ללא מחבר No Author

Recognizing Our Own Justice

Jewish Justice or No Justice

Sep-16-2009

By Moshe Feiglin

“Today the world is being born, today all the creations of all the worlds stand in judgment.” “And it will be determined for the countries, which for the sword and which for peace.” (Rosh Hashanah liturgy)

As we enter the gates of our synagogues this Rosh Hashanah, it looks like we will also be entering the gates of the International Court in The Hague. This is the inevitable destination of a nation that insists on detaching its Judaism from its national life. If we are not interested in Jewish justice in Jerusalem, we will be treated to Western, Christian justice in Spain, England or The Hague.

When a Swedish newspaper reported that Israel’s soldiers slaughtered “Palestinians” so that they could sell their organs, we didn’t believe that anybody would take the bizarre story seriously. But it is actually making quite a few waves. Soon an international investigative committee will be established to reveal “the truth.” After all, such serious charges must be investigated thoroughly. And who, if not the judges of enlightened Europe, are more worthy to reveal the truth with clarity and complete objectivity?

Blood libels are nothing new. There is nothing more logical about selling “Palestinian” organs than about slaughtering Christian children to use their blood to bake matzahs. So how do these absurd claims become legitimate? It is not really a matter of legal fact. It is a matter of the location of the judicial body.

When a Jew is in exile and the Christians are the judicial authority, the blood libel becomes a possibility. The question is not if the Jews slaughtered Christian children to use their blood to bake matzahs. The question is if the issue is justiciable. In the Christian courts of the Middle Ages the answer was affirmative.

Likewise, in the current organ harvest story, there is no question of revealing the truth. The only question is if the judicial tribunal that we have accepted upon ourselves will decide to judge these ludicrous accusations.
Then – in the days of the blood libels, the Jews did not have the option to choose which judicial authority they would accept. They lived under the dominion of the judicial authority that considered these libels fact. But today, the Jews willingly surrendered their own judicial authority. They chose, of their own free will, to forgo their ethical sovereignty and to deposit it in the hands of the Western world and the International Court in The Hauge.

“What is the problem in Azoun?” my frustrated neighbor asked me the other day, after a steady stream of rocks and firebombs has continued to emanate from this ‘peaceful’ Arab village. “They bring in an entire IDF division and they still can’t stop the violence? Wouldn’t it just be easier to cut off their electricity?” Technically, my neighbor is right. We could easily leave the reserve soldiers at home and enjoy quiet nonetheless. But the State of Israel and the IDF are fettered to the Christian judicial dominion that we have brought upon ourselves.

As the Beijing Olympics approached, I wrote that the State of Israel, as the representative of the Jewish Nation, should boycott the games. The Chinese have established concentration camps for opponents of the radically leftist regime there. Next to the concentration camps there are “medical centers” that specialize in supplying human organs by order. No lines, no problems finding the proper match, any organ can be supplied; kidneys, corneas, hearts – the organs are always fresh and plentiful. They belong to “criminals” who have been executed but who, at the last minute repented and donated their organs as an act of atonement. How noble. In reality, the organs are harvested while the victims are still alive. That is probably the best way to keep them fresh.

I claimed that Israel – the representative of the Jewish Nation, the People of the Book who herald the ethics of the prophets – must see itself as a lighthouse of morality for the world and should not lend legitimacy to the regime of horrors in China by attending the Olympic Games.

The reactions that I received were more or less: “America, England and France are not boycotting the Olympics, and you expect Israel to boycott them?” In other words, it cannot be that we bear a more fundamentally ethical insight than the Western world. Furthermore, we are so small, so who are we to boycott the Chinese giant if the US and Europe are not doing so? In other words, morality is measured in square kilometers and the size of a country’s population and army.

When charges of organ harvesting by Israel’s soldiers began to emerge, I thought that it was quite “measure for measure.” We rejected our universal role and refused to take a stand on the Chinese organ harvesting issue, and got it right back in our own collective face.

We are the children of the King. We do not have the privilege to stand passively at the sidelines and to be “just another country.” We have only two options: One is to judge the world according to Jewish justice – the ethical justice of the prophets that must be restored to Jerusalem. The second option is, right after Rosh Hashanah, to re-lock our universal responsibility safely in our synagogues and to leave Judaism strictly in the domain of religion. If that is the option we choose, we will not be judging the world according to the ethics of the prophets. The world will judge us – in the International Court in The Hague.

From Jewish Israel, here.

Practicing Critical Reading on the New York Times

Peter Van Buren: Can’t Judge Fake News in the Dark

Peter Van Buren

This isn’t about Trump. It’s about judging the media, whoever and whatever they report on. It is about reading critically when so much out there is just simply inaccurate. Not maybe inaccurate, pure dead solid perfect stupid. So don’t call me a nazi.

Step One is to note if the story you’re reading/seeing is all or mostly unsourced, or anonymously sourced. Red flag.

Step Two is to see if the story is bombastic, dramatic, something that really makes you angry. Something that adds to or dovetails with something you already believe is true. If it sounds like gossip, that’s probably all it is. Red flag.

Step Three is to check if the story is a negative one about a person or subject from a media outlet that celebrates its partisan position. Red flag.

Congratulations! You’ve got a sample target, and are ready to apply a basic test.

Ask who would know the information, why would they tell anyone, and apply a light sniff test: does it make any sense at all?

Here’s one to practice on, courtesy of the New York Times. There are no sources at all for the most part, and the story is bombastic, suggesting the people in the White House are dumber than third graders. The Times has had trouble with objectivity concerning the administration. Much of the story sounds like mean gossip.

We’ll zoom in on a couple of opening lines, keeping in mind this was presented on the front page as news:

President Trump loves to set the day’s narrative at dawn, but the deeper story of his White House is best told at night.

Aides confer in the dark because they cannot figure out how to operate the light switches in the cabinet room. Visitors conclude their meetings and then wander around, testing doorknobs until finding one that leads to an exit.

So the venerable New York Times reports Trump’s aides sit in the dark because they do not know how to operate light switches.

Seriously? Light switches are rarely complex. Those aides have been on the job for about two weeks and have not figured out how to turn on the lights? And by the way, the White House is full of nonpolitical, permanent staff, including servants, janitors, the Secret Service, secretaries. Hell, you can dial zero on the house phone and ask for maintenance. It is simply impossible for the Times’ statement to be true, and it would have had to have been reported by one of the aides themselves, because no one else was there, or could see what was happening in the dark.

Continue reading…

From Antiwar.com, here.

מותר ללבוש פאה נכרית בחתונה של עצמה

מתי מתחיל חיוב כיסוי ראש

מתי מתחיל חיוב כיסוי ראש נשואה, מזמן הנישואין (חופה) או מזמן הבעילה ● פנויה בעולה ● ארוסה בתולה ● החילוק בין פנויה בעולה לארוסה בתולה ● נשואה בתולה ● בפרטי ההיתר ● הג”ה, אשה שמכסה ראשה בפאה נכרית ● בתולה נשואה שנתגרשה אם יש חיוב כיסוי ראש ● סיכום

המשך לקרוא…

מתוך אתר בריתי יצחק – הרב ברנד, כאן.

Is Austro-Libertarianism a Semitic Scam?

A Greenbacker Invents a Nut-Case History of Libertarianism

Gary North

Feb. 20, 2012

I have been asked by several of my subscribers to respond to this article: Proof Libertarianism is an Illuminati Ploy. It appears here: http://www.henrymakow.com/libertarianism_as_an_illuminat.html

Let me say, before I begin, that the author of this article is the only person I have come across who could profitably study with Ellen Brown.

There is a subhead: William S. Volker (1859-1947) was a wealthy German-Jewish businessman.

There is a biography of William Volker, Mr. Anonymous (1951). On Page 16, we read:

After supper they gathered around Dorothea to pray and to listen to her read passages from the Bible. The Scriptures finished, she laid the Bible aside and explained the practical application of each admonition. Dorothea also passed along to her children the plain homilies she had learned from her parents. She spoke with serious purposefulness; her steady voice revealed her deep conviction. William joined his mother’s circle of instruction before he could comprehend all her teachings. And each Sunday the whole family attended the Lutheran Church services in Esperke where the family prayers were supplemented with more formal worship.

From here, the article goes downhill.

At the end of the article, we learn:

Anthony Migchels is an Interest-Free Currency activist and founder of the Gelre, the first Regional Currency in the Netherlands. You can read all of his articles on his blog Real Currencies

In short, he is a Greenbacker. He believes in the same fiat money utopia that Ellen Brown promotes. But, when compared to Mr. Migchels, lawyer Brown is a Pulitzer-Prize candidate in history.

Far from defending freedom, the Illuminati created Libertarianism to reflect their Social Darwinian and racial supremacist ideology. With its opposite twin, Communism, they control the dialectic. The efficacy of this tactic is demonstrated by their duping the “Truth Movement.”

I am not sure how he got from William Volker to the Illuminati. But, in the wacky world of Greenbackism, anything is possible. “Connecting the dots” produces some truly dotty connections. This article is among the dottiest.

“You say that Marxism is the very antithesis of capitalism, which is equally sacred to us [Illuminati Jewish bankers.] It is precisely for this reason that they are direct opposites to one another, that they put into our hands the two poles of this planet and allow us to be its axis. These two contraries, like Bolshevism and ourselves, find their identity in the International.” — Otto Kahn, Investment Banker

I hope Mr. Kahn was better at investing than he was in social theory.

Actually, there is no record that Mr. Kahn ever said this. He was a highly successful banker and a literate author. We have here another example of an invented quotation. It is a way of life for Greenbackers.

William S. Volker (1859-1947) was a wealthy German-Jewish businessman. Dismayed by the rise of socialism in America, he created the Volker Fund to support a reactionary ideology based on “laissez-faire” and Social Darwinism. This was to become Libertarianism.

Volker created the Volker Fund in 1932 to finance hospitals and charities. Only late in his career did he use the Fund’s money for ideological purposes: local civic government education. He lived in Missouri, and he was a long-time critic of boss Tom Pendergast and Pendergast’s hand-picked local politician, Harry Truman. This did not make him a member of the Illuminati.

Libertarianism and its twin sister Austrian Economics were invented by the Money Power to be the opposite of Communism in a dialectic.

Well, all I can say is that the Money Power sure has short-changed me for 50 years. Here I am, a certified running dog of the capitalist class, and I have had to bankroll myself since 1967.

Anyway, the author believes in Marx’s dialectic. This indicates a certain lack of perception on his part. The Marxian dialectic had some tough times back in 1991. You may have read about this. The Communist Party did the unforgivable. It committed suicide. It handed over the infrastructure to the party’s insiders and cashed out. Marx called this the “cash nexus.” Boy, was he right!

So, the Money Power invented Austrian economics (developed by Karl Menger in 1871) and libertarianism (a term coined by Leonard E. Read around 1946) in order to fight Communism (created in 1848 by an unemployed Ph.D. and his capitalist donor). The Money Power in 1871 was really smart. It spotted a couple of Gentiles to do the deed. Menger’s disciple, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, another Gentile, did not write his first critique of Marx until 1884, a year after Marx died. He buried this critique in a long, detailed book, History and Critique of Interest Theories, which almost no has ever one read. Why didn’t they come to him and say this? “Look, Eugen, publish your Marx critique as a pamphlet. You have just got to come up with a better title. This might work: Marx Was a Commie. That will sell a lot better.” How they could have foreseen that Menger would launch the Austrian School remains a mystery to every other historian of Communism and libertarianism. I say this as the author of a 1968 book on Marx.

According to this amazing report, (from which all non-specified quotes here are taken,) “Volker was no great scholar or thinker. The ideology he set out to create was built upside down, starting only with a set of foggy conclusions for which he had a predisposition. From these conclusions, it was the task of Volker’s considerable fortune to find a set of justifications, then an enabling ideology or “theory” that gave it all perspective and unity and, eventually, a true philosophical platform from which to launch the whole.”

Whoever wrote that amazing report has some serious problems with grammar. “. . . it was the task of Volker’s considerable fortune to find a set of justifications. . . ” I can visualize it. There was that considerable fortune, sitting at its desk, planning a series of justifications. Then the fortune called in Volker and said, “Look, Bill, you have got to spend me more effectively. Now here’s my plan. . . .”

The anonymous author speculates that Volker was a secret fascist. He offers no evidence. You may recall how well the Jewish Money Power did in Germany, 1933-45. But I digress.

Continue reading…

From Gary North, here.