|July 29, 2010|
|Audio Excerpt (3:05 Mins)|
|…Shalom laYehudim, Shalom laBnai Noach, Shalom laGoyim. It’s the evening of the 6th day, yud-tes, beMenachem Av, Parashas Ekev, tav-shin-ayin, the evening of the 4th day, Thursday, 29 July, 2010, webcasting from the Judenstaat, Herzl’s idea of a non-Jewish Jewish state.
A state without belief in the G-d of Israel and the holiness of His Books and commentaries on them that Jews live by and survive by.
Because these Israelis, these spiritual offspring of the Reform Jew Theodor Herzl don’t believe the ideology of the Jews, they behave the way they do.
The top story, the hot story today was like a flashback to earlier decades in the Judenstaat when Shimon Peres was a notorious, compulsive saboteur of his superiors in government. When he was inferior in power during the Labor-Likud power-sharing agreement under Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Peres on his own engineered a deal with the Arabs contrary to Shamir’s policy.
It was in that period as well that his long-time rival in Labor Yitzhak Rabin called Peres a khatran bil-tee nil-ey in the mid-1980s; that means a “tireless underminer.” Peres had a reputation for that. Peres pulled off what was the called “the stinking maneuver” in the 1980s, another of his betrayals
And so this morning on Kol Yisrael, whose correspondent Ayala Hasson reported on a source who contacted her, an anonymous man who claims he sat at a table earlier in the month next to Saeb Erekat and Chaim Ramon at the American Colony Hotel and heard Ramon say to Erekat that he was an agent of his former mentor now Pres. Shimon Peres, and that Abbas should continue to refuse to meet with Israel in direct talks.
Indeed, yesterday I think Netanyahu dropped a cryptic remark that his genuine desire for direct talks was being sabotaged, when he said cryptically, “…and not from the right.”
Of course today Peres denied this narrative. Never happened. He didn’t send Ramon to sabotage Bibi’s policy.
So whether or not it did or didn’t, it did resonate with Uncle Shimon’s dirty past as a khatran bil-tee nil-ey/a “tireless underminer.” ..
|July 27, 2010|
|Audio Excerpt (2:31 Mins)|
|…And why the violence there? Well, because, truth be told, mankind, leastwise a significant politically active slice of homo sapiens, objects to this 150 year-old project of the Jews, our return to the ancestral homeland after some 1,800 years away from it, during which time we never forget where home was.
The goyim among whom we lived did not accept us, but also our liturgy of many years overflows with references to Eretz Yisrael and Yerushalayim. Those who know something of Judaism, if far less than they imagine, think that “Next year in Jerusalem” is said once a year at the Passover seder. Not true. Three times a day six days a week we pray in the 18 Blessings to be returned to Jerusalem. Jews have survived these 1,800 years precisely because the discipline of religion kept this people alive like a life preserver at sea preventing the people from sinking into the ages of human history.
Unlike the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Persians, the Romans, the Hapsburgs, the Ottomans, we are still here. Still alive, alive and kicking; still being fruitful and vital. And we have stayed alive via these “rituals” which when seen from the outside appear to be obsessive-compulsive behaviors; rituals.
When on the contrary, they are free-willed behaviors which may look like rituals when seen from outside but inside they are mnemonics, memory devices; they all have meaning. By observing Passover every year, we never forget the beginning of our people as slaves who escaped; and who, by contrast to their slavery, of their own free will, accepted at Mt. Sinai the commandments which demand to be performed on G-d’s instructions, which behavior contributes mightily to the immortality of the Jewish people.
Put another way, the Jewish religion is the heart of Jewish national identity, which makes the Jewish nation unique among the nations of the world…
|July 25, 2010|
|Audio Excerpt (2:24 Mins)|
|…You know what this is? It is very high-grade Jew-hatred in action. Like all antisemitic intellection, it is a lie in its rotten core; a lie whose purpose is to fuel Jew-hatred.
Antisemitism at its most basic is telling lies about the alleged evil the Jews have done and are doing, when we have not and are not doing. The alleged evil, the classic example of this is the blood libel, about which an entire book verifying its truth was written by the Defense Minister of Syria in the 1980s, called The Matza of Zion. Down the corridors of time people have accused Jews of this crime, which Jews have absolutely never committed. And this architecture of the mind repeats itself from generation to generation: Jews being accused of horrendous crimes for which they are not guilty and commonly when the guilty party does exist but is shielded by the antiJew lie.
Rashid Khalidi here exposes himself as classic antisemite/Jew-hater because he is right that the Arabs in Gaza are “effectively imprisoned.”
But Israel is not the imprisoner. It is not Israel’s fault; it’s not Israel’s guilt. The Arabs in the slums are there because fellow Arabs like himself, professional, salaried Israel-bashers, don’t want the situation to change. The backers of those slum-dwellers are men like Khalidi himself and the entire scam that UNRWA has been. Those slum-dwellers are kept there by every Arab state that does not offer them citizenship, especially the Arab states that in 1948 attacked Israel; Israel did not attack them.
Rashid al-Khalidi is a textbook specimen of a modern antisemite because he smears Israel with his own side’s guilt; his guilt and that of his Arab brethren; and all the Western states who keep funneling rivers of money into Gaza to keep these people on the dole…
|July 22, 2010|
|Audio Excerpt (2:50 Mins)|
|…What a strange world we live in when these 56 states of the Islamic Conference are self-proclaimed, officially Muslim states, and there are 21 officially Arab states, and nobody says boo about this.
But when the Jews assert their right to have their own, officially Jewish state, as a nation and a religion, the Enlightened start smirking and sneering at those racist Jews who don’t want to share Palestine with the Ancient Palestinians. Wasn’t Zionism uniquely singled out in the council of nations in 1975 as the only nationalist movement on Planet Earth that was a “form of racism”?
When the Arabs and Muslims assert their national identities as Arabs and Muslims, that’s okay. But among the Enlightened these very days their deep-thinkers of the Left continue to toy with the idea that if the Two-State Solution doesn’t come about, then we will have a One-State Solution in which Israel ceases to exist as exclusively a Jewish state, as Saudi Arabia is exclusively Arab-Muslim. It will become a bi-national state in which both ancient nations can live in perfect harmony and equality, and never mind that for 14 centuries they never did.
So I wish these Israelis would stop calling these Arabs, these Muslims, “Palestinians.” I mean, how did the IDF Spokesman know for sure that they were “Palestinians”? Arabs have been known to travel from their home countries to others in the world to kill people. Volunteers like Osama bin Ladin went to Afghanistan in the 1980s to resist the atheist Russian invaders. For years, Arabs wanting to kill Americans and other Allied soldiers have gone to Syria then crossed over into Iraq. They also have infiltrated via the border between Saudi Arabia and Iraq, which traffic the Saudis did not care for and thus built a long security barrier about which the Enlightened says not one word of protest.
I think it is historically a grievous error on Israel’s part since 9-11 for Israel not to re-brand our neighbors here as Muslims, fanatical Muslims, the same enflamed rag heads who brought down the World Trade Center; the same homicidal maniacs who blew up trains in London and Madrid slaughtering hundreds of innocent people.
I await the day Israelis stop calling these people “Palestinians” and start calling them as their fathers in Zionism called them: Arabs. Herzl, Weizmann, Jabotinsky, across the spectrum they called the Arabs Arabs…
|July 18, 2010|
|Audio Excerpt (4:17 Mins)|
|…So these Muslims, these Arabs, these Iranians, Pakistanis, Algerians, Lebanese are a violent slice of humanity, don’t you think?
Which is why there is not going to be a “Palestinian” state as the antiJews of the world imagine it. It just ain’t going to happen that the people of Israel are going to agree to drive 500,000 Jews from their homes and force them to return to the 9-mile wide waist of a country that Israel had in 1967. And of course after this mass flight and re-settlement program, the Muslims will take complete control of the western slope of the hills of Judea and Samaria overlooking that 9-mile wide strip of congested Jewish life and be free to set up their primitive, portable Qassam rocket launching apparatus. Jews are not going to agree to that.
World antiJewry believes in the future transformation of Judea and Samaria into a Judenrein “Palestinian” state as of right; and until Israel agrees to this “Two-State Solution,” Israel will be the guilty party, the enemy of justice and peace, the criminal victimizer of the Ancient Palestinian people whose land Israel refuses to return.
And in a similar vein to this antiJew demand that Israel retreat to the 1949 cease-fire line, which no sober Israeli will ever agree to, so Israel demands of the Hamites here that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state, which demand from the Muslim viewpoint is likewise simply impossible. At least until they have a Reformation or a Vatican II.
What Netanyahu is doing is demanding that these Arabs sign off on the rightness of Jews living free and independent in our ancient homeland, which is a demand in direct contradiction to the Qur’an and 14 centuries of history between Jews and Arab Muslims. Forget the legendary Golden Age of Spain; the common record of Jewish life under Arab Muslims is a poor one. The Jews suffered every bit as much as Jews in Ashkenaz at Christian hands. The Qur’an repetitively deals with the Jews, and it is clear, as one verse says, that we are Islam’s Enemy No. 1, “more than Christian priests,” according to the verse.
In other words, the last 17 years of peace-making, the bloody handiwork the Jewish Left, Rabin, Peres, Beilin, Indyk, etc. has been an impossible dream dreamed up by ignorant men ignorant of Islam and its historic mistreatment of Jews.
And why? Men like Rabin, Peres and Beilin were raised as antiJew, secular Zionists who thought that if they, as “Israelis,” did not act like Jews, believe like Jews, live like Jews, the Arabs wouldn’t treat them as Jews. The world would treat Israelis as normal people. No more of this Chosen People stuff and persecutions.
No, Israelis like Rabin and Peres and Beilin, Amos Oz, David Grossman, A.B. Yehoshua still believe that if we stop abusing the victims of our parents’ Zionism and do right by the “Palestinians” whose right to this land is every bit as righteous as the Jewish right, only then will peace come.
The implication of this view of course is that all the Arabs want and are justified in wanting is half of Jerusalem and all of Judea and Samaria, and not a square meter more.
Just give them everything Israel took in 1967, give it all back, and they will break out into smiles of gratitude and friendship.
For these radically dejudaized people, because of their radical dejudaization, are incapable of empathically, truly identifying with the Arabs/the Muslims they purport to care for; identify with them as fellow religionists. And because of this defect, they are blind and deaf to the essential religious nature of the Arabs’ complaint against Israel…
|July 15, 2010|
|Audio Excerpt (2:59 Mins)|
|…This Reform rabbi in Tel-Aviv, Gala Sadan, gave this perfectly loopy interview in which she takes pride in the 100% “egalitarian” style of Reform prayer meetings. Pride in the fact that their movement recognizes the rights of gays and lesbians. And Reform rabbis will marry a Cohen and a convert, which of course is forbidden by Halacha. In any case, for those who don’t know, she said, “We don’t consider ourselves bound by Halacha; we let everyone choose for himself what to take from Judaism’s large basket.”
What these narcissistic, hedonistic wrong-headed people don’t understand is that Jewish law and living by that law is what keeps the Jewish people alive; exactly as, say, the American people keep alive by living according to the Constitution and all the cases that have come from it. Without living by a written text you bind yourself too, there is nothing to keep the identity of a community intact.
Listen to Rabbi Galia Sadan explain and complain about the Orthodox method of conversion, commonly of the non-Jewish spouse in one of the marriages her stream throws holy water on: “Are we bringing people closer to us, whether as spouses or on their own, in a pleasant, accepting process that understands the tension between a person’s desire to adopt Jewish tradition. And his desire to maintain a modern lifestyle, or are we interested in a humiliating process that causes people to fail? Orthodox conversion is very difficult to complete. It’s an educational process that expects people to become religiously observant, and what can you do if not everyone wants to become religiously observant? People pretend so they’ll get the seal of approval. Our country was revealed in all its glory in 2002 when it declared that it is pluralistic, and that a person can be recognized as a convert in any denomination he chooses. The High Court of Justice ruled that the government must recognize all conversions for all intents and purposes. And now this bill comes along and takes us backward. We’re giving up pluralism, recognizing only the Israeli rabbinate…Giving authority to the Chief Rabbinate means that if you don’t observe the Sabbath, they won’t convert you. If you seek to convert because you want to live according to Jewish tradition but don’t want to observe Shabbat – to live a Jewish but not an orthodox life – you won’t be able to convert though. This is an undemocratic country where there are people who can’t get married.”
Let me stop there. I don’t know about you but this is just brainlessness, takes my breath away.
Time for a break…
|July 13, 2010|
|Audio Excerpt (4:43 Mins)|
|…In fact, do a Google search and come up with the Faisal-Weizmann agreement of December 1918 signed in London in the presence of their translator “Lawrence of Arabia,” after which the three of them went over to the Paris Peace Conference with that document. And the text couldn’t be clearer. The agreement called for “Palestine” to be a Jewish state, next door to an “Arab” state; those were the words. Faisal agreed to a Palestine as a Jewish state, with a view to absorbing from his base in Mecca, Trans-Jordan and modern day Syria and even modern day Iraq, in addition to all of the Arabian Peninsula. The British simply did not promise him Palestine. They promised it only to the Jews, and Prince Faisal agreed.
Notice too how Carroll says the “Palestinians” finally mounted resistance, in 1936, with the implication that they attacked British occupying forces the way, say, the Minutemen in American in 1776 attacked uniformed British soldiers.
No. As suggested before, they began by murdering Jews at random. And notice the use of the word “resistance.” Carroll has adopted the word Arabs use to describe their terror atrocities to this very day. Hamas calls its violence against Israel “resistance”; so does Hezbollah; so does Bin Ladin. These paranoiacs perceive the very existence of Western civilization as a threat to them, and therefore they must “resist” it.
Carroll calls the violence of 1936-39 a “London-ordered colonial war”. This too bears no true reflection of that decade’s intifada. Carroll uses the word “brutal” but only to refer to Britain’s response, not the brutality of the Arabs who murdered Jews at random just like today; shot up crowds of Jews exiting movie theaters after the show; shot up medical clinics for Jews and medical clinics for Arabs in which Jewish doctors and nurses provided the service. Carroll reserves the word “brutal” for the British.
He writes of “Political institutions and economic systems…devastated” presumably by the British at that time; presumably “Palestinian” political institutions. The truth is they had no political institutions at that time. Just two years before in 1934 they created their first political parties which weren’t even that: they were fancy names given to the two rival families in Jerusalem, the al-Husseini and the Nashashibi families who gussied up their respective clans with political names.
And as for devastating the “Palestinian economy”: the Arabs did that to themselves by calling that April for a national strike of Arab labor to protest Jews coming into the land fleeing Nazi Europe; which strike only boosted the Jewish economy and crippled their own. They did it to themselves.
Lastly, Carroll writes “The Palestinian social fabric was ripped asunder, never fully to be restitched again.”
This is in a class with the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, Arab poetry sucked from a hash pipe. Again, in 1936 there was no “Palestinian” social fabric. In that year the Arabs’ leader Haj Amin was still denying there was such a place as Palestine.
What James Carroll does when he writes about Israel like this is to reflect the “Palestinian narrative” he has downloaded into his head these last 40 years when he should know it is a pile of filthy lies about Jews and the violence here.
He has in his head a false history because he wants to have a false history in which moral equivalence is the background music. He writes “Two peoples who have each defined themselves positively by negative hatred of the other but…each can receive the other’s account of the past and perhaps for the first time, hear it respectfully.”
Yeah, the moral equivalence of our version and their version. For this perverted post-modernist, both sides have a valid memory of history and both sides have a valid claim – and to hell with the historical truth; and I do mean to Hell.
Thus does this post-Catholic priest hang onto a fresh reason for scourging the Jews…
|Featuring: Political, historical, religious commentary with modern Israeli music|
|Webcast Title: The Age of Peres|
|Webcast Date: 07/11/2010|
|Length: 33:29 Minutes|
|(July 11, 2010) …I say, “Enough.” I’ve expressed my belief before that without the handshake on the White House Lawn there would have been no 9-11. Terror pays. First the Europeans and then the Americans and then the Israelis sank down to their knees before the PLO, before Arafat and recognized that devil as a legitimate player and institutionalized now almost 17 years of negotiating with that murderer’s sidekick Abbas who sat next to Arafat on the White House lawn.
The original sin of Oslo was the decision to trash the principle of not dealing with such evil men as Arafat and Abbas, to engage them in negotiations.
Men like these, these butchers of innocent people in terrorist atrocities deserve not negotiations but only to be hunted down and killed.
Not only is that the moral thing to do, it is the smart, strategic thing to do, for negotiations get you nowhere except deeper into the slime and the last 17 years have been proof of that…
|PLAY Webcast Excerpt (1:08 Mins)|
|Featuring: Political, historical, religious commentary with modern Israeli music|
|Webcast Title: “Taking Risks for Peace”?|
|Webcast Date: 07/08/2010|
|Length: 37:05 Minutes|
|(July 8, 2010) …And that was Psalm 113, assorted verses from it, from the Hallel Prayer. What a talent he is. And that is the tenth of his ten selections on his a capella album, and so now for the remainder of the three weeks, another four webcasts and today, we will repeat the cycle.
So, not surprisingly on Tuesday when Bibi met Barack, the latter came out of the meeting pleased to tell the press that he was persuaded that Israel is, under Prime Minister Netanyahu’s leadership, ready to “take risks for peace.”
That’s an expression of lengthy pedigree; it has been in the lexicon of the peace processors for years. They believe that one necessary ingredient of successful peace processing is Israel’s readiness to “take risks for peace” – which is code for “retreat and weakening itself by handing over strategically important terrain to the enemy in the belief this will please him and slake his thirst for what Israel possesses. Israel must take a risk for peace by endangering itself even more than it is endangered now.”
And why? To placate, to satisfy, to soothe the savage breast of the Ishmaelites who feel aggrieved because Israel stole Palestine from them. If Israel wants peace, it must compensate the victims of its national movement.
Hence, even more “confidence-building gestures” to be made by Israel. Notice, the Ancient Palestinians are never asked to make their own confidence-building measures, like reducing the quantity of antisemitic bilge on their PA TV station.
Nothing. Never. Goornisht. Only Israel must make confidence-building measures a/k/a baksheesh, tribute. The Ancient Ones never, the aggrieved party in this relationship.
One wishes for a prime minister who when asked by some obnoxious, ignorant journalist like a Thomas Friedman if Israel is prepared to take risks for peace, answers candidly: “What, are you crazy? Do you think we are crazy? We are surrounded on the three sides, 5 and a half million of us, by 300 million barbaric Arabs and Muslims whose core identity, Islam, is a nasty piece of antisemitic nonsense in a league with Mein Kampf or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
“We Jews too, if not ahistorical Israelis, have a history with these Muslims going back 14 centuries, and it’s not a pretty story. And in our own time as well, these cruel savages have bombed us hundreds of times with their suicide maniacs, homicidal Muslim maniacs for whom murdering Jews is the ultimate in piety, more important than life itself. Exploding yourself in the middle of a crowd of unsuspecting Jewish people in an otherwise peaceful civilian setting is worth it – if you take the lives of as many al-Yahud as you can with you.
“That’s who the enemy is, No. 1. No.2: We don’t take risks because we live on the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea on a strip of land 50 miles/80 kilometers across, that’s it.
“Take risks for peace”? The last person in Israel who should be ready to take risks for peace is the prime minister. His first duty is to protect his people. A parent sends his child to school on a school bus and expects the driver to take no chances when on the road with his charges. He must take no risks. And likewise the prime minister of Israel is charged with the safety of his people surrounded by all these brutes.
“No sir,” I would tell Prince Obama Israel will take no risks for peace whatsoever. Let the other side take risks for peace. We took a big risk in 1994 when we handed over a significant amount of land to the Arabs in Yesha and what we got in return was a series of diabolical bombings that took the lives of almost 2,000 Jews and wounded even more physically, and even more emotionally: the surviving family and friends of the dead, the crippled and the mutilated.
I am sick of these peace processors and their process which is all about kowtowing to these barbarians…
|PLAY Webcast Excerpt (4:32 Mins)|
|Featuring: Political, historical, religious commentary with modern Israeli music|
|Webcast Title: Bibi’s 5th Encounter|
|Webcast Date: 07/06/2010|
|Length: 31:08 Minutes|
|Program Link: Socialism ain’t what it used to be|
|(July 6, 2010) …And back to Bibi’s meeting today in the Oval Office with this Louis Farrakhan clone: I don’t envy Bibi. We are stuck with this dangerous hater for another two and a half years, and how Captain Bibi navigates the ship of state through these troubled waters remains to seen.
The newspapers here have been, these three days of this week, running large advertisements paid for by Yesha Council featuring the faces and quotations of seven of his cabinet ministers vowing the resumption of building in September. It is meant to be a signal to him and Obama that there are people here who are furious at this freeze.
I’m furious, though I give Bibi the benefit of doubt, for, believe it or not, there is something more important than ending the freeze and that is defanging Iran.
The Muslim antisemite in the Oval Office is reported to be demanding that the freeze continue or else no U.S. efforts against Iran.
If that is so, then I would expect Bibi to terminate the freeze as planned because this guy is an antagonist; he is an enemy who is not to be trusted. He is going to screw us no matter what Bibi decides. If he thinks that prolonging the freeze will get this son of a female canine to change his spots, I think he is mistaken.
I only wish Bibi would find his way to laying down the law that Judea and Samaria are not Gross Pointe, Michigan or Tuxedo Park, NY, – restricted communities – but our ancient homeland which is so central to our religion, and no one on this planet has the right to tell us we can’t live in Judea and Samaria. It is not settled wisdom etched in granite that Judea and Samaria must be Judenrein.
Bibi has to go public and declare war against this line of thinking. He has to say that until such time as the Arabs in Yesha publicly, in a referendum monitored by Jimmy Carter, vote in support of the proposition that the Jews have a right to have their state in the ancient homeland; and the Arabs publicly foreswear this ridiculous notion of a “right of return,” the right to flood Israel will millions of hostile Muslims, Israel will live without a peace agreement with these people. And Israel will continue to maintain by force if necessary the right of Jews to live anywhere in the heart of the heart of Promised Land they want to…
|PLAY Webcast Excerpt (2:32 Mins)|
|Featuring: Political, historical, religious commentary with modern Israeli music|
|Webcast Title: A World Gone Mad|
|Webcast Date: 07/04/2010|
|Length: 33:51 Minutes|
|(July 4, 2010) …So sort of continuing in the vein of last Thursday’s webcast rumination on antiJew madness, there may be some connection to the parallel madness loose in the world in the matter of sodomy, which like Roman Catholic celibacy is simply not healthy for society and culture.
I mean, down in the imitation goy university in Beersheva, named for David ben-Gurion, a professor of bioethics was just fired because he told his students that homosexuality was flawed behavior and could be restrained. As he restrains himself from fornication with women he finds attractive because he is married; so this behavior likewise can be contained.
He also said same sex couples raising a child deprive that child of a normal life.
This offended a sodomite in the class who got him fired. And although YNET.com did not report if the professor believes in the G-d of Israel, it did report that he lives in Kiryat Arba, which of course is in “Occupied Palestine.”
Maybe it’s just me, but I think society, Western society has gone crazy in the matter of sodomy. Just last Monday, the U.S Supreme Court said a university can deny recognition of a Christian student group because it will not admit people who sodomize one another (and other non-Christians), for surely it is as anti-Christian a behavior as it is antiJewish.
In a five-to-four decision in Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court sided against that Christian group because of its rejection of sodomites as members in their group.
I think the world has gone mad.
Last week too, in her confirmation hearings, the post-mitzvot Jewess Elena Kagan, which name reveals her descent from Aaron the High Priest, spoke of a decision she made at Harvard having to do with fair treatment regardless of “sexual orientation.”
“Sexual orientation.” That is an invention in a class with “homophobia,” “Islamophobia,” “transgender,” “Ancient Palestinian.” It is a verbal invention whose purpose is to spread a smoke-screen of fantasy over the truth.
“Sexual orientation”? There is no such thing. This expression was invented by sexual deviants to re-brand their deviation as normal and not deviant.
“Sexual orientation” was invented to preach the moral equivalence of normal sexual behavior between men and women, versus abnormal behavior. To say that so-and-so has a different “sexual orientation” is like saying the anorexic has a different nutritional orientation. Most people like to eat. The anorexic prefers not to. What’s the deal?
Of course with the anorexic her different nutritional orientation will kill her. Homosexual orientation does not necessarily kill on an individual basis, but if enough people in a society commit this perversion, the society will die. This is historical fact. The homosexuality of ancient Greece and Rome was a major factor in the disappearance of those cultures and societies.
A couple of months ago in England, somewhere in Cumbria, a Baptist street preacher spoke against sodomy and a complaint was filed, and he was arrested and jailed for basically hurting the feelings of a sodomite who heard him.
And then there is the “transgender” invention associated with the so-called “sex-change.”
The truth is that no man or woman has ever been turned into the opposite sex. This is a verbal fantasy invention. Men and women are distinguished from one another by possessing one of two types of reproductive, bodily organs: the man’s two-part equipment external to the body and the woman’s internal womb. No man has ever been fitted with a womb; no woman with a working set of male equipment.
And in fact, the professional literature regarding the misnamed “transgender” patient never records the desire of the sick one to either father a child or become pregnant to bear and nurse a child. What these slaves of their fantasies want is to wear the clothes of the other sex and pretend to be the other sex – which has nothing to do with procreation and child-rearing and everything to do with the archaic image in Greek and Roman mythology of the hermaphrodite.
|PLAY Webcast Excerpt (5:21 Mins)|
|Featuring: Political, historical, religious commentary with modern Israeli music|
|Webcast Title: Our Generation’s Jew-Madness|
|Webcast Date: 07/01/2010|
|Length: 40:46 Minutes|
|Program Link: McChrystal, Tocqueville, and the Koran: The Postmodern ‘COINage’ of a Failed Policy|
|(July 1, 2010) …Every generation has its style of Jew-madness. Take, for example, late 16th century England, when attitudes towards Jews were on display one evening in a play mounted in a theater in London, a comedy called the Merchant of Venice about a Jew money-lender, a banker. You see, less than a century had passed since the birth of the Church of England and the influence of the Catholic tradition was still strong; less than a century since King Henry the 8th and his remarkable daughter Elizabeth I founded the Church of England as it exists to this very day with the Queen still – this Elizabeth – its official head. It began as a breakaway from Rome which church had taught that money-lending was evil, indistinguishable from usury. And thus the Jews were condemned to be money-handlers.
This was a Catholic philosophy about as wrong-headed as its pathological and ultimately suicidal installation of celibacy as a priestly ideal. Look at what the Irish Catholics did to themselves: they would take the best brain among the kids and turn into a priest who does not pass on his good DNA. Not only is celibacy perverse, it’s stupid.
And it was the same wrong-headed thinking that had the Church of Rome condemning money-lending as an evil.
When it is not. What a money system does is transform immovable wealth, such as land (real estate) into a liquid commodity that gets passed around. Capitalism, not socialism, creates the greatest material good for the greatest number because it virtually alchemically transforms natural resources/immovable wealth (after gold and silver) into a symbolic piece of paper, which requires literacy to be read. And that’s the way to spread the wealth around. There is a connection between capitalism and democracy for the common man.
And when the English broke from Rome and began their slow rise to world dominance, they had to deal with such as the international Jewish merchants in Venice who, thanks to their multi-lingual abilities and business sense, were the major importers and exporters of the day. And that comedy by Mr. Shakespeare which is now playing in New York by a disappointing Al Pacino was written in that time period when the Jew was still a money-grubbing, blood-thirsty, all-around disgusting person, a figure of ridicule. When Shakespeare first mounted this production, there was, in modern terms, zero political correctness about laughing at and making fun of Jews. Nothing to be ashamed of. This was pre-Holocaust.
On the contrary, in England’s mostly Roman Catholic phase, Christians every Good Friday heard a sermon in the parish church confirming them in the belief that Jews are perfidious. That’s how bad the Jews are. They are perfidious…
|PLAY Webcast Excerpt (3:32 Mins)|