Er bestaat een wezenlijk verschil tussen de westerse filosofie, zoals we die kennen sinds de Griekse Oudheid, en het Joodse Geloof. Het westerse denken gaat uit van de premissen dat iedereen gelijk voor de wet hoort te zijn en dat de democratie de best denkbare vorm van bestuur is. Het Joodse Geloof en de zionistische ideologie staan haaks op die twee essentiële aannames, hoe gebrekkig die ook mogen worden toegepast. Het Joodse denken, zowel in zijn religieuze als zijn zionistische vorm, gaat ervan uit dat er een diepe kloof bestaat tussen de wereldbevolking en het Joodse volk. Het Griekse denken is gebaseerd op de menselijke ratio, het Joodse daarentegen op de goddelijke openbaring. Religieuze Joden gaan er blind vanuit dat zij tot ‘God’s uitverkoren volk’ behoren, tegelijkertijd is het zionistisch regime in Israel heilig ervan overtuigd dat door het ‘antisemitisme’ de jood de zogeheten 'diaspora' altijd de buitenstaander zal blijven. Ook dit zijn niet meer dan veronderstellingen, maar wel postulaten die lijnrecht staan tegenover de westerse aannames. De verschillen tussen enerzijds het westerse rationalisme en anderzijds het Joodse geloof c.q. de zionistische ideologie vormen een onoverbrugbare kloof, zoals niet alleen uit de geschiedenis blijkt, maar ook uit de stellingname van hedendaagse fanatieke zionisten van het CIDI, zoals blijkt uit de beweringen van onder andere Hidde J. van Koningsveld. Een voorbeeld: maandag 19 november 2018:
CIDI heeft geretweet
Hidde J. van Koningsveld
@koningsveld
Dit is op z’n minst vreemd te noemen! Airbnb zegt woningen in betwiste gebieden te verwijderen, maar komt na het toepassen van hun ‘decision-making framework’ tot de conclusie dat dit nieuwe beleid ALLEEN van toepassing is op Joodse huizen op de West Bank
Hier beweert een Joods-Nederlandse rechtenstudent, verbonden aan het CIDI, dat het op ‘z’n minst vreemd’ is dat de wereldgemeenschap van oordeel is dat Joden niet boven de wet staan, en zij zich dus dienen te houden aan de internationaal vastgelegde rechtsregels, zoals ik in de vorige aflevering gedocumenteerd heb beschreven. Wat in het bewustzijn van Joodse extremisten ‘betwiste gebieden’ zijn, blijken in werkelijkheid, aldus de Verenigde Naties, eigendom te zijn van de Palestijnse bevolking. Dat de overgrote meerderheid van de ongeveer 5 miljoen Joden in Israel in dit geval als enige zich niets aantrekt van de rechtsregels van de wereldgemeenschap, laat zien hoe pathologisch het zionisme is. De kunstmatige scheiding, die Joden hebben aangebracht tussen henzelf en de rest van de mensheid, duidt op een ernstige en gevaarlijke psychologische stoornis. Om dit duidelijk te maken, zal ik ditmaal twee bronnen gebruiken, beiden Joods, beiden Israelische burgers. Allereerst Lynda Burstein Brayer, ‘an Israeli lawyer who has represented Palestinians in the Israeli courts. She has lived in Israel/Palestine for over fifty years and considers herself political dissident and lives in an Arab township. She writes out of her own experiences.’ Op de website The Saker van 23 november 2018 schreef zij met betrekking tot ‘Zionism, Judaism and the Jewish State of Israel: Separateness, ontological uniqueness and Jewish morality are its characteristics’ het volgende:
The Jewish oxymoron as an instrument of overcoming the limits set by Aristotelian logic
One of the binary opposites of Aristotelian classification in modern times is the democracy/dictatorship opposition. Democracy is recognized and understood to be of whole cloth, such that there is no such animal as a ‘somewhat’ democratic state, or a ‘nearly’ democratic state. A political system is not democratic if all the citizens of the country cannot participate on an equal basis. Either a political system is, or is not, democratic. Jewish genius however, has overcome this opposition with a number of oxymoronic legal definitions. The Jewish state of Israel characterizes itself as a ‘Jewish and democratic’ state, although the latest law of the Knesset wishes to raise ‘Jewishness’ above ‘democracy.’ However, it must be blindingly obvious to anyone not in thrall to the ruling narratives, that when a minority of a population is regarded as hostile, is unwelcome and therefore is never part of a governing coalition, democracy must be a casualty, especially when that minority has been singled out for discriminatory and dispossessory treatment, despite the legal somersaulting of the greatest of Jewish legal minds.
The designation of Israel as an apartheid state characterized by apartheid- style laws has been accepted by leading jurists and many international organizations. As a former South African I not only know the meaning of the term in its original language of Afrikaans — separateness — but saw its effects upon the non-White population. In political practice, separate means unequal. It was only many years after my coming to Israel on aliya (Joodse emigratie naar Palestina. svh) as a young Jewish woman and subsequent to obtaining a law degree from the Hebrew University and engaging in legal work for Palestinians, that the resemblance of Israeli legal system to South African apartheid really struck me. In fact I was quoted on the front page of the Ha’aretz intellectual daily newspaper as making this comparison. The first person to invoke the comparison was Dr. Uri Davis, an Israeli sociologist, who wrote a book called Israel: An Apartheid State.
I would like to elaborate on those elements which contribute to making Israel not only an apartheid State, apartheid being confined to the law, but rather the wider sociological cultural phenomena of discrimination in which the legal system is placed. The matrix of the society is based on force, violence, and inhumanity which derive from ‘values’ of the Jewish religion.
The basic values of the Jewish religion as the basis of Israeli culture and politics.
It can be stated without any fear of contradiction, that the Jewish state of Israel is built upon the principle of separation, which is why the apartheid comparison holds. But it must be understood how and why this is the case as well as the limits of the comparison. It is not an accident, nor a choice based merely upon economic, political or cultural considerations. Rather the principle of separation is at the heart of the Jewish religion itself and Zionism is the political expression of the Jewish religion. Normative Judaism in Israel is Rabbinical Judaism or Talmudic Judaism, which, historically, has been normative for nearly two thousand years. This is the Judaism developed by the Rabbis following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, or who were then known as the Pharisees. This Judaism is not a biblical religion: rather it is a religion based upon the interpretation of the Torah — the relevant parts of the first five books of the Bible from Genesis to Deuteronomy — by a succession of Torah interpreters known as rabbis. I would like to stress that the bible is not normative In Judaism, that is, it is not binding nor is it obligatory for Jews: only the Talmudic rulings are binding. It is for this reason that the politically-concocted ‘Judeo-Christian’ heritage does not hold. Christianity sees the Bible, both Old and New Testaments its standard-setting texts. Not so for Judaism. Judaism and Christianity do not share a parent/child relationship nor an older sibling/younger sibling relationship, as per the politically correct Roman Catholic Church…
This Judaism held a monopoly which began to be challenged only in the mid-nineteenth century in Germany as a result of the influence of what is called the Enlightenment, the source of the secularism of the West and the secularism of a majority of Western Jews, most of whom, nonetheless, have not broken with Judaism’s basic rituals of circumcision, the bar-mitzvah, Jewish divorce and burial.
The late Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University, Shemaryahu Talmon, explained in a lecture to Catholic Christian Zionists, that the basic value of Judaism is the principle of separation. He illustrated his point with the binary opposites of sacred and profane, holy and unholy, Shabbat and non-Shabbat or weekdays, and, of course, kashrut, the laws governing pure and impure food and clothing. All of these pairs are exemplars of the underlying opposition of purity and impurity with purity being the ideal state.
At that meeting he did not however explicate in detail the source and full effects no doubt in deference to his audience. He left out the most significant binary opposition of Rabbinical Judaism: the Jew/Gentile or Jewish/goy opposition, the consequences of which have always been, and remain, central to Jewish life. Talmon did not explain that the principle of separation derives from kadosh — which is translated as holy, but its literal meaning is ‘set aside’ or ‘separate from.’ The separation that both exists and is demanded for Jews is the separation from the ‘impure.’ God is kadosh and His people must be kadosh too. This is the significance of ‘chosenness’ — chosen by God to have the existential quality of purity. The Jew is pure because he possesses a soul — nefesh in Hebrew. The purpose of all Jewish ritual is to sustain the state of purity of the Jew. Jews are commanded to do all in their power to avoid being contaminated by what is considered impure. In contrast to Jews, goys or goyim, the latter having the same dictionary meaning as gentium, people, fall into the category of the impure because they are not born with souls and are therefore, existentially separated from God without any possibility of ‘closing the gap.’ Hence in the Jewish lexicon the term goy has a pejorative (ongunstige. svh) meaning while gentium does not. This is the fundamental reason that the Jew is not required to treat the goy as an equal because, according to Judaism, he is not equal. In fact, the goy is considered as chattel because chattel do not have souls. The goy is therefore not fully human. In this essay I shall only use the term goy for this reason.
This existential distinction between the Jew and the goy is reflected in the absence of a Jewish universal moral code, an absence which is not found within either Christianity or Islam. Judaism’s moral code is characterized by its particularity: it only binds Jews vis-à-vis Jews, not Jews vis-à-vis goys. The most outstanding exemplar of this system is that a Jew is not bound to save the life of a goy if saving the life requires the use of electricity or travelling in a motor vehicle, such as an ambulance, because such activities are forbidden on the Sabbath as they are considered forms or work, and a Jew may not work on the Sabbath. a Jew may do so for another Jew according to the law known as pikuah nefesh which translates as saving a soul. A Jew not only may break the Sabbath to save a Jewish soul, he is obligated to do so. Pikuah may be translated as to take care of and to oversee, and nefesh means soul: because goys do not have souls, pikuah nefesh cannot be applied. In addition, another exceptional phenomena of the Jewish moral code is that it does also not make truth binding upon the Jew with respect to the goy. There are only two instances where it is recommended that a Jew ought to tell the truth to a goy: when there is a danger to his life, or if it is in the interests of the Jew or the Jewish community.
The question may now be asked as to why this information has been placed as a prolegomena to a description and analysis of the laws and practices of the Jewish state. The reason is quite straightforward: everything that I have described does not fall within the written laws passed by the legislative body of Israel, the Knesset, but serves, rather, as the matrix in which the laws are embedded and out of which the laws spring.
The Israeli legal system
It is this background that serves to explain why Aristotelian logic does not have an exclusive hold on the Israeli legal system and why a formal legal analysis cannot, by definition, grasp the entire experiential reality of the separateness/apartheid of the Jewish state. Once the lives of goys have no more value than chattel, the Jewish Israeli legal system cannot provide value to that which has no value to Jews. The minute a Jewish/goy conflict is encountered, that which is regarded as universal morality does not apply. A personal experience of this nature found expression during a hearing on a petition I submitted to the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice (Court of Equity concerning Administrative law and practice) requesting the voiding of a sale of Palestinian land by the majority of its owners (the land was not parcellated [verkaveld. svh] and therefore owned jointly by all the owners). A Justice in the hearing asked me what was wrong with an affidavit containing a blatant lie concerning the ‘sale’ of Palestinian land to a Jew in militarily occupied territory, which is forbidden in international law. My response was that the perjury occurred to make the sale ‘kosher’ at least in Jewish eyes. So the Justice asked what would happen if we just removed the affidavit to which I answered that the ‘sale’ could not go through. The ‘sale’ was not voided by the Court.
The State of Israel does not recognize the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of Civilians and hors de combat as legally binding upon it, although it is recognized as conventional international law, and not just treaty law, and hence binding upon all states. It is not that the Jewish state denies its conventional status but rather because the preamble refers to ‘High Contracting Parties’ and the Palestinians are not, or at least were not, a High Contracting Party. This is a perfect instance of Talmudic logic — catch on to an irrelevant point and avoid the substance and rationale of the Convention. Therefore the Jewish state denies Palestinians, who are both civilians and hors de combat legal protection whilst living under a brutal military occupation whilst the Jewish appellation of the nature of the military occupation is ‘a benign military occupation’ — one of the many oxymorons of Jewish thinking. Therefore the High Court cannot evoke this Fourth Geneva Convention to protect Palestinians in the militarily occupied territories from the Israeli army and refers instead to ‘humanitarian’ considerations with respect to Palestinians, but never ever spells them out. But how could ‘humanitarian’ considerations apply to Palestinians? After all they are goys, and goys have no souls and are therefore like chattel. They don’t deserve humanitarian considerations. This term therefore, in this context, is no more than flatus vocis — empty air, having no corresponding reality.
Wanneer de Joods-Israelisch advocate Lynda Burstein Brayer stelt dat de ‘talmoedische logica’ zich richt ‘op een irrelevant punt om de inhoud en de rationaliteit van’ rechtsregels te kunnen mijden, dan is dit de verklaring bij uitstek voor het feit dat de 22-jarige Nederlandse rechtenstudent, Hidde J. van Koningsveld, de grove schendingen van het internationaal recht moeiteloos kan negeren. De tot het Joodse geloof bekeerde jongeman kan, als voorzitter van de jongerenorganisatie van het CIDI, niets anders dan ervan uitgaan dat zijn Joodse geloofsgenoten, vanwege hun vermeende superioriteit, boven de wet staan. In dit opzicht spoort zijn opvatting met die van de nazi’s. Laatst genoemden meenden dat ‘Ariërs,’ in hun ogen witte West-Europeanen, ‘de bron van alle menselijke beschaving’waren. Bovendien
zouden alleen ‘Arische’ mensen in staat zijn cultuur en wetenschap te bevorderen. Andere ‘rassen,' door de nazi's als niet-waardevol aangemerkt, zouden slechts voor slavenwerk geschikt zijn,
terwijl vooral ‘Joden – gezien als een apart ras,’ door de nazi's werden beschouwd als absoluut inferieur. Getuige hun uitspraken hebben Van Koningsveld en zijn CIDI onvoldoende geleerd van de geschiedenis wanneer zij beweren dat grote delen van de bezette Westbank ‘betwiste gebieden’ zijn, terwijl de rest van de wereld heeft bepaald dat die gebieden juist van de Palestijnse bevolking zijn. Ook hieruit valt op te maken dat ‘the principle of separation is at the heart of the Jewish religion itself and Zionism is the political expression of the Jewish religion,’ zoals mevrouw Burstein Brayer opmerkt. Verder wijst ze in haar essay erop dat:
while South African apartheid was motivated by cultural concerns, not to say economic and political ones, it was not based upon an understanding that blacks and whites constitute different species of mankind. In fact, the South African government had to legislate criminal laws to prevent ‘miscegenation,’ that is the marriage or sexual relationships between people of different races, yet despite the attempts at prohibition, the fact is that as a result of ‘miscegenation,’ a whole new category of ‘race’ or ‘color’ grew up in South Africa numbering in the hundreds of thousands if not millions. The children of such unions were called ‘Coloreds.’
In contrast to that situation, the marriage ratio of Jew and Arab in Israel is infinitesimal and there are no laws against it. Instead, Israel has preserved the millet system from the Ottomans, millet meaning religious community, according to which people can only marry legally within their own religious group. Naturally this was not considered discriminatory at the time, because secularism had not yet set in. ‘Mixed marriages’ involving Israeli Jews and goys have to take place abroad or abroad by proxy. But any Jewish woman wanting to divorce a non-Jewish man and remarry a Jew, has to have a Jewish divorce. There are special types of divorces for these cases, when they are applicable. Otherwise if she remarries a Jew without obtaining a Jewish divorce, called a get, her children and their descendents will be Jewish bastards and forbidden to marry within the normal Jewish community for ten generations! The Rabbinate keeps a list of the names of bastards.
Amongst the most egregious discriminatory laws are those legislated soon after the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine. There is a full list of them with comments compiled on the Israeli Arab legal site Adalah and may be accessed by anyone interested. I shall not deal with all of them naturally, but will touch on the most outstanding of them.
One of the first and most crucial of such laws for the Jewish state is the Law of Return 1950. This is another oxymoronic manifestation of Jewish genius. This law says that Jews, who were not born in the Jewish state, may return to it because it is their ‘land of birth.’ The term in Hebrew is moledet the root of which means ‘to be born.’ What the law does is ignore the fact of birth outside of Israel of a Jew, that is, the de facto status of a foreign-born Jew, while assigning to him a de iure legal right of birth in the Jewish state. The legal right overcomes the fact. This translates into a situation that a Jew not born in the Jewish state may return to his land of birth of Israel where he was not born.
An Arab Palestinian refugee, born in Palestine has no right of return to the country of his birth according to the Citizenship Law. One of the mechanisms for the application of this law is the ius sanguinis — the law of blood. That is to say, that if you are born to a Jew you have acquired birthrights in Palestine whether you were born there or not. This is what accounts for the free entrance of Diaspora Jews into Israel.
The Arabs acquire citizenship in Israel according to the ius soli, that is to say, because they were born in this territory — on the soil, so to speak. But these are not inheritable rights. In other words, if a Palestinian Israeli family with Israeli citizenship moves abroad for a few years, any child born abroad has no automatic right of return to Israel, particularly as an adult. This is the law that forbids the return of the 1948 refugees and their descendants. But it must be understood that this law is crucial in order to have a Jewish state in Palestine. You have to keep out Palestinians to keep Israel Jewish.
A second crucial law, also from 1950 is the Absentees Property Law concerned the dispossession of Arab private property within the Jewish State. The state invented a new category of persons, who, despite enjoying de iure property rights prior to the creation of the Jewish state, suddenly found themselves deprived of property rights, a status unheard of elsewhere in the world, seeing as the central significance of the scope of property rights is erga omnes — rights against anyone encroaching on these property rights. Jewish genius not only managed to by-pass this exclusionary factor but transformed the de iure right into a de facto issue with the wave of a pen contingent upon a factual situation. What the Jewish law created was a new status of a ‘present absentee’ for the Arab property owner another somersault defying Aristotle’s Excluded Middle without any difficulty whatsoever. What is a ‘present absentee’? Well, first of all only an Arab can be an ‘absentee,’ an Arab born in Palestine or in the Ottoman Empire before Palestine was extruded from Greater Syria. It never applies to a Jew born in Palestine nor to Jewish immigrant to Palestine nor to Jews who live abroad but who own property in Israel. The ‘absentee' of the law, through its labyrinthine twists refers to Arabs who own property in Palestine/Israel but who were absent from their homes, even if for only one day during a period beginning on the 29th November 1947 — even before the Jewish state existed. It refers to those people who fled from the war, who were in ‘enemy territory’ in Palestine and those who were expelled from Palestine itself or were ordered to leave their homes by the Jewish forces. That is to say, even someone who was ‘absent’ from his home since that date, continuing through the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel, but who managed to remain in the Jewish State of Israel, lost his property rights. The villages in Northern Galilee of Ikrit and Bir’in are examples of their populations being expelled by the Jewish forces and who were prevented from returning when the war was over. For the purposes of all other laws in Israel, a Palestinian Arab is ‘present’ in the Jewish state. I estimate that Palestinians have lost more than 90% of their privately owned land. Since then, the Town Planning Law has been eating away at the rest.
The latest laws which have caused stirs abroad concern the downgrading of the Arabic language from being an official language — in law — but never in practice. And the other law, the National Law posits that the Jewish state of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish nation leaving out all reference to the Palestinian Arab population but I am not sure how it is going to be applicable, particularly as there are other discriminatory practices to do its business.
Dit zijn allemaal feiten uit de praktijk die duidelijk maken dat Israel geen democratische rechtstaat is, waar elke burger gelijk is voor de wet. Maar deze feiten zult u niet van Hidde J. van Koningsveld vernemen, laat staan van Hannah Luden, directeur van de hasbarainstelling het CIDI. Door hun pathologisch mens- en wereldbeeld ontbreekt het hen aan westerse logica, zoals die ooit eens door Aristoteles werd vastgelegd. Dat heeft uiteindelijk niets met hun Joodszijn te maken, maar wel alles met hun menszijn, zoals onder andere blijkt uit de volgende woorden van de Joods-Israelische advocate Lynda Burstein Brayer aan het eind van haar essay:
I believe that this Jewish principle of separation, this principle that determines that Jews are not the same species as goys, enforces a psychopathy on its adherents. The justice could not bear what he was doing, so he just ran away. He did not stop and stand up and ask what the hell was going on? What the hell was a state destroying the housing of human beings? Yet he knew that it was wrong. He knew that it was evil.
It is for this reason that I believe that Zionism has wrought is the destruction of the Jewish heart. After all, what is touched when we see the suffering of others? Our hearts. And I discovered that this heartlessness was not confined to Arabs. In a labor case, I represented a man of about 63 who was the head of a government hospital kitchen accused of stealing food. The ‘food’ stolen was the leftovers of chicken soup the bones of which had been through three preparations, together with leftover vegetables on his and others’ plates. He took this ‘food’ home for the thirteen cats which his mentally ill wife looked after in her madness. He was a religious Jew and would not consider putting her in a mental home. The reason for the accusation was that someone wanted his job. After I clarified the nature of the food and provided his history, his having been through four camps during the war, and his wife having lived underground in hiding for a couple of years, I burst out into tears, pointing out how grotesque the entire process was in all its aspects. The prosecutor replied by telling me ‘not to be so emotional’ and my reply to her was that as soon as I no longer felt emotional about human suffering, I would give up the profession of law. I did win the case however, and the judge in the trial always spoke to me fondly when we met in other venues.
This hardness of heart finds expression with respect to the marriage of Arabs — both Christian and Moslem. There is no overall protection of non-Jewish marriage either in the Jewish state or in the militarily occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza. Israel controls all ports and points of entry and exist into the Palestinian territory east of the River Jordan. The Jewish State treats some non-Jewish marriages as neither sacred nor as the basic building block of society. On the contrary. For twelve years now, marriage between Arabs with Israeli citizenship who live in Israel proper with spouses from either the militarily occupied West Bank and Gaza or even from abroad receive no conjugal rights in the Jewish State of Israel. Therefore an Israeli Arab has no rights to create a family in Israel if his spouse is from Palestinian territories or from abroad. West Bank Arabs are not allowed to bring in spouses from Jordan or elsewhere. In other words, Israel does its best to limit demographic growth of Arabs under its control. The hardships are unbearable in most cases: some couples have to split up, others lose their homes and/or their livelihood, are split off from families etc. etc. The barrier wall built on Palestinian land to protect Israel has split towns, village, families and homes to an egregious extent. It can take up to one or two hours for people to make a one-way trip to the other side of the wall.
It is clear therefore that there is a profound cruelty and inhumanity at the basis of the Israeli system and as the one example I gave demonstrated, it is not always confined to Arabs, except in 99% of the cases.
What can be observed from this overview of interlocking fields of endeavor, is that the Jewish regime in Palestine has done and continues to deprive Palestinians of many of their rights in law as well as their rights as human beings. Is it unreasonable to suspect that the Jewish regime has not let up in its efforts to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its non-Jewish residents, following the huge success of the Naqba or Catastrophe, as the Arabs call it, in 1948 when 90% of the Arab Palestinian population was expelled from Jewish-controlled Palestine?
I have been asked as to what I consider to be the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There will never be a freely-agreed upon political solution unless the Jews admit to their theft and destruction of Palestine which nobody can see happening. But I do see Israel ‘bleeding’ its Ashkenazi or ‘white’ population leaving behind a far weaker country with no proper ruling elite. In this case, I do not see how a Jewish State will survive, despite its being a creation of the international banking cartel.
Over de ‘psychopathy’ — de psychische stoornis onder Joodse extremisten — schreef de Franse auteur Laurent Guyénot in zijn boek From Jahweh to Zion (2018):
In The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, Joel Bakan (Amerikaanse hoogleraar svh) noted that large companies behave like psychopaths, insensitive to the suffering of those they crush in their pursuit of profit: ‘Corporate behavior is very similar to that of a psychopath.’ Yet a company’s culture, while involving every employee to one degree or another, is driven by its ruling elite. The Enron scandal has shown the world the tremendous damage that can be done by a company run by people of high intelligence and perverse ideology. My analysis here of the Jewish community is based on exactly the same reasoning. Like it or not, the character of a nation is exemplified and largely determined by its leaders, whether legitimate or illegitimate.
Not all elites deserve to be put in the same bag. Many Zionist leaders have had the courage to confront the monster they created, and to try to undo the damage. Moshe Sharett, foreign minister from 1948 to 1956 and prime minister from 1954 to 1955, advocated a moderate Zionism respectful of international rules, in contrast to the methods of Ben-Gurion, Pinhas Levon, Moshe Dayan, and Shimon Peres, the clan bent on ‘setting the Middle East on fire.’ Yet men like Sharett have always remained isolated and never had a chance to overcome the psychopathic ideological power machine of Zionism. Israel seems destined to be directed by the most extremist, openly racist, paranoid, and Machiavellian elements — the most lacking in all inhibitions normally imposed by empathy and respect for other peoples.
In the final analysis, was not this destiny blueprinted in the Bible? If Israel seems bewitched by a sociopathic destiny, is it the fault of its evil genius Yahweh? Does not the Zionist manipulation go back to the creation by the ancient Levites of this particularly xenophobic tribal egregore (autonoom psychisch geheel samengesteld uit het gedachtegoed van een groep mensen. svh) that has usurped the title of ‘Creator of the Universe’ and ‘Father of Humanity’?
As a collective entity, the Jewish people has always behaved like a sociopath among other peoples. Many Jews, of course, have resisted that collective mind frame. But most have been bred into it for generations — not just by their parents, but by their tribal god, the fake Yahweh. Today’s Jews cannot be blamed for having inherited as sacred text the most extraordinary hoax (bedrog. svh) in all human history. As children of a psychopathic god, they are his first victims. But although no one is responsible for the faith he has grown up with, everyone, at some stage, should take responsibility tor it.
Uiteindelijk zal het Joods zionistisch tribalisme de ondergang van de zelfbenoemde ‘Joodse Staat’ veroorzaken, of misschien zelfs de genocide inluiden van de gehele mensheid, wanneer het ‘Samson-Complex’ uitloopt op een nucleaire wereldoorlog. Ironisch genoeg zou het Armageddon gezien kunnen worden als de finale wraak van de ziekelijke tribale god van de Joden en van fundamentalistische Christenen die Israel blind blijven steunen, in de hoop daarmee de genocide dichterbij te brengen van allen die niet in hun gestoorde god geloven. Meer daarover de volgende keer.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten