In the following post, the Atlantic's Robert Wright points out that if Muslim leaders came to the U.S. and invoked doctrinaire religious rationales to justify calls for contemporary violence against Jews, they would be accused by many in the West of "hate," yet when the Prime Minister of Israel comes here and cites Jewish religious doctrine in a push for war against Iran, no one bats an eye.
Clearly, the West is today in the grip of a set of Zionist-instigated and enforced, Jewish supremacist double standards, wherein Jews can preach all of the hate they want -- against traditional Christians, against Muslims, against advocates of Western civilization, against advocates of Islamic civilization...against anyone, really -- and yet never be called out for their self-elevating, racist and supremacist hate speech.
Yet when someone objects to this set of Jewish supremacist double standard out of simple fair play, they are castigated as anti-Semites and beyond the pale.
Why is it routine to talk about Iranian religious fanatics who are leading us toward war and so rare to acknowledge the role that religious tribalism in America--among both conservative Jews and conservative Christians--is playing in leading us to war? And why is it that when Muslim radicals use religious scripture in a way that foments belligerence we consider it primitive and vile, whereas when Bibi Netanyahu does the same thing (more subtly, I grant you) we nod politely and smile?It's a fair questions, but I would note that it's not "conservative Jews" and "conservative Christians" who are enforcing this Jewish supremacist set of double standard, as Wright maintains, but rather Zionist Jews and Judeo-Christian Zionists, who in fact may or may not be "conservative."
Indeed, the vast majority of Jews in the U.S. are widely recognized as liberal, yet at the same time, the vast majority of Jews in the U.S. are simultaneously Zionist.
Additionally, how "conservative" are the radical Judeo-Christian Zionists that Wright refers to as "tribal" and "conservative Christians," and lumps in with tribal, "conservative Jews"?
These people aren't conservative at all, but rather subscribe to a religious variation of (Jewish-dominated) radical, neoconservative geopolitical doctrine, and to a world view that is very different than the Jewish-antithetical world view of traditional Christendom and Western civilization.
Indeed, the whole truth is that the world is dividing not between "conservatives" and "liberals," but rather between those with a primitive, tribal, superficial, materialistic, Abrahamite world view (Zionist Jews, Judeo-Christian Zionists, Islamists, and even "secular" Judeophile liberals who practice the new age, Jewish-worshipping religion that has become known as Holocaustianity) and the rest of the world, which quite frankly considers the lot of these to be complete flakes and superficial materialists, fixated on institutionalizing their own "moral superiority" and self-elevating "rights" at the point of a gun.
Wright pretends to look down his nose at "conservative Jews" and "conservative Christians," but the fact of the matter is, his own liberal, cosmopolitan, wine and cheese set likely includes more than a few Jewish supremacists of the liberal Zionist Jew and Judeophile liberal variety, who are at least as big a problem as their Judeo-"conservative," fellow Jewish-worshipping brethren, particularly given their "liberal" demands to bomb Islamic civilization into the Stone Age until it permanently institutionalizes homosexual rights.
In the biggest picture, what we can ultimately conclude from all of this is that Abrahamites, Judeos, and Judeophiles from left to right are by and large flakes and screwballs, none of whom should be allowed anywhere near the levers of power, and all of whom are at war not only with Islamic civilization, but with the values of traditional, Greco-Christian Western civilization, as well.
And when they're not warmongering against outsiders, they're squabbling amongst themselves over money, abortion, gay rights and all manner of other social issues that their stubborn, stiff-necked, endlessly combative approach to existence can never quite seem to iron out.
But unfortunately, these endlessly aggrieved and squabbling Zionist and Judeophile liberal flakes currently have Washington, and consequently the entire country, by the throat, and seem hell bent on lowering it, and the entire world, to their haggling, violently nutty, combative level of existence.
Bibi Netanyahu's Bible Story
(The Atlantic) -- by Robert Wright --
Yesterday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave President Obama a copy of the book of Esther, which will be read in synagogues this week in observance of Purim. Esther tells the story of a Persian government that tries and fails to wipe out all the Jews in the Persian Empire. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Netanyahu saw this as an occasion to generalize about Persians (or, as we call them today, Iranians). He told Obama, "Then, too, they wanted to wipe us out."
Here's a thought experiment: Suppose that an Arab or Iranian leader of Muslim faith met with President Obama and told him about some part of the Koran that alludes to conflict between Muhammad and Jewish tribes. For example, according to Muslim tradition, the Jewish tribe known as the Qurayzah, though living in Muhammad's town of Medina, secretly sided with Muhammad's enemies in Mecca. Suppose this Muslim said to Obama, "Then, too, the Jews were bent on destroying Muslims." What would our reaction be?
I think reactions would vary. Some people would say, "See, the Koran teaches Muslims to hate Jews!" Some would say, "Wow, this Muslim is looking really, really hard for reasons to keep hating Jews, isn't he?"
That second point, at least, would have some merit. After all, the Muslim could just as easily have pointed to parts of the Koran that say nice things about Jews--such as the part that says that God, in his "prescience," chose "the children of Israel ... above all peoples." Or the part that says that God "sent down the Torah" as "guidance to the people" and now had sent down the Koran "confirming what was before it."
By the same token, Netanyahu could choose to emphasize a part of the Hebrew Bible that depicts Persians in a more flattering light. For example, the part that calls Cyrus the Great, the Persian king, the "messiah" because he delivered the exiled Israelites back to their home. (Yes, the only non-Hebrew called messiah in the entire Hebrew Bible is a Persian!)...
The genius of using religious scripture for political purposes is its resistance to criticism. After all, in the week when the book of Esther figures in a sacred Jewish ritual, who would be foolish enough to challenge Netanyahu's invocation of it?
Me, apparently. And no doubt some commenters will illustrate my foolishness in the space below, accusing me of insensitivity, making dark insinuations about my motives, etc. So let me try to be clear about what I'm saying. I'm basically just asking two questions:
Why is it routine to talk about Iranian religious fanatics who are leading us toward war and so rare to acknowledge the role that religious tribalism in America--among both conservative Jews and conservative Christians--is playing in leading us to war? And why is it that when Muslim radicals use religious scripture in a way that foments belligerence we consider it primitive and vile, whereas when Bibi Netanyahu does the same thing (more subtly, I grant you) we nod politely and smile?...MORE...LINK