Anti-Imperialism & Anti-Humanist Rhetoric of Gilad Atzmon

[compared2what?]

And no one ever implied otherwise. Nor is this the subject of the thread. There's nothing wrong with any of this, other than that it is bullshit by omission.

How about the part where Christ-killing Jews are worse than "ordinary" colonialists like the French and British, are trying to rip off the precious ruling class, do the terrible things they do because it's in their essence, and got what was coming to them in the 1930s?

That small omission! Such a small part of his work, the part where he endorses Nazi doctrine. Can't we just look past it? Such a lack of generosity on our part.

jack you and i are not terribly far apart on this issue. if he were criticizing any other dogma the same would apply. it just happens that he is criticizing the one he grew up in. had he grown up in another the variables would be similar but different. anytime a person is critical of the dogma they grew up in certain variables will be in the critical eye. if i criticize the christian belief system, (and i will) certain variables will become the focus of my critical eye. this is inherent in critical analysis of any religion. like i said, no mystery here, the dude is critical of the thought fence he grew up in. i'm critical of the thought fence i grew up in too. and so it goes....

You grew up in a thought fence that took satisfaction in having killed Christ, and used the word "Yeshu" as a Hebrew acronym for "may his name and memory be obliterated"?

[Iamwhomiam]

eyeno wrote:

Gilad can only best criticize what he knows best.

Shouldn't this be true of all? That the better one is familiar with a subject, the better their criticism should be?

The recent Limbaugh spew proves one need not know anything at all about their subject to offer 'effective' criticism.

I was raised in an air of Christianity (which I consider to be a bastardized form of the original intent) so I can best criticize Christianity and believe me I have no respect for what it has grown into.

But being raised in an 'air of Christianity' cannot be compared to that of one who had lived a life of religious orthodoxy and went to war for their religious beliefs.

Pray tell, aside from a reformed Judaism with a Messiah, what was Christianity's original intent? Or are you speaking about some time after the Jewish Messiah was rejected and executed? Are you upset and have no respect for Christianity today because Christianity eventually rejected the doctrine of reincarnation?

And by the way, every westerner over the past few hundred years has been raised in an "air of Christianity," regardless of their faith.

Its an epidemic of criticizers criticizing the perimeter they grew up in around this world.

Isn't RI a gathering place for such folk?

Gilad, for whatever he may be, is only 1 more person critical of the thought fence he grew up in. People get pissed when they realize they grew up in a dark room and Gilad is only one more of these. Gilad is not special. Gilad is only 1 more person that grew up in some sort of dogma that he rejects. This is not a mystery.

All I know of Atzman I've read here, but I must disagree with you. I think the lights in the Atzman's were kept brightly lit; that he's well aware of his purpose for the hatred he espouses: to keep well fueled the fear and anger of Israeli's... enough so to prompt them into the killing fields of aggression.

[eyeno]

I can quickly reply to all these questions in two sentences. And this is it.

Organized religions, that have been written and refined over the ages, have become tools for control of society, no matter what the true origin or intent was when they were formed. I am critical of all and adopt none.

That makes me an observer, and not a participant.

[Simulist]

Stop.

barracuda, that nearly gave me a heart attack. I've been working my butt off on a post, and I'm almost done. Please, nobody lock this thread until I've posted. Even if nobody gets it, or even reads it, I do want to have it up. Please.

Alice, please address the "Yeshu" reference.

It's not on my behalf that I'm asking, fwiw.

Thanks.

I agree. I too would like to read a response on this point, specifically.

[compared2what?]

Not a problem because of his strident opinions against religion or a philosophy, but because that vitriol has spilled over onto A PEOPLE.

And, for me, that's where he crosses the line.

Worth restating as a general principle and a guide for further discussion on this thread and others.

I agree, but there is a reason I put it the way I did. And it is:

All of what Atzmon says along "the Jews celebrate Christ-killing and/or His-Name-and-Memory-cursiing" lines did originate as religious thought. And it still does have spiritual connotations to some people of faith. They're just not of the Jewish faith.

And....I don't know. I don't actually have a principled objection to the Christian eschatological belief that Jews are doing Satan's work and thus advancing the return of the Christian messiah, if it's purely an article of faith rather than a cause for real-world action -- eg, zionism and opposition to zionism among Christians, along with all other real or potential practical acts of philo- or anti-semitism that have real, practical adverse consequences for equality.

I guess I'm just erring on the side of caution wrt freedom of religion, basically. It's not a very major point.

[eyeno]

Stop.

barracuda, that nearly gave me a heart attack. I've been working my butt off on a post, and I'm almost done. Please, nobody lock this thread until I've posted. Even if nobody gets it, or even reads it, I do want to have it up. Please.

Alice, please address the "Yeshu" reference.

It's not on my behalf that I'm asking, fwiw.

Thanks.

I agree. I too would like to read a response on this point, specifically.

Ditto. I would like to hear Alice speak on this. For myself not that I care from a spiritual stand point because I already know where the lines play out on this issue. But I would be very interested to hear Alices's take on the issue. It would be interesting.

[Iamwhomiam]

Religion, regardless of where it arises, even in the remote Amazon, is always by its very nature, a societal control with its own peculiar taboos.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Maybe I can say it this way to make it clear.

We can talk about the child molesting Catholic Priests or we can talk about the human organ trafficking Jewish Rabbi.

It doesn't matter which we talk about there is still collateral information in the stream of dialogue. Mostly, at the top, or actually the center, is a bunch of damn schmucks.

And then their trained followers at the bottom or outside of the Venn Diagram.

The schmucks live in the middle of the Venn Diagram. The followers live in the periphery of the Venn Diagram. When we argue over this shit we fulfill the purpose of the diagram. This is not complicated.

Calling a rabbi Jewish is kind of redundant isn't it?

[Simulist]

Maybe I can say it this way to make it clear.

We can talk about the child molesting Catholic Priests or we can talk about the human organ trafficking Jewish Rabbi.

It doesn't matter which we talk about there is still collateral information in the stream of dialogue. Mostly, at the top, or actually the center, is a bunch of damn schmucks.

And then their trained followers at the bottom or outside of the Venn Diagram.

The schmucks live in the middle of the Venn Diagram. The followers live in the periphery of the Venn Diagram. When we argue over this shit we fulfill the purpose of the diagram. This is not complicated.

Calling a rabbi Jewish is kind of redundant isn't it?

It's one of those surplus redundancies.

[Ben D]

Let us assume then that even the common folk at that time were consciously aware of a future whereby the mass media was to be controlled by entities who would promote the destruction of reality as they lived it until then, and the fact that a century plus on, we now know that indeed they were right to be anxious, for it has actually been realized.

If one considers that the coincidence of the MO/strategy as laid out in the Protocols in the late 19th century matching the actual strategies of real actors from that point in time to now as not being due to prescience, then surely the alternative explanation is that there really did and does exist perps/cabal who consciously implemented the now historical mass media acquisition and control, and subsequently began the corruption process of the cultural mindset of the people.

Do you follow? If there has been no cabal behind these developments referred to (not the Protocols themselves), then it must be concluded that the actual actors who today own and control the prime mass media assets of the world are in that position by some natural evolutionary process, and in which case the Protocols 'predicting' this development can be reasonably considered an example of prescience. On the other hand, if as you say, even the common folk knew this was coming, and that the Protocols were exploiting the anxiety about such development, then the actual actors who today own and control the prime mass media assets of the world are in that position, not because of some uncanny coincidence, but because they knew also what was in the pipeline for humanity's future, and acted as agents of the first order to make it happen.

I don't expect an honest forthright answer, but I'll ask anyway. Who do you believe are the above bolded "entities", "actors" and "perps"? So many generic names for them.

I don't expect an honest appraisal of my reply, but I offer it anyway. It's as explained, the "entities", "actors", "cabals" and "perps" are those who went about acquiring and controlling the prime mass media on planet Earth...

If you find my reasoning logical and you want names, then I suggest you do some research, otherwise it is perhaps best to remain ignorant.

[eyeno]

Maybe I can say it this way to make it clear.

We can talk about the child molesting Catholic Priests or we can talk about the human organ trafficking Jewish Rabbi.

It doesn't matter which we talk about there is still collateral information in the stream of dialogue. Mostly, at the top, or actually the center, is a bunch of damn schmucks.

And then their trained followers at the bottom or outside of the Venn Diagram.

The schmucks live in the middle of the Venn Diagram. The followers live in the periphery of the Venn Diagram. When we argue over this shit we fulfill the purpose of the diagram. This is not complicated.

Calling a rabbi Jewish is kind of redundant isn't it?

You are correct I suppose.

Now I have a question.

Is calling a Priest "catholic" also redundant? I don't really know but it seems fitting.

And if we are down to splitting these sort of hairs, then all I can say is, hmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Simulist]

There are all kinds of priests, both Christian and pagan.

And, according to the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jews also used to have priests.

[eyeno]

There are all kinds of priests, both Christian and pagan.

And, according to the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jews also used to have priests.

Since you used to be a seminary student I take your word. Sorry I fouled up the works but hopefully my meaning was understood.

[compared2what?]

Let us assume then that even the common folk at that time were consciously aware of a future whereby the mass media was to be controlled by entities who would promote the destruction of reality as they lived it until then, and the fact that a century plus on, we now know that indeed they were right to be anxious, for it has actually been realized.

If one considers that the coincidence of the MO/strategy as laid out in the Protocols in the late 19th century matching the actual strategies of real actors from that point in time to now as not being due to prescience, then surely the alternative explanation is that there really did and does exist perps/cabal who consciously implemented the now historical mass media acquisition and control, and subsequently began the corruption process of the cultural mindset of the people.

Do you follow? If there has been no cabal behind these developments referred to (not the Protocols themselves), then it must be concluded that the actual actors who today own and control the prime mass media assets of the world are in that position by some natural evolutionary process, and in which case the Protocols 'predicting' this development can be reasonably considered an example of prescience. On the other hand, if as you say, even the common folk knew this was coming, and that the Protocols were exploiting the anxiety about such development, then the actual actors who today own and control the prime mass media assets of the world are in that position, not because of some uncanny coincidence, but because they knew also what was in the pipeline for humanity's future, and acted as agents of the first order to make it happen.

I don't expect an honest forthright answer, but I'll ask anyway. Who do you believe are the above bolded "entities", "actors" and "perps"? So many generic names for them.

I don't expect an honest appraisal of my reply, but I offer it anyway. It's as explained, the "entities", "actors", "cabals" and "perps" are those who went about acquiring and controlling the prime mass media on planet Earth...

If you find my reasoning logical and you want names, then I suggest you do some research, otherwise it is perhaps best to remain ignorant.

Well, let's see....There's Silvio Berlusconi. Murdoch. That former SS-guy who owns Bertlesmann, whatever his name is. The Hearsts. Disney. That Comcast guy. Those Clear Channel folks....

OMG. You're right. The media is controlled by a handful of powerful and wealthy very extreme and reactionary right-wingers.

[compared2what?]

The Protocols are really worth thinking about, btw.