START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
Jun 5, 2007
An article in the Egyptian state-owned newspaper al-Akhbar on February 3, 2002 stated:
"All the evils that currently affect the world are the doings of Zionism. This is not surprising, because the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which were established by their wise men more than a century ago, are proceeding according to a meticulous and precise plan and time schedule, and they are proof that even though they are a minority, their goal is to rule the world and the entire human race."
Nowhere has the Protocols been published in so many editions and so many copies as in the Arab World - not even in Germany during WWII. It pains me because on the one hand the world is full of Muslims and Arabs that are as opposed to Anti-Semitism as I am, and yet the Protocols are being used to dupe, betray and manipulate Arab and Muslim People into believing that Jews are the evil of all evil.

PA Daily:
"Morale and psychological manipulation has a significant place in the minds of Jews, and formed a very important source of strength in the "Hebrew State"? Disinformation has been one of the bases of morale and psychological manipulation among the Israelis, and propaganda played an important role in the psychological prodding of world political leaders to support Zionism? The "Protocol's of the Elders of Zion" did not ignore the importance of using propaganda to promote the Zionist goals. In the second protocol is written: "Through the newspapers we will have the means to propel and to influence". In the twelfth protocol: "Our governments will hold the reins of most of the newspapers, and through this plan we will possess the primary power to turn to public opinion." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, official PA daily, Jan 25 2001]"
The Cover of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion published by the Palestinian Authority.
"The Egyptian 40 part TV series connecting the State of Israel?s founding to the principles of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion triggered worldwide interest and outrage. This series broadcast every day during the month of Ramadan ??on 22 Arab stations, among them Egypt 2, Syria, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iraq, Lebanon and other Arab states.? [Official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, November 1, 2002]"

?The purpose of the military policy is to impose this situation on the residents and force them to leave their homes, and this is done in the framework of the Protocols of Zion...? [Official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, November 18, 2001]

"For the second consecutive year, Arab television featured a vicious anti-Semitic series that depicts stereotypical Jews hatching a plot for Jewish world control and domination. The program, Ash-Shatat ("The Diaspora") is a Syrian production and was aired in October and November 2003 by the Lebanon-based satellite television network Al-Manar, which is owned by the terrorist organization Hezbollah. Al-Manar is widely available to viewers across the Muslim and Arab world and around the world." (From ADL)


At the 2005 Cairo IBF a stand of the Syrian publisher displayed a new, 2005 edition of the Protocols authorized by the Syrian Ministry of Information. In Syria government-controlled television channels occasionally broadcast mini-series concerning the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, along with several other anti-semitic themes.

I am not quoting these sources as some sort of Arab bashing. These are factual quotes - the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are widely spread throughout the world of the Crescent Moon, and they do have a huge impact as they are almost never refuted or criticized. To many in the Arab World, the Protocols are a second Qu'ran, which they are familiarized with as soon at they are old enough to go to a madrasa.

And let's not forget Mohammad Amin al-Husayni - the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who promised Hitler that he would purge the Jews from Brittish Palestine...
"He repeated his former support for Germany and "wanted to know to what extent the Third Reich was prepared to support the Arab movement against the Jews."
He requested that:
"Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic (völkisch) interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy."
He doesn't cite the Protocols, but then he didn't need to, as the Protocols were already at the core of the reason why the Jews had to be exterminated.

My point is that when we in the Western World hear about Arab and/or Islamic hatred for the State of Israel and Zionism - they are not speaking of just disliking having to give up some land, or human rights abuses by Israeli Forces, they truly believe that the very existence of Israel is part of a World Wide Jewish Conspiracy to dominate the world and make them slaves.

They believe this because this is what is fed to them through the media they have access to, it is being preached to them by their religious leaders and taught to them in their schools.

Ironically, they fail to see that the mechanisms described in the Protocols are being used against them by their leaders, not just as a diversion of attention from the corruption of their own governments, but to lull them into a dream of re-resurrecting the Empire of Saladin the Great. See earlier entry.

Other Entries in this series:

Imported from external blog

Jun 2, 2007
". . . To what extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic. What many Jews may do unconsciously is here consciously exposed. And that is what matters. It is completely indifferent from what Jewish brain these disclosures originate; the important thing is that with positively terrifying certainty they reveal the nature and activity of the Jewish people and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. The best criticism applied to them, however, is reality. Anyone who examines the historical development of the last hundred years from the standpoint of this book will at once understand the screaming of the Jewish press. For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken (Mein Kampf pp 307-308)."
I read this, and am astounded. I know a man who sounds like this every time he mentions the Jewish people, Israel or Zionism. Now, here in 2007. But that is not the issue - the issue is how was the PEZ used in the Third Reich?

The idea that denying something is proof that what is denied is true was not a new idea - the Roman Catholic Church had used it during the Inquisition - the logic goes like this "if there is nothing to deny, then why do you bother to deny it?" Damned if you do and damned if you don't...if you float you're a witch and will be killed, if you don't float, then you are dead anyway.

This meant that nothing that was said either by the Jews or by their non-Jewish supporters could or would make any difference. Anything would be taken as evidence that the Protocols were indeed true, after all, hadn't the Tsarists been ousted in Russia due to this devilish plan, didn't history show that where ever there were strife and riots, there were Jews? So the Protocols were indeed planted in fertile soil:

Nora Levin states in her
The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry 1933-1945:

..."it was in Germany after World War I that they had their greatest success. There they were used to explain all of the disasters that had befallen the country: the defeat in the war, the hunger, the destructive inflation (19)."
Despite the fact that the Protocols had been exposed as a forgery as early as in 1921, it became the most popular book in Germany during the 20's and 30's - the Germans of that time ate it like candy. Why shouldn't they have, after all it had all the trimmings of a good conspiracy theory - dark, clandestine meetings, money, a plan that threatens all of humanity and a clear perpetrator, that lived in the neighborhood? Hitler didn't create Anti-Semitism, he merely played into Anti-Semitic sentiments that had been around since the times of the Romans. He refined it to a point where industrial extermination of the Jews not only became the order of the day, but a necessity. Something the German people had to do to survive as a national entity. In order to understand how an entire Nation can go psychotic, one has to understand that Anti-Semitism was not something unique to Germany - it was prevalent all over Europe and the US, and several countries did in fact have Anti-Jewish laws or restrictions and sentiments in place.

The US
"In 1939 a Roper poll found that only thirty-nine percent of Americans felt that Jews should be treated like other people. Fifty-three percent believed that "Jews are different and should be restricted" and ten percent believed that Jews should be deported. The United States? tight immigration policies were not lifted during the Holocaust, news of which began to reach the United States in 1941 and 1942 and it has been estimated that 190 000 - 200 000 Jews could have been saved during the Second World War had it not been for bureaucratic obstacles to immigration deliberately created by Breckinridge Long and others."
The UK
"Though there was some growing anti-semitism during the 1930s, this was counterbalanced by strong support for British Jews in their local communities leading to events such as the Battle of Cable Street where anti-semitism was strongly resisted. There was never wholesale persecution of the Jews before or during World War II in Britain. At the same time, however, Britain was not particularly receptive to Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazi regime in Germany, and the other fascist states of Europe."
Only in Germany was it ground into everyday thinking. It is human nature to grasp a straws, any straws when exposed to disaster, and that more than anything made it possible for Hitler to make the Protocols a document of truth. Also, let's not forget that Hitler did bring Germany out of its depression, he built the industry and he did feed the hungry Germans. It's very easy to then go along with whatever else such a leader might suggest.

By the time of the end of WWII, approximately 6 million Jews had been murdered because of a document that 44 years earlier had been determined to be a forgery - something at least one high-ranking Nazi officer, Erich von dem Bach-Zelewsky, acknowledged:
"I am the only living witness but I must say the truth. Contrary to the opinion of the National Socialists, that the Jews were a highly organized group, the appalling fact was that they had no organization whatsoever. The mass of the Jewish people were taken complete by surprise. They did not know at all what to do; they had no directives or slogans as to how they should act. This is the greatest lie of anti-Semitism because it gives the lie to that old slogan that the Jews are conspiring to dominate the world and that they are so highly organized. In reality, they had no organization of their own at all, not even an information service. If they had had some sort of organization, these people could have been saved by the millions, but instead, they were taken completely by surprise. Never before has a people gone as unsuspectingly to its disaster. Nothing was prepared. Absolutely nothing (20)."
Thank G-d for small blessings...


Imported from external blog

May 29, 2007
As said in earlier, the Tzarists manufactured the Protocols as a means to discredit the Revolutionary Movement in Russia, playing into an already overheated Anti-Jewish sentiment. And indeed many of the Revolutionaries were Jewish, so it was a rather easy task:
"Jewish participation among the Bolsheviks, plagued the Communists during the Russian Civil War against the Whites with a reputation of being "a gang of marauding Jews"; Jews comprised a majority in the Communist Central Committee, outnumbering even ethnic Russians. At the same time, the vast majority of Russia's Jews, much like their ethnic Russian neighbours, were not in any political party."
It would have been nice to able to say "and the rest is history...", but alas the Protocols lived on. The same instrument that had served the Tzar's Secret Police and the White Movement in their fight against the Bolsheviks, eventually became a tool in the hands of the Soviets as the sentiment gradually changed - much due to the resentment among non-Jewish Bolsheviks towards the back-lash during the Russian Civil War.

It might be that Lenin took a rather universalist view on Anti-semitism:

"According to Lenin, antisemitism was an "attempt to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants from the exploiters toward the Jews." Linking antisemitism to class struggle, he argued that it was merely a political technique used by the tsar to exploit religious fanaticism, popularize the despotic, unpopular regime, and divert popular anger toward a scapegoat. The Soviet Union also officially maintained this Marxist-Leninist interpretation under Stalin, who expounded Lenin's critique of antisemitism."
This theory didn't much change anything for the Jews under Soviet Rule - Stalin was notorious for his witch-hunt on Jews within the Communist Party especially during the 1930's. Though he "offered" Jews a socialist solution to the "Jewish Problem", it didn't attract more than approximately 30% of the Russian Jewish Population.
"To offset the growing Jewish national and religious aspirations of Zionism and to successfully categorize Soviet Jews under Stalin's nationality, an alternative to the Land of Israel was established with the help of Komzet and OZET in 1928. The Jewish Autonomous Oblast with the center in Birobidzhan in the Russian Far East was to become a "Soviet Zion". Yiddish, rather than "reactionary" Hebrew, would be the national language, and proletarian socialist literature and arts would replace Judaism as the quintessence of culture."
Those who refused or opposed the deportation (because one cannot call it by any other name) were "purged" as threats to Stalin's Communist Despotism. It wouldn't be fair to say that Stalin was directly influenced by the Protocols when he choose to get rid of people like Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev to mention a few high ranking Party members, but as Anti-Semitism was not "purged" by the Revolution, and still had a strong hold on the Russian Soul, it is fairly probable that Stalin found it easier to dispose of those Jews he saw as threats to his Empire, than he would have otherwise.

The Soviet policy in regards to the Jewish population was ambiguous - one the one hand they were not allowed to be Jewish on their own terms - and when they resisted "assimilation" they were either deported or killed as enemies of the state, on the other hand they were consistently refered to as "just citizens". Despite the fact that they were massacred exactly for being Jewish inside Soviet Union as well as out-side.
"The typical Soviet policy regarding the Holocaust was to present it as atrocities against Soviet citizens, not emphasizing the genocide of the Jews. For example, after the liberation of Kiev from the Nazi occupation in 1943, the Extraordinary State Commission (???????????? ??????????????? ????????) was set out to investigate Nazi crimes and its first draft report was ready by December 25, 1943. It contained the following sentence:

  • "The Hitlerist bandits committed mass murder of the Jewish population. They announced that on September 29, 1941, all the Jews were required to arrive to the corner of Melnikov and Dokterev streets and bring their documents, money and valuables. The butchers marched them to Babi Yar, took away their belongings, then shot them."
The officially censored version of the text was:
  • "The Hitlerist bandits brought thousands of civilians to the corner of Melnikov and Dokterev streets. The butchers marched them to Babi Yar, took away their belongings, then shot them."
Not even in their deaths were they allowed to be Jews.

The ideas from the Protocols do not surface clearly until after WWII, when the Stalinist Government executed several state-sponsored pogroms on Jewish Intellectuals, Artists, Poets and writers, most notably those who wrote in Yiddish (19 48; 1952-1953).
"In November 1948, Soviet authorities launched a campaign to liquidate what was left of Jewish culture. The members of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee were arrested. They were charged with treason, bourgeois nationalism and planning to set up a Jewish republic in Crimea to serve US interests."
This is also the first time a connection between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism is established within the Radical Far Left.

See how the pendulum has swung? From socialist traitors under the Tsar to bourgeois traitors under Stalin - and still considered plotting... The Jew behind it all...


Imported from external blog

May 28, 2007

"Those who feel libeled by the Protocols have the most obvious remedy in the world; all they have to do is to ruse and denounce the policy of them, instead of denying the authorship ... But when you come to read them how can any reasonable man deny the truth of what is contained in them??" Norman Jaques, M.P., in Canadian House of Commons, July 9th, 1943.
Indeed - admit that you are undoubtedly conspiring to take over the world and denounce your policies - because denying authorship is futile, we all know that you are lying anyway. After all you are "the Jews", and we all know what "they" are like... Doesn't leave much room for anything does it - like the question "Have you stopped beating your Wife yet?"
"Whence come this uncanny note of prophecy, prophecy in part fulfilled, in parts far gone in the way of fulfillment? Have we been struggling these tragic years to ... extirpate the secret organization of German world dominion only to find underneath it, another, more dangerous because more secret? Have we ... escaped a Pax Germanica only to fall into a Pax Judaeica?" The Times, London, May 8th, 1920.
It is no wonder that people ascribe the Protocols to "the Jews" - after all, it was exposed in the newspapers. If it's in the Times, it must be the truth. Not much have changed since 1920 - people still invariably believe blindly what is written by the Press. But why? Why does otherwise reasonable and sincere people believe in the Protocols? Because they need something to fight, something to feel passionate about, and because the idea of "secret societies" plotting against them remove their responsibility for the miseries of their own lives, it did it then and it does it now. One could also see the idea of this document as being a prophecy, that there are two kinds of prophecy - prophecy and self-fulfilling prophecy and the latter is far more accurate than the former.

In post WWI Europe, victorious over the Germans, yet torn, beaten, hurt and financially depleated another enemy was needed to rouse the People to rise above their hardships - and if that meant conveying age-old ideas of the devious Jew, then so be it.

Panem et Circences. "Throw the Jews to the Lions! It will be spectacular!"
"The thoughtful reader must reject the view, once held by some people, that the Protocols originated as an imaginative work of miraculous accuracy. The only rational view seems to be that the Protocols must be taken on their face value as a detailed plan of action, aiming at nothing other than the goal they themselves set forth. This goal is a World State which the nations are being urged by their leaders to accept as "the only alternative to annihilation." This is the choice which our politicians are offering us today." Victor E. Marsden, Preface to the PEZ, 1920.
While this preface takes care not to name the Jews or even the Title, it does take for granted that the Protocols are in fact a detailed plan for World Dominance. If one wants to let the Jews off the hook but still need a conspiracy theory, on can always implicate the Freemasons, the Anti-Xian Atheists or just one's own Government...or secret community of Governments...
"I can only state that this is a manifesto of the shadow government strongly rooted in the Manifest Destiny philosophy and agenda. Who is actually involved in its creation and implementation is not known and therefore I cannot comment beyond what has been said above. We can conclude from current world events what nations are foremost in promoting the ideals set forth in this document."
The possibilities are innumerable, if you really try - and it can be connected over decades and centuries - the Bolshevihks of Russia, secretly infiltrated by the Global Jews, move forward in time, become suicidal around 1930-1945 end up dead, but manages to escape the jaws of Hell, only to emmigrate to Palestine to continue their devilish work. From there they, all according to plan, branch out to finally end up flying planes into the Twin Towers for which they subsequently blame themselves for the atrocities...

It is really simple. All you need are some plausible ingredients, like a disaster, terror attack, shady people under trees nearby the disaster area, a few messages sent and received, a couple of rumors that certain people miraculously escaped unavoidable death, you shake it and voíla! Your very own Conspiracy Theory - and if you place a couple of Jews strategically on the fringe, people are going to eat it like candy.

The things people believe...


Imported from external blog

May 28, 2007

The Source and the Reason

In 1864 French satirist Maurice Joly wrote a novel titled "Dialouge in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu: or the Politics of Machiavelli int he nineteenth century" for those of you who read French - here's a free E-book.

In 1899 or 1901 a Russian secret agent of the Orahka branch in Paris was ordered to write something that would discredit the Bolshevihks. He used Maurice Joly's novel as a base for his fantasies. So how come the Jewish people were implicated?

Well the author - Matvei Golovinski - also got his hands on another novel. "Biarritz" written by Herrman Goedsche in 1868, in which Goedsche describes a fictional nightly meeting of Rabbinical representatives of the 12 tribes of Israel consorting with the Devil to plan a Jewish Conspiracy.

The chapter ?The Jewish Cemetery in Prague? in "Biarritz" was documented as non-fictional in France in 1871, and reached Russia in 1872. The rest is history.

The only thing in the Protocols that identify the alleged authors behind it as Jewish is the use of the word "goyim" (gentiles) - and in this way it is both rather moderate and insidious, because "goyim" is probably the most well known Hebrew word out-side the Jewish Community it would send the message without much problem.

So why implicate the Jews? Because they were there. And because there already was a strong Anti-Jewish sentiment in Russia and in Europe at the time. In 1881-1884 Russia was engulfed in Anti-Jewish riots following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II, which was alleged to have been carried out by Jews (the truth of this has later been investigated and found to be false - the only Jewish element in that assassination was the fact that one of the assassins had a Jewish friend...).

It becomes pretty clear against this background that the Protocols had to "target" the Jews. Especially since a large number of Bolshevihks were indeed Jewish - and the Tsarists needed a "diversion" - something that would stir up enough emotions in the general Russian Public to hold off the Revolutionary elements that were threatening the Russian Empire.

"Conspiracy theories are very "nice" - because they create a simply picture of complex matters, and they contain enough elements of plausibility to be believable. And they provide people with a scape-goat for the world's ills. It doesn't matter if it's religious conspiracies, political conspiracies or just alien conspiracies - they all serve as proxy for a sense of powerlessness and in the right hands they can be deadly..."

It is rather interesting how a French Novel that was meant to expose the Napoleon Empire came to play such a big role in the Russian Revolution...

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been debunked and re-debunked so many times by so many that I really don't need to do it again - I'll just leave you with some links to Web Sites that discuss the Protocols.

On Wikipedia


Skeptics' Dictionary

Holocaust History

I will be back and deal with the particulars - such as the Banks, the Media in terms of their place in the Protocols.


Imported from external blog

May 14, 2007
Basic Tactics of the Radical Far Left

1. Ask Rhetorical Questions or Questions that in it's body carries one or several assumptions/presuppositions.


"Why do you Zionists support a murderous and genocidal Government?"

The person asking this kind of question isn't interested in getting an answer. He or she is disguising a truck load of prejudice, presuppositions and logically fallacious assumptions for the purpose of propaganda, in the form of a question. This is a set up that wants its target to start defending him or herself against the numerous allegations brought through those prejudices, presuppositions and logically fallacious assumptions - best answered by pointing out that the question is not a real question, like I just did. Note that "Zionist" is a RFL buzzword for "Jew" or someone either married to a Jew or not having displayed enough Anti-Israeli sentiments throughout the debate.

If you engage in answering the question, the person asking has succeeded in his or her mission, to distract attention from the real debate, which most likely is about some imaginary fact he or she brought earlier. Stick to debunking the fallacies of those facts using objective and verifiable facts from objective sources, and you will be fine. Remember that you are not debating the person behind the posting, you are debating the ideas expressed in the posting.

2. Make blanket statements about Jews and belittle them.

"Get a debate started and you'll see that the Jews will lose the argument and the sentiment of the public in almost every turn."

Here's a blatant Anti-Semitic statement - it really cannot be any clearer than this. The best way to deal with that is to point out that it is a blanket statement that targets all Jewish People.

This kind of statement will surface when there are no other viable arguments accessible to the RFL - next will be the allegation that you are either a Nazi or a Racist. This is a sure sign that you have those people backed into a corner. You can safely leave the debate knowing that you did well.

3. Refuse to answer any questions pertaining to the issue - such as the source of their facts, and countering with more None-Question like above.

This is staple food for the RFL, especially if the person you are debating is not particularly intelligent or capable of gleaning information from diverse sources. Chances are that they have not understood your questions - chances are also that they have understood your questions, but doesn't like the answers they come up with, and don't want to be caught being incorrect. Most likely they are refusing to answer your questions as an attempt to silence you through ignoring you, at the same time try to make you look bad by bombarding you with questions based in prejudice, presuppositions and logically fallacious assumptions. Keep pointing out that they are not answering your questions - list your questions so that it becomes clear exactly what they do not want to answer - again remember that you are not debating the person behind the posting, you are debating the ideas expressed, and each post they make gives you an opportunity to debunk those ideas. That is why you are debating them.

4. Cut and paste News articles from sources that are viciously Anti-Semitic/Anti-Zionist, along with pictures that has little or nothing to do with the objective Topic of the debate.

This is the most aggressive tactic in their arsenal - apart from personal attacks and accusations of being a Nazi/Racist - and they have only one purpose: To derail any intelligent debate and appeal to iemotions. Those Cut and Paste Bombings are often given highly aggressive and unfactual Titles, intended to grab attention and steer the discussion away from rational arguments in to the quagmire of "defense/attack".

5. "Two wrongs always make One right" or "They did it first...".

They will defend the use of terrorism by pointing out that Israel or Groups of Jewish people have in the past acted similarly, often accompanying their assertions with references to the Stern-Gang, Lehi and Irgun, using past incidents as justification for present acts of terrorism against Jews and Israel. They will, when the irrelevance of those references are pointed out, claim that you are supporting Israeli Military Terrorism against the defenseless Palestinian People, who are just defending themselves, and because you do that, Palestinian terrorism is naturally justifiable and right.

6. Re-Defining established definitions of concepts such as "Genocide", "Anti-Semitism" "Terrorist".

Genocide, in the vocabulary of the RFL, becomes any harm to or death of a Palestinian, regardless of who killed or why. Anti-Semitism in their dictionary has little or nothing to do with hate of the Jewish People. It now means "hatred for any person belonging to the Semitic language Group, EXCEPT the Jews...". Terrorist is no longer a person that carries out acts of Terrorism against innocent civilians, iit is proud, patriotic and g-dfearing "freedom fighter" who is only doing what he or she needs to to achieve his or her goal - in this case the utter annihilation of the Jewish People.


Imported from external blog

May 11, 2007
The matter of if some people are Anti-Semites or not - that issue originally came up in HRN after one poster repeatedly expressed himself in a manner that was clearly Anti-Semitic, and it got progressively worse as this was pointed out. For me the Issue of Israel/Palestine, as a matter of discussion doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Anti-Semitism per se. But when Anti-Semitic sentiments, expressions and ideas are laid open in such discussions, I again see it as my human duty to object. Unfortunately for some, there are strong elements of Anti-Semitism in what is generally called Anti-Zionism. When such elements surface, I again see it as my human duty to point this out and object.

It is rather easy to see why there would be Anti-Semitic sentiments incorporated in Anti-Zionism. It is rather logical - Zionism in its simplest form is the political, and for some religious, struggle to create and maintain a National Homeland for the Jewish people. To be against this, i.e to be Anti-Zionist, ultimately means that one is against the rights of the Jewish People to have a Homeland, a Nationality, something that is clearly stated in UDHR Article 15 "Everyone has the right to a nationality." Thus one is ultimately against the Jewish People, because one wants to deny them their human rights.

It is regrettable that the Left, which has traditionally stood for equal rights for all, has in so many ways become allies with the Right on the issue of the Jewish People. I am fully aware that this is not true for most people on the Left, but it is certainly true for the Radical Far Left. In its endeavor to bring justice to the Palestinians and make sure they got their Homeland, the Far Left forgot that on both sides are People with the same basic rights.

While one can justifiably and rightly bring criticism against the Israeli Government and those that command the IDF - and believe it or not, Israelis are usually the first to do so, which can be seen in the current National Criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defence Minister Amir Peretz, holding ALL Israelis, ALL Jews and ANYONE who choose to support the idea of a Jewish National Home responsible for the actions of a few can hardly be called justifiable or right. It is this that makes the Anti-Zionism embraced by the Radical Far Left Anti-Semitic, and those holding to those ideas Anti-Semites.

As is often the case with Radical Movements, the Radical Far Left uses bigger words, harsher tones, extreme hyperbole, inaccurate comparisons and one-sided arguments when they want to bring the issue of Israel/Palestine to the fore. In doing so they risk stepping over a line that, whether they intend to or not put them in the same boat with the Extreme Far Right on the issue of the Jewish People. It is not uncommon that information is collected from Web Sites and Literature that is used by both Movements. Nor is it uncommon that information is collected from Web Sites that, without being directly connected to the Far Right, use the same Anti-Semitic jargong as those. One such examlpe of similarities in argumentation and sentiments is and - the former is decidely Extreme Far Right, the latter is decidedly Extreme Far Left - and both contain similar lists of Anti-Semitic documents, such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

By allying itself with the Extreme Far Right in this manner, the Radical Far Left looses not just its credibility as a voice for Human Rights for ALL, but it also in many ways become that which its claims to be objecting to. There really was no difference between The Dictatorship of General Franco and the Dictatorship of Chaiman Mao, in terms of Anti-Semitism and Human Rights.

It is ironic that many of the first Leftists were Jewish, because if they were alive today I doubt they would recognize very much of their ideas in what has become the Radical Far Left.


Next in this series:
On the matter of Anti- Semitism II

Imported from external blog

Apr 30, 2007

My Comments on the issue of publishing highly graphic images of aborted children.

Those images are also unethical - disrespectful of the children in question. What's more, they only have one purpose - to play into the viewer's emotions. While I agree that abortions shouldn't be the norm, there actually are instances where they are needed.

Besides, there is a huge difference between abortion and the death penalty, which I am also against - the death penalty is a collective impersonal decision, while an abortion is a individual and personal decision, that is between the woman and her G-d. Instead of getting on our moral high horses, we should leave any judgements of right or wrong to G-d as we really don't know the whole truth behind a decision to have an abortion.

"That someone seeks to salve their own conscience by denying the utter horror of the reality of abortion and saying it's only between God and only one other person."
Whose conscience are you talking about here, [name of opponent] - as far as I am concerned, there is only one conscience involved in the decision to have an abortion, and that is ultimately the woman deciding to have the abortion - and that is between her and G-d, no matter what you say about it.

Who's been denying anything?

Not me. It does however seem to me that you are denying the fact that abortions are sometimes needed for the social, emotional and physical survival of the mother. But then of course, perhaps you do not consider the woman particularly important, so that in a scenario where there is need her life does not take precedence over that of an unborn?
"Sorry Dov - but you're speaking utter crap..."
So it's utter crap to expect people not to use highly sentsitive images as leverage in their attempt to force people to bend to their religious whip? As Ketutar said, there really is no need for this kind of "Death Porn", other than to rile up emotions and manipulate people.
"There is NOT only One person and God involved."
Ultimately it is between the Mother and G-d, and only He can judge the reasons, circumstances and emotions involved - did I say that I think she will not be judged by G-d? No, I did not, but I also believe that G-d is far beyond you and me in Compassion, Understanding and Mercy, so that His Judgement is Absolutely Fair.
"By your words YOU are disrespecting those babies' Fathers also."
Actually, I am not disrespecting the Fathers - but when all is said and done, the fathers have very little to say about their unborn children, as they are not the one physically pregnant. I also thouroughly believe that a father should have a say, and if you had read what I have said on the abortion issue f.i in HRN you would know this.
"AND condoning the actions of the other people who put it in their own hands to kill those babies, for the mothers. That's NOT One person and God."
Well, the medical professionals are ultimately there, not to kill those babies, but to assist the mother so she won't have to have the abortion done with a coat hanger in a back alley and most likely become a second casualty in a tragedy. Most countries have a "conscientious objector's " clause in their abortion legislation, so that medical personnell can make a decision not to perform abortions or any other medical procedure their beliefs object to. I know this is not the case in the US - but that can easily be remedied through amending the legislation.
"Do you also want to deny the Holocaust?"
Now you are being ridiculous, and you know it...

Then another guy comes in, post a enlarged version of the thumbnails I had originally objected to - and this self-righteous, hypocritical and fundamentalist (yes, he is a "born-again" Xian) moron says:
"Putting a Face on The Debate

When so many argue in favor of partial birth abortion, a picture is worth 10,000 words. It is only right for all to see just what it is that is being debated. It is important to show just what it is that pro-choice is asking to choose.

This is a very sanitised photo of the aftermath of a Partial Birth Abortion. This is what so called freedom of choice is choosing every day.

If someone is pro-choice, they should be able to look at this photo with pride and declare, yes that's what I stand for. That is an example of my personal values and my life view. They should be proud of such a photo."
The thing with this self-righteous toad is that he is completely missing my point, which the other guy wasn't, he just disagreed with me, but this guy makes it about abortion as such, which it never was when I came into the thread.

Which is very clear from this comment:
"Why is it OK to post pictures of dead dogs, cats, warpictures, dead adults, concentration camps, etc ? BUT not dead babies? Does it offend and upset peoples emotions? So do the others!"
Yes, [name] they do - which is why I am opposed to those too - what have I been opposing the most in Human Rights Network? Posting of highly graphic and insensitive Pictures that does nothing to further the point of a discussion except rile people up and manipulate them emotionally. In fact the people most prone to do this in HRN have all been blocked partly because they use these tactics.

Now, you not need to agree with me - and I do not need to agree with you - after all this is a discussion forum, chances are that people will at one point or other disagree with each other.

Just as it is your right to think the way you do, and share that with the rest of us, so it is my right to present my opinion - and for whatever it's worth - that was all I did. I addressed the issue of those pictures in my first post - I didn't address the issue of abortion, because that I have no issue with. I took issue with the images posted, because they are highly graphic, and because as such they are intended to manipulate emotions, just like any other pictures of the same graphic nature.

Now, the first guy - here in green text, is a nice guy who just happened to disagree with me - the other one, here in red text is a self-righteous schmuck with a schlemiel the size of an ant...a typical representative of the Religious Right. (A)mmmoral Majority.


Imported from external blog

Apr 25, 2007
As much as I enjoy debates in Care2, I have noticed that certain people tend to engage in tactics that cause the debates to degenerate into slugfests instead of allowing them to end on a civil note. Here are some examples of what they do:

1. Lie constantly. It does not matter if what you say has no basis in fact whatsoever. As long as you can make a counter to any statement of fact or logical argument that someone makes, you will appear to be on an equal level with your opponent.
2. Never bother to provide a basis for your assertions by linking to a credible source of information or providing a reference regarding a matter that is not common knowledge. Of course, if you are already doing No. 1, then No. 2 comes naturally.
3. Engage in the practice of what I call "parroting and nitpicking" constantly: Making an exact copy of your opponent's arguments and answering them point by point exactly instead of stating a new point of your own to move the debate forward. This has two effects: It makes you appear equal to your opponent, no matter how dumb your statements turn out to be, and it encourages your opponent to respond to you in the same way, taking the debate into an endless circle.
4. When you are accused of lying, just call your opponent a liar as well.
5. Engage in frequent sarcastic insults to annoy your opponent.
6. When your opponent complains that your tactics are unfair or dishonorable, accuse him of not really wanting a debate.
7. If you know your opponent has a short temper, wait until his patience has run out and he has gotten angry and then take advantage of the situation to torture your opponent still more!
8. Never admit you are wrong about anything. Always accuse your opponents of not thinking or of being stupid, brainwashed, ignorant, mindless, etc.
9. Use religion as a excuse to justify your extreme position. If your opponent is not of the same religion, use that fact against him.
10. Keep the debate going as long as possible until your opponent gives up in frustration, allowing you to claim "victory" later.

If you use these tactics repeatedly, you may appear very successful in debates. But you will also gain the contempt of most people who have a sense of honor and ethics. And that contempt for you personally may also lead to a rejection of your position as well, even if the position has some truth in it."

Orignally authored and posted here by Dale Husband

My comment to this Blog:
"May I add: Play Tag, i.e have a couple of friends in the wings who can pick up the relay stick when you have been beaten to a pulp by the opponents, ideally you would have them start the argument all over or bring up irrelevant, off topic points, such as the looks of your opponent, his ideas about dogs, or a complete distortion of his points/arguments."
Ketutar's Comment on the same Blog:
"Point 9. should be "ideology" instead of "religion". Political ideologies are used the exact same way.

Also, I'd like to add the "change subject" point. When you have nothing to say, when the opponent has proven your points faulty or lacking, when it's obvious that your opponent is correct, winning etc. change subject.

Also, use of support - gather your friends around to give you more "credibility". "Betty here understands exactly what I'm saying, why can't you?" Friends can also be used to confirm your ideas, and it doesn't matter if the ideas are relevant or not to the Issue. "Yes, Tim, it IS raining. YOU are absolutely correct!", or as distraction - have a couple of friends flood the thread with kittens and irrelevant discussions.

If the opponent isn't distracted, accuse her of being persistent like a pit bull... (Or "Coming back to the main topic in a psychotic manner")

Balthasar Gracian said that if one cannot get rid of one's vices, one needs to turn them into virtues - and one strategy is - if you cannot diminish the opponent's virtues, turn them into vices..."


Imported from external blog


Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.



Shares by Type:
All (468) | Blog (447) | Alert (1) | Poll (1) | Recipe (1) | Message (18)

Showing shares tagged with: controversy [show all]
No shares