- cross-posted to:
- palestine@lemmygrad.ml
- palestine@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- palestine@lemmygrad.ml
- palestine@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/2778563
cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/2778560
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/to-dislike-certain-ethnicities-is-racist-to-see-jews-as-equal-is-antisemitic/
Zionazis have done more to advance antisemitism in ~ 2 months than an entire generation of neo-nazis could have achieved in a lifetime.
/pol/ is collectively sobbing in the shower with a cheap bottle of whiskey in hand, insecure of themselves after realizing their favorite punching bag is beating them at their own game.
It's a shame zionists are complete cowards because we could totally use the unholy wrath of the IDF to take down neo-nazis in the west.
Surprisingly stoppable force meets eminently movable object
When reading a report on antisemitic incidents compiled by my local Jewish community classical western antisemitism was not the greatest threat to Jews, about 90% of incidents originated in outrage over the occupation and atrocities in Palestine. Zionism seems to be the main driver of antisemitism in today, smearing the good name of Jews worldwide and painting them as genocidal fascists.
A fascist state that's reinforced its ideology so fully that they can't perceive themselves from the outside, now speaking as they would normally to the outside world.
I've seen at least two "media bias" sites mark The Times of Israel as "leans left". Media Bias Fact Check and Ground News.
This isn't the first piece I've read from there that's raised my eyebrows.
Reminder that Media Bias Fact Check pretends centrism and being unbiased are the same. Their rating is on a one dimensional line from “extreme left bias” to “extreme right bias”. The center is labeled “least biased”.
"Kill all Palestinians!" - Biased, right wing.
"Do not kill any Palestinians!" - Biased, left wing.
"Kill only half of the Palestinians." - Least biased.
nothing from Israel is anything resembling left, their politics range from Hitler to Himmler
Ground News.
breadtubers (including deprogram) stop advertising this neoliberal garbage challenge; impossible
Christianity is not just based on practice, location, or beliefs. Christians are the only People based on an assignment. And our divinely ordained task is to be exemplary to all of humanity. To be God’s ambassadors on earth, fighting for the good of everyone.
This is so incredibly similar to sermons I heard as a child. You're not that unique.
Christianity is not just based on practice, location, or beliefs. Christians are the only People based on an assignment.
That's not true though -- grace/belief/practice are sufficient to be Christian (I assume the same in Islam). They're sharing the good news w anyone. It's redemption democraticized.
Among catholics I do believe that they say you can not be saved by grace/faith/belief alone as its basically seen as a starting point of salvation and that from that point on you must work on building your righteousness in the eyes of God by doing your best to embody the the four cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude and the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity.
Simply put catholics to my understanding have to actually try to be good people to fulfill their faith and gain salvation instead of being a shit person their entire lives all the way till they're on their death bed and simply saying "sorry God, my B" (even if it's a moment of genuine reflection) allowing them to save their soul
I don't think that's quite right the idea is more that if you sincerely believed the things you need to believe then you would want to be a good person and if you don't try and be a good person it's a sign that you aren't sincere
No, he’s more right than wrong. Although Catholicism has become more ecumenical in recent years, they used to teach that only baptism in the Catholic Church could get you into heaven. Even babies had that restriction, and 40-50 years ago they were still teaching that an unbaptized baby who dies would go to a place called Limbo. That is no longer taught as it’s incompatible with our more modern sense of morality (it is wrong to harm the innocent). It was (and still kind of is) taught because the only way a religion really grows (other than physical conquest, of course) is via its members having kids. Most people stick with the religion they’re born with, and those that don’t tend to become atheists/spiritual but not religious/non-practicing. Few people move in the other direction. In any case, like so many other doctrines, they got too enthusiastic and painted themselves into a corner on the whole “baptism is necessary for salvation” thing. It’s not the best look in today’s world.
They did a special carve out for the adults too. If you wanted to be baptized but died without it, god will count that. If you’ve never been Ben heard of Jesus or the church, or you heard about it but the people who told you about it were assholes who sent the wrong message, you’re also all good. I think that last one might be a late addition.
At the end of the day the official position as I understand it is that Catholic baptism is the only method they know of to get let into heaven, but god can do whatever the fuck he wants and it’s going to be his call. They still believe in sin and confession and hell afaik but try to have their cake and eat it too by adopting the “you send yourself to hell” wrapper around it.
This has been the official position since the 1200s, the hardline approach is almost entirely a 19th century reaction, with some counter reformation elements.
Oh that’s fascinating. I’m only familiar (to the extent that I am) with the early and the modern history, plus all of that interesting stuff in the middle where they had popes assassinating people and such. But that part was so complex it makes Game of Thrones look like Horton Hears a Who, and I can barely keep any of it straight.
Yeah a lot of shit we think of as archaic is actually Victorian or around that. Particularly with Christianity
I wouldn't have a foggy idea since I'm just a tad more knowledgeable about theology as I am at algebraic math. And spoiler I suck at non-practical math
Time to start preaching a new cristianity at least where i live, since no one puts any of that into practice
Practice meaning all the "extra" stuff catholics do, like hail Mary's. He'd be de emphasizing the importance of rituals in Christianity. Location isn't important to mainstream Christianity afaik.
Beliefs doesn't fit quite as well, I agree. He probably would have said only one belief or something. I still think he might say something like that though, de emphasizing the other beliefs Christians hold. Christian perfectionism, purgatory, gay marriage, none of those things should divide God's people. They should unite to do good things. I'm imagining all this wrapped up in a sermon on serving one's community.
that's just not true, although it is true a fundamental goal of abrahamic religion is the destruction of other faiths. No other religious movements have been near so capable of exterminating other beliefs. We did it so well we basically don't understand how paganism worked in europe correctly anymore.
While I was being hyperbolic, the Abrahamic religions are all monotheistic, share the origins of a book of faith, all answer the same question about the Messiah/prophet/son of god. In Christianity, Jesus is the prophet and came to earth, but did not set up his kingdom here and never will. In Judaism, the prophet has not arrived yet, but will arrive and set up his kingdom on earth. In Islam, the prophet was Muhammad and organised a just society in Medina.
Three metaphysical entities, or one? It's interesting to think about.
Dude do not make me start talking about the Gnostic Christians or the Marcionites. They believed Old Testament God (Yaldabaoth) was evil and made the world, and that New Testament God was good but unknowable and ethereal. Referred to like a godlike being in Star Trek almost.
But point is each one has vastly different interpretations even internally
"listen, we are better than everyone else. The holy book said so. If you don't respect us as being better than you, then you must be exactly like the Nazis. Also stop diluting Jewish culture by marrying non-israeli jews and non-jewish people."
Totally normal and cool thing to say, and is definitely not bigoted in anyway.
Oh isn't this just fundamentalism? Taking the idea of God's chosen people too far and ending up a supremacist.
I still can't wrap my head around the fact that that Jews were vitcims of the most famous genocide, how can zionism even exist???
how can zionism even exist???
Anglo imperialism is a hell of a drug
Afrikaners were held in concentration camps by the British where women and children were fed sugar laced with broken glass, and 28 000 of the 154 000 Afrikaners imprisoned in the camps died. Apartheid then happened less than 50 years after that...
I quoted Finkelstein on this recently and I am just gonna copy that over again here
This is something Finkelstein talks about in Holocaust Industry. How the zionists view everyone else as guilty gentiles who will inevitably try to exterminate them, including peoples who have no history with Jews. This supposition justifies military action and condescension. That they are literally "chosen" people and thus correct no matter what
This is from his original article
There is another factor at work. The claim of Holocaust uniqueness is a claim for Jewish uniqueness. Not the suffering of Jews but that Jews suffered is what made the Holocaust unique: the Holocaust is special because Jews are special. Thus Ismar Schorsch, chancellor of Jewish Theological Seminary, ridicules the Holocaust uniqueness claim as 'a distasteful secular version of chosenness'. For Anti Defamation League (ADL) head Abraham Foxman, the Holocaust 'was not simply one example of genocide but a near successful attempt on the life of God's chosen children and, thus, on God himself. And Elie Wiesel is no less vehement that Jews are unique than he is about the uniqueness of the Holocaust: 'Everything about us is different.
The Holocaust dogma of Gentile hatred also validates the complementary dogma of uniqueness. If the Holocaust marked the climax of a millennial Gentile hatred of the Jews, the persecution of non-Jews in the Holocaust was merely accidental and the persecution of non-Jews in history merely episodic. From every standpoint, Jewish suffering during the Holocaust was unique. Embedded in the Holocaust framework, much of the literature on Hitler's final solution is worthless as scholarship. The first major Holocaust hoax was The Painted Bird by Polish emigre Jerzy Kosinski. The book was 'written in English', Kosinski explained, so that 'I could write dispassionately, free from the emotional connotation one's native language always contains'. In fact, whatever parts he actually authored (an unresolved question) were written in Polish. The book purports to be the autobiographical account of a solitary child wandering through rural Poland during WWII. In fact, Kosinski lived with his parents throughout the war. The book's motif is the sadistic, sexual tortures perpetrated by the Polish peasantry. Pre-publication readers derided it as a 'pornography of violence' and 'the product of a mind obsessed with sadomasochistic violence'. The book depicts the Polish peasants he lived with as virulently anti-Semitic. 'Beat the Jews,' they jeer. 'Beat the bastards.' In fact, Polish peasants harboured the Kosinski family, fully aware of their Jewishness and the dire consequences they themselves faced if caught. Kosinski invented most of the pathological episodes he narrates.
In the New York Times Book Review, Wiesel acclaimed The Painted Bird as one of the best indictments of the Nazi era, 'written with deep sincerity and sensitivity'. Cynthia Ozick later said that she immediately recognized Kosinski's authenticity as 'a Jewish survivor and witness to the Holocaust'. Long after Kosinski was exposed as a consummate literary hoaxer, Wiesel continued to heap encomiums on his 'remarkable body of work'. Best-seller and award-winner, translated into numerous languages, required reading in high school and college classes, The Painted Bird became a basic Holocaust text. Finally exposed by an investigative news weekly, Kosinski was still stoutly defended by the New York Times, which alleged that he was the victim of a communist plot. To his credit, Kosinski did undergo a kind of deathbed conversion. In the few years between his exposure and his suicide, he deplored the Holocaust's exclusion of non-Jewish victims. 'Many North American Jews tend to perceive the Shoah as an exclusively Jewish disaster ... But at least half the world's Romanies (unfairly called Gypsies), some 2.5 million Polish Catholics, millions of Soviet citizens and various nationalities, were also victims of this genocide.' He also paid tribute to the bravery of the Poles who sheltered him during the Holocaust despite his so-called Semitic looks. Angrily asked at a Holocaust conference what did the Poles do to save the Jews, Kosinski snapped back, 'What did the Jews do to save the Poles?'...
From the book of the same name so some of this is verbatim from the essay, but expanded on, I decided to copy both
Two central dogmas underpin the Holocaust framework: (1) The Holocaust marks a categorically unique historical event; (2) The Holocaust marks the climax of an irrational, eternal Gentile hatred of Jews. Neither of these dogmas figured at all in pubhc discourse before the June 1967 war; and, although they became the centerpieces of Holocaust literature, neither figures at all in genuine scholarship on the Nazi holocaust.2 On the other hand, both dogmas draw on important strands in Judaism and Zionism.
There is another factor at work. The claim of Holocaust uniqueness is a claim of Jewish uniqueness. Not the suffering of Jews but that Jews suffered is what made The Holocaust unique. Or: The Holocaust is special because Jews are special. Thus Ismar Schorsch, chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, ridicules the Holocaust uniqueness claim as "a distasteful secular version of chosenness."18 Vehement as he is about the uniqueness of The Holocaust, Elie Wiesel is no less vehement that Jews are unique. "Everything about us is different." Jews are "ontologically" exceptional. 1 9 Marking the climax of a millennial Gentile hatred of Jews, The Holocaust attested not only to the unique suffering of Jews but to Jewish uniqueness as well.
Appropriating a Zionist tenet, the Holocaust framework cast Hitler's Final Solution as the climax of a millennial Gentile hatred of Jews. The Jews perished because all Gentiles, be it as perpetrators or as passive collaborators, wanted them dead. "The free and 'civilized' world,» according to Wiesel, handed the Jews «over to the executioner. There were the killers — the murderers - and there were those who remained silent."21 The historical evidence for a murderous Gentile impulse is nil. Daniel Goldhagen's ponderous effort to prove one variant of this claim in Hitler's Willing Executioners barely rose to the comical.22 Its political utility, however, is considerable. One might note, incidentally, that the "eternal anti-Semitism» theory in fact gives comfort to the anti-Semite. As Arendt says in The Origins of Totalitarianism, «that this doctrine was adopted by professional anti-Semites is a matter of course; it gives the best possible alibi for all horrors. If it is true that mankind has insisted on murdering Jews for more than two thousand years, then Jew-killing is a normal, and even human, occupation and Jew-hatred is justified beyond the need of argument. The more surprising aspect of this explanation is that it has been adopted by a great many unbiased historians and by an even greater number of Jews. "23
The Holocaust dogma of eternal Gentile hatred has served both to justify the necessity of a Jewish state and to account for the hostility directed at Israel. The Jewish state is the only safeguard against the next (inevitable) outbreak of homicidal anti-Semitism; conversely, homicidal anti-Semitism is behind every attack or even defensive maneuver against the Jewish state. To account for criticism of Israel, fiction writer Cynthia Chick had a ready answer: "The world wants to wipe out the Jews ... the world has always wanted to wipe out the Jews. "24 If all the world wants the Jews dead, truly the wonder is that they are still alive — and, unlike much of humanity, not exactly starving.
This dogma has also conferred total license on Israel: Intent as the Gentiles always are on murdering Jews, Jews have every right to protect themselves, however they see fit. Whatever expedient Jews might resort to, even aggression and torture, constitutes legitimate self-defense. Deploring the "Holocaust lesson" of eternal Gentile hatred. Boas Evron observes that it "is really tantamount to a deliberate breeding of paranoia.... This mentality ... condones in advance any inhuman treatment of non-Jews, for the prevailing mythology is that 'all people collaborated with the Nazis in the destruction of Jewry,' hence everything is permissible to Jews in their relationship to other peoples. "25
In the Holocaust framework. Gentile anti-Semitism is not only ineradicable but also always irrational. Going far beyond classical Zionist, let alone standard scholarly, analyses, Goldhagen construes anti-Semitism as "divorced from actual Jews," "fundamentally not a response to any objective evaluation of Jewish action," and "independent of Jews' nature and actions." A Gentile mental pathology, its «host domain" is "the mind." (emphasis in original) Driven by "irrational arguments," the anti-Semite, according to Wiesel, "simply resents the fact that the Jew exists. "26 "Not only does anything Jews do or refrain from doing have nothing to do with anti-Semitism," sociologist John Murray Cuddihy critically observes, "but any attempt to explain anti-Semitism by referring to the Jewish contribution to anti-Semitism is itself an instance of anti-Semitism!" (emphasis in original)27 The point, of course, is not that anti-Semitism is justifiable, nor that Jews are to blame for crimes committed against them, but that anti-Semitism develops in a specific historical context with its attendant interplay of interests. "A gifted, well-organized, and largely successful minority can inspire conflicts that derive from objective inter- group tensions," Ismar Schorsch points out, although these conflicts are «often packaged in anti-Semitic stereotypes. "28
The irrational essence of Gentile anti-Semitism is inferred inductively from the irrational essence of The Holocaust. To wit. Hitler's Final Solution uniquely lacked rationality — it was «evil for its own sake," «purposeless" mass killing; Hitler's Final Solution marked the culmination of Gentile anti-Semitism; therefore Gentile anti-Semitism is essentially irrational. Taken apart or together, these propositions do not withstand even superficial scrutiny. 29 Politically, however, the argument is highly serviceable.
By conferring total blamelessness on Jews, the Holocaust dogma immunizes Israel and American Jewry from legitimate censure. Arab hostility, African-American hostility: they are "fundamentally not a response to any objective evaluation of Jewish action" (Goldhagen).30 Consider Wiesel on Jewish persecution: «For two thousand years ... we were always threatened.... For what? For no reason." On Arab hostility to Israel: "Because of who we are and what our homeland Israel represents — the heart of our lives, the dream of our dreams -when our enemies try to destroy us, they will do so by trying to destroy Israel." On Black people's hostility to American Jews: "The people who take their inspiration from us do not thank us but attack us. We find ourselves in a very dangerous situation. We are again the scapegoat on all sides.... We helped the blacks; we always helped them.... I feel sorry for blacks. There is one thing they should learn from us and that is gratitude. No people in the world knows gratitude as we do; we are forever grateful. "31 Ever chastised, ever innocent: this is the burden of being a Jew. 32
The Holocaust dogma of eternal Gentile hatred also validates the complementary Holocaust dogma of uniqueness. If The Holocaust marked the climax of a millennial Gentile hatred of the Jews, the persecution of non-Jews in The Holocaust was merely accidental and the persecution of non-Jews in history merely episodic. From every standpoint, then, Jewish suffering during The Holocaust was unique.
Finally, Jewish suffering was unique because the Jews are unique. The Holocaust was unique because it was not rational. Ultimately, its impetus was a most irrational, if all-too-human, passion. The Gentile world hated Jews because of envy, jealousy: resentment. Anti-Semitism, according to Nathan and Ruth Ann Perlmutter, sprang from "gentile jealousy and resentment of the Jews' besting Christians in the marketplace . . . large numbers of less accomplished gentiles resent smaller numbers of more accomplished Jews. "33 Albeit negatively. The Holocaust thus confirmed the chosenness of Jews. Because Jews are better, or more successful, they suffered the ire of Gentiles, who then murdered them.
Fuck me, Ellie Wiesel was/is(? Idk I’m not in school) “a basic Holocaust text.” Night on its own may not reproduce this narrative, but knowing about the author’s Zionism makes it feel more insidious.
Zionism feels like a mayo-supremacist mindgame to get all the world's people to blame Jews instead of Anglos
Still not convinced it isn't that
Zionists and Anglos are both fascists and imperialists, so you are still blaming the same group
yea but but one's been fascist for 400 years and owns three continents of land
the other's been fascist for 70 and owns a place smaller than New Jersey
Shit like this is why I consider myself an antitheist. This is brain rot.
th....thank you for the..the kind and sweet tops you've brought into my life Miss Venus, Maam.
And also for puppies.
That moment when you use the exact same argument Hitler used for why the Aryan race should rule Europe.