Showing posts with label Ethnocentrism and Racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethnocentrism and Racism. Show all posts
Thursday, February 4, 2021
Tuesday, February 2, 2021
Is This a Reflection of Canadian Values? More Examples of Crazy Jewish Supremacy
See here for more about this. See here for perfect examples of crazed supremacist ideas. See here for Jewish supremacism exposed. See here for Jewish supremacist quotes that you must hear to believe. See here for more about the Jewish Talmud. Also, be sure to watch this short excellent video from an honest Israeli talking about the problems of Judaism and Israel.
Saturday, July 14, 2018
Is Zionism / Jewish Nationalism a Political Cult?
Also see here for more about the "so-called" Jews.
By Juan Cole
Liberal politics in the broad sense, in the tradition of Locke, Voltaire, Madison, Jefferson and John Stuart Mill, is rooted in a conviction that vigorous debate clarifies issues and makes for better public policy over time. This principle is often misunderstood by political partisans, who confuse analytical disagreement with simply being contrarian and hurling insults.
The opposite of liberal debate and analytical argument is the cult. Sociologists of religion sometimes shy away from that word nowadays, feeling that it has been appropriated by the tabloids and become pejorative. But it has an important place in the history of the modern sociology of religion and I think it should be used, but defined carefully.
I define a cult as an organization characterized by very high demands for obedience by the leaders, complete intolerance of dissent, secretive whisper campaigns against dissidents, dishonest destruction of reputations, and shunning and excommunication as social control mechanisms. It will be objected that all churches have some of these characteristics. But cultness is on a spectrum. Some organizations are high on a cult scale, some are much lower.
There are also political cults. Stalinism and Baathism are both political cults in this sense.
And, it is clear to me that some devotees of Jewish nationalism or Zionism practice their politics in a cult-like manner. I am not a fan of nationalism. I think most of its premises are frankly stupid. There are no “peoples” in the sense that romantic nationalists used the term. No “peoples” are tied to a land or territory. There is no such thing as a national character. People switch out their languages (the ancestors of most Americans did not speak English; the Mongolians of central Afghanistan, the Hazaras, are now Persian-speaking Shiites). I don’t think making Judaism the basis for nationalist zealotry is a good idea, and most American Jews were appalled by the idea for most of the first half of the twentieth century. It isn’t worse than other nationalisms. It mostly isn’t much better. But when it is practiced as a political cult it is truly objectionable.
In Liberal politics (which includes modern conservatism of the William Buckley sort), if you make an argument, you can expect a counter-argument and a debate. In a political cult, if you make an argument you can expect to be smeared, undermined, and if possible destroyed professionally. Cults are extremely destructive, whether religious or political. They insist that the leader and the organization be exempt from criticism.
That so many Jewish nationalists insist that it is not legitimate ever to criticize anything Israel does is a clear sign of political cultism. It is the same mindset that American Communists had in the 1930s about Josef Stalin and the Soviet Union.
So a considered examination of the Israeli government’s Gaza War might conclude that disproportionate force was deployed, and that the army showed reckless disregard for civilian life.
By no means, all Jewish nationalists would be unwilling to debate these points rationally. But very large numbers are not willing, and they respond to this perfectly legitimate argument with abuse. The author of the argument is, they allege, a racialist bigot. He or she is purveying a Protocols of the Elders of Zion conspiracy theory. Others contradict without arguing. Or he or she is questioning the right of Israel to exist (they don’t specify the national borders). They mouth slogans such as that the Israeli army is the most humane in the world, or that Hamas is to blame for civilian deaths even when Israeli bombs do the killing. Some even hint at violence (a Jewish dissident wrote me recently, fearful of thuggish tactics of the Jewish Defense League– an organization classed by the FBI as having been the major source of domestic terrorism in the US 1965-1980). And perhaps worst of all, they secretly compile and send around a dossier to the employer of the author of the argument, seeking to have the person fired.
Of course, all nationalism is somewhat intolerant. The Dixie Chicks got into trouble for disavowing the Bush administration and its war of aggression in Iraq. But in a Liberal society, nationalism’s worst excesses are curbed by a rule of law. People are not punished for making arguments in public in a free society, assuming they are not libelous (and a truly free society needs to avoid having political libel on the books).
All this is prelude to my condemnation of of the University of Illinois for firing Steven Salaita, apparently for his Twitter feed! Professor Salaita said some provocative things during the war, but none of them are indefensible in rational debate. When asked about organized religion, Voltaire said “Crush the infamous thing!” Jefferson advocated an American revolution every 25 years, which would have gotten him in trouble with today’s FBI. Etc. Are there lines that shouldn’t be crossed? Sure, but they should bad arguments based on shoddy research that people in the field have a consensus as being bad.
Vijay Prashad, now at the American University of Beirut but previously at Trinity, wrote on Facebook:
“But I do know that twice, the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Community Relations Council of the Jewish Federation came to see my college president to have me removed from some administrative positions I held because they argued that I was an anti-Semite based on my role in the BDS movement (I am fortunate that the outgoing president at Trinity sent me all the emails before he left). I’ve been slowing reading through them — it is astounding how these organizations held private meetings with the president about my role on campus, and the administration at no point asked me to meet with them, or at no point did they wish to meet with me. It was an attempt to get me out behind closed doors.”
He later saw emails detailing the skullduggery.
I strongly suspect that Zionist organizations pressured the university to fire Professor Salaita. But note that they did not engage him in a public debate. They went into the halls of power behind the scenes. We saw this a few years ago with Norman Finkelstein. This behavior is undemocratic and cult-like, and it is unacceptable in a Liberal society. We also see Jewish nationalists on the bench, in public office, and in high administrative positions who misuse their public position to engage in a sectarian vendetta so as to protect Israel from criticism or to punish its critics. That behavior is unethical. US law and the US constitution should guide the decision-making of public servants, not narrow and idiosyncratic commitments. Would it be all right for a judge of Serbian ancestry to throw the book at a Croatian-American defendant?
Universities are places for argument and debate. If Salaita says challenging things, he should be debated on them. He has been saying such things for a long time, so they should have been known when he was hired. But academic hiring and firing in any case should be based on academic writing, not on Twitter! Will we next be promoting people to academic positions because they sent out flattering tweets about their president or dean?
Issues in decorum are legitimately taken account of in decisions about whether to promote someone to an administrative post at a university. But professors should argue, and sometimes they may argue provocatively, deploying rhetorical devices like hyperbole. We have a tenure system to make sure that academic debate is not punished, and I believe that it is important to the republic and its democratic values that this be so. Our journalists are often muzzled by the corporations for which they work. Likewise, businesses often maintain that they can fire employees for taking political stances that embarrass the business. Much of America cannot in fact exercise free speech, for fear of economic reprisals, despite constitutional guarantees. That is not right, but at least in academia it is difficult to just fire someone for making a public argument. But sometimes the dirty deed can be done, with regard to the untenured or to those with an outside offer who are moving between tenured positions. It is a shameful business.
By Juan Cole
Liberal politics in the broad sense, in the tradition of Locke, Voltaire, Madison, Jefferson and John Stuart Mill, is rooted in a conviction that vigorous debate clarifies issues and makes for better public policy over time. This principle is often misunderstood by political partisans, who confuse analytical disagreement with simply being contrarian and hurling insults.
The opposite of liberal debate and analytical argument is the cult. Sociologists of religion sometimes shy away from that word nowadays, feeling that it has been appropriated by the tabloids and become pejorative. But it has an important place in the history of the modern sociology of religion and I think it should be used, but defined carefully.
I define a cult as an organization characterized by very high demands for obedience by the leaders, complete intolerance of dissent, secretive whisper campaigns against dissidents, dishonest destruction of reputations, and shunning and excommunication as social control mechanisms. It will be objected that all churches have some of these characteristics. But cultness is on a spectrum. Some organizations are high on a cult scale, some are much lower.
There are also political cults. Stalinism and Baathism are both political cults in this sense.
And, it is clear to me that some devotees of Jewish nationalism or Zionism practice their politics in a cult-like manner. I am not a fan of nationalism. I think most of its premises are frankly stupid. There are no “peoples” in the sense that romantic nationalists used the term. No “peoples” are tied to a land or territory. There is no such thing as a national character. People switch out their languages (the ancestors of most Americans did not speak English; the Mongolians of central Afghanistan, the Hazaras, are now Persian-speaking Shiites). I don’t think making Judaism the basis for nationalist zealotry is a good idea, and most American Jews were appalled by the idea for most of the first half of the twentieth century. It isn’t worse than other nationalisms. It mostly isn’t much better. But when it is practiced as a political cult it is truly objectionable.
In Liberal politics (which includes modern conservatism of the William Buckley sort), if you make an argument, you can expect a counter-argument and a debate. In a political cult, if you make an argument you can expect to be smeared, undermined, and if possible destroyed professionally. Cults are extremely destructive, whether religious or political. They insist that the leader and the organization be exempt from criticism.
That so many Jewish nationalists insist that it is not legitimate ever to criticize anything Israel does is a clear sign of political cultism. It is the same mindset that American Communists had in the 1930s about Josef Stalin and the Soviet Union.
So a considered examination of the Israeli government’s Gaza War might conclude that disproportionate force was deployed, and that the army showed reckless disregard for civilian life.
By no means, all Jewish nationalists would be unwilling to debate these points rationally. But very large numbers are not willing, and they respond to this perfectly legitimate argument with abuse. The author of the argument is, they allege, a racialist bigot. He or she is purveying a Protocols of the Elders of Zion conspiracy theory. Others contradict without arguing. Or he or she is questioning the right of Israel to exist (they don’t specify the national borders). They mouth slogans such as that the Israeli army is the most humane in the world, or that Hamas is to blame for civilian deaths even when Israeli bombs do the killing. Some even hint at violence (a Jewish dissident wrote me recently, fearful of thuggish tactics of the Jewish Defense League– an organization classed by the FBI as having been the major source of domestic terrorism in the US 1965-1980). And perhaps worst of all, they secretly compile and send around a dossier to the employer of the author of the argument, seeking to have the person fired.
Of course, all nationalism is somewhat intolerant. The Dixie Chicks got into trouble for disavowing the Bush administration and its war of aggression in Iraq. But in a Liberal society, nationalism’s worst excesses are curbed by a rule of law. People are not punished for making arguments in public in a free society, assuming they are not libelous (and a truly free society needs to avoid having political libel on the books).
All this is prelude to my condemnation of of the University of Illinois for firing Steven Salaita, apparently for his Twitter feed! Professor Salaita said some provocative things during the war, but none of them are indefensible in rational debate. When asked about organized religion, Voltaire said “Crush the infamous thing!” Jefferson advocated an American revolution every 25 years, which would have gotten him in trouble with today’s FBI. Etc. Are there lines that shouldn’t be crossed? Sure, but they should bad arguments based on shoddy research that people in the field have a consensus as being bad.
Vijay Prashad, now at the American University of Beirut but previously at Trinity, wrote on Facebook:
“But I do know that twice, the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Community Relations Council of the Jewish Federation came to see my college president to have me removed from some administrative positions I held because they argued that I was an anti-Semite based on my role in the BDS movement (I am fortunate that the outgoing president at Trinity sent me all the emails before he left). I’ve been slowing reading through them — it is astounding how these organizations held private meetings with the president about my role on campus, and the administration at no point asked me to meet with them, or at no point did they wish to meet with me. It was an attempt to get me out behind closed doors.”
He later saw emails detailing the skullduggery.
I strongly suspect that Zionist organizations pressured the university to fire Professor Salaita. But note that they did not engage him in a public debate. They went into the halls of power behind the scenes. We saw this a few years ago with Norman Finkelstein. This behavior is undemocratic and cult-like, and it is unacceptable in a Liberal society. We also see Jewish nationalists on the bench, in public office, and in high administrative positions who misuse their public position to engage in a sectarian vendetta so as to protect Israel from criticism or to punish its critics. That behavior is unethical. US law and the US constitution should guide the decision-making of public servants, not narrow and idiosyncratic commitments. Would it be all right for a judge of Serbian ancestry to throw the book at a Croatian-American defendant?
Universities are places for argument and debate. If Salaita says challenging things, he should be debated on them. He has been saying such things for a long time, so they should have been known when he was hired. But academic hiring and firing in any case should be based on academic writing, not on Twitter! Will we next be promoting people to academic positions because they sent out flattering tweets about their president or dean?
Issues in decorum are legitimately taken account of in decisions about whether to promote someone to an administrative post at a university. But professors should argue, and sometimes they may argue provocatively, deploying rhetorical devices like hyperbole. We have a tenure system to make sure that academic debate is not punished, and I believe that it is important to the republic and its democratic values that this be so. Our journalists are often muzzled by the corporations for which they work. Likewise, businesses often maintain that they can fire employees for taking political stances that embarrass the business. Much of America cannot in fact exercise free speech, for fear of economic reprisals, despite constitutional guarantees. That is not right, but at least in academia it is difficult to just fire someone for making a public argument. But sometimes the dirty deed can be done, with regard to the untenured or to those with an outside offer who are moving between tenured positions. It is a shameful business.
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Sunday, December 31, 2017
Anti-Racist Hitler and the Utter Hypocrisy of Many of the So-Called Jews
The video below shows the nature of our world today and how no one will say anything about it. It explains in a comical manner the absolute insanity and pharisaical hypocrisy of the Talmudic Jews and their state of Israel.
Think about it... why is it that so many of the supposed "Liberals" in your country support the state of Israel? Why is it that so few of your politicians are willing to stand up and speak out against what Israel actually is or what is happening over there? Did you know that Israel is a blood-based ethnocracy? Today in Israel, (or anywhere else for that matter,) what makes a Talmudic Jew a Jew, (see here, here, here and here for more about the Talmud,) has absolutely nothing to do with what they believe. It is based on the Talmudic interpretation of who a Jew is. It is a man-made blood law. If it is not racist, it is certainly ethnocentric and it's based on blood. In this sense, it is not much different to what was happening in Nazi Germany.
It gets even crazier than this. Most people have no idea that the laws the Jews are defending in Israel of what makes a Jew a Jew are the Nuremberg laws from the Nazi party! (Also see here from the Jewish Virtual Library.) It's true, and they call me or others who are fighting this a "racist." This is how crazy this really is, but very few people know the truth.
Israel is not a "multicultural nation." It is unashamedly a Jewish state devoted exclusively to the interests of the Jewish people. A nation with a sizable Palestinian minority, it is certainly one of the most rigidly segregated society in the world. Separate schools exist for Jews and Arabs, separate apartment complexes, separate neighborhoods and separate settlements. Many laws and regulations adversely affect Palestinians as compared to Jews.
Think about it... why is it that so many of the supposed "Liberals" in your country support the state of Israel? Why is it that so few of your politicians are willing to stand up and speak out against what Israel actually is or what is happening over there? Did you know that Israel is a blood-based ethnocracy? Today in Israel, (or anywhere else for that matter,) what makes a Talmudic Jew a Jew, (see here, here, here and here for more about the Talmud,) has absolutely nothing to do with what they believe. It is based on the Talmudic interpretation of who a Jew is. It is a man-made blood law. If it is not racist, it is certainly ethnocentric and it's based on blood. In this sense, it is not much different to what was happening in Nazi Germany.
It gets even crazier than this. Most people have no idea that the laws the Jews are defending in Israel of what makes a Jew a Jew are the Nuremberg laws from the Nazi party! (Also see here from the Jewish Virtual Library.) It's true, and they call me or others who are fighting this a "racist." This is how crazy this really is, but very few people know the truth.
Israel is not a "multicultural nation." It is unashamedly a Jewish state devoted exclusively to the interests of the Jewish people. A nation with a sizable Palestinian minority, it is certainly one of the most rigidly segregated society in the world. Separate schools exist for Jews and Arabs, separate apartment complexes, separate neighborhoods and separate settlements. Many laws and regulations adversely affect Palestinians as compared to Jews.
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
The Attitude Towards Gentiles From Some Of The "Chosen People" - Meet Gene Simmons Of Kiss
Yes, he's chosen because he paints his face, dances around on stage and had his own reality TV show. I have also provided another video below about a respected Rabbi that you must watch. I thought it would be interesting to provide some "wisdom of the sages." How come we don't hear more about this in Canadian or American media? I wonder why. The reality is, this contempt for non-Jews comes right out of the Talmud. See here, here, here and here. Also, be sure to watch this short excellent video from an honest Israeli.
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Kevin MacDonald Prof. Cal State Jewish Influence On Western Culture
For books from Kevin MacDonald, see here. When talking about Judaism, one might want to ask the question ---- what exactly is meant by crypto-Judaism or "secretly practicing Judaism?"
Most people do not know enough about Judaism to be able to judge it properly. Were they expelled from nations in the past simply because they refrained from eating pork or because they observed the Sabbath? Seriously, think of how stupid that sounds.
At the 13 minute point of the video it becomes speculative when he is referring to how the Y chromosome can be traced back to Aaron and Moses. See here for more about Jews and DNA. Also see this video which supports the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. The Christian interpretation is much more logical and reasonable. Hence, the Christian emphasis on LOGOS or reason and logic in the Gospel of John.
Most people do not know enough about Judaism to be able to judge it properly. Were they expelled from nations in the past simply because they refrained from eating pork or because they observed the Sabbath? Seriously, think of how stupid that sounds.
At the 13 minute point of the video it becomes speculative when he is referring to how the Y chromosome can be traced back to Aaron and Moses. See here for more about Jews and DNA. Also see this video which supports the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. The Christian interpretation is much more logical and reasonable. Hence, the Christian emphasis on LOGOS or reason and logic in the Gospel of John.
Instruct certain men not to teach false doctrines or devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculation rather than the stewardship of God’s work, which is by faith. The goal of our instruction is the love that comes from a pure heart, a clear conscience, and a sincere faith - 1 Timothy 1:4
Saturday, March 11, 2017
For the Love of God.... If You Are Going to Talk About Trump Being a Nazi - Mention That He is Surrounded by Jews or Be Quiet!
Please see here, here, here, here and here for more about Trump and to learn about his close connections to Zionist Jews and the state of Israel. This is very important to mention... because the next time you hear a Jew talking about Trump being like a "Nazi," send him over to this blog and tell him to shut up.
The state of Israel is full of racism and ethnocentrism that Zionist Jews don't want anyone to know about. See here to learn more about this. See this quote from Israeli historian Shlomo Sand about the racism and ethnocentrism in Israel. This is a part of the Jewish Talmud. See here for the little-known connections between the Talmud, Judaism, and racism against blacks. See here for anti-racist Hitler and the utter hypocrisy of many of the so-called Jews.
The state of Israel is full of racism and ethnocentrism that Zionist Jews don't want anyone to know about. See here to learn more about this. See this quote from Israeli historian Shlomo Sand about the racism and ethnocentrism in Israel. This is a part of the Jewish Talmud. See here for the little-known connections between the Talmud, Judaism, and racism against blacks. See here for anti-racist Hitler and the utter hypocrisy of many of the so-called Jews.
Sunday, October 30, 2016
How Many Americans Knew That This Was a Policy Of The United States Government? How Sad Can The United States Get?
SEE BELOW!
VERY IMPORTANT...
VERY IMPORTANT...
Yes, this is how pathetic the United States government has become.
Essentially it is enforcing Israel's campaign against global free speech, see here to read about it. Also see here for how Israel would like world internet censorship. See here for the origins of Homeland Security. See here for a collection of tweets about Homeland Security and its connections to Zionism. See here for the strong connections between Israel, Canada, and the United States. See here for the Canada-Israel “Public Security” Agreement for Counter-Terrorism & Homeland security. See here for how the Canadian government is cracking down on criticism of Israel.
See here for the corruption of the RCMP and how they work with organized crime, see here for a video of the head of Homeland Security at the ADL "Leadership" Conference, see here and here for how Jewish groups get most of the Homeland Security grants, see here for how the ADL works with the RCMP and the FBI and its ties to organized crime.
=============================================================================
Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism
The Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, Ira Forman, advances U.S. Foreign Policy on anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is discrimination against or hatred toward Jews. The Special Envoy develops and implements policies and projects to support efforts to combat anti-Semitism.
The Special Envoy was established by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) produces the State Department's annual reports on Human Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom, and the Special Envoy provides input on anti-Semitism for these reports.
The Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism welcomes information on anti-Semitic incidents, including personal and property attacks; government policies, including judicial/prosecutorial decisions and educational programs on the issue; and press and mass media reports. The office can be contacted at: SEASinfo@state.gov.Combating Global Anti-Semitism in 2016
Remarks
Ira N. Forman
Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism
Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism
Berlin, Germany
March 16, 2016
On January 27, 2016, President Barack Obama made a powerful statement on fighting anti-Semitism at the Embassy of Israel. “Anti-Semitism is a distillation,” he said, “[it is] an expression of an evil that runs through so much of human history, and if we do not answer that, we do not answer any other form of evil.” So how do governments effectively “answer” and strongly combat rising anti-Semitism?
The office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism at the U.S. Department of State has been tracking the rise of anti-Semitism around the world and witnessing its alarming presence and growth in Europe and beyond. We know Jewish communities in Europe have faced an upsurge of anti-Semitic incidents, including violence in Western Europe over the past few years. Jewish communities are anxious about their safety and future.
Sadly, if present trends continue, the viability of some of the smaller European Jewish communities will come into question due to anticipated emigration and/or assimilation. To best protect Jewish communities and combat anti-Semitism, the U.S. Department of State has encouraged European states to appoint Special Envoys or other senior officials to focus on anti-Semitism.
In Berlin, in November 2014, at the 10th Anniversary of the OSCE's Conference on Anti-Semitism, Ambassador Samantha Power stated, “One way to ensure sustained attention to anti-Semitism is to appoint a high-level envoy… Governments who appoint high-level officials to coordinate whole-of-nation efforts to combat anti-Semitism, and give them the political backing and resources they need, will see the difference it makes.”
We all welcomed the appointment of an EU Coordinator on Combating Antisemitism, Katharina von Schnurbein, and we look forward to future collaboration. This position is an important first step. Ideally, individual European governments will establish a point person to combat anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism is evolving into new, contemporary forms of hatred, racism, and political, social, and cultural discrimination against Jews. One virulent aspect is the relation of conflating Jewish communities with Israel, using criticism of Israel as a pretext for anti-Semitism. As government leaders we cannot ignore this phenomenon.
Being in Berlin, I am reminded of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s recent statement urging the need to specifically address anti-Semitism among youth from countries where hatred of Israel and Jews is widespread.
We have witnessed instances where anti-Israel demonstrations have taken on anti-Semitic tones such as in Malmö, Sweden, when protestors shouted, “Slaughter the Jews!” And we have seen in Toulouse and Marseilles how Jews have been targeted by terrorists who reportedly said they were protesting the situation in Palestine.
In our work, we engage with Jewish community leaders in Europe. We have heard from the Dutch Jewish community that “any criticism toward Israel is considered ‘anti-Zionism’ [in the Netherlands], but people know this and they shout ‘Zionist!’ when they mean ‘Jew’ so they won't get in trouble.”
Jewish leaders from Sweden also noted how anti-Semitism can be covered by anti-Zionism. Recent graffiti with swastikas was not classified as 'anti-Semitism' by police in Stockholm, but as actions against Israel. And I quote, “If you are hurt wearing a kippa [in Sweden], it is classified as anti-Zionism, which is legal.”
And then there is an ongoing case in Germany, which many of us know of, when in the early morning hours of July 29, 2014, anti-Israel protestors in Wuppertal threw Molotov cocktails at the main synagogue. Last year, the judge determined these actions “anti-Israel” and not “anti-Semitic.” Although this decision has recently been challenged, we have to be aware of the correlation.
This is why it is especially important to define anti-Semitism clearly to more effectively combat it. My predecessor Special Envoy Hannah Rosenthal said it best, “Opposition to a policy by the State of Israel [can morph] into anti-Semitism …This form of anti-Semitism is more difficult for many to identify – but if all Jews are held responsible for the decisions of the sovereign State of Israel [or if] governments call upon and intimidate their Jewish communities to condemn Israeli actions…this is not objecting to a policy–this is anti-Semitism. Our State Department uses Natan Sharansky’s framework for identifying when someone or a government [can] cross the line – when Israel is demonized, when Israel is held to different standards than the rest of the countries, and when Israel is delegitimized.”
While we understand the complexities of this issue and the importance of context, we are concerned about those instances where the line is crossed between legitimate opposition of Israeli government policies into rhetoric that questions Israel’s right to exist and targets Jewish communities outside of Israel.
Thus we encourage European governments to adopt a working definition of anti-Semitism, ideally, one which would include a section on how anti-Semitism relates to Israel, to improve the safety and well-being of Jewish communities in Europe.
We should also note that we are very careful to use this definition appropriately and object to its misuse as part of efforts to silence the legitimate criticism of Israeli policies. It is important to be as accurate as possible and not overstate or understate the problem. Unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism motivated by ideological or political aims distract from and are counterproductive to good-faith efforts to combat anti-Semitism.
For example, when one of the strongest opponents of anti-Semitism today—Pope Francis— is accused of taking an anti-Semitic stance, those unsubstantiated accusations make it more difficult to identify and address actual incidents of anti-Semitism. The Catholic Church has made impressive strides in speaking out against anti-Semitism and condemning intolerance.
The United States government deeply appreciates the Church’s critical voice. In October 2015, our office had the opportunity to meet Pope Francis and Vatican officials and thank them for the Church’s continuing efforts to combat anti-Semitism, and encourage them to continue. Indeed, in 2015 Pope Francis told the media “anyone who does not recognize the Jewish people and the State of Israel — and their right to exist — is guilty of anti-Semitism.”
All of us are here because we believe that democratic governments should proactively combat anti-Semitism. But governments cannot combat anti-Semitism alone. If we are to beat back the tide of anti-Semitism, we need to strengthen and enable civil society, in Europe and wherever anti-Semitism arises, to raise its voice and speak out.
Everyone needs to understand that anti-Semitism is not just a “Jewish problem.” Anti-Semitism and religious intolerance are fundamental threats to democratic societies; religious intolerance leads to the loss of rights for other minority groups, threatening social cohesion and fundamental freedoms. Civil society, governments, and religious leaders all have a responsibility to act against all forms of intolerance, including against religious or ethnic minorities.
As many of you know, at the end of 2015, the U.S. State Department led an international effort that helped prevent a statue from being erected in Hungary to honor a notorious World War II-era anti-Semite, Balint Homan. We worked with members of Congress, U.S. and international NGOs, Hungarian groups, Jewish community leaders, and European government leaders—including several of you here –to send the message that anti-Semitic acts will be strenuously opposed.
We believe there is a significant role for legislators and parliamentarians to play in speaking out against anti-Semitism. The U.S. Congress, for instance, played an important role in our efforts in Hungary, and we are appreciative of their leadership in combating anti-Semitism.
We also believe governments should make it easier for civil society and religious leaders—who are often closer to the dynamics and issues on the ground and within their communities—to access their governmental leaders, meet with them, share information, and continue to receive funding for projects and programs that combat anti-Semitism and intolerance of any kind.
In Hungary, because Hungarian civil society—Jews and others—felt empowered after the success in December, plans to unveil another statue honoring another anti-Semite last month were foiled. Because we expect these issues to persist, civil society and governments must remain vigilant and continue to coordinate efforts to confront these anti-Semitic actions.
As parliamentarians we need to encourage civil society to speak out, to build coalitions and bridges with diverse communities, and to educate in terms of citizenship and democratic values.
With a robust civil society in Europe that is both encouraged and aided by governments, hopefully, together, we can turn down the faucet of anti-Semitism. I often use this metaphor of a faucet. We may not be able to turn it totally off, but we can certainly turn it down.
Thank you.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
Friday, July 29, 2016
Sunday, July 24, 2016
Israel's Crimes Against Ethiopians
In addition to watching the videos below, see this video, this video, and this video For even more information, see here, here, here, here, here and here.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Friday, July 22, 2016
More Wisdom of the Jewish Sages Part 2
Here is my last wisdom of the sages quotes. Also, see here and here. Are these some of the enlightening mantras that Jews sit around meditating on?
I frequently get Judaism and Jainism mixed up because they are both so full of wisdom and peace. Here are two quotes from the sages of Judaism.
I recommend that the Israeli airport enshrine these poetic pieces of literature and display them in a place that all the visitors can see so they know they're in the "only free democracy in the middle east."
This way they won't mistake themselves for being in a place like Canada, (a place that promotes that pesky "multiculturalism" that anti-racist Hitler is talking about in this video.)
The first thought that ran through my mind after reading the quotes below.... are these Zen Koans? The wisdom they contain is priceless. Drink them in. Namaste.
I frequently get Judaism and Jainism mixed up because they are both so full of wisdom and peace. Here are two quotes from the sages of Judaism.
I recommend that the Israeli airport enshrine these poetic pieces of literature and display them in a place that all the visitors can see so they know they're in the "only free democracy in the middle east."
This way they won't mistake themselves for being in a place like Canada, (a place that promotes that pesky "multiculturalism" that anti-racist Hitler is talking about in this video.)
The first thought that ran through my mind after reading the quotes below.... are these Zen Koans? The wisdom they contain is priceless. Drink them in. Namaste.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
More Wisdom of the Jewish Sages....
See here for more about the Jewish Talmud. Now, a little more wisdom of the sages:
"In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good." - Booklet Published by Chaplin of Israeli Army, Central Region Command. Quoted in Israel Shahak's Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p76
According to the Talmud--- Those who deny the Torah and the prophets of Israel, the law is that all those should be killed, and those who have the power of life and death should have them killed, and if this cannot be done they should be led to their death by deceptive methods," - Talmud, Chosche Hammischpat 156.5 Hagah
"In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good." - Booklet Published by Chaplin of Israeli Army, Central Region Command. Quoted in Israel Shahak's Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p76
According to the Talmud--- Those who deny the Torah and the prophets of Israel, the law is that all those should be killed, and those who have the power of life and death should have them killed, and if this cannot be done they should be led to their death by deceptive methods," - Talmud, Chosche Hammischpat 156.5 Hagah
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
The Talmud Unmasked~ The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Non-Jews
For more information on the little known and little talked about ethnocentric Jewish Talmud... please
see here, here, here and here. Also, be sure to watch this excellent video from an honest Israeli about the the beliefs of some Jews.
see here, here, here and here. Also, be sure to watch this excellent video from an honest Israeli about the the beliefs of some Jews.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
More Information on Judaism and Eugenics - Jewish Eugenics Pre-Dates Hitler's Master Race
Besides the article below.... I previously posted information on the connections between Judaism and eugenics here and here. Also, see these books for Judaism as an evolutionary strategy. But it goes even deeper than this, it is a political project of control. For more about this, please see here, here, here and here. This is a continuation of the ideology and the foreign policy that was driving the British Empire. Or, more specifically... that Zionism was one of the ideas behind the later part of the British Empire, and it's still a major force in our world today.
=============================================================================
*** According to the Israeli daily newspaper quoted below, before the Nazi Third Reich in Germany plotted to create a Master Race from the European gene pool, Zionists had already established a racial purification program to create the perfect Jewish bloodline. ***
A shocking new study reveals how key figures in the pre-state Zionist establishment proposed castrating the mentally ill, sterilizing the poor and doing everything possible to ensure reproduction only among the `best of people.'
Castrating the mentally ill, encouraging reproduction among families "numbered among the intelligentsia" and limiting the size of "families of Eastern origin" and "preventing ... lives that are lacking in purpose" - these proposals are not from some program of the Third Reich but rather were brought up by key figures in the Zionist establishment of the Land of Israel during the period of the British Mandate. It turns out there was a great deal of enthusiasm here for the improvement of the hereditary characteristics of a particular race (eugenics). This support, which has been kept under wraps for many years, is revealed in a study that examines the ideological and intellectual roots at the basis of the establishment of the health system in Israel.
In the Yishuv (pre-state Jewish community) in the 1930s there were "consultation stations" operating on a Viennese model of advice centers for couples that wished to marry and become parents. In Austria, with the Nazis' rise to power, they served for forced treatment. Here the stations were aimed at "giving advice on matters of sex and marriage, especially in the matter of preventing pregnancy in certain cases." They distributed birth-control devices for free to the penniless and at reduced prices to those of limited means. In Tel Aviv the advice stations were opened in centers of immigrant populations: Ajami in Jaffa, the Hatikvah Quarter and Neveh Sha'anan.
These are some of the findings of a doctoral thesis written by Sachlav Stoler-Liss about the history of the health services in the 1950s, under the supervision of Prof. Shifra Shvarts, head of the department of health system management at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. They were presented at the annual conference of the Israel Anthropological Association at Ben-Gurion College.
The father of the theory of eugenics was British scholar Francis Galton. It was he who coined the term - which literally means "well-born" - at the end of the 19th century. The aim of the eugenics movement was to better the human race. Galton proposed a plan to encourage reproduction among "the best people" in society and to prevent reproduction among "the worst elements."
Between the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, Galton drew many followers and his ideas spread rapidly to other countries in Europe (among them Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, Sweden and Belgium), to the United States and to some countries in South America. In various countries, laws were passed that allowed for the forced sterilization of "hereditary paupers, criminals, the feeble-minded, tuberculous, shiftless and ne'er-do-wells." In the United States, up until 1935, about 20,000 people - "insane," "feeble-minded," immigrants, members of ethnic minorities and people with low IQs - were forcibly sterilized, most of them in California. The Californian law was revoked only in 1979. According to Dr. Philip Reilly, a doctor and executive director of the Shriver Center for Mental Retardation, in 1985 at least 19 states in the United States had laws that allowed the sterilization of people with mental retardation, (among them Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Vermont, Utah and Montana).
"Eugenics is considered to be something that only happened in Germany," says Stoler-Liss. "Germany was indeed the most murderous manifestation of eugenics, but in fact, it was a movement that attracted many followers. In every place it took on a unique, local aspect. It is interesting to note that both in Germany and in Israel a link was made between eugenics, health, and nationalism."
Stoler-Liss first encountered the eugenics texts of doctors from the Yishuv when looking for instruction books for parents for a research project for her master's degree. "I presented a text at a thesis seminar and then the instructor of the workshop said to me, `But why aren't you saying that this is a translated text?' I replied: `No, no, the text isn't translated.' `In Israel,' he said, `there are no such things.'"
She decided to look into whether there was only anecdotal and non- representative evidence, doctors and public figures here and there who supported eugenics - and she found many publications that promoted eugenics. Supporters of the idea were key figures in the emerging medical establishment in Palestine; the people who managed and created the Israeli health system.
One of the most prominent eugenicists of the Mandatory period was Dr. Joseph Meir, a well-known doctor who acquired his education in Vienna, served for about 30 years as the head of the Kupat Holim Clalit health maintenance organization, and after whom the Meir Hospital in Kfar Sava is named. "From his position at the very heart of the Zionist medical establishment in the land of Israel in the mid-1930s, he brought young mothers the gospel of eugenics, warned them about degeneracy and transmitted the message to them about their obligation and responsibility for bearing only healthy children," says Stoler-Liss.
Thus, for example, in 1934 Dr. Meir published the following text on the first page of "Mother and Child," a guide for parents that he edited for publication by Kupat Holim: "Who is entitled to give birth to children? The correct answer is sought by eugenics, the science of improving the race and preserving it from degeneration. This science is still young, but its positive results are already great and important - These cases [referring to marriages of people with hereditary disorders - T.T.] are not at all rare in all nations and in particular in the Hebrew nation that has lived a life of exile for 1,800 years. And now our nation has returned to be reborn, to a natural life in the land of the Patriarchs. Is it not our obligation to see to it that we have whole and healthy children in body and soul? For us, eugenics as a whole, and the prevention of the transmission of hereditary disorders in particular, even greater value than for all other nations! ... Doctors, people involved in sport and the national leaders must make broad propaganda for the idea: Do not have children if you are not certain that they will be healthy in body and soul!"
In its full version, the article, which was published in the "Health Guard" section of the now defunct labor Zionist newspaper Davar, the doctor proposed castrating the mentally ill. Stoler-Liss found many more examples in the "Mother and Child" books that were published in 1934 and 1935 and in journals like Eitanim, which was edited by Dr. Meir.
"The support of Dr. Meir and other senior people in the health system for these ideas has been kept under wraps for many years," claims Stoler-Liss. No one today talks about this chapter in the history of the Yishuv. In the mid-1950s Dr. Meir's articles were collected into a book that came out in his memory. The article mentioned above was not included in it. Stoler-Liss found a card file with notes scribbled by the editors of the volume. They defined the article as "problematic and dangerous." "Now, after Nazi eugenics," wrote one of the editors, "it is dangerous to publish this article."
During the latter part of the 1930s, adds Stoler-Liss, when word came out about the horrors that eugenics in its extreme form is likely to cause, they stopped using this word, which was attributed to the Nazis. Overnight eugenics organizations and journals changed their names and tried to shake off any signs of this theory. Dr. Meir, however, during all the years he was active, continued to promote the ideas of eugenics. At the beginning of the 1950s, he published an article in which he harshly criticized the reproduction prize of 100 lirot that David Ben-Gurion promised to every mother who gave birth to 10 children. "We have no interest in the 10th child or even in the seventh in poor families from the East. In today's reality, we should pray frequently for a second child in a family that is a part of the intelligentsia. The poor classes of the population must not be instructed to have many children, but rather restricted."
"I'm not making a value judgment," says Stoler-Liss. "Zionism arose at a certain period, in a certain ideological atmosphere - there were all kinds of ideas in the air and there were also eugenicist Zionists. Some of the doctors were educated in Europe, and at that time the medical schools taught not only medicine but also the theory of eugenics."
Dr. Meir was not the first Zionist leader who supported eugenics. According to studies by Dr. Rapahel Falk, a geneticist and historian of science and medicine at Hebrew University, other major Zionist thinkers - among them Dr. Max Nordau, Theodor Herzl's colleague, a doctor and a publicist, and Dr. Arthur Ruppin, the head of the World Zionist Organization office in the Land of Israel - presented the ideas of eugenics as one of the aims of the Jewish movement for national renewal and the settlement of the land.
Prof. Meira Weiss, an anthropologist of medicine at Hebrew University, describes in her book "The Chosen Body" how the settlement of the land and work on the land were perceived by these Zionist thinkers as the "cure" that would restore the health of the Jewish body that had degenerated in the Diaspora. In Nordau's terms, a "Judaism of muscle" would replace "the Jew of the coffee house: the pale, skinny, Diaspora Jew. "At a time when many Europeans are calling for a policy of eugenics, the Jews have never taken part in the `cleansing' of their race but rather allowed every child, be it the sickest, to grow up and marry and have children like himself. Even the mentally retarded, the blind and the deaf were allowed to marry," wrote Ruppin in his book "The Sociology of the Jews." "In order to preserve the purity of our race, such Jews [with signs of degeneracy - T.T.] must refrain from having children."
"Many people dealt with eugenics as a theoretical issue," says Stoler-Liss. "They even set up a Nordau Club with the aim of researching the racial aspects of the Jewish people and ways of improving it. What was special about Dr. Meir and the group that joined him was that for them eugenics was a very practical matter." They wanted to pursue applied eugenics.
The main institution was the advice station. The first station was opened in 1931 in Beit Strauss on Balfour Street in Tel Aviv. The aim was to work in "pleasant ways," through persuasion and choice. As Stoler-Liss explains: "Why should people work against their personal interests? It is here that the connection to the national interest comes in. If I understand that by having a baby I will harm the national interest, the building of the land, the `new Jew,' I will refrain from giving birth. But just to make certain, Meir told the doctors, in the event that a woman comes to you who is `a risk' for giving birth to a sick baby, it is your obligation to make certain that she has an abortion."
"Gynecologist Miriam Aharonova also wrote extensively on the subject of eugenics," adds Stoler-Liss. "In articles for parents under headings such as `The Hygiene of Marriage' she gives a list of eugenic instructions for parents - from the recommended age for giving birth (between 20 and 25), to the recommended difference in age between the father and the mother (the reason for which is the betterment of the race) to a list of diseases that could infect the spouse or "be transmitted through heredity to their descendants after them." In the diseases, she mentions "syphilis, gonorrhea, tuberculosis, alcoholism, narcotics addiction (fondness for morphine, cocaine, etc.) and diseases of the mind and the nerves." In the volume of "Mother and Child" published in 1935, says Stoler-Liss, the publication and discussions by doctors who supported eugenics was greatly expanded. Why, in fact, did they not use force? The establishment had a great deal of power over immigrants and refugees.
"The medical establishment's power was limited at that time. This was an establishment that developed hand in hand with the system it was supposed to strengthen and suffered from constant shortages: a shortage of doctors, a shortage of nurses and a shortage of equipment. It had to examine, treat, inoculate and so on. We are talking about the period of the British Mandate. When at long last there was a state, eugenics theory declined. My explanation is the change of generations: that generation had come to an end professionally, and a new generation with more national motivation came along that was not educated at the European universities during that period. They had already seen what the Nazis had done with it and the ideological identification was lower. The ideas themselves seeped in but they're not using the same rhetoric."
The eugenic chapter in the history of Western culture has been closed, but have eugenics really disappeared?
"Eugenic thinking is alive and well today," asserts Stoler-Liss. "It is expressed mainly in the very high rate of pre-natal tests and genetic filtering [of genetically deviant fetuses]. Mothers are very highly motivated to give birth only to healthy children and the attitude toward the exceptional, the different and the handicapped in Israeli society is problematic."
At hospitals today future parents are offered a plethora of genetic tests that diagnose the fetus before birth. Some of them are aimed at identifying serious disorders, like Tay-Sachs disease, a degenerative disease that causes a painful death in infancy. Others, however, are aimed at screening fetuses with conditions like deafness and sterility, the bearers of which can lead full and satisfying lives.
SOURCE: Haaretz, "`Do not have children if they won't be healthy!'", By Tamara Traubmann, 11 June 2004.
=============================================================================
*** According to the Israeli daily newspaper quoted below, before the Nazi Third Reich in Germany plotted to create a Master Race from the European gene pool, Zionists had already established a racial purification program to create the perfect Jewish bloodline. ***
A shocking new study reveals how key figures in the pre-state Zionist establishment proposed castrating the mentally ill, sterilizing the poor and doing everything possible to ensure reproduction only among the `best of people.'
Castrating the mentally ill, encouraging reproduction among families "numbered among the intelligentsia" and limiting the size of "families of Eastern origin" and "preventing ... lives that are lacking in purpose" - these proposals are not from some program of the Third Reich but rather were brought up by key figures in the Zionist establishment of the Land of Israel during the period of the British Mandate. It turns out there was a great deal of enthusiasm here for the improvement of the hereditary characteristics of a particular race (eugenics). This support, which has been kept under wraps for many years, is revealed in a study that examines the ideological and intellectual roots at the basis of the establishment of the health system in Israel.
In the Yishuv (pre-state Jewish community) in the 1930s there were "consultation stations" operating on a Viennese model of advice centers for couples that wished to marry and become parents. In Austria, with the Nazis' rise to power, they served for forced treatment. Here the stations were aimed at "giving advice on matters of sex and marriage, especially in the matter of preventing pregnancy in certain cases." They distributed birth-control devices for free to the penniless and at reduced prices to those of limited means. In Tel Aviv the advice stations were opened in centers of immigrant populations: Ajami in Jaffa, the Hatikvah Quarter and Neveh Sha'anan.
These are some of the findings of a doctoral thesis written by Sachlav Stoler-Liss about the history of the health services in the 1950s, under the supervision of Prof. Shifra Shvarts, head of the department of health system management at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. They were presented at the annual conference of the Israel Anthropological Association at Ben-Gurion College.
The father of the theory of eugenics was British scholar Francis Galton. It was he who coined the term - which literally means "well-born" - at the end of the 19th century. The aim of the eugenics movement was to better the human race. Galton proposed a plan to encourage reproduction among "the best people" in society and to prevent reproduction among "the worst elements."
Forced Sterilization
Between the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, Galton drew many followers and his ideas spread rapidly to other countries in Europe (among them Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, Sweden and Belgium), to the United States and to some countries in South America. In various countries, laws were passed that allowed for the forced sterilization of "hereditary paupers, criminals, the feeble-minded, tuberculous, shiftless and ne'er-do-wells." In the United States, up until 1935, about 20,000 people - "insane," "feeble-minded," immigrants, members of ethnic minorities and people with low IQs - were forcibly sterilized, most of them in California. The Californian law was revoked only in 1979. According to Dr. Philip Reilly, a doctor and executive director of the Shriver Center for Mental Retardation, in 1985 at least 19 states in the United States had laws that allowed the sterilization of people with mental retardation, (among them Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Vermont, Utah and Montana).
"Eugenics is considered to be something that only happened in Germany," says Stoler-Liss. "Germany was indeed the most murderous manifestation of eugenics, but in fact, it was a movement that attracted many followers. In every place it took on a unique, local aspect. It is interesting to note that both in Germany and in Israel a link was made between eugenics, health, and nationalism."
Stoler-Liss first encountered the eugenics texts of doctors from the Yishuv when looking for instruction books for parents for a research project for her master's degree. "I presented a text at a thesis seminar and then the instructor of the workshop said to me, `But why aren't you saying that this is a translated text?' I replied: `No, no, the text isn't translated.' `In Israel,' he said, `there are no such things.'"
She decided to look into whether there was only anecdotal and non- representative evidence, doctors and public figures here and there who supported eugenics - and she found many publications that promoted eugenics. Supporters of the idea were key figures in the emerging medical establishment in Palestine; the people who managed and created the Israeli health system.
One of the most prominent eugenicists of the Mandatory period was Dr. Joseph Meir, a well-known doctor who acquired his education in Vienna, served for about 30 years as the head of the Kupat Holim Clalit health maintenance organization, and after whom the Meir Hospital in Kfar Sava is named. "From his position at the very heart of the Zionist medical establishment in the land of Israel in the mid-1930s, he brought young mothers the gospel of eugenics, warned them about degeneracy and transmitted the message to them about their obligation and responsibility for bearing only healthy children," says Stoler-Liss.
Thus, for example, in 1934 Dr. Meir published the following text on the first page of "Mother and Child," a guide for parents that he edited for publication by Kupat Holim: "Who is entitled to give birth to children? The correct answer is sought by eugenics, the science of improving the race and preserving it from degeneration. This science is still young, but its positive results are already great and important - These cases [referring to marriages of people with hereditary disorders - T.T.] are not at all rare in all nations and in particular in the Hebrew nation that has lived a life of exile for 1,800 years. And now our nation has returned to be reborn, to a natural life in the land of the Patriarchs. Is it not our obligation to see to it that we have whole and healthy children in body and soul? For us, eugenics as a whole, and the prevention of the transmission of hereditary disorders in particular, even greater value than for all other nations! ... Doctors, people involved in sport and the national leaders must make broad propaganda for the idea: Do not have children if you are not certain that they will be healthy in body and soul!"
`Problematic and Dangerous'
In its full version, the article, which was published in the "Health Guard" section of the now defunct labor Zionist newspaper Davar, the doctor proposed castrating the mentally ill. Stoler-Liss found many more examples in the "Mother and Child" books that were published in 1934 and 1935 and in journals like Eitanim, which was edited by Dr. Meir.
"The support of Dr. Meir and other senior people in the health system for these ideas has been kept under wraps for many years," claims Stoler-Liss. No one today talks about this chapter in the history of the Yishuv. In the mid-1950s Dr. Meir's articles were collected into a book that came out in his memory. The article mentioned above was not included in it. Stoler-Liss found a card file with notes scribbled by the editors of the volume. They defined the article as "problematic and dangerous." "Now, after Nazi eugenics," wrote one of the editors, "it is dangerous to publish this article."
During the latter part of the 1930s, adds Stoler-Liss, when word came out about the horrors that eugenics in its extreme form is likely to cause, they stopped using this word, which was attributed to the Nazis. Overnight eugenics organizations and journals changed their names and tried to shake off any signs of this theory. Dr. Meir, however, during all the years he was active, continued to promote the ideas of eugenics. At the beginning of the 1950s, he published an article in which he harshly criticized the reproduction prize of 100 lirot that David Ben-Gurion promised to every mother who gave birth to 10 children. "We have no interest in the 10th child or even in the seventh in poor families from the East. In today's reality, we should pray frequently for a second child in a family that is a part of the intelligentsia. The poor classes of the population must not be instructed to have many children, but rather restricted."
"I'm not making a value judgment," says Stoler-Liss. "Zionism arose at a certain period, in a certain ideological atmosphere - there were all kinds of ideas in the air and there were also eugenicist Zionists. Some of the doctors were educated in Europe, and at that time the medical schools taught not only medicine but also the theory of eugenics."
Judaism of Muscle
Dr. Meir was not the first Zionist leader who supported eugenics. According to studies by Dr. Rapahel Falk, a geneticist and historian of science and medicine at Hebrew University, other major Zionist thinkers - among them Dr. Max Nordau, Theodor Herzl's colleague, a doctor and a publicist, and Dr. Arthur Ruppin, the head of the World Zionist Organization office in the Land of Israel - presented the ideas of eugenics as one of the aims of the Jewish movement for national renewal and the settlement of the land.
Prof. Meira Weiss, an anthropologist of medicine at Hebrew University, describes in her book "The Chosen Body" how the settlement of the land and work on the land were perceived by these Zionist thinkers as the "cure" that would restore the health of the Jewish body that had degenerated in the Diaspora. In Nordau's terms, a "Judaism of muscle" would replace "the Jew of the coffee house: the pale, skinny, Diaspora Jew. "At a time when many Europeans are calling for a policy of eugenics, the Jews have never taken part in the `cleansing' of their race but rather allowed every child, be it the sickest, to grow up and marry and have children like himself. Even the mentally retarded, the blind and the deaf were allowed to marry," wrote Ruppin in his book "The Sociology of the Jews." "In order to preserve the purity of our race, such Jews [with signs of degeneracy - T.T.] must refrain from having children."
"Many people dealt with eugenics as a theoretical issue," says Stoler-Liss. "They even set up a Nordau Club with the aim of researching the racial aspects of the Jewish people and ways of improving it. What was special about Dr. Meir and the group that joined him was that for them eugenics was a very practical matter." They wanted to pursue applied eugenics.
The main institution was the advice station. The first station was opened in 1931 in Beit Strauss on Balfour Street in Tel Aviv. The aim was to work in "pleasant ways," through persuasion and choice. As Stoler-Liss explains: "Why should people work against their personal interests? It is here that the connection to the national interest comes in. If I understand that by having a baby I will harm the national interest, the building of the land, the `new Jew,' I will refrain from giving birth. But just to make certain, Meir told the doctors, in the event that a woman comes to you who is `a risk' for giving birth to a sick baby, it is your obligation to make certain that she has an abortion."
"Gynecologist Miriam Aharonova also wrote extensively on the subject of eugenics," adds Stoler-Liss. "In articles for parents under headings such as `The Hygiene of Marriage' she gives a list of eugenic instructions for parents - from the recommended age for giving birth (between 20 and 25), to the recommended difference in age between the father and the mother (the reason for which is the betterment of the race) to a list of diseases that could infect the spouse or "be transmitted through heredity to their descendants after them." In the diseases, she mentions "syphilis, gonorrhea, tuberculosis, alcoholism, narcotics addiction (fondness for morphine, cocaine, etc.) and diseases of the mind and the nerves." In the volume of "Mother and Child" published in 1935, says Stoler-Liss, the publication and discussions by doctors who supported eugenics was greatly expanded. Why, in fact, did they not use force? The establishment had a great deal of power over immigrants and refugees.
"The medical establishment's power was limited at that time. This was an establishment that developed hand in hand with the system it was supposed to strengthen and suffered from constant shortages: a shortage of doctors, a shortage of nurses and a shortage of equipment. It had to examine, treat, inoculate and so on. We are talking about the period of the British Mandate. When at long last there was a state, eugenics theory declined. My explanation is the change of generations: that generation had come to an end professionally, and a new generation with more national motivation came along that was not educated at the European universities during that period. They had already seen what the Nazis had done with it and the ideological identification was lower. The ideas themselves seeped in but they're not using the same rhetoric."
Has Eugenics Really Vanished?
The eugenic chapter in the history of Western culture has been closed, but have eugenics really disappeared?
"Eugenic thinking is alive and well today," asserts Stoler-Liss. "It is expressed mainly in the very high rate of pre-natal tests and genetic filtering [of genetically deviant fetuses]. Mothers are very highly motivated to give birth only to healthy children and the attitude toward the exceptional, the different and the handicapped in Israeli society is problematic."
At hospitals today future parents are offered a plethora of genetic tests that diagnose the fetus before birth. Some of them are aimed at identifying serious disorders, like Tay-Sachs disease, a degenerative disease that causes a painful death in infancy. Others, however, are aimed at screening fetuses with conditions like deafness and sterility, the bearers of which can lead full and satisfying lives.
SOURCE: Haaretz, "`Do not have children if they won't be healthy!'", By Tamara Traubmann, 11 June 2004.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
More Truth About the Jewish Talmud
To see my previous posts on the Jewish Talmud, please go here, here, here, and here. See this post about the hidden secrets of Israel and Judaism-what they don't want you to know. Also, see this post about the beliefs of some of the people that former head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff associated himself with.
Friday, June 3, 2016
The Jewish Talmud Exposed Video
See my previous posts on the Talmud here and here. Zionists, or "secular Jews" still get their identity from the Talmud Halakhah law. So, why is there no word about the crazy beliefs in the Talmud from our supposed "Liberal" Jewish friends?
Or, how about the "atheist Jew" Sam Harris who thinks the bible is just a bunch of craziness? Actually, he is just one of the supposed "critics" of religion that you see trotting around. As for the state of Israel, did you know about the marriage laws there? See here for more about that.
Not one of them will open their mouth about this insanity.
Do you know why? It's a combination of a couple reasons. First, it's because some Jews have a supremacist attitude and actually believe some of this crap. Second, it's because Jews have so much political and economic power that no one dares to say anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)