I can't get enough of Chomsky

Can't praise him enough.

Mark Wallace interviews Ayn Rand.

Like a phoenix

Hi guys

I know it's been a while since we've been posting here on Numbers and Facts, but today it's easter ;)

We've now made a facebook page that we hope will increase traffic to the blog. You should join it. There will also be posted videos and other stuff there so come on in: Click here

The Artist

Teeth-grinding the news

Hitchens once told a joke about Noam Chomsky that his dentist told him he had a problem with teethgrinding. Chomsky couldn't understand it, so he was monitored during his sleep. Still no teethgrinding. Chomsky couldn't understand it until one day his wife noticed, that he was grinding his teeth exactly 20 minutes every day, when he was reading the New York Times.

The last days I've been feeling the same way, whenever i read about the Greek and to some extent the French elections. Each and every Danish establishment newspaper I've read had the same angle on it. Some were moderate about it and some just said it straight out.

They all claimed that there was a democratic problem in Greece because people were fleeing from the "moderate" parties and to the extremes. Mostly to the left but some also to the far right giving 21 seats in parliament to the neo-fascist Golden Dawn party. A story that received a lot of attention but that is far from the most important one. The most important being that the voters abandoned the pro austerity/pro Merkel parties because the budget cuts had been tearing the country to pieces. It's like a recipe for disaster and exactly the wrong way of going about solving the economic problems.

The main stream press all had the same attitude towards this. That democracy in Greece was broken and that the voters had better regain their mental balance and seek back towards the centre. Some of the more right leaning papers even said that the same was true for France.
This is of course obvious nonsense and contempt for democracy. What the Greek election really shows, is that their democracy is not as broken as the American for instance, and is capable of bringing systemic change when necessary.

Frankly I'm disgusted by the so called journalism of the main stream press. You could argue that it's not really surprising and I'd have to agree with that, but this show of disrespect for democracy and sucking up to the people interested in keeping status quo is truly amazing.

Hopefully this is just the first of many countries searching for an alternative route to repair the immense structural damage and solve the problems that globalised capitalism is causing

Today I woke up with these words in my head

Wars are in many cases, partly, started to distract people from the real and far more important conflict. The one between the oppressors and its opressed people.

This could be said in a simplified manner: Wars are started to distract people from the ruling class' exploitation of them.

Centralised power is bound to corrupt.

Have a nice day.

My Eyes Open Slightly at a Dewaniya

Rambling

     During my tenure in Kuwait, I had the pleasure of meeting many people and being exposed to a truly unfamiliar culture. While Kuwait is very much westernized, there are many area-specific and cultural traditions that are very much alive and well. Getting married? How about a low interest government loan to get you guys started. Sweet. Can you prove your lineage is "true" Kuwaiti? Bingo, bango... enjoy your yearly stipend from governmental oil profits. These sorts of courtesies are not extended to the those that cannot prove their lineage, regardless of their tenure in the country (this includes some nomadic tribes that have been in the area for hundreds of years).

[ah, see... there I go rambling far away from my initial point]

The Conversation

     Ah yes, the actual initial point of the post. One of the area's cultural norms (common throughout Islamic lands) is extending hospitality to your guests. From Saladin allowing water and food into the Holy Land during its siege to the present, that tradition continues to this day. I had the pleasure of being invited to a Dewaniya with my comrades several times. It was a very welcoming experience and was extremely enjoyable. Oh, and let me tell you, the food was as fantastic as the sound of a Maserati's engine. (For those of you non-automotive types, it's a fricken' beautiful noise).

     During my third such casual Dewaniya I spoke at some length with a retired Kuwaiti Major (I think that is the equivalent rank --- my memory is a bit foggy). You and the host will usually politely avoid issues that may disrupt the scene, but I had a question [albeit a simple question] that had always begged to be asked. The dinner was beginning to wind down and me and a fairly reserved older gentleman were sitting by the coals. He had served during the invasion of Kuwait until several years after the U.S. involvement in the Gulf War.

     "I certainly don't mean to be a bother, but I am truly curious... how do you... how do you feel about Americans? How do the Kuwaitis feel about us? Do not worry, I take no offense if it is negative, I am just truly curious." I asked after some small talk and over a cup of Turkish coffee (holy crap that stuff was strong).

     He furrowed his brow a bit, looked at his coffee, looked up and then leaned forward towards me. "Well, it depends on the person. Some do not like you, this is true. Many like you and many are somewhere in between." he said, pausing for a minute to look off into the distance. His mind was wandering a though I'm not sure what for. It was clear he was thinking, perhaps trying to find a polite way to express his thoughts and also to painfully remember some of his experiences. "I cannot speak for all of Kuwait necessarily, I can speak for myself. I personally like the U.S. I went to college there and I enjoyed my experience." He pauses for a moment again as the servant freshened our cups.

     He continues, "You see --- I truly appreciated the U.S. when they came. When they came to our defense against Sadam that is. The base you stay at is --- I lost many dear friends in that war. If you go along that wall, you will find bullet holes. Some of my friends were lined up there." He pauses again, presses his lips together and places his coffee on the table. "I was happy that you came, but the U.S. came far too late. I lost many friends and some family before the U.S. finally came to our aid. So I greatly appreciate the U.S. on one hand, but I wish they could have taken action much sooner. I think that sums up the opinion in a way. We were glad when you came, but you came too late." He wouldn't say it because he was polite, but the rest of the opinion would read something along the lines of "and many wish that now you would go."

     He genuinely enjoyed our company and was very frank and forward in conversation. All around an excellent host as he had always been.  The points he made in the conversation were from an angle I had never been aware of, due in part to my age and the war occurring when I was quite young. It was like he was saying that he likes the U.S. and many even want to like the U.S., but sometimes we make it pretty dang difficult to be liked.

My Thoughts

     U.S. involvement outside its borders is not always bad. In truth, I think many times the greater desire is truly to help an oppressed people [I'm not stating it's necessarily true of the politicians]. Like many great intentions however, the failure occurs in the execution.

     One of the few times we can justify going to battle and we take too dang long getting to it.  Cursed for our action.  Cursed for our inaction.

Rag's Intro

Prologue

Good evening ladies and gentlemen!

     Some of you on this board know me, but some of you may not.  I guess a "short" introduction is in order.  Where to start... where to start... ah yes!  I am a stereotypical American.  I can tell this is true, because I don't think I am a stereotypical American --- which is --- stereotypical I suppose.  I am a man of strong convictions but that is not to say I am a man stuck in my ways.  I am opinionated.  I am not terribly orthodox.  I tend to ramble on.  I use the word "I" far too much in this paragraph.  The biggest flaw that may be evident on this blog is my habit of typing in a near-stream-of-consciousness style that can be quite difficult to follow at times.  For the lackluster syntax and numerous grammatical errors, I apologize ahead of time.  May Google's wondrous and squiggly red line save us all!

My Past
     The possible background and bias my opinions may express in the future are the product of my environment.  I know this.  So the short version of my background is that I was born into a loving but troubled family.  I am the oldest of numerous siblings who share the same formerly-drug-addled and heavy-handed parents.  I have experienced the gifts and curses of foster care, adoption, social services, welfare, public education, public healthcare, state/federal employment, community college, the military, the South, the North, and everywhere between.  I am thankful for all of it.  I am especially thankful for any and all hardships I have had.  If I grown up in a "healthy" middle-class household I highly doubt I would be as appreciative of my present position.  I don't frown upon those that have; I simply think that I personally would have ended up a spoiled little rodent of a man.  With that, I also recognize how much worse it could have been and how terrible it *is* for many people every day around the globe.

Politics
     I am neither republican nor democrat and instead prefer whomever at least appears to be the better civil leader for my town/state/country.  I vote for that individual regardless if they have a chance of making into their respective office.  While I understand its existence, I despise the party system.  I would casually say I stray a bit more to the left than the average American and have generally voted more for left-leaning candidates.  Like many of us here, I do feel quite disillusioned with the vast majority of the political system(s) here (and elsewhere).  It is despicable that the selection of viable candidates generally boils down to whomever services major campaign contributors the best and wears the most delightful political mask for the public...  I will stop myself here before I ramble on for a hundred or so pages.  We will continue on politics later!

Closure and Thought for the Day:
     I can wrap my head around a democrat not liking the republican party and vice versa... but something in my head just thinks it's absolutely hilarious when "news" broadcasters or some conservative just absolutely spews hatred about "Progressives."

The linguistic/comprehensive portion of my brain screams the notion that "This man/woman/both just absolutely hates progress!"

I know they are referring to the "other party(s)" but... I don't think that part of my brain is terribly incorrect with its assumption.  On most occasions, that politician really doesn't like progress.

Thursday night...

So I went out with a couple of friends Thursday night.

We'd been eating and drinking heavily at my place with my wife and a friend of hers.
I don't remember all that much from that night. I was extremely intoxicated. The young guys I invited over had brought a nice bottle of rum. After drinking a bit of that, we went to the club in town where the party was.

My wife and her friend went home early and left me and my boys at the club.  At some point I went outside for a minute to get some fresh air and I ran into a Turkish guy. We chatted for a bit and somehow started to talk about poitics. He flat out said what I've been thinking for a while: That he wasn't really interested in politics here in Denmark, because it didn't matter who you vote for. They areall the same.

I've been writing earlier about the similarities between the Danish election 2011 and Obama's election 2008. Now the second round of the French election is coming up and it looks like the "socialist" Francois Hollande is going to win it. The question is whether his characteristics are the same as Obama/Thorning's.

I fear he is another Trojan Horse. What i mean by that, is that there seems to be a trend that the so called left wing's candidates are nothing more than a handpuppet for industry and the financial sector. In Denmark it seems like you can't really become a serious contender for prime minister and governing unless you sell out completely andbuy into the German type austerity instead of doing what you're supposed to do as a social democrat and use Keynesian measures to repair a broken economy. In the US it's even worse. The super pacs and corporate citizenship has turned democracy on it's head completely. It would be comical if it wasn't so dangerous and sad.

If Hollande on the other hand turns out to be the real deal and not the same type of sellout pseudo-socialist as Thorning and Obama, he could be the start of that move to the left in Europe that we so desperately need. If I was religious, I would pray for him.

Have a nice weekend

It is often said that the problem with democracy, is that it counts heads, but not what is in them.

http://www.esmparty.com/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#The_Meritocracy_Party

We need these ideas popularized in the states.

Mayday Radio

So I was talking with Democracy for Dummies...

Hey guys

I haven't been writing a lot lately. Sorry for that. I willbe picking up pace agin. I've been tending to some matters in my personal life and also following the stuff going on at OWS rather closely. Pretty interesting.

I was chatting with Democracy for Dummies and we had this little exchange, which made me chuckle, so I thought I'd share it:

The Artist: I hope that we are more rationally thinking than monkeys.

 

Democracy for Dummies: We're not. We're just very fancy monkeys..

 

Have a nice day :)

Live from OWS

Nothing to see here... Carry on :)

Here's an interesting series of photographs which will certainly cause one to think and question some things.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/GazaHolo/index.html

Street Sweeper Social Club - Everythang

Brother Ali - Uncle Sam Goddamn

The real threats against Isreal's existance

Recently an interesting story is starting to hit the more mainstream parts of the internet.
Ahamadinejad's alleged threat, that he wanted to wipe Israel off the face of the earth is, not surprisingly, a lie. A lie that has continued to grow, as more and more "main stream media" has repeated it again and again and again and again. This is a little reminder about how the propaganda model works. Ahmadinejad's actual words has been discussed a lot as there is no direct translation, but they mean something like: “Israel is unnatural, it will not exist, it’s on the verge of collapse.” (source)

You can agree or disagree with his statement but one thing is for sure. He did not say, he wants to wipe out Israel. This has been one of the common "misunderstandings" spread by the propaganda outlets of the American military–industrial complex. 

What if this so called madman (he's actually no such thing as the former head of Mossad admitted in an interview) was actually referring to something else. Like, say, real threats against Israel's existance?


Now, I'm not a scholar, nor am I a journalist. So don't take my word for it. Actually don't take anyones word, but go out and research these things yourselves. Having said that, there seems to my limited knowledge, to be atleast three real threats to Israel's security.

One coming from within its own borders (wherever they might be) and two relating to Israels geopolitical position as explained in my earlier post Kissinger's Stalemate Policy.

Ironically the jewish faith is one of the problems that Ahmadinejad might or might not be referring to. The one coming from withing Israel's own borders. More specifically a growing group of ultra orthodox jews (Haredim). These people are usually on welfare and without jobs due to lack of skills. Most of what they learn in the Haredi schools is to read the Torah. Obviously as unemployed you have nothing but time on your hands and the Haredi is against the use of contraception. See where I'm going? A Haredi family typically 7-8 kids while a more secular jewish family typically will have only 2-3 kids. This means that the Haredi segment is growing three times as fast as those that actually work. In 2034 the Haredi segment will be 20% of the population and by then there's probably no way to solve the problem without paying a horrible price. (source)


While the Haredi timebomb is counting down, Israel also faces other existential threats of a more unpredictable nature. These are related to Israel's position as a highly militarised 51st state of the American empire as described here. Should the US ever lose its position as a major international superpower it might not have resources to sustain its vassal state in the Middle East. With the emerging economies of the BRICS this threat could become very real in a not too distant future.

Another threat related to Kissinger's stalemate policy is that the world should start turning to sustainable energy and away from fossils as the oil prices soar. If that scenario becomes a reality there would be a deafening popping sound heard all over the planet from the oil bubble. The oil in the Middle East would no longer be as interesting and the US might lose interest in Israel. A conservative estimate says that the US supported Israel with 123 billion from 1949-2011. Now I don't know for sure how the US would react to major increase in sustainable energy sources, but my guess is that it would not really be interested in supporting Israel anymore as there's no longer as much benefit to destabilising the region now that its resources are all but useless. Losing that size of subsidy would make a deep and immediate  impact.

As you can see, there are much more serious threats to Israel's existance than the illusion of a dangerous nuclear armed Iran led by a madman. Alas the warmongers seem determined to have their nuclear apocalypse. Hopefully these recent news breakthroughs about the "misinterpretation" of Ahmadinejad's threats against Israel is a sign that there could be some hope of avoiding a major armed conflict. I guess time will tell.

Who knows what will happen when Israel really faces its demise. A state that has 200-300 nuclear warheads and is  somewhat surrounded by enemies. Would it choose to go out with a bang?
Not a comforting thought to say the least.

hahaha

5 interesting reads

I decided that, every once in a while, I'm going to copy paste some links here to news stories that I find interesting for some reason.

Do with it as you like :)

• Argentina's oil grab is timely retort to rampaging capitalism 

Cristina Fernández's actions, however clumsy, are part of a worldwide reaction to exploitation by business and the rich.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/22/will-hutton-argentina-oil-grab-justified

• Kopimism, Sweden's Pirate Religion, Begins to Plunder America

'Kopimism' gives internet piracy a place to worship

A Swedish religion whose dogma centers on the belief that people should be free to copy and distribute all information—regardless of any copyright or trademarks—has made its way to the United States.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/04/20/kopimism-swedens-pirate-religion-begins-to-plunder-america

• Attention all - #OpBahrain : Press Release from #Anonymous with #Formula1 data dump - 04/22/2012

Anonymous has been monitoring the human rights situation in Bahrain and the popular democratic uprising for over a year now, only to see the oppression of its people grow worse. When governments murder peaceful protesters on an ongoing basis, their illegitimacy becomes clear to all who can see. The government of Bahrain has been warned. We will not stop our support of the Bahraini people or our war against your tyranny until the people of Bahrain have true freedom and peace.

http://anoncentral.tumblr.com/post/21563340088/attention-all-opbahrain-press-release-from

• Fox News Fabricated Obama's "Silver Spoon" Quote

In a recent campaign-trail speech, President Obama delivered a line that was widely construed as a jab at Mitt Romney. But it turns out part of what crystallized that portrayal appears to be a fabrication.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/22/1085536/-Fox-News-Fabricated-Obama-s-Silver-Spoon-Quote

• Exclusive: National Security Agency Whistleblower William Binney on Growing State Surveillance

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/20/exclusive_national_security_agency_whistleblower_william

The left wing's IQ problem

Two recent studies show that Children with low IQ has a greater chance for being attracted to social conservative values as adults. To some this might come as a surprise while others will say: "Ok so what's next on breaking news? That water is wet?"

Here is some information on the studies:

Article on the Study of Britains

Article on the Study of Americans

The latter shows that people who define themselves as very left wing on average has 11 higher IQ than people defining themselves as very right wing. This is a significant difference.

The studies argue that the reasons for this are that conservative values are easier to understand as they have structure and order like hierachy, and the tribal sort of "them vs us" thinking.

Some of these values are based on fear of the unknown and some are simply beacuse thinking in black and white (good vs evil, them vs us) is less taxing and doesn't demand as much mental capacity as a more nuanced worldview.

Now the observant reader will ask himself: "But isn't this post called The left wing's IQ problem? How is higher than average IQ ever a problem"

Please allow me to explain.

First of all, these statistics can only be used to describe the general population of the left and right constituency. There will be a lot of anomalies and there will be very smart people on both sides of the spectrum. No doubt about that.

Having said that, the statistics still apply to the main part of the constituents.

For the right wing that means that you will have a constituency of lower than average IQ that respond more emotionally to perceived threats, have a tendency to follow the leader, and will be susceptible to believing in simple messages like "muslims are evil terrorists" or "you're either with us or against us".
These tendencies are easily exploitable. It's basically like a herd of sheep that respond very well to the shepherds rod. I don't think i need to explain this any further. It's easy to guide the herd in the direction you wish.

Now the left on the other hand with an avaragely smarter constituency will have a tendency to have more independant thoughts and will be less likely to respond well to authority. In the shepherds realm that translates into stray sheep that might be headed the same place or a slightly different spot where they reckon the grass is more juicy, and they will find paths to go there on their own and little ways to dodge the shepherds rod in order to stray from the flock.

I think that this is one  of the reasons (if not the main one) why the left sometimes seem relatively disorganised compared to the right, who usually go full steam ahead and ram the policies through one by one. It's also the reason why the right wing thrives in times of fear. The constituents are more likely to support their leadership against the "outsiders".These dangerous and strange enemies that threaten our very way of life. As in the case of the attack on the twin towers. Under these circumstances the swing voters will be more likely to go to the right as well.
The right wing in almost every western nation has gained massive ground since then as the more primitive brain centres were activated by the "muslim threat" and the lefts traditionally more complex and less xenophobic messages are harder to sell during times like this.

This, I argue, is some of the consequences of the IQ differences of the left and right. Hence the left wing's IQ problem.

The encyclopedia of Marxism's definition of fascism

I'll just leave this wiki quote here:

The Encyclopedia of Marxism defines fascism as "right-wing, fiercely nationalist, subjectivist in philosophy, and totalitarian in practice", and identifies it as "an extreme reactionary form of capitalist government." However, it also goes beyond this traditional definition and lists nine fundamental characteristics of fascism:

1. Right Wing: Fascists are fervently against: Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Environmentalism; etc – in essence, they are against the progressive left in total, including moderate lefts (social democrats, etc). Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology, though it can be opportunistic.
2. Nationalism: Fascism places a very strong emphasis on patriotism and nationalism. Criticism of the nation's main ideals, especially war, is lambasted as unpatriotic at best, and treason at worst. State propaganda consistently broadcasts threats of attack, while justifying pre-emptive war. Fascism invariably seeks to instill in its people the warrior mentality: to always be vigilant, wary of strangers and suspicious of foreigners.
3. Hierarchy: Fascist society is ruled by a righteous leader, who is supported by an elite secret vanguard of capitalists. Hierarchy is prevalent throughout all aspects of society – every street, every workplace, every school, will have its local Hitler, part police-informer, part bureaucrat – and society is prepared for war at all times. The absolute power of the social hierarchy prevails over everything, and thus a totalitarian society is formed. Representative government is acceptable only if it can be controlled and regulated, direct democracy (e.g. Communism) is the greatest of all crimes. Any who oppose the social hierarchy of fascism will be imprisoned or executed.
4. Anti-equality: Fascism loathes the principles of economic equality and disdains equality between immigrant and citizen. Some forms of fascism extend the fight against equality into other areas: gender, sexual, minority or religious rights, for example.
5. Religious: Fascism contains a strong amount of reactionary religious beliefs, harking back to times when religion was strict, potent, and pure. Nearly all Fascist societies are Christian, and are supported by Catholic and Protestant churches.
6. Capitalist: Fascism does not require revolution to exist in capitalist society: fascists can be elected into office (though their disdain for elections usually means manipulation of the electoral system). They view parliamentary and congressional systems of government to be inefficient and weak, and will do their best to minimize its power over their policy agenda. Fascism exhibits the worst kind of capitalism where corporate power is absolute, and all vestiges of workers' rights are destroyed.
7. War: Fascism is capitalism at the stage of impotent imperialism. War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wreaking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! Fascism can thus "liberate" the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding.
8. Voluntarist Ideology: Fascism adopts a certain kind of “voluntarism;” they believe that an act of will, if sufficiently powerful, can make something true. Thus all sorts of ideas about racial inferiority, historical destiny, even physical science, are supported by means of violence, in the belief that they can be made true. It is this sense that Fascism is subjectivist.
9. Anti-Modern: Fascism loathes all kinds of modernism, especially creativity in the arts, whether acting as a mirror for life (where it does not conform to the Fascist ideal), or expressing deviant or innovative points of view. Fascism invariably burns books and victimises artists, and artists which do not promote the fascists ideals are seen as “decadent.” Fascism is hostile to broad learning and interest in other cultures, since such pursuits threaten the dominance of fascist myths. The peddling of conspiracy theories is usually substituted for the objective study of history.^[31]

Welcome Texas Nightmare

Yet another contributor joins us here at Numbers and Facts.

This time from Mother Russia. :)

A warm welcome to Texas Nightmare.

Checking in

Alright..

It's been a rough night for me at work. The time is now 6.07 AM and I'm bloody tired. In four hours there's a fire drill, so i can barely get some sleep before that.

I had planned to make a post now about something I've been thinking about for a while, but I think that now is a bad time. The post would be suboptimally done in my current state, so I'll wait until I'm clear headed again. Probably some time later today.

Been listening to annoying drunk Swedish girls all night. I think I hear one of them crying now. Bleh...

Until then...
Have a nice day!

Welcome ragnarok1983

And yet another Amurrican has decided to join our ranks here at Numbers and Facts.

Nice to have you onboard bro.

A warm welcome to ragnarok1983.

Thoughts on antisemitism.

Antisemitism is a word we hear often in the public debate. In this post, I would like to discuss and analyse it a bit. What it means, its connotations, and how it is most often used. I make this post because I sometimes experience a slightly hypocritical and sometimes almost exploitive appliance of it. If this is indeed the case and I am right about the hypocrisy, this overuse of the term has at least two dangers.

1) People are falsely vilified and demonised.
2) The word will inflate and lose its meaning and value because language is organic.

To properly analyse this word and its use, I must first define its meaning(s). It's no secret to anyone who picks up a newspaper every once in a while or who's had history lessons in school that this word is often used to describe hatred towards jews. It carries connotations about our most recent world war and the monstrosities and heinous crimes against humanity (particularly jews and to some extent Romas) carried out by the nazis.

That seems to be the "popular" meaning of the word. Its useage sometimes differ from this meaning, though. It is my experience, feel free to correct if I'm wrong, that the word nowadays is sometimes used to vilify people who are critical of some of the Israeli governments policies and in particular people who criticise the illegal settlements and outposts in the occupied territory.
If I'm right about this then you risk being compared to one of the worst mass murderers the world has seen by being critical of a states' policies. Policies that are considered illegal by the international community. I think that seems a bit harsh to be honest.

An argument could even be made that this meaning of the word is not even the correct one if we look at the word "anti-semite" in and of itself.

To do this, I've used Wikipedia's definition of a semite:

Origin

The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern Semitic-speaking peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including; Akkadians (Assyrians and Babylonians), Eblaites, Ugarites, Canaanites, Phoenicians (including Carthaginians), Hebrews (Israelites, Judeans and Samaritans), Ahlamu, Arameans, Chaldeans, Amorites, Moabites, Edomites, Hyksos, Arabs, Nabateans, Maganites, Shebans, Sutu, Ubarites, Dilmunites, Maltese, Mandaeans, Sabians, Syriacs, Mhallami, Amalekites and Ethiopian Semites.

So by this definition, an antisemite would be a person that has hatred towards any or all of the above peoples. A rather different meaning than the way the word is normally used.

As you can see Arabs are also semites. The most popular religion in the Arab countries is overwhelmingly Islam. This makes me want to do a little experiment. I want to find an Islam critical text somewhere on the internet. A text which hasn't been condemned as being racist or bigoted and then i will exchange every instance of the word muslim with the word jew and so forth, and see what I come up with:

Why Jews are Dangerous to Modern Society

When Jews are confronted with the obvious faults of their religion, most will deny ALL accusations to their grave. They claim Judaism teaches peace and understanding… but what is REALLY going on here? I give you a few recent examples of violence in Judaism, which has been deemed as acceptable behaviors by many Jews (and members of other faiths).

1988:
Writer Salman Rushdie publishes his controversial novel Satanic Verses, which upon publication led to protests from Jews in several countries, some of which were violent. Faced with death threats and a fatwā (religious edict) issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then Supreme Leader of Iran, which called for him to be killed, he spent nearly a decade underground. During his time in hiding there were explosions at bookshops in London, York and High Wycombe, the book’s Japanese translator was stabbed to death, its Italian translator survived a stabbing, its Norwegian publisher narrowly escaped an attempt on his life and 37 people died after a gang set fire to a Turkish hotel where the Turkish translator was staying (he survived).

November 2nd 2004:
Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Van Gogh in the early morning of Tuesday November 2, 2004, in Amsterdam after the release of the film director’s latest short film entitled “Submission,” which looks at Judaism through a critical eye. Bouyeri then cut Van Gogh’s throat, nearly decapitating him, and stabbed him in the chest. Two knives were left implanted in his torso, one attaching a five-page note to his body. The note (Text) threatened Western governments, Jews and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who went into hiding). Imam Fawaz of the as-Sunnah Mosque in The Hague gave a sermon several weeks before the murder in which he called Theo van Gogh, “a ‘criminal bastard’ and beseech[ed] Jahweh to visit an incurable disease upon the filmmaker.”

September 30th 2005:
The Jyllands-Posten Messiah cartoons controversy began after twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Prophet of Judaism Messiah, were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. The newspaper announced that this publication was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Judaism and self-censorship. This led to protests across the Jew world, some of which escalated into violence with police firing on the crowds (resulting in more than 100 deaths, altogether), including setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian and German flags in Gaza City. While a number of Jew leaders called for protesters to remain peaceful, other Jew leaders across the globe, including Mahmoud al-Zahar of Hamas, issued death threats.

When I bring these acts of violence up to Jews, they always say nowhere in the Torah is it written that acts of violence are called for by Jahweh, but this is a complete lie without even the slightest attempt of making it appear valid. It seems to me a Jew will just never admit these things to “outsiders,” to infidels, even if they are aware of such verses in the Torah. The following verses act as just a few examples of the violence the Torah teaches its faithful:

“190. Fight in the cause of Jahweh those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Jahweh loveth not transgressors.

191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

192. But if they cease, Jahweh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

193. And fight them on until there is no more persecution or oppression, and the religion becomes Jahweh’s. But if they cease. Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.”

In a nutshell, kill everyone who doesn’t believe in Jahweh until everyone believes in Jahweh. The only thing that can possibly be left open to interpretation is who/what behaviors are oppressing you and your Jew faith. That can range from a government not allowing the building of Mosques to a Christian whose mere existence acts as a staple for the defiance of Jahweh. All acts equal to or between these limits can be validated by the teachings of the Torah.

Many people will argue that the people who commit these acts of violence are simply crazy extremists… but that is not true. It is your average, run-of-the-mill Jew who will participate in mobs and riots of protest, because they have been raised to believe that the Torah is logical and fundamentally correct in all of its teachings.

There is a sizable difference between the psychology of Christians and Jews and Jews. Christians believe the barbaric acts of the Old Testament were only legitimate to their time… i.e., we shouldn’t behave that way now because the New Testament deems those behaviors unacceptable. Jews believe the Torah is a compilation of fictitious stories, and have other texts which they live by (Talmud and Mishna) which do not condone violent behavior. Jews, however, believe in their religious text cover to cover as the divinely spoken, unaltered word of god (and even that is a sad attempt at lying to the public, as it is a well known fact the Torah was an oral book as the Torah was for about 300 years. The Torah was written and compiled after the death of Mohammed, as Mohammed himself was illiterate, and Jews will not deny it if you tell it to them… it seems they just assume infidels don’t know this historical fact, so they lie about it to make their case seem more valid). They believe that the same barbaric teachings and behaviors (equivalent to those found in the Torah) are just as relevant today as they were in ancient history. In fact, if you would ever like to see the culture of the Torah in operation today, just take a wonderful trip to a country under Judaismic theocratic control such as Afghanistan or Iran, and you may even be lucky enough to witness the stoning of an adulteress or two.

I know that many religious people like to defend the Jew faith simply because they think they have something in common with them (who do you think the Vatican sided with during all three aforementioned tragedies? Yes, the Jews), but you need to understand how most Jews are raised to think of infidels. You are incompetent to them, because they can’t understand why someone could reject something that makes so much “logical sense.” They don’t care if you are of another faith or if you have none… they judge you the same: infidel. When they are in the presence of an infidel, they tolerate them rather than accept and respect them. Tragedies happen like those I’ve cited earlier because Jews refuse to look at the Torah with a critical eye like Christians and Jews have done (kind of) and realized that the barbaric teachings of the Torah were due to primitive times, and DO NOT APPLY TODAY. This hasn’t occurred, and until it does, we will still get the same result; Substantiated violence in the name of Jahweh.

Original article

Now if anyone thinks that my rewriting of the article would not be called antisemitic, feel free to say so. I do however think it would be. By the second, broader definition of the term anti-semitism, you could argue, that this text in its original form is indeed antisemitic but nobody would even take it seriously if that was said out loud.

This form of antisemitism (the broader one) is however socially acceptable as long as it's directed against muslims, while the more narrow sort (both criticism of Israel and genuine "anti-jewism") instantly would cause accusations and comparisons with the nazi Germans to be flung at you. This is a huge hypocrisy that I think needs to be exposed.

What do you say?

Ehem...