Meanwhile in Jerusalem

FACEBOOK Antisemitism ~ Exemplified

The Blaze:

…The page inciting against Jews was left active.

Even though it contained nearly identical content, Shurat HaDin said that Facebook replied that the anti-Israel page had not violated any rules.

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, head of Shurat Hadin, said in a statement quoted by the Jewish Press, “The in-depth investigation we conducted proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that [Facebook’s] claims of equality in the face of its conduct against any individual or group of people are at best erroneous and false in the worst case.”

“Jews and Israelis around the world should be very concerned over the results of the investigation and understand that the most famous social network in the world is working actively in favor of the Palestinians,” she added.

The legal nonprofit is currently engaged in a lawsuit against Facebook over claims the social media giant allows Palestinians to post violent content that incites deadly attacks on Israelis.

Social media posts calling for violence against Israelis have been flooding Palestinian social media ever since a wave of nearly daily stabbing, shooting and car-ramming attacks against Israelis began in September.

“One of the significant characteristics of the current terror wave is the incitement on the social media networks, headed by Facebook,” Shurat HaDin said on its website.

“This incitement consists of the Facebook pages of many young Palestinians who inflame their friends to embark on terrorist attacks, provocative videos glorifying and encouraging terrorist attacks, instructions for terrorists ‘How to Carry out a Terrorist Attack’ — all on Facebook,” Shurat HaDin added.

Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In an older post of mine, I point out the same bias on NPR:

  • For instance, NPR: 18,321 words in pro-Arab only segments, 4,934 words in pro-Israel segments. Bias in number of Arab-only vs Israeli-only segments: 63-percent Palestinian/pro-Arab only segments, 37-percent Israel/pro-Israel segments. (CAMERA)

Defending “Lutheranism” from Martin Luther’s Fall from Grace

Brought this back to the forefront due to this past “Reformation Sunday

Luther Rose 2

This is a discussion that took place on my Facebook. And I could see where it was headed, but I wanted to see which avenue it went down… there is so many of them. I pick up the conversation where the person is trying to make a counter point to my assertion that Obama went to a very racist church for twenty years.

A religion started by a rabid anti-Semite, seems like it would be an inherently bad religion that people should denounce, right?

I prod, “Go on.”

What’s your opinion? If you believe obama going to a controversial church proves he has the same opinions as the church leader, I am curious what you think of an entire religion founded by someone who believed in killing and jailing all Jews.

[….]

Martin Luther, who wrote The Jews and Their Lies in the 1540’s which wad basically a blueprint for the holocaust. It’s sad that you need context to know whether killing Jews is bad or not…

I reference an earlier challenge to see if this person has read varying views of events in history, here I remind here of that challenge.

Have you read the book “The Fabricated Luther“? Or books about the Aryan cults such as noted in here (like my SCRIBD) or in books like “The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology.” Very anti-Luther ~ were the Aryans and Nazis. I will post an exceprt or two from the Luther book. BTW, this is what I mean about going to sources “at odds with each-other, you then contrasted and found the better narrative based on available historical evidence.”

Huh? Can you succinctly tell me what you think about Lutheranism? Is it poisoned because of Luther?

Here is the quote I was referring to, and allow me to elucidate afterwards:

The cliché labeling Luther an anti-Semite ignores his 1523 treatise That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, in which he admonishes his fellow Christians: “If the apostles, who were also Jews, had dealt with us Gen­tiles as we Gentiles deal with the Jews, there would never have been a Christian among the Gentiles. Since they dealt with us Gentiles in such brotherly fashion, we in turn ought to treat the Jews in a brotherly man­ner in order that we might convert some of them … We should remem­ber that we are but Gentiles, while the Jews are in the lineage of Christ?” Elsewhere in this treatise, Luther writes: “If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith, I would sooner have become a hog than a Christian.”

It is noteworthy that in the early twentieth century, the Jewish Encyclopedia made a clear distinction between the “two Luthers”—the pro-Jewish younger Luther and the anti-Jewish older Luther. In this remarkable publication, Gotthard Deutsch melancholically observed about Luther in 1906 that the “totally different attitudes which he took at different times with regard to the Jews made him, during the anti-Semitic controversies of the end of the nineteenth century, an authority quoted alike by friends and enemies of the Jews?”

Alas, it is true that in 1543, shortly before his death, Luther pub­lished his venomous book On the Jews and Their Lies, a work that was to cause great embarrassment to future centuries of Lutheran church lead­ers. In this book, he gave the “sincere advice” to burn down the syna­gogues, destroy the Jews’ homes, take away their prayer books, forbid rabbinic teaching, abolish safe-conduct for Jewish travel, prohibit usury, and force Jews into manual labor.

Johannes Wallmann has shown, however, that Luther’s treatises against the Jews, though reprinted in the late-sixteenth and early-sev­enteenth centuries, had limited impact in the general population. As the article in the Jewish Encyclopedia made clear, this and other appalling texts did not resurface until the late nineteenth century. In fact, in a devastating critique of German Protestant attitudes in the Hitler years, Richard Steigmann-Gall writes: “Not only did racialist anti-Semitism find a warmer reception among liberal Protestants than among confessional Lutherans, in many ways, racialist anti-Semitism was born of the theological crisis that liberal Protestantism represented..” Liberal Protestantism is a child of the nineteenth century. According to Steigmann-Gall, it provided the platform for Nazi ideologues to develop such theories as the one that Jesus was an Aryan. In other words, Protestants who were theologically closest to Luther’s teachings were more immune than liberals to one of the ugliest aspects of Nazism—racism. This observation could arguably also be made about deviant and sometimes lethal theologoumena that are currently rife in mainline churches in the United States and elsewhere in the West.

Uwe Siemon-Netto, The Fabricated Luther: Refuting Nazi Connections and Other Modern Myths, 2nd Edition (Saint Loiuse, MS: Concordia Publishing, 2007), 51-52.

Here is the point, Lutheranism was founded well BEFORE his 1543 anti-Semitic writing… when he was VERY Jewish friendly.

SO — Lutheranism was founded on the pro-Jewish Luther. It was leftism in it’s various shades that chose the later Luther.

In Germany (and the U.S.), the eugenic movement was founded by left leaning secular and religious persons. Lutheran churches (read here — especially conservative Lutheran churches — but all) have denounced this racism from “later Luther.”

Has Obama denounced his ties to Farrakhan, his churches teaching that blacks are the true Jews? Have you heard his church of 20-years denounce Farrakhan or the New Black Panther members that sit in its pews? Have you heard Michelle Obama denounce her affiliations to Farrakhan’s wife?

You see, you are setting up a non-sequitur… and emboldening my case that racism exists on the Left… much more-so than in conservative politics or conservative religion.

From eugenicists and the real NAZIs (an acronym with socialism in it), to before that and the founding of the KKK and, to our country entering into a Civil War, to the founder of Planned Parenthood. On-and-on:

▼ “…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.” Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;

▼ “…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.” Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.

The history of Protestantism and Catholicism saving Jews in WWII is another proud moment to understand (for instance the book by the Jewish Rabbi entitled: “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope: Pope Pius XII And His Secret War Against Nazi Germany”), Einstein did:

“Being a lover of freedom, when the [Nazi] revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks… Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.”

Albert Einstein Time Magazine, December 23, 1940 (page 38); Mackay, J. A. 1939. “The Titanic Twofold Challenge,” New York Times Magazine, May 7, p. 3.

I am very aware of his “evolving” thoughts on Jews but the effects of his venomous thoughts, no matter how late in life they came, on the real life of Jews around the world cannot be ignored. You should consider be so kind to everyone.

Okay, no one is denying this? But Lutheranism was not founded on Anti-Semitism. Obama’s church was. It would be analogous to me going to a liberal, NAZI, Lutheran church in Germany for 20-years.

While a couple other things were said, the above is a good way to defend Church history, while still admitting Luther’s later fall from grace. (Mind you with a little RPT religio-political “swerve” thrown in.) Here is an interview with the author of the above LONG quote from Fabricating Luther, Uwe Siemon-Netto:

Here is a good short video by egwpisteuw, here is his video description:

An analysis of the error in Bible interpretation made by Martin Luther which caused him to become antisemitic and to write the treatise entitled “Von den Juden und ihren Lügen” “Of the Jews and Their Lies.”

Two Anti-Semitic Calls Into The Michael Medved Show

(Above) A Holocaust Denier Called The Michael Medved Show. A usual… Medved uses his historical knowledge to dispense with shallow, ill-founded arguments by racists.

(Above) In a call detailing the bumper sticker mantras of the “pro-Palestinian” point of view, Medved works through an issue with a caller who is unable to get past a specific mantra often times heard stated by the left.

Another “Ami Short” That Exemplifies the Left’s Antisemitism

(h/t Tanner)

Leftism corrupts the mind… and here you see just how much:

(TruthRevolt) In his newest “Ami on the Street” short video, filmmaker Ami Horowitz, whose 2012 film UN Me I reviewed here for FrontPage Magazine, hilariously highlights the hypocrisy of BDS movement supporters in Ireland, where store owners are proud to refuse business with Israel for “humanitarian reasons.” Horowitz poses as a sales rep for Iranian, North Korean, and the Sudanese products to put that humanitarianism to the test.

See his previous video at TruthRevolt here, in which he questions the Somali community in Minneapolis about whether they prefer sharia over American law, and this one in which he compares the reaction on the UC Berkeley campus to waving an ISIS flag versus waving a flag of Israel.

 

Videos on Israel: BDS, Apartheid, History, etc. (UPDATED)

Here are almost all the videos and audios I have either posted on my blog or uploaded to my YouTube & Vimeo dealing with the Palestinian Conflict or Israel. New videos will be added at the top. UPDATES appear just underneath.

Does Israel discriminate against Arabs? Is it today’s version of apartheid South Africa? Olga Meshoe, herself a South African whose family experienced apartheid, settles the question once and for all.


Why don’t the Palestinians have their own country? Is it the fault of Israel? Of the Palestinians? Of both parties? David Brog, Executive Director of the Maccabee Task Force, shares the surprising answers.


When the state of Israel was founded in 1948, it was done so with the approval of the United Nations. But today, Israel’s enemies routinely challenge the legitimacy of its very existence. So, under international law, who’s right? Israel? Or its enemies?


As Israel is under attack from Hamas in the Gaza strip and BDS — Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions — right here in America, Bill Whittle makes the historical and moral case for Israel, and shows just who, indeed, are the tyrants and aggressors in the Middle East


In which our host, Andrew Klavan, points out that the leftists behind the current Boycott, Divestment and Sanction, or BDS, efforts against the State of Israel are not at all anti-semitic. They just hate Jews and want to kill them…


Israel is a vibrant democracy with full rights for women and gays, a free press and independent judiciary. You would think that the United Nations would celebrate such a country. Instead, the UN condemns Israel at every turn to the point of obsession. How did this happen? Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights, explains in five eye-opening minutes.


Are Israeli Settlements the Barrier to Peace?

Is Israel’s policy of building civilian communities in the West Bank the reason there’s no peace agreement with the Palestinians? Or would there still be no peace even if Israel removed all of its settlements and evicted Israeli settlers, as it did in Gaza in 2005? Renowned Harvard professor and legal scholar Alan Dershowitz explains.


Kenneth Meshoe – Black South African Member of Parliament, Talks About Israel and Apartheid


Is Israel an Apartheid State?


Kenneth Meshoe, Member of Parliament in South Africa, Talks Israel


The History of the Middle East Conflict in 11 Minutes:


Why Israel can’t withdraw to its pre ’67 borders line:


Larry Elder On Israel (Plus: “Son of Hamas”)


A Challenge To Medved on Jewish/Israeli History


Medved Makes Short Order of Some Tired Ol’ Mantras


BDS: The Attempt to Strangle Israel ~ Dershowitz


The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement says it’s fighting for Palestinian rights, but it’s really just trying to destroy Israel. Jonathan Sacks, author and former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, explains how.


The Middle East Problem ~ Prager


UN vs Israel ~ Dr. Anne Bayefsky


Anti-Israeli Views at the NYT & the U.N. Exemplified ~ Prager


A Pro-Palestinian Call Taken ~ Prager


Caller Asks Dennis Prager About Palestinian History


Israel Palestinian Conflict: The Truth About the West Bank


ISRAEL VS THE WORLD!! ~ Crowder


Palestine Sucks ~ Crowder

Caroline Glick Tears Into Condescending Dutch Ambassador ~ Must See

This comes by way of Libertarian Republican:

…Making its rounds on many counter-Jihad blogs. It was released 4 days ago. An absolute must see. The nose-in-the-air Dutchman (obviously not of Geert Wilder’s party), makes a stunningly condescending statement. 

[….]

Glick lets him say his peace, then rips into him.

Note – Glick is a longtime friend and colleague of Ayn Randian individualist Pamela Geller, and defended Sarah Palin from vicious attacks by the left in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Architects & Engineers for the Truth of 911 Have Little of Either

At James Randi’s Educational Foundation, I found a great starter to a discussion that reads thus:

A fairly common criticism of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is its quoting of the number of signers of its petition. For example I recently watched a video in which the narrator (I’m paraphrasing) said, ‘At first sight the numbers look impressive, 2000+ architects and engineers, but when you compare that number to the actual number of registered architects and engineers it doesn’t look so impressive.’

And I found this statement at http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don’t believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA (American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings – they don’t seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth – there are also 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE (American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?

And this from Paolo Attivissimo:

…A classic Dunning-Kruger effect. In your opinion, experts are blind but the less competent have 20/20 vision.

Does it not seem strange to you that all the real experts in the field disagree with the “controlled demolition” theories?

Consider the options:

a) all the world’s structural engineers are incompetent, wrong or corrupt and you an a bunch of non-experts are right

b) you are wrong and the world’s structural engineers are right

Ask yourself which of these scenarios is more plausible. Have a nice day.

What is the bottom line? It is this…

  • there are not 2000+ licensed architects and engineers that signed the stupid thing. Last time I looked, there was around 300 licensed architects and 600 engineers (few of them in the civil/structural) field. For comparison – there are about 90,000 licensed architects in the US.

In other words, they have a handfull of “big-building” civil engineers. And the real number are not necessarily signed off on Gage’s theories.

I have posted in the past the anti-semitic connections of the “truther movement” via the last few pages of the Popular Mechanics book:

But there is also this by Cliff Kincaid:

…Not surprisingly, as we have previously reported, Al Jazeera has been a reliable vehicle for the 9/11 “truth” movement, since blaming the U.S. government for the attacks conveniently shifts the blame away from the Arab/Muslim world.

An examination of the website of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth reveals something else that is very interesting—a Moscow-funded Russia Today (RT) broadcast promoting the theory. They seem proud that Moscow is signaling approval of their efforts.

This is not new. Like Al Jazeera, Russia Today television has seized on the 9/11 “truth” movement in the past, even running a series by one of its own “reporters” about the attacks being an “inside job” by certain unnamed officials.

The Kremlin and Arab propagandists must be laughing out loud at the thought that some Americans actually believe the U.S. government engineered an attack on itself on 9/11. They understand that the controversy distracts from the need to identify and defeat America’s real enemies…

And finally, in a recent response to ae911 Truth packing a room full of no experts, but lots of anti-semites, Architect Magazine notes the following (taken from a FaceBook convo I am having):

I am sorry, but when “Architects” and “Engineers” are extant from the room for an official A&E event and the room is full of anti-semites (http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/)… BTW, the AIA disowned Richard Gage:


From Architect Magazine, this recent article on the distance the American Institute of Architects wisely puts between Richard Gage and AE911Truth:

What is more interesting than these bizarre and debunked conspiracy theories is the way that Gage places his AIA membership front and center in his presentations. He seems to be attempting to cloak his organization in the officialdom of the venerable 155-year-old professional institution, even as AIA wants nothing to do with his organization. At the start of his latest film, he explains that he is “a licensed architect of over 20 years and member of the American Institute of Architects.”

Gage often seems to wield his AIA status in promoting his conspiracy theories. In making his case, he also regularly cites that more than 100 AIA members and at least six AIA Fellows have signed his petition calling for a new investigation. In total, Gage says that more than 1,700 of the petition’s roughly 16,000 signatures are from architects and engineers.

During the screening, Gage was at the very least intimating that his organization had been invited to AIA officially.

…Aside from Gage, though, there was not a single other architect in the room, much less an official from AIA, or even another member. The 80-strong crowd was made up largely of members of the local 9/11 Truth movement and other political activists.

There is and never will be an AIA endorsement of these foolish and anti-rational theories of Richard Gage and AE911Truth. Buyer, beware.

It was rather nice of the author to point out the borderline anti-Semitic theories of some of Gage’s followers, theories that Gage only half-heartedly holds away from himself and AE911Truth.

See my “Conspiracy Page” for more related info.

A Small Tribute of Anti-Israel Propaganda for Roger Waters

This (the above and below) is with thanks to Moonbattery!

John Quincy Adams is worth reading at greater length on the topic, as he provides some insight into what has been going on in Iraq now that Obama has prematurely removed our troops:

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, […..] Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST. – TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE…. Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant … While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.

Winston Churchill deserves a longer hearing too:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

“Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

Islam has not changed over the centuries. All that has changed is that never before have we been ruled by people who take Islam’s side against us.