RE: virus: Jewish Controlled Media & Leaders Misrepresent Malaysian PM

From: Dr Sebby (drsebby@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Oct 30 2003 - 03:17:46 MST

  • Next message: Blunderov: "RE: virus:Pentagon weighs WMD hunt cutback"

    ....i wonder...what do you think, is it worse to be "anti-american" or
    "anti-semetic"? it sometimes occurs to me that there is this horrid stigma
    to the term "anti-semetic". i seriously suspect that i am anti-semetic...i
    dont like the generalities of the jews or the arabs. they seem to be
    exclusionary religious assholes for the most part. i give everyman the
    chance to be an individual, but semetic peoples seem to be driven to chaos
    and violence - they always have some silly reason or another, but we as an
    audience seem eternally pressured to empathize with their situation
    regardless of how self-inflicted these situations might be. So sorry, but
    im just tired of suffering for this personal illusion. if some groups
    concentual hallucination requires MY participation, then sorry, but this
    exceeds the reasonable expectations any group may have over me. call me
    unfair but after knowing a couple hundred jews and arabs personally, so far
    the 'hit' ratio is about 98% ...and i can name names.

    DrSebby.
    "Courage...and shuffle the cards".

    ----Original Message Follows----
    From: "Jonathan Davis" <jonathan.davis@lineone.net>
    Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
    To: <virus@lucifer.com>
    Subject: RE: virus: Jewish Controlled Media & Leaders Misrepresent Malaysian
    PM
    Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:45:37 -0000

    Hi Blunderlov,

    Kharin has quoted some of the bits you chose to leave out. I think my/our
    point is made. Clearly the speech is subject to interpretation and I see it
    as a call to arms from a career Anti-Semite. Would you tolerate this speech
    from say George Bush or Tony Blair? Or if the speaker where exhorting blacks
    to unify in a fight against whites? Let us apply one standard or none at
    all.

    Anyway, I thought this was interesting:

    Mahathir is right: Jews do rule the world
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EJ28Aa02.html

    Just because you are paranoid it doesn't prove that they are not out to get
    you. Paranoid, to be sure, was Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's
    allegation that the "Jews rule this world by proxy" on October 16. Whether
    Dr Mahathir himself is paranoid, or whether he adapted his words to the
    paranoia of his audience makes little difference. Through the twisted prism
    of paranoia, the facts on the ground do indeed suggest that the Jews rule
    the world.

    Europeans who turn up their noses at Malaysia's leader should recall that
    just 60 years ago, Europe's official ideology (under Nazi conquest) agreed
    with Mahathir's claim that the Jews "invented and successfully promoted
    socialism, communism, human rights and democracy". That is where Mahathir
    doubtless got the idea in the first place. Not only Adolf Hitler, but the
    highest circles of the Catholic Church believed that communism was a Jewish
    plot, as a Swiss priest, Father Martin Rhonheimer, documents in the November
    2003 issue of First Things.

    Not since Hitler has the leader of an important country claimed that
    democracy itself was a Jewish invention, at least in the modern period. Let
    us however not engage in what Leo Strauss called "reductio ad Hitlerum,"
    rejecting ideas merely because Hitler invented them, and take Mahathir's
    claim at face value.

    The Jews did indeed invent democracy, in its modern form, although not quite
    in the way he imagines.

    Modern (as opposed to ancient Greek or Roman) democracy stems from the
    Protestant motto "solo scriptorum", "only the Bible", by which every man
    must interpret scripture for himself. To begin with, Protestantism was
    unimaginable without Jewish theologians (who exposed the incompatibilities
    of free will and original sin), not to mention Jewish bible translators. In
    such a world, congregations must elect their church elders (Presbyterians)
    or even their pastors (Congregationalists), rather than accept church
    hierarchy. If democracy rules ecclesiastical affairs, why not then secular
    affairs as well?

    Only Anglo-Saxon Protestantism had the opportunity to take on a political
    form, thanks in large part to the colonization of America. America's
    so-called revolution was in fact a second English civil war, in which the
    Whigs supported the American rebels against the Tory government. England's
    democratic impulse came from the extreme wing of its Protestants, from such
    sects as the Separatists who founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony, or the
    Quakers who founded Pennsylvania. Only on American soil did radical
    Protestantism flourish unimpeded by monarchy and established church.

    America's founders set forth with messianic ambitions. They saw themselves
    as a new Israel setting out to found a new Jerusalem, as in John Winthrop's
    famous sermon "On Christian Charity". "We shall find that the God of Israel
    is among us, when 10 of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our
    enemies, when He shall make us a praise and glory, that men shall say of
    succeeding plantations, the Lord make it like that of New England. For we
    must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people
    are upon us."

    Jews played a small role in the creation of the American colonies, and a
    marginal role in the revolution, but American democracy stemmed from Jewish
    ideas. That is quite different from Mahathir's claim that Jews "invented"
    democracy. No conspiracy can invent democracy of the American kind.
    Massachusetts farmers formed a battle line against British regulars at
    Lexington and Concord in 1775 because self-governance was to them a matter
    of life and death. Such a sentiment is alien to Mahathir's world. His
    imagination does not encompass people like the radical Protestants of 18th
    century New England.

    American democracy grew from a seed-crystal of representative institutions,
    beginning, as noted, with the election of church officials. Americans are
    used to governing their own affairs through a vast number of institutions at
    the capillary level of society. It astonished me to discover that the
    election of local school boards in American towns can excite more partisan
    passion than a presidential election. Unlike Europe, where education
    ministries dispense a centralized budget, American towns tax themselves for
    elementary and secondary education. Towns with better schools attract
    higher-income residents who can afford to pay for better education, in a
    virtuous cycle. Hospitals, public libraries and even the fire brigade draw
    on private resources and volunteer labor.

    That brings us to the touchy matter of conspiracies. Mahathir's world is
    populated by conspiracies. They are as real and tangible to him as the chair
    on which he sits. In the rough-and-tumble of democratic governance,
    conspiracies help little, because all the important issues will come to
    light one way or another. What Bernard Lewis calls "consultative" governance
    in the Islamic world, however, only can exist through conspiracies.

    There does not exist to my knowledge a self-governing school board, hospital
    committee or fire brigade anywhere in Arab countries. But the meanest
    peasant may approach the loftiest ruler for the privilege of a few moments'
    worth of whispered pleading. Beneficent and merciful rulers will take pity
    on their subjects. If one wishes to influence the ruler, numerous of his
    subjects must agree in advance what they shall whisper in his ear, that is,
    literally, to conspire.

    That helps explain why Mahathir can account for the facts as he observes
    them by no means other than conspiracy. There is another dimension to this
    as well, namely the theological. If the constitution is the bone of American
    democracy, radical Protestant theology forms its bone marrow. What is the
    relationship between Islamic theology and government? Does it help explain
    why we encounter what Lewis calls "consultative" as opposed to
    "representative" forms of government in the Islamic world?

    Imitatio dei, emulation of God, is the most important practical consequence
    of religion. Religious men act according to their conception of the
    attributes of the deity they worship. Let us tug a bit at this thread, and
    see where it leads us.

    Remember that the Jewish God enjoys only a qualified sort of omnipotence.
    His sympathy with mankind, his creation, compels him to suffer along with
    his creatures. He cannot help but hear the cry of innocent blood, the
    complaint of the widow and orphan, the mistreated stranger and the oppressed
    slave (Professor James Kugel of Harvard makes his hoary argument in The God
    of Old). He is the God of the town meeting, of the popular assembly, of the
    democrats. With good reason, Friedrich Nietzsche labelled the Jewish deity a
    God of slaves. He permits the likes of Abraham and Moses to give him a hard
    time over such things as the destruction of Sodom, or exterminating the
    sinners among the Israelites.

    When ancient Israel demanded that their leader, the prophet Samuel, appoint
    a king (I Samuel 8), God complained, "They have rejected me as their king."
    He tells Samuel to warn the people against kings. When the people demand a
    king nonetheless, God tells Samuel, "Give them a king." The Jews' God chose
    for his people a despised race of slaves. He humbles himself by sympathizing
    with the weak. The Christian God even came to earth and allowed himself to
    be crucified. He loves the poor and weak. Indeed, weakness ineluctably draws
    forth his love. Jewish and Christian theologians speak of "divine humility".

    Not so Allah, the beneficent, the merciful. "For Islam, the notion that
    man's failings more powerfully awake God's love than man's merits is an
    absurd, indeed an impossible thought. Allah has pity upon human weaknesses,
    but the idea that he loves weakness more than strength is a form of divine
    humility that is foreign to the God of Mohammed," wrote the Jewish
    theologian Franz Rosenzweig.

    Imitatio dei may explain why Americans and Muslims seek quite different
    attributes in their political leaders. More important than strength and
    intelligence in the character of an American presidential candidate is
    humility. Whatever one thinks of President George W Bush, he cultivates the
    same sort of folksy image that served former president Jimmy Carter so well.
    In this regard one thinks of Bill Clinton, who hid his intellectual
    arrogance so effectively, or Ronald Reagan, who cloaked his ideological
    fervor in self-deprecating humor.

    More than anything else, Americans want their leaders to listen to them. A
    president had better be a better listener than a talker. That is what
    Americans expect from their God, after all, and all the more so from a
    president who is a mere human.

    The sort of leader who evoked adulation in the Arab world, eg, a Gamal Abdel
    Nasser, produces only revulsion among Americans. The trouble is that the gap
    between American and Islamic views of the world may be unbridgeable. The
    more Americans learn about the Islamic world, the less they may be inclined
    to sympathize with the Islamic cause.

    In November 2001, for example, 31 percent of Americans told an opinion poll
    that Islam had a great deal in common with their religion. Now, only 22
    percent believe that this is the case. That is why Bush will not fire
    General William Boykin, who scandalized the news media by suggesting that
    the "war against terror" had a religious dimension. If barely a one-fifth of
    Americans see a commonality between Islam and their own religion, who can
    blame Boykin - who heads the hunt for Osama bin Laden - for stating what
    everyone believes?

    Since September 11, 2001, the government of the US, its news media and its
    academic institutions have made extraordinary efforts to emphasize the
    common goals of Islam and the West. "Islam is a religion of peace," Bush has
    repeated countless times. Spokesmen for Islamic organizations in the US and
    abroad have enjoyed an unprecedented degree of access to the American media,
    and the American public has been exposed to the Islamic viewpoint to an
    extent never before imaginable.

    The result appears to be precisely the opposite of what the government, news
    media and academia intended. Americans show less sympathy than before to
    Islam, and, correspondingly, more inclination to support the Israeli cause.

    Why, Arabs (and many Europeans) ask themselves, should the greatest power in
    the world care about the fate of a few million leftovers from an ancient
    past, colonizing a corner of the Mediterranean in order to preserve their
    battered nationhood? Why would America make so many enemies and lose so many
    friends over the Jews? Can anything but a vast and insidious conspiracy
    explain such irrational behavior?

    That is a fatal error. America may be a great power, but it is composed of
    individuals who consider themselves weak. They want the respect of their
    leaders and the protection of their laws even when they are weak, poor and
    despised. Their ancestors came to America in the hope of finding such a
    haven. Fairness and sympathy for the underdog are not merely a sentimental
    issue in the US; they are woven into the fabric of America's being. America
    is the political realization of the slave-religion, the cult of the creator
    of heaven and earth who cannot help but answer the cry of the widow, the
    fatherless, the poor, and the stranger. The more you tell Americans that
    they should abandon their friends in the interest of political advantage,
    the likelier they are to reach for their guns (and most of them own guns).

    They want a Jewish sort of God who hears the prayer of the widow and the
    fatherless, and they want a government that protects the widow and the
    fatherless from the powerful and the arrogant. Through America's inherent
    sense of justice, Jews do rule the world, just as Mahathir believes,
    although not of course in the way he imagines it.

    Mahathir, to be sure, has deplored the violent responses of some in the
    Islamic world, which merely repels potential friends. Yet he has done just
    as much damage to the image of Islam in the West. Merely by being himself,
    he contributed to the deep sense of unease that Americans have concerning
    the character of the Islamic world.

    Great understanding among cultures does not always make things better.
    Sometimes it makes things worse. Adolf Eichmann, it should be recalled,
    studied Hebrew with a Berlin rabbi, the better to understand the Jews he
    wished to exterminate. The leaders of the Islamic terrorist organizations
    are not throwbacks to the 10th century, but Western-educated science
    students.

    In his own paranoid fashion, Mahathir has advanced the cause of mutual
    understanding between the Islamic world and America. Mahathir has made clear
    that the Jews do, indeed, rule the world, at least in the sense that he and
    his compatriots understand the words "to rule". And he has made clear to
    Americans that the filter through which the Islamic world views America is a
    form of paranoia that cannot quickly be cured.

    ----
    Kind regards
    Jonathan
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
    Blunderov
    Sent: 28 October 2003 18:50
    To: virus@lucifer.com
    Subject: RE: virus: Jewish Controlled Media & Leaders Misrepresent Malaysian
    PM
    SNIP
    etc
    [Blunderov]
    Perhaps the link you gave is incorrect? It seems to me that you must be
    referring to some other speech by Mahathir?
    Best Regards
    ---
    To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
    <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
    ---
    To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to 
    <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
    _________________________________________________________________
    Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
    ---
    To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 30 2003 - 03:18:23 MST