Instead of being offended by your above remarks I would ask for you to explain to me why you think my source material is wrong, bigoted and inflammatory.

Information is information. If some of it was 'used' by Nazi's, how does that mean that it is false information?

I am interested in how you can present proof or evidence that my source material is false and yours is true. That is all I am interested in.

Mind you, your "sources" have proven to me and others that they have lied. That is a matter of history. Therefore I lack faith in most of your sources. Can you present valid believable evidence, other than propaganda, that your sources are true? Or can you prove that my sources are false?







There are lot of subjects in the above paragraph to cover but if you could prove to me that the Protocols of the Elders of Zions is NOT what is actually happening now today with the world banking systems and the infiltration into many third world countries, I might be more interested in your evidence.



I am not upset with you because you "know the truth" I simply doubt that you do. If you could present your reasoning instead of posting links to your authorities which I have lost faith in, I would appreciate it.




There were a LOT of them who participated in war crimes. If they are all so innocent why were they given false identities? Some went on to continue there inhuman experiments in America.

The worked for Hitler, the enemy. They should have been either exonerated and proven innocent, or arrested for their crimes don't you think? War crimes.

P.S. The above was satire of this subject and topic of this conversation.

I haven't really ever personally met a true 'hating' white supremacist or Jew hater, but a single point of view would probably not "cut the mustard."

My question may require an unbiased panel of historians who truly knew a lot about the history of wars and civilization throughout time and had information proven, but not known by the general public. But even with that, there would need to be a variety of sources involved with the information. It would require probably, a lifetime of investigation.

I would love to sit back and relax and believe that our government is sound, honest and the good guys, and that our money represents something besides debt. I would love for someone to convince me that we have "freedom of the press." (But I know a small newspaper who got serious threats for printing news about cattle mutilations.- Why would anyone want to suppress real news? ) And I know that news papers are told what they can report and what they can't report.

I would rather engage is strait talk than satire. Its too ambiguous and vague.

I did not assume that that is what you meant. Validity has nothing to do with truth. It has to do with reasoning/thinking(logical inference).



Truth is not determined by how many points of view there are. While I would agree that it requires a point of view, it does not require more than one. Rather, it requires at least one point of view because the necessary presupposition of truth/reality correspondence is what connects thought/belief and reality. All opinions are not equally valid, regardless of their truth value. Of those which are valid, some are clearly true(sound) and others are not. Let's see if I can make this a little clearer...

p1 All Jews hold to Judaism
p2 Holding to Israeli nationalism(Zionism) makes you not a Jew
C No Zionists are Jews

p1 Criminals who hide need a safe place to do so
p2 Israel is a safe place for Israeli nationalists
C Israeli nationalists are criminals

Now, in the first example, we can see that p1 is a fact - by definition. IFF(if and only if) the secondary premiss is true, then the conclusion is true as well. However, p2 is quite simply - false. Many Jewish people are Israeli nationalists(Zionists). The two are not mutually exclusive. One can do both, hold to Judaism and believe that Jewish people deserve their own country. It is simply ridiculous to believe that just because one wants their own country that they are somehow not Jewish. This renders your thinking(which is captured by the argument put forth) to be valid, yet false. That is because p2 is clearly false. False premisses cannot validly lead to true conclusions.

In the second example, p1 is true. p2 is also true. However, the conclusion does not follow because it would require all who hide to be criminals. It is a fact that all people who need a place to hide(safe haven) are not criminals.



I'm not sure what you are trying to say by "levels of truth". A positive statement is either true or false. If by "levels of truth" you mean different statements or different parts of one's expressed belief that are true, then I think I understand you. No one knows "the whole truth" if that is to mean every possible statement that is true, or if it means knowing all of the relevant states of universal affairs.



You're using the term "valid" incorrectly. Validity is a matter of how one thinks, how one draws conclusions. I think you mean worth listening to. We are also not wrong according to others, we are wrong in comparison to the way things are. That is how we can all agree, still be wrong, and not even know it.

But you do not! You swim in ambiguous and vague waters while leaving the facts to drown. I was merely pointing out that, like your references, you misunderstood the meaning of my words.

No argument here on that.



A single point of view might be considered "my truth" or "your truth" and you said that there was no such thing.

Unless you believe this because you want to feel that your truth and only your truth is true.



The above is beginning to sound more like personal opinion.



So, if p1 is a fact, then are you saying that those "Jews" who are actually atheists or non-religious are liars when they claim to be Jews?




I agree. The second premise is not one that I stated or said was true.



That is not what I stated. I have repeatedly said that a "Jew" should be one who holds to the religion Judaism. I believe that "Jewish" should be considered a religion, not a race or a family.



You have misrepresented my view as p2 which is not my view. My view is that Jewish should be a religion, not a bloodline. That is MY view. That is NOT the view of the Jews of Zionist Leadership. (It may be the view of some Israeli's but certainly not the Zionist's leadership who are looking at bloodlines (family) as "Jewish" irregardless of religion.



Again there is a misunderstanding. Probably my fault.

I propose that Jews (religious Jews) don't need a "safe haven."
But Jewish criminals or criminals who claim to be Jews but are not, might want to create a "safe haven" and they might want to convince everyone that they are persecuted and need it. They might also want to convince people they have the (religious or whatever) right to invade another country, remove and segregate the people living there, and claim it as their own.

I also propose that is "criminal." (Even though it has been accepted as they way things work in the world -- even our ancestors did this to the Native Americans.)

So are we all guilty for what our ancestors did and are we guilty for what our leaders do? We support them, after all. Are we also criminals? Shall we bear the blame for the acts of our leaders? That would not be practical, would it?

But if you actually engage in war crimes, for what ever reason, yes, you are guilty I would say. If you support war criminals because you don't know any better, I contend that you are probably just another victim. (victim of ignorance and propaganda.)

I do not purposely engage in satire or ambiguous or vague waters. I speak as strait and clearly about what I am thinking. Where have you not understood what I mean?

I have another question that anyone can answer that believe they have a good answer.

First, think of me as a twelve year old child who knows very little about world politics when you answer this question. Don't assume I have any opinions or preconceived ideas at all.

On the premise that being "Jewish" is a religion and nothing more, not a family, not a bloodline, just a religion.

Have Christians ever been persecuted?

Have Muslims ever been persecuted?

Why has no other religion decided that it needs a safe haven and a country of their own that only people of that religion are allowed to live?

Only by one definition. Jews are also defined by their genetic heritage, not just their beliefs - so we do have Jews who do not hold to Judaism.

Point taken massage. My mistake. The argument was very sloppy, and attempting to put it into form was not done carefully enough.

Actually Jews are not so much defined by their genetic heritage
because they have had numerous converts outside of the genetic line.
The more accurate definition is adherence to some form of Judaism.

Many religions have a common genetic heritage because they tend
to marry and have children with other families of the same religion
but that is not the defining characteristic.

So the alternate genetic definition is inferior - it is not the
best definition.

Here is what it says in the article about Zionism which I cited
above:

Are Jews a Nation or a Religion?

Judaism can be thought of as being simultaneously a religion, a nationality and a culture.

Throughout the middle ages and into the 20th century, most of the European world agreed that Jews constituted a distinct nation. This concept of nation does not require that a nation have either a territory nor a government, but rather, it identifies, as a nation any distinct group of people with a common language and culture. Only in the 19th century did it become common to assume that each nation should have its own distinct government; this is the political philosophy of nationalism. In fact, Jews had a remarkable degree of self-government until the 19th century. So long as Jews lived in their ghettos, they were allowed to collect their own taxes, run their own courts, and otherwise behave as citizens of a landless and distinctly second-class Jewish nation.

Of course, Judaism is a religion, and it is this religion that forms the central element of the Jewish culture that binds Jews together as a nation. It is the religion that defines foods as being kosher and non-kosher, and this underlies Jewish cuisine. It is the religion that sets the calendar of Jewish feast and fast days, and it is the religion that has preserved the Hebrew language.

Is Judaism an ethnicity? In short, not any more. Although Judaism arose out of a single ethnicity in the Middle East, there have always been conversions into and out of the religion. Thus, there are those who may have been ethnically part of the original group who are no longer part of Judaism, and those of other ethnic groups who have converted into Judaism.

If you are referring to a nation in the sense of race, Judaism is not a nation. People are free to convert into Judaism; once converted, they are considered the same as if they were born Jewish. This is not true for a race.

from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/zion.html

What the Hell is happening to our country - is a rather broad question!

I would just be happy if they finally went to a single payer
health care system like France.



The question of why the Jews were persecuted is an interesting one.
They have always been a minority except in Israel and have
repeatedly been subjected to religious persecution when they refused
to believe in other religions or convert like in the Inquisition.
This is the most straightforward answer. Of course whenever they
have been persecuted for their religious beliefs some of their more
successful businessmen or political leaders have also been attacked
for their money or power. This is the nature of persecution. But the
conspiracy theories of the Protocols of the Elders and related stuff
has been proven to be plagiarized from works of fiction with direct
quotes almost a hundred years ago. So these conspiracy theories have
been conclusively shown to be fabrications for the purpose of inflaming
anti-Jewish sentiment and should not be repeated.

This is shown clearly in the Wiki article on the Protocols and Henry
Ford publicly apologized for republishing this garbage too.

Here is another reference about it:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/protocols.html

There is ample evidence that Hitler used such lies because he saw them
as an easy rallying point to inflame anger and hatred because of
ignorance and an undercurrent of prevailing antisemitism in Germany
at the time. Obviously Hitler himself harbored these views.

If you are really interested, Mark Twain wrote an interesting book
on the subject. You can find it in your local library but since its
copyright has expired it now is available online!

It is obviously dated but still interesting.
Read it here entitled "Concerning the Jews"

http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/mtwain/bl-mtwain-concerningjews.htm

The Anti-Defamation-League also has a lot of discussion on the subject
and is available for everyone to inspect. I have read a lot of their
articles and they are well reasoned articulate and well supported by
accurate references.

Here for example:

http://www.adl.org/ADL_Opinions/Anti_Semitism_Global/20110110-Op-ed+Huff+Post.htm



The government does not always lie. When they do lie it is not acceptable
but obviously some members of the government are trying to misrepresent
the truth for a political purpose when this happens. Most of the time when
politicians lie it is about some stupid personal foible that they don't
want to get out like Weiner's sexting or Clinton's philandering. But
sometimes it is really bad - like Bush's misrepresentations of the weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq. Of course the Bush administration insists
that it was faulty intelligence.

Why are there wars? Because of disputes and people's willingness to kill
each other and because people need to defend themselves. In general it is
not for distraction. There are much easier ways to cause a distraction
like creating a food shortage or energy shortage or starting a major
construction project that closes multiple crucial commuter roadways in
Los Angeles or NY etc. etc. The government can always just turn the
water or electricity on and off.



I think and give references that show why what I believe
is truthful and honest. The reference are there for everyone to check and
it is not a matter of trusting an authority. They can be independently
verified. If you want to think then do so. There is nothing preventing it.
I encourage it! It's nice. Fun and stimulating. Advances the level of
conversation. It is educational.

You stated as a fact earlier in this thread that I had only spent five minutes reviewing your "hate" website, therefore I was in no position to ...

That is a lie. You don't know how much time I spent and I can assure you that I spent far more. I reviewed the Iranian propaganda film there with the former US Congresswoman and several of the other trash pieces as well and reviewed the ideology of the site.

This is an example of you making up whatever you want to fit the view you propose. A lie is a lie.

I'm glad you seem to agree with my point. I neither agree nor disagree with the assertions involving "the more accurate" or "is not the best" - that doesn't matter to this tiny little bit of tangential dialog. The original logical structure presented suggested an absolute one-to-one correspondence between the set 'those who hold to Judaism" and "those who are Jewish". Regardless of what one believes about deities or the torah and such, in the US, in the modern times, if you are born of Jewish parents you are usually considered Jewish, and you may identify as Jewish without having people call you a liar. I don't know any atheists who identify as christian, nor any atheist that identify as muslim, but I have personally known many, many atheists who identify as Jewish.

None of this disputes your suggestions of 'more' or 'best'; it only means that there are at least two definitions used (at least in the modern times, in the US). Also, none of this impacts any of the other logic presented.

Atheists who identify as Jewish are just disagreeing with one of the
core aspects of religion - the existence of God.

There are also probably many more atheists who identify as Christians
or Muslims etc. etc.

Ever hear of a little thing called the Crusades?



There were a few Muslims persecuted in that conflagration...



Christian persecution? Sure! Look up what the Nazis did to
Jehovah Witnesses! How about the Romans? They were known to
be slightly biased against Christians...



But more recently of course...teaching Christianity can get you
killed in Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria...well you get
my point.

Safe haven for Christianity? Well there is always the Vatican or
wider Italy, the U.S. and Mexico are pretty tolerant of Christians
I guess there are any number of nations in which Christians are
the majority and which serve as safe havens.

The same is true for Muslims. There are a great many Islamic
countries which serve as a safe haven for Muslims.

However, the only country in the world were Jews are in the
majority is Israel. It is their only completely safe haven
although obviously there are a lot of countries which have as
their core principle religious tolerance like the U.S.

But this is NOT at all true for Islamic countries.

Yes, that is central to my point. In the US, in my generation, when an Jewish person says they are atheist their family members often say "Well you are still Jewish". The word Jewish has more than one use.



Yes I can see that that is true in the sense that some people are liars, some are cowards, and some are crazy. Also - my bad - I was speaking of 'strong atheism' without being explicit. There are certainly people who disbelieve in all gods who are unwilling to admit it for various reasons, and who may claim themselves to be Christian, but most christians would say that they are either confused about what it means to be a christian, or that they are lying. For most people, 'being Christian' and 'being strong atheist' are mutually exclusive labels. Christianity is so varied that there is probably a branch of it which permits strong atheists - I can't think of one, but that doesn't mean much... if there were such a branch then most christians would probably say that branch isn't true christianity.

My point wasn't simply that there are people who identify as both Jewish and strong atheist - it was that these people are not considered by most people to be wrong or dishonest. The labels 'Jewish' and 'strong atheist' permit this, while the labels "Christian" and "strong atheist" do not.

I am glad to see we have some agreement that to be considered "Jewish" is more than a religion called Judaism. That is what I mean when I say that it is a "Family." You call it "Heritage."

I think if you want to claim "religious persecution" that Jewish had better only mean Judaism. Right? But it apparently means more than Judaism. It means "heritage" or a family bloodline. It is genetics. It is the heritage of a "tribe."

This "Family" has remained strong because of the very strong practice of a Jewish person tending to only marry another person of the same "Jewish heritage." It is like an Italian only marrying another Italian, or a Black only marrying another black. It is for this reason and these "bloodlines" that people have called it a "race" or "racial prejudice."

Apparently "race" sems to mean more than the color of a person's skin. But it is not "race" it is a "tribe" and has to do with genetics of that tribe or family.

In all "races" there are also different "Families." With Blacks, there are different tribes. They are all of the same skin color but their genetics are different because they are from a different tribe. That "tribe" could be considered their "Family" even though they are not closely related enough that they can't intermarry.

In Ireland, there were different tribes, In Italy there were different tribes etc. Families and tribes of gypsies strongly tend to only marry within their genetic tribes.

When we think of "tribes" we tend to think of years ago when people were primitive and lived in tribes. But these tribes still exist. Some people have left their tribes and freely marry any race or any tribe but others have strict "family" codes.

Thanks all for the conversations and links.

Slowhand,

Yes, thanks for agreeing that Christians and Muslims have also been "persecuted." I agree. But for some reason they don't go around wearing that on their sleeve or whining about it to get world sympathy like your typical Jewish/zionist mindset.

They are not using that sympathy to gain support for the creation of their own "safe haven." That is the point I wanted to make.

The conflicts and hatred we are seeing among the people of the world, may very possibly be tribal conflicts more than "racial" or "religious" conflicts. They have more to do with tribes, genetics and bloodlines.

This is only your incorrect interpretation. The defining characteristic of being a Jew is still religion not genetics.
There is no disagrrement on that point.

Your posts indicate that you wish to deny the Jews a right
to their ancestral homeland.

Racial my arse. The Crusades and the Inquisition were purely
religious. It is important to denounce persecution everywhere
it occurs. In particular it is important to denounce false
stereotypes and bigotry towards Jews.

It is disgusting that you describe only Jews as "whining".
Your attempt to deny their right to sympathy for the
persecution they have suffered and outrageous unwarranted
attacks on them due to their religious belief is appalling
and singling them out is purely antisemitic.

Revolting Nonsense.