whole cloth of the Tamud, especially in areas of hatred of the "infidel" in Islam and the hatred of "the goyim" expressed in the Talmud.

    As I mentioned previously it's Jews that have had the courage to leave the synagogue of hatred behind and expose the disgusting hatred beneath the surface, especially hared of the rebellious Jesus Christ and his followers.

    The Satanic Verses of the Talmud should disabuse those who might think a visceral hatred exists today that has been carried across the ages to bring about the absolute extinction of Christianity and its offspring—Western Civilization.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Replies
    1. Of COURSE, Waylon. Exposing and discussing the apparently self-evident nature of your accusations is the reason I created this post.

      Delete
  8. Replies
    1. WAYLON, It would be most helpful in our pursuit of the Truth, if you would give us the source of these assertions?

      Delete
    2. FT, if you click on the links above it takes you to the complete article discussing the relevant topic.

      Delete
    3. I see, thank you, Waylon. Never having learned how to post "live" links, myself, I don't always recognize it when others do.

      Delete
  9. I am ignorant of the subject, but it occurs to me that smart, pushy people who succeed wherever they go must inevitably piss off whatever community they are embedded in, and when times get hard, they make good scapegoats.

    The Brits were so fed up with them that when they left Palestine, they have it all, arms, forts, equipment, to the unctuous Arabs, who knew how to bow and scrape.

    Having said that, I don't make a fetish of the Jewish people or Israel. Are they still God's chose people? The most famous Jew in history formed a new religion. As for Israel, they are the region's only democracy and must be congratulated for their success, but it is a country of socialist atheists with less in common with America than Christians here believe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SF,
      Interesting list, but I don't know how accurate it is: An Informal List of Jewish Inventions, Innovations and Radical Ideas.

      This list of achievements in medical science is astounding. Take a look!

      How do the above two lists compare with the accomplishments of Moslems?

      Delete
    2. WHY is there such an active determination here to turn the subject away from JEWS and focus, instead, ISLAM and its adherents?

      Delete
  10. What does "the chosen people" mean?

    I don't know definitively, of course.

    However, I'll go along with what my mother said something like this: "The Hebrews were chosen to be the ancestors of the Christ and to bring into the world genealogically the Messiah, Who brought a new covenant encompassing all, Gentile and Jew, who believe on His Name."

    Could the concept of "the chosen people" be as simple as my mother said? I think so. After all, salvation as Jesus taught us is a simple concept -- and individual concept and not a collective salvation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A Christians we are SUPPOSED to believe that the One True God, Jehovah, revealed Himself, explicitly and specifically to the Jews and therefore CHOSE the Jews to be the SOLE POSSESSORS of the Truth.

      I consider myself a Christian, but frankly believe that notion to have been an absurd, self-serving MYTH conjured up by the leaders of a primitive, nomadic, generally stubborn, fractious people to boost their morale and generate a greater spirit of cohesion among their numbers. Even more important than that the purpose of creating and developing this myth was to instill FEAR of PUNISHMENT and RETRIBUTION into their hearts in order to achieve POWER and CONTROL -- i.e. DOMINION -- over them -- the ancient Israelite tribes.

      The God of the Old Testament -- especially of the Pentateuch -- is frankly a monstrous figure -- vain, selfish, arrogant, cruel, much given to harsh judgments and meting out even harsher penalties for an ever-proliferating list of "infractions," most of which have appeared increasingly stupid, spiteful, irrational and abysmally petty to thinking people as Civilization advanced.

      Jesus came to SAVE not only HIS people -- the Jews -- but ALL people from the hideous superstitions that bound the ancient world and sanctioned Human Sacrifice, Wholesale Slaughter, Genocide, Rape, Torture, Murder and out-and-out THEFT of Other People's Lands and Property.

      What could possibly be more hideous? What could be more desperately in need of Reform and Renunciation and Abolition of all of THAT?

      Delete
    2. FT,
      CHOSE the Jews to be the SOLE POSSESSORS of the Truth

      No human being or group of human beings can possess the Truth. Also, consider Rahab:

      she is reckoned among the ancestors of Jesus,[2] and is lauded as an example of living by faith

      The God of the Old Testament -- especially of the Pentateuch -- is frankly a monstrous figure...

      Not necessarily. What monstrous things were the Canaanites doing? And the time itself back then was barbarous -- perhaps beyond our modern imaginations. Only the strong survived in that ancient time. By the time that Jesus walked this earth, the pax Romana had changed things significantly.

      -------------------

      And, now, back to digging out here in the D.C. area. More snow has fallen -- and continues to fall.

      Delete
  11. Religion, regardless of origins, seems to have two things in common; supertition and mysticism. Further, all religions at some point appear to become more about dominion over their flock and increaing the religions influence than truth.

    Spirituality on the other hand is about finding truth through meditation, reflection, and acceptance that things are not always ss they seem. Spirituality is individual used whereas religion is collective.

    God, if there indeed is one, it seems to me simply wants people to become better people through honest introspection and greater acceptance and understanding of our difference rather than less.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The world media has mostly destroyed the Catholic Church with its allegations of the sexual perversions of the Catholic priests.

    Yet the ritual of Jewish circumcision raises nary a peep in the world's media even when this obscene cultish ritual results in the Jewish mohel passing on serious infections to the lucky recipient of this practice which resulted from the mohel sucking the penis of the baby to stop the bleeding and "bless" its future in the cult.

    ReplyDelete
  13. From ABC News: " New York City is investigating the death last September of a baby who contracted herpes after a "ritual circumcision with oral suction," in an ultra-Orthodox Jewish ceremony known in Hebrew as metzitzah b'peh.

    In a practice that takes place during a ceremony known as the bris, a circumcision practitioner, or mohel, removes the foreskin from the baby's penis, and with his mouth sucks the blood from the incision to cleanse the wound."

    ReplyDelete
  14. This may sound irrelevant or "off the wall," but everyone who has participated in this thread -- and others who may find the subject of interest or concern -- should see Absence of Malice -- a movie from the early '80's with Paul Newman and Sally Field.

    If you watch it, you should understand right away why I recommend it in conjunction with this particular issue.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Excellent movie. Quite the thought provoking flick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it is, thank you, but do you see how it might relate to this thread?

      Delete
  16. Well there certainly is a lot of malice directed at Jewish people. Some perhaps earned a lot perhaps not.

    Malice, or the intent to do harm in some form to others can grow like a cancer. It is very dangerous when unleashed widely within a culture or society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That may be, but much of it, especially in the modern world, is a reflection of and reaction to the arrogance, malice and deep contempt Jews, who are deadly serious about being Jewish, direct toward the Christian-gentile majority in myriad ways. Please don't imagine, however, that I favor anything so horrible as Holocaust II. I am merely seeking to do everything I can to destroy Political Correctness. I fervently believe in good taste, but at the same time I abhor TABOOS. I also think maintaining "Sacred Cows" of ANY variety is absurd -- especially in a society that at the very least pays public lip service to the concept of egalitarianism.

      I don't wish to ride roughshod over anyone, but at the same time I do not want anyone to have carte blanche to ride roughshod over me.

      By the way, are you always the same Gandolf? Remarks have been posted here under Gandalf and Gandolph as well as Gandolf. I'm not one to go into paroxysms of indignation when people post under pseudonyms, it's the substance of thought behind the comments that interests me primarily, but I am curious about you, because you've been a steady welcome presence here for quite a few weeks now, and I'd like to know about the inconsistencies in spelling your distinctive name -- which I assume you got from J.R.R. Tolkien, or am I wrong?

      Delete
  17. SilverFiddle said:

    " ... it occurs to me that smart, pushy people who succeed wherever they go must inevitably piss off whatever community they are embedded in, and when times get hard, they make good scapegoats ....

    "... I don't make a fetish of the Jewish people or Israel. Are they still God's chose people? The most famous Jew in history formed a new religion. As for Israel, they are the region's only democracy and must be congratulated for their success, but it is a country of socialist atheists with less in common with America than Christians here believe.


    I did not mean to ignore this excellent contribution. It's as fair and balanced assessment of the subject as I've yet seen. You touch on the British being "fed up with them" [the Jews], but I doubt very much if it was because the Brits were having hard times and needed a scapegoat. Britain was still pretty much Cock o' the Walk at that point in history, and her people were proud and content to be who they were.

    Your analysis probably holds true for GERMANY between the two world wars and might well have been the root cause of the Holocaust, however, because, as we know, the Treaty of Versailles left the Germans in such a deplorable economic condition there was little hope they could ever recover. Yet, Jewish bankers had control of the money, Jews appeared notably prosperous, and held leadership positions in many fields. Apparently, they did not trouble to disguise, or even affect any degree of modesty, about the advantages they had. Hitler, of course, was able to USE that blatant insensitivity in his wrong-headed attempt to restore German Pride.

    If we look into it honestly, the subject is vast.

    By the way, I wish you had said that Israel was country with which we have less in common than FUNDAMENTALIST Christians want to believe, because by no means ALL Christians feel that modern day Israel is a sacred fulfillment of biblical prophesy. Your last statement explains why succinctly.

    Atheism and Socialism -- and NOT Judaism -- are, indeed ,the predominant modes of thought that guided the founding and development of modern day Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I don't wish to ride roughshod over anyone, but at the same time I do not want anyone to have carte blanche to ride roughshod over me.

    These sentiments are shared by many, truth be known probably most.

    ... is a reflection of and reaction to the arrogance, malice and deep contempt Jews, who are deadly serious about being Jewish, direct toward the Christian-gentile majority in myriad ways.

    This may very well be so FT, however it is at lest moderately apparent non Jewish folks oft times demonstrate similar traits. What will alleviate this? Understanding, empathy, and a rational tolerance. In different words and to paraphrase; treat others as you wish to be treated.

    By the way, are you always the same Gandolf?

    Yes. Any comments under this name with the spelling Gandalf or Gandolph are likely impostors.

    and I'd like to know about the inconsistencies in spelling your distinctive name -- which I assume you got from J.R.R. Tolkien, or am I wrong?

    You'd be correct. I have been a fan of J.R.R Tolkien for many years, having read the Hobbit twice and the Trilogy thrice as well as seeing the movies. Indeed the extended version of the Trilogy graces my DVD library.

    Of course the "correct" spelling of the Wizards name is Gandalf. Since there can be only one Gandalf the Grey (or Gandalf the White), and as I am not given to conventionality, the unique spelling Gandolf.

    ReplyDelete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.