and official narratives in short, terse pithy aphorisms!
and official narratives in short, terse pithy aphorisms!
Recent events have me thinking about this so I’d like to attempt a rational and coherent definition notwithstanding that it will fall on deaf ears. Ears likely made deaf to reason via hysteria, neurosis, pride, egoism, ethnic or intellectual hubris, low-level I.Q. mob frenzy, etc.
Anti: to be against. Semitism: a language group and HERE is a post from My Jewish Learning that covers some ground here.
So what do you notice right off the top? The word/s are nonsensical. And I’d suggest this is not accidental and goes to so much of the 2+2=3 surrounding the Jewish Question.
Ask yourself if you are against Semitic language groups. And if you are get back to me and tell me why?
So I’d like to offer some suggestions about how to define the words in a coherent manner considering we kind of get the intention of those who created the term, but for our purposes here, we want to define it rationally and fairly with as much coherency and accuracy as possible. So semitic in our use will only refer to the Jewish people.
The first criterion I think should be violence. If a person does not advocate violence towards Jewish people then they are by this definition, as a start, not antisemitic. If you think about this framing and apply it to Jesus then there is no way he was antisemitic as he never taught anyone to commit violence against the Jews. I want to add here that Jordan Peterson’s recent Tweet was ^’inverted antisemitism’ (clumsy I know) and meets this definition because it was a call for violence and genocide (against a Semitic people).
A rational analysis of the events described in the Torah when it comes to the violence and genocides committed by the god of the Torah cannot be labeled antisemitic. Thousands upon thousands of *people, many of them atheists, have documented the atrocities committed by Yahweh’s personal hand in the Torah. To study the Torah as a nonbeliever and come to the conclusion that the acts of Yahweh are objectively evil cannot by any coherent meaning be described as antisemitic.
Add to those deconstructions of the Torah by Marcionites and Christian gnostics or any other spiritual groups coming to the same conclusion as atheists also cannot be said to be antisemitic by any rational standard. Nor can Jesus’ assessment of his religious opponents and this is especially true for the Marcionites and Christian gnostics. We are concerned with an accurate and truthful assessment of what god is or isn’t.
So by these definitions, I can’t see religious criticism of the Torah as antisemitic unless you want to say that all the Jewish atheists who criticize the Torah are antisemitic. So this line of accusation by the Jews is sheer nonsense by any standard of fairness and rationality.
POLITICS: Poly (many) Ticks (bloodsuckers). It’s here where some accusations might have some legitimacy but I’ll argue when it is not legitimate. Criticism of the State of Israel when it comes to breaking international law and every known standard of human decency cannot be considered antisemitic by any rational standard.
But Jewish control of Gentile nations is its own unique problem. I side with the Rabbis who ask what kind of peace treaty is it when they want to divide up a stolen house. A **pooh pooh caca peace treaty in my opinion and if you want to say that is antisemitic then you have to also say the Rabbis who say the same thing are antisemitic. And if it’s nonsense to say that then it’s nonsense to say that Gentiles who hold the same view are antisemitic.
ECONOMICS. This is by far the most problematic area within this topic. My first point is that if Israel wants to implement economic policy in Israel then that is their business and right to do so but we will suspend the legitimacy question here. Israeli and Jewish control of Gentile nations? This is where it gets really nasty. And in my view, this is what the claims of antisemitism are really about. So it’s not so much about the genetic disposition of a Semitic people but about their control of Gentile nations within the arena of economics. This is no more problematic for nations that consider themselves Christian and especially Christian nations that make clear delineations between Christ and the Torah.
My primary point here is that they are saying it’s antisemitic to protest their economic hegemony over Gentile nations. HERE is the documentary ALL WARS ARE BANKING WARS…Moreover, if you state facts like their over-representation in politics, academics, media, banking, the justice system, and nearly everywhere else you are smeared with the label antisemitic. I guess if the truth is antisemitic in this specific instance then so be it but in my view, it is bad sportsmanship bordering on bullying by those who love throwing punches but don’t want to take any. Here I’d also like to point out because it’s really relevant right now that one of Herzl’s primary talking points last century was the Jews just wanted a homeland where they could live in peace and mind their own business.
Never mind that if the new country has you surrounded by people that have serious quarrels with you then it might not be a good idea to move there. And really, it’s laughable that they minded their own business, isn’t it? Laughable in a not-so-good way. In a previous blog, I suggested they didn’t have to move there as by 1900 they had their new Jerusalem called New York City! From the perspective that there are no gods or aliens, it could be argued that they could have stopped all the bullshit there and be content in their new home city. But it obviously wasn’t and isn’t so.
This brings us full circle back to the Torah with its ambition of worldwide domination of all the Gentile nations on earth. In my mind, this is a very serious problem. At this point, this specific issue is about FREEDOM and who gets to define it– who gets to live freely, and who does not. The Torah is specific about its intentions of end time Third Temple Judaism and this is now intersected with the Technocracy and A.I. which the Jewish people are exceedingly enmeshed and invested in. So they are basically saying on this specific issue that it is antisemitic to critique their ambitions of world domination on two primary fronts. Okay, defending human dignity and the freedom of Gentile nations is antisemitic but on this issue, it’s an accusation I can live with.
A few points, the first political and the second theologic.
Does the country in which you reside look like a country that you would want if you had a say in how it was run? You don’t! Or does it lean and look more like a country structured on Hebrew economic interests and ideology–say Marxism as one example?
The second point has to do with the Greek schools and the idea of the demiurge. Plato said the demiurge was good. But I side with Marcion on that point–at minimum. The craftsman or architect of the material cosmos is Chronos/Time/Saturn/Moon (symbolism) and is a nonpersonal ruler of the reincarnation construct–so blind justice and not mercy–at least as far as premodern metaphysics was understood. I have many blogs on this theme so search away if you are so inclined. However, it is clear Plato understood the Egyptian view of Ptah.
I’d like to end with a reflection on anti-Christ. I concede this first part is my opinion as the past 700 years (thereabouts), saw the rise of Jewish supremacy since the mainstreaming of Kabbalah and the advent of Central Banking in the 1400s. The Jewish people, on aggregate, during that time, have reveled in the spirit of anti-Christ. Journalists like Douglas Reed correctly pointed out that Jewish-owned media says whatever it wants whenever it wants but the same journalistic freedom is not given to those with a critical view of Israel and the Jews.
NOTE* HERE is a video by the YouTuber, underlings where he gets much of it right (but not all).
And HERE is a series by the Youtuber, Bobby Collier whose channel is called GOOD GOD, and he’s done the most extensive analysis I’ve come across explaining the EVILS of Yahweh.
NOTE** atheists and materialists always argue their points from a Darwinian view premised on pragmatist philosophy and utilitarian ethics and although I get it, I also find it as problematic as any other view. In other words, it’s not the only perspective, and likely wrong to think that it is.
NOTE^ I’ll leave the original thought as clumsy as it is but for this framing, it is likely better to use anti-arab. This is distinct from the religion of Islam which should be open to rational analysis and critique. A fair and rational criticism of the Koran’s claims should not be labeled anti-arab.
I’d like to respond to the video below as an addition here. I’d like to also be clear on the context. I’m writing from Canada which is supposed to be secular (it is not anymore and run by occultists) and that is supposed to have a constitution but Trudeau’s son turned the constitution into toilet paper with his inept handling of a cold virus. I won’t get into the reasons for the truth just spoken here in this blog but I don’t believe I can share my opinion anymore in this country without violence directed at me.
Let’s define Jihad. One definition is an outward declaration of Holy War against the infidels. If this war is waged against the Jews via violence then by the definition above it would make such violence antisemitic. An alternative to that, it would seem to me, would be massive economic sanctions against Israel by everyone and anyone who thinks that their treatment of the Palestinians is morally and ethically wrong. I should point out the second definition which in my opinion is the correct one: an interior struggle with internal evil in each and every one of us.
Upon reflection, I’d think it would not be antisemitic for a nation to defend itself if Israel attacked your country militarily. And there is the idea of allied nations within the arena of war. It’s on this specific point that one could argue that nations allied against a perceived enemy nation; Israel in this instance, would not be considered antisemitic by this definition. But I’m open to debate on that point.