Showing posts with label Zionism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zionism. Show all posts

Saturday, May 09, 2009

Islamic Supremacism is Racism


John R. Houk
© May 9, 2009


The Muslim Middle East is on the forefront of calling the Land of Israel a racist nation. This battle cry is led by Iran’s Ahmadinejad openly and behind the scenes by the power elites of Saudi Arabia.

The sad thing is many Westerners are jumping on the Muslim race propaganda train, particularly of the Leftist bent.

Muslims and Leftists equate Zionism with racism. O my God, a thought just popped into my cranium. Surprisingly there are many Jews in the West that also equate Zionism with racism. How self-destructive is that?

Ahmadinejad is correct about one thing in his hate filled speeches. Modern Israel was formed out of the ashes of guilt the victors of WWII felt by allowing Adolf Hitler’s regime to murder six million Jews in the Nazi Final Solution (not to mention roughly another six million non-Jews that did not fit the Nazi vision of the master superior Aryan race).

Ahmadinejad and other Muslims pump propaganda that the Jews in Israel were sent by the West to displace Muslims living in the area.

The reality is the land then called Palestine was made a waste land by Ottoman Turk mismanagement. The Western ingenuity of immigrating Jews combined with the Jews already in the land turned this wasteland into habitable arable farm land that produced a gain from what was once an inhospitable landscape depleted by lack of attention.

In 1516 the Mamluks were defeated by the Ottoman Turks. The first three centuries of Ottoman rule isolated Palestine from outside influence. The discovery of sea routes to the East began to erode the importance of the Middle East to commerce. In 1831, Muhammad Ali, the Egyptian viceroy nominally subject to the Ottoman sultan, occupied Palestine. Under him and his son the region was opened to European influence. Ottoman control was reasserted in 1840, but Western influence continued. The Ottoman tax system was ruinous and did much to keep the land underdeveloped and the population small. [Emphasis Mine] When Alexander W. Kinglake crossed the Jordan in 1834-35, he used the Jordan's only bridge, a survival from Roman antiquity. Among the many European settlements established, the most significant in the long run were those of Jews, Russian Jews being the first to come (1882).

It is important to note that there was a Jewish population in Palestine continuously. Even after the Jewish state was ended by the Romans, Jewish communities continued to exist. All of the successor governments tried to eliminate the Jews at one time or another, but none succeeded as numerous accounts testify over the centuries. When the Zionists started the modern "return" to Eretz Yisrael in the 19th Century, they were joining Jews who never left.

In 1918, a Yiddish book by David BenGurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Eretz Yisrael in the Past and Present, was published in New York by the Poale Zion Palestine Committee. The authors note that long after the destruction of the Second Temple — and even after the defeat of Shimon Bar Kokhba, leader of the Jewish revolt against the Romans in the second century C.E. — large masses of Jews still tilled the soil of Eretz Yisrael.

In the wars and uprisings, many cities were ruined and many communities destroyed, but the farm population could not be wiped out so easily. Under foreign oppression, city dwellers — the propertied and educated classes — chose to leave their homes and migrate to freer countries such as Babylonia. The Jewish peasant, however, like peasants the world over, would not leave his land so quickly, for it was land developed by his sweat and that of his parents. (A Brief History of Palestine)


The more prosperous the ingenuous Jewish production, the more Arabs moved back into the area seeking jobs to make a living. Until the end of WWI, there existed little hostility between Jewish innovators and Muslim employees in the land dubbed Palestine in Levant.

The end of WWI saw the beginnings of Arab nationalism after receiving freedom from the Ottoman authority. This Arab nationalism resulted in the WWI victors to arbitrarily create borders for Arab nations that would be spheres of influence by the European victors which were primarily Britain and France in the Middle East.

I am guessing many Arabs viewed this as a mere switch of subjugation from the Ottomans to a form of neo-subjugation by Britain and France. As a part of this emerging bitterness and the Balfour Declaration, nationalistic Arab Muslims began to view the influx of more European Jews as stepping on the toes of Arab lands at the management of European colonialism.

The instigation of Arab hatred toward the Jewish was planted by the Arab nationalist the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini. Al-Husseini’s anti-Semitic hatred poured into Palestinian Mandate Arabs who became influenced to no longer look at Jews as harbingers of prosperity but rather as usurpers of Dar al-Islam. The Dar al-Islam concept is as racist an ideology a people can develop. Dar al-Islam simply defined for the Western mind is that once conquered by Mohammedans then it is always Mohammedan even if “temporary” set backs infringed by the kafir of Dar al-Harb.

If Zionism is racism then Zionists are picnic racists compared to Islamic Supremacist racism projected from intolerant Mohammedanism. The Jewish State of Israel has discovered a paradigm of a haven for the world’s Jews to live without government persecution AND operating democratic institutions with civil rights for Israel’s non-Jewish citizens. There are other minorities in Israel; however the significant minority that enjoys political enfranchisement is Arab-Muslims and Arab-Christians. This equal political enfranchisement is totally non-existent in other Middle Eastern nations. In the other Middle Eastern Muslim nations you are a fully enfranchised Muslim or a discriminated against non-Muslim. One bad look by a non-Muslim will render some harsh treatment up to and including death for a perception of insulting Islam.

It is part of Mohammedanism’s Theo-Political nature to be brutally intolerant and so I understand their dimwit hatred of Israel based on Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. The real mystery is that of the Western Left that actually falls in line with Mohammedan propaganda by also claiming Israel Zionism is racism.

Israeli Zionism is racism as compared to what: Islamic Supremacist racism? Dear God in Heaven there is absolutely no equitable comparison between intolerant Mohammedan racism and full citizen enfranchisement of Zionist Israel. The Basques of Spain probably receive less toleration than the Arab citizens of Israel.

Leftist outcries about Zionism equaling racism are heinously ludicrous. Either the Leftist hatred of Zionism is based on delusional Muslim propaganda or Leftist hatred of Zionism is linked to traditional Western anti-Semitism. So when I read or hear people say ‘being anti-Israel is not being anti-Semitic’ is a bunch of delusional garbage.

Another thing that throws me for a loop is that there are actually Leftist Jews and even Orthodox Jews that denounce Zionism. Hello! Zionism is a movement of protection for practicing Jews and Jews of heritage in a place to exist where government of community prejudice will not exact violent to deadly pogroms that Jews have experienced in the West’s past. For a Jew of any persuasion to be anti-Zionist is to be self-loathing. The self-loathing is always in danger of self-destruction via stupid actions to outright suicide (note that suicide is not homicidal).

Anyway that is enough of venting on my part. You should go over to Ben’s Blog to read what set me off.

JRH 5/9/09
****************************
Ahmadinejad: UN Racism Conference Part 4

By Ben
May 9, 2009 at 3:03 AM
Ben’s Blog


[statement by the Islamic Republic of Iran as delivered (unofficial transcript)]

After the Second World War, by exploiting the holocaust and under the pretext of protecting the Jews they made a nation homeless with military expeditions and invasion. They transferred various groups of people from America, Europe and other countries to this land. They established a completely racist government in the occupied Palestinian territories. And in fact, under the pretext of making up for damages resulting from racism in Europe, they established the most aggressive, racist country in another territory, i.e. Palestine.


Two groups of people claim possession of one small land area. Only one of them has a historical moral and legal right to it. The side having the valid claim was willing to share the land; the usurpers were not. They made war, which they continue to prosecute.

The death and displacement of which Ahmadinejad complains resulted from Islam's war against Israel. Without that war there would have been neither death nor displacement. The complaint has about as much merit as the parricide's plea for mercy on grounds of being an orphan.

Ahmadinejad practices projection: labeling Israel as “the most aggressive, racist country" when, in fact, that description fits Islam. The unstated premise is that Falestine is the national homeland of Falestinians. In fact, Israel was the homeland of the Jews, who were conquered and displaced serially by the Greeks and Romans, who were conquered by the Muslims in the seventh century.

    • Our first clue comes from the Charter of Hamas, read it carefully. [Emphasis added.]


This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Muslims have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Muslims consecrated these lands to Muslim generations till the Day of Judgement.

    • Our second clue comes from Rodwell's translation of At-Taubah 29


9:29. Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.

    • Our third clue comes from the oral tradition of Moe's companions.


Abu Dawud 14.2477
Narrated Ibn Hawalah:


The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: It will turn out that you will be armed troops, one is Syria, one in the Yemen and one in Iraq. Ibn Hawalah said: Choose for me, Apostle of Allah, if I reach that time. He replied: Go to Syria, for it is Allah's chosen land, to which his best servants will be gathered but if you are unwilling, go to your Yemen, and draw water from your tanks, for Allah has on my account taken special charge of Syria and its people.


The continuous conflict flows directly from Moe's command, recited in Allah's name, to make war upon the Jews and his statement of preference for attacking the Byzantine province of which Israel was a part.

____________________

Islamic Supremacism is Racism
John R. Houk
© May 9, 2009

_____________________

Ahmadinejad: UN Racism Conference Part 4
Ben’s Blog

Saturday, December 06, 2008

Response to Daniel Cohen



I received an email from a person in which the email ID indicated was Daniel Cohen. I thought originally it was a Muslim then I checked out the link the sender provides. The link – http://www.netureikarta.com/ - appears to be written wrong for when I used I was redirect to http://www.nkusa.org/index.cfm. I am guessing because it is an English version.

Anyway upon examination of the website I found out this Daniel Cohen represented a
group of psycho Orthodox Jews that believe the Land of Israel is a blasphemous existence and are actually on extremely friendly terms with Muslims that would bring about the 2nd Holocaust. You may wish to scroll down to read the original email. Directly below is my response to the emailer who I initially thought was a Muslim but may indeed be a deluded self-hating dhimmi Jew.
___________________________________________


Hey genius, those scriptures on slaves were about Christian's in slavery as in "do not render evil for evil." This is a concept totally foreign to Islam. In Islam slaves are brutalized, especially women and Afro-Americans (hello Darfur: Arab Muslims enslaving Black Muslims)

Hagar the mother of the son who is not of promise was turned out because of the son of Promise Isaac. Hagar and Ishmael goaded Isaac, Sarah made sure it did not any more. But hey guess what Hagar and Ishmael received a promise: Ishmael would be the father of 12 princes that would produce a great nation. Boom God has mercy on Arabs.

It is ironic that Abraham died BOTH Isaac and Ishmael buried him as equal sons. But that did not change the promise: the lineage of Savior was through Abraham's son of Promise. Just for clarity that was Isaac which Jesus came from on His human nature and NOT Mohammed.

Few Thoughts:Whites had Afro-American slaves (Muslim and Animist) that were received from Arab Muslims in a business transaction. O yes Western Culture eventually outlawed slavery and even today Muslims practice the horror, especially on Afro-Americans and women.


Concerning Women:
I am not Jewish so I cannot speak for them accept I know this part of the Law of Moses is not practiced today.

Among Christians the arrival of Jesus Christ the Son of God and son of man (via Mary) - simultaneously - paid the ransom for the sin of disobedience committed by Adam. Jesus' purity because of the Incarnation enabled him to pay the price for humanity who did not deserve Mercy (even Arab believing Muslims). Ergo the penalty of the Law of Moses is rendered ineffective leaving only the moral principle.

In Islam
women are still chattel, slaves, murdered by law for being raped, murdered for dishonoring their family.

O yes since you brought up the Leviticus passage on humans sleeping with animals as with a human is abominable to God. Yet it is ironic that
Ruhollah Khomeini had rules that allowed for a man to sleep with animals. Sick Psycho!

JRH 12/6/08



*************************************************




Human equality in Christianity?

Daniel Cohen (Probably Pseudonym)
Email Sent: December 5, 2008 11:42:59 AM
Subject Line: Re: 5th of August

Human equality in Christianity?

Introduction: When it comes to human affairs and relations, slavery is one of the back bones of the spine of Christianity and its principles: "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. (From the NIV Bible, 1 Timothy 6:1)"

"Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed. (From the RSV Bible, 1 Timothy 6:1)"

"A student is not greater than the teacher. A slave is not greater than the master. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 10:24)"

We clearly see that the Bible is not a book for freeing slaves. Slavery was practiced very badly during the times of Judaism and Christianity, and was fought against and ended during the times of Islam. It is part of the Bible's "teaching" to practice and promote slavery! And fighting it would "slander" or "defame" the teachings of the Bible.

What about the New Testament?
Unfortunately, there is no equality between human beings in Christianity! Christians like to think that the Bible honors all human beings and loves all human beings, but the reality proves otherwise.

Let us look at Galatians 4:28-31 "Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? 'Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son.' Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman." This verse from the New Testament despises children who are born from slave mothers. This verse doesn't recognize children born from slave mothers as normal sons because they are not allowed to inherit. This verse doesn't recognize slaves as equal to normal human beings. This verse agrees fully 100% with slavery and enslaving people.

Let us look at Philemon 15-19 "Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord. So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back not to mention that you owe me your very self." This verse is another proof that the Bible (1) Looks as slaves as sub humans or animals as was shown in Exodus 23:12 and Leviticus 25:46, (2) A slave is a despised person that he will never ever be recognized as a normal human being unless he becomes a Christian. If the slave refuses to become a Christian, then he will never gain his freedom, and he will never be even looked at as a human being; he must always be treated as an animal by the Christians.

Let us look at 1 Corinthians 7 "Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave." In this verse, Paul was asking the person "Were you a slave?" meaning Were you something bad and not normal?

Also "...if you can gain your freedom, do so... (1 Corinthians 7)" which means that the New Testament will not help anyone nor will call any Christian to fight for the rights of any slave to be freed. The slave will simply have to either live as a slave and die as a slave, or fight for his freedom against Christians.

Let us look at 1 Timothy 6:1 "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered."

Matthew 10:24 "A student is not greater than the teacher. A slave is not greater than the master."

Let us look at 1 Peter 2:18 "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

Let us look at Colossians 3:22 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."

Few thoughts:

Perhaps that is why the White Christian societies had always had Black African slaves!

The Church in Europe had always allowed enslaving Africans. The African slaves were brought to the U.S tied in chains after the church gave the OK on that!.

Perhaps the Ku Klux Klan ideas of enslaving Africans are not all Biblically false after all, since they claim that they support their argument from the Bible!.

So what about women?

Let us look at Leviticus 20:15 "If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal."

And let us look at Leviticus 20:16 "If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Notice that in Leviticus 20:15 the man has to be caught having sex with an animal in order for him to be put to death. We have to be sure 100% beyond the shadow of the doubt to kill him.

Notice however in Leviticus 20:16 that if a woman only looks SUSPICIOUS and not necessarily get caught having sex with an animal, she would still be put to death. We do not have to be sure 100% beyond the shadow of the doubt with her in order for us to kill her.

Hmmm, very interesting !!!! Don't Leviticus 20:15 and Leviticus 20:16 prove that the Bible prefers to put women to death whenever an opportunity presents itself?

http://www.netureikarta.org/

Friday, December 08, 2006

Is a Global Jewish Sell-Out Afoot?


The DEBKAfile (*via Prophecy Update) pretty much validates Israel’s contempt for the new Secretary of Defense. In the Confirmation Hearings before the U.S. Senate, Gates publicly revealed aspects of Israel’s National Security that should not have been placed in the public record.

Gates revealed that Israel has a nuclear arsenal. Of course everyone knows this; however Israel has never made this a public issue. Israel’s nuclear arsenal would only be used in self-defense from its wacko Mohammedan and Islamofascist neighbors and terrorists.

Israel must be reeling from American hints of forcing Israel to give up the Golan Heights to Syria and acquiescing to a nuclear armed Iran. These are issues that could terminate Israel’s existence. If or when Israel is forced to do the unthinkable, who will secure Israel’s existence?

Will the EU come to Israel’s rescue with a combined Mohammedan invasion? And I do mean combined! Do you think Mohammedans that have made peace (Egypt and Jordan) will not join in an invasion if they presume the Mohammedans will finally eliminate Jews from the Middle East?

Will America come to Israel’s aid if a combined Mohammedan invasion comes to the Zionist Nation? I do not think that would be the case by the implication of Gates’ testimony before the Senate. There is the appearance of a Jewish sell out afoot.