Tolerance of Racism?

[SaggyBalls]

do you have any examples of that, Mr. Mouse?

I'll say it again: the words don't do the work.

[Thorgnor]

?

sophistry

Edited July 18, 2009 by Guest

[SaggyBalls]

Lame jab?

[SaggyBalls]

(I thought that 'Sophism' remark was funny, since 'sophists' supposedly accused their opponents of being deceivers - or 'sophists')

Birdy - aren't people in our culture brought up to believe that the truth is powerful and transformative? Personally, I believe that's the same as telling people they can be whatever they want when they grow up without helping kids find out what they would really like to be.

Where's the photo of a mushroom cloud?

Parent/godparent/helpful neighbour/awesome aunt or uncle?? These are all forms of 'teacher'

In some ways, becoming a teacher to suit your own personal social control aims is a bit underhanded and creepy - even if those goals are altruistic.

Maybe I should start a company called 'Iseberg' and have the logo be shaped like an iceberg field from under the water shaped like a sort of abstract Star of David.

Think it'd work out for me?

[Birdy]

Who knows what people are taught to believe, YT - that's kind of the problem. So all things short of an a-bomb and the most ridiculous form of social control my mind is capable of imagining (aka, the only things i think really do have the ability to re-engineer the world), the only way of messaging this message is to deliver it in the formative years. So if that means you become a teacher, or be a good neighbour or an awesome uncle, you gotta get 'em while they're young. And that's still no guarantee, because like you've been pointing out to Thorgnor, it's just words. You're relying on them to have the sort of impact you desire.

At least my route is the safer one. I envision Thorgnor kindly pointing out the difficulties of participating in racial discourse to a wife-beater clad, Harley riding beefcake at the Golden Tap in Chatham as they make jabs at the Jamaican seasonal workers. Ghandian style martyrdom, i imagine.

Anyway... that little paragraph could be a case in point. Why do i imagine anything in that scenario?

A-bomb.

Attempting social control in ANY scenario YT is kinda creepy, but it's done everyday.

[Birdy]

Working examples:

See ya on the other side.

[SaggyBalls]

I think much of the cause of the problem HAS been social control.

I wonder what the world would be like if we let up on all forms of social control.

I think in the short term it would be madness, but in time, peoples' moralsity and ethics would shine through where it is otherwise forced.

[Birdy]

You think?

Even if you consider something like a no smoking sign is a form of social control... or a stop sign on a street?

I think you might be on to something... in all of my claiming to be a libertarian, i've always added the disclaimer that it wouldn't work in our society. But, have always thought without these (all) elements of social control, we would be forced to be more thoughtful of one another. Tack on several conversations with people who don't believe man is good and here I am a little later wondering if i'm totally the most naive person in the world.

Regardless, i agree madness would ensue, but I'm inclined to think we'd have no choice but to bring ourselves out of that madness.

[SaggyBalls]

abolish the stop sign. Yield is the way to go.

Perhaps you're more unassuming than naive?

[Birdy]

I don't know. I really do believe that any irrational situation can be talked out rationally with anyone, if you put yourself on their level (whatever that may be). I've had too many people tell me that it's been my good luck that i've yet to have an experience to prove this wrong. When they say this, I wonder just how hard they attempted to go to that different level.

Drawk posted a while back that good people are generally inclined to see good in others. I'm not gonna say i'm awesome ( Thorgnor), but i think i'm a decent person, and i kinda wondered after he said this if it were true, and perhaps i am unassuming... naive, even.

Whatever it is, i'm glad that i'm of the variety that sees good in mankind.

I say abolish the stop sign too. This country needs more roundabouts.

[SaggyBalls]

Roundabouts!!

2 were installed this year in the closest town to me. I'm so amused to see people annoyed with them, because I know that someday they could save their lives and give them some peace of mind.

If we were all socialized to be more aware and conscious of our actions/their consequences, there would be less of a need for rules, regulations, and social control. It could be argues that those measures have been put in place to keep us dependant on the rulemakers and the rest of the system...so we will gladly pay their salaries and put up less of a fight when things don't work out...after all, the system was designed to work properly. But I digress...

I don't know that I see the good in others and perhaps I overstate that we're not reaching our potential, but we certainly won't reach anything immense if we focus on all the petty, unjust, and inhumane actions and attitudes of the past and present.

So say I'm at the local redneck bar and overhear a jab at a seasonal jamaican worker.

Do I scold that douchebag (maybe not through and through, but he at least has a bit of vinegar in him); or do I try to turn the joke/jab into a conversation about the best spicy rub for BBQ chicken in the grocery store (Grace Jerk Rub...thanks again Dancin' Man), comment that they've been drinking from stubbies just like us for years, and talk about how much fun reggae parties are & how similar rudeboys and cowboys are (talk out my ass to cut out some hostility so i can put some Bob Marley on the Jukebox)?

"They come here for work and a safe way of life...we go there to vacation and get laid back."

Who knows...maybe that's that guy's cue to go out for a spliff.

I think many of the racist/'racialized' ideas stem more from socioeconomic factors than mere cultural differences. Perhaps it's just as unfair for me to generalize about poor people, but (I don't mind, and) perhaps that has more to do with said migrant worker being less 'refined' (than a beefcake bigot? sometimes, in some ways) than someone with the advantage a Canadian way of life affords.

Either way, somebody's gotta pick that dumb fuck's tomatoes or chickens.

[Birdy]

But to change the way the world sees itself, we'll need the biggest army of ass-talkers this world has ever seen. Ass-talkers who aren't likely to fall off the ass-talking wagon should they be provoked in the slightest little way. God, imagine the brawl.

Once, a girlfriend of mine got all up in some guy's face who just threatened to kill her friend who was running his mouth (and perhaps had thrown a few punches, but that part's up for question). Could be my socioeconomic conditioning, but i was seriously a little weary of this dude just by looking at him.

I was happily sitting away on the porch, drinking some drinks and didn't even realize what was happening on the street. Until i saw buddy lunge at her neck. He punched her in the neck! Seriously... who punches people in the neck? Regardless, she freaked out, another friend jumped up to pull her away from the scene and buddy on the road started calling on the entire front yard. I went out and chatted with him... told him we were all even. My friend's friend insulted him, he insulted us, game over. He goes his way, we go our way and life goes on... he was totally cool with that.

Otherwise, i could have freaked out myself that he just punched my friend in the neck and got myself punched in the neck too... but i opted to not get punched in the neck. That would have sucked and seriously, these dudes were scary.

So they took off, then a small group of people rallied around talking about hunting them down for a fight, but luckily, that didn't happen. Because really, we're just a bunch of lovers sitting around, partying in a front yard (aside from the one dude), and would have gotten killed by these people.

So if you believe everyone in the world won't fly off the handle when provoked, i'd say once you have your army of smooth-talkers assembled and you hit the streets, best of luck.

Until that day comes, i'm sticking to my guns in that it's impossible without a clean slate. I know it's so defeatist of me, but people are unpredictable.

What would be an example of reaching something immense for you?

[SaggyBalls]

Reaching something immense?

Well how about 70% of voters under the age of 40 voting? that would be immense. It would also be very diverse.

How about a living wage for all Canadians...and then 10% or less of those people not working to earn above and beyond those meager means?

I suppose just budding into that conversation would be strange, but I'd probably start with a joke like this:

What do you get when you cross a migrant worker with an octopus?

I don't know but it sure can pick tomatoes!

I'd then probably spread some cheer to the guy by clinking a glass (even jerks deserve some kindness sometimes) and then conveniently be 'reminded' of red stripe and stubbies and the conversation would then begin.

I'm sure the 'they're taking our jobs' would come up and then I'd say 'do you really want to pick peppers in the hot sun for $6 an hour?'

Hmm...another 'immense' achievement?

that relates to Racism?

How about finding more ways to define the Canadian Experience.

I know MY family history, and it's VERY new world - new france, upper canada, loyalist, etc. and although, aside from our aboriginal heritage, that's the essence of this country until about the 1950's. Super white.

Not very culturally sensitive, but FWIW does it really have to be? Since then, there's been very little effort made to create a sense of Canadianism outside of that understudied and unproliferated history of which our country is truly rich.

An end to ghettoes?

[M.O.B.E]

Is Quoting the Talmud Anti-Semitic?

http://roytov.com/refugee/talmud.htm

Should one be defined as anti-Semitic for quoting from Talmud texts that preach for committing or justifying crimes? Texts that define the Talmud supporters – at least – as collaborators, or even instigators to commit, a crime?

This question is a serious one, since the modern State of Israel forces on its citizens the religious views of the Pharisees descendants, namely the rabbis. The rabbis act according to the Talmud teachings. In such a way, Israel is accepting the Talmud and its teachings. What does that mean?

Who were the Pharisees?

In 539 BC the Persians conquered Babylon, where many Jews were exiled. He let them return to Jerusalem, where the Sadducees – the priests – became the de facto authority of them. While the priests controlled the Temple, the scribes monopolized the study of the Torah, which was read publicly on market-days.

However, after the fell of the Kingdom of Judah and the exile to Babylon – where the people could witness a more developed society – the prestige of the Sadducees was in decline. The scribes took advantage of that and began the process of organizing themselves into a political party that claimed to possess the correct interpretation of the Bible, what they called the Oral Law. They based the claim on their erudition – they were among the few that could read – and on the failure of the priests to restore the splendor of the former kingdom. “Something is wrong with their interpretation,†whispered the Pharisees to the people.

Much later they became the religious leaders of the people and in a brilliant marketing event they changed their title to “rabbi†(“my master,†or literally “my muchâ€).

What is the Talmud?

The Old Testament was considered dangerous by the Pharisees. Simply, many of the Mosaic Laws were uncomfortable – and inconvenient – to fulfil. Moreover, the prophecies regarding Jesus – their archenemy – in the Bible were difficult to ignore.

Facing such a problem, these industrious men operated a two stages plan. First, an Oral Law was created. These were laws that defined how the Mosaic Laws in the Pentateuch should be interpreted. Using them, they could turn around any law to their convenience. They claim the Oral Law was given verbally by Moses to their ancestors. The Bible does not support this claim.

At certain stage – before Jesus was born – the compilation of this Oral Law into books began. The result was the creation of a new layer of books – collectively known as the Talmud – that included all the formal interpretations of the Pentateuch – the Bible’s first five books. All the other books in the Bible were considered little more than fables by the Pharisees.

Nowadays, the rabbis – the Pharisees spiritual descendants – consider the Talmud as the main book of law. Since then, the Pharisees and rabbis can manipulate the law interpretations to their personal benefit.

Jesus and the Talmud

In the times of Jesus the Talmud was still incomplete, but its foundations already managed the Pharisees behaviour. The manipulation of the Mosaic Law for the Pharisees personal profit – the main task of the Talmud – is time and again denounced by Jesus. The strongest text on the issue is the whole of Chapter 23 in the Gospel of Matthew.

But not only there. He also said:

Matt. 15:6-9 ... Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

And:

John 8:44: Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because the truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it.

Soncino

The Talmud – written in Hebrew and Aramaic – was largely ignored by the world until the Jews' College translation was published through Soncino Press between 1935 and 1948. This was the first complete English translation, produced by authoritative Jewish scholars in the world and is considered a reliable text. It is important to keep that in mind while judging the next sections.

Elizabeth Dilling

Once this task was accomplished, the way was open for an international examination of the text. Elizabeth Dilling published the first critique of the Talmud, a book called The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today. She used the Soncino Talmud, and quotes also the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia and other publications. Her analysis is considered serious.

My readers can download here her book and here the bulky exhibits accompanying it.

Before continuing with the answer of the Jewish community to Dilling’s publication, I would like to bring some of the commentaries appearing in her book.

Racism

Moses taught again and again that the stranger is to be treated the same as the Israelites:

Lev 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

19:35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.

Deut 10:19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Numbers 9:14 …ye shall have one ordinance, both for the stranger, and for him that was born in the land.

Yet, the oral law, or the Traditions of the Pharisees, as recorded in the Talmud, reverses Moses teachings. In Baba Mezia 108b it says: "Only ye are designated as 'men.'" The Baba Mezia passage is about the graves of Gentiles which rank like the graves of animals. "The graves of Gentiles do not defile," is the edict.

No wonder Christ said:

Matt 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Non-Jews Have No Property Rights

The Talmud teaches in Baba Bathra, Folio 54b, that non-Jews have no property rights. Their possessions are "like unclaimed land in the desert." The passage appears on page 222 of the Soncino edition: "Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The property of a heathen is on the same footing as desert land; whoever first occupies it acquires ownership."

Doesn’t the occupation of Palestine appear now in a new light?

Bestiality

The Talmud is obsessed with pornographic issues, touching some of them here is unavoidable. Moses commanded that if a woman have intercourse with a beast, both should be killed (Leviticus 20:16), and that a priest must not marry a harlot or woman who is profane (Lev. 21:7), the Talmud inverted that and teaches that "unnatural intercourse does not cause a woman to be forbidden to marry a High Priest," since then "you will find no woman eligible …" (See Exhibit 157, from the Yebamoth, Folios 59a-59b)

Then, the ruling of the rabbis is: "A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a priest — even a High Priest,†and “the result of such intercourse being regarded as a mere wound, and the opinion that does not regard an accidentally injured hymen as a disqualification does not regard such as intercourse either." (See Exhibit 158)

Babies

The Talmud enlightens us that baby boys may be used as subjects for sodomy by grown men (See Exhibit 54). The Pharisaic excuse is that until a child reaches sexual maturity, he or she does not rank as a person, hence Biblical laws against sodomy do not apply. Throughout the Talmud "nine years and one day" is the age of male maturity.

According to the Talmud, under "nine years and one day," the "first stage of intercourse" of a boy with the mother, or any grown woman, is harmless. Shammai – who contributed vast texts to the Talmud, lowers the age to eight years in some cases. (See Exhibit 82 from Sanhedrin 69b).

Not less shocking is the following text: "When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this — that is, less than three years old — it is as if one puts the finger into the eye — tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years." (See Exhibit 136, Kethuboth 11b).

This is the Talmudic doctrine on babies. Sodomy and intercourse with them is the prerogative of the Talmudic man. What a contrast to Christ's teachings!

However, that’s not all. "A maiden aged three years and one day may be acquired in marriage by coition …" See Exhibit 55 (Sanhedrin 55b), Exhibit 81 (Sanhedrin 69a-69b), and others.

Baby girls of three can invoke sadistic punishments on those who have intercourse with them when they are "Niddahs" (menstruating), a physical impossibility (Sanhedrin 55b - Exhibit 55; Sanhedrin 69a - Exhibit 81).

This type of crimes – and all their imaginable variations – appear time and again. What type of men wrote these texts? What type of men are their followers?

Every single rabbi in the world studied this text in order to graduate. Would you hire one as a babysitter?

Quoting the Talmud Heresies in Public is Dangerous

In 1944, Dilling's views involved her in was called “mass sedition trial.†The case was ultimately dismissed by a Federal Court as "a travesty on justice."

I am afraid to comment on that, I am already a refugee and do not need to add reasons for my persecution. Instead, I’ll bring Dilling’s own words that appear on a later edition of her book:

“The hub of world Jewish anti-Christ power, the financial and industrial power best described in Rev. 18:11-, is the AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE with its B'nai B'rith brotherhood, and its "secret police", smear and ruin arm, the Anti-Defamation League. After having pushed a reluctant USA into World War II--to spread Communism across the earth, and with its first world base, Soviet Russia, as our "ally", it was decided to crush all ANTI-COMMUNISTS by trying them as "Fascists, Nazis". A series of indictments against some 30 anti-Communists, of which I was one, was engineered by the American Jewish Committee, in 1942, 1943, 1944. The 1942 indictment never came to trial. The 1943 indictment was dismissed in Washington by Judge Adkins. Only the 1944 indictment went to trial under a stooge judge Eicher. An unbelievable farce was staged without any legality or fact. After the death of judge Eicher, the case was dismissed by Judge Bolitha Laws with the scathing denunciation that it had been a crime to hold those people on trial all that time without a single piece of evidence in accordance with the charge being introduced by the prosecution against ANY defendant. The Communist press had been gloating that the "sedition trial" was part of the "Moscow Purge trials" then in session all over Europe. I reproduced the item on one of my Bulletins, sent to every Congressman.â€

I want to ask again:

Is Quoting the Talmud Anti-Semitic?

[SaggyBalls]

Not at all.

It depends on what people do with the quotes.