Great logos, my royal arse, Mike. How would you know what Benedict is suggesting? Got a special line to the Vatican? From where I sit, its just more of the old obscurantist bullshit from the usual source.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Benedict cooks incomprehensible word soup for the Michael Bs of the world in need of intellectual comfort food.

(Revolutionary demagoguery is an instinct the jews have, selected by the pressure of migrating through host culture hostiles. The jews who are still here are the jews who have an insticnt for protectionist bullsh!t and hypocrisy. I don’t expect most to understand that.)

——–
The target Jews in `pre war Germany were not assimilated (as you wrongly assert): they were Marxist agitators. The non activist German jews were –though less active– still mostly revolutionary Marxist sympathizers and disproportionally the media, banking and law positions. (The host society elites want those limited and influential priest-class jobs.)

Jews with no political attachments nor professional posts were not targeted by the Third Reich until _late war_ (late ’43 and later) –when inevitable defeat was no longer wished away; most German Jews –but not all!– were then interned. They did NOT all die in internment. AND NONE WERE PUT IN OVENS alive (only diseased corpses).

The (anti semitic) “beast has reawakened” because the dumb –slow– goy horde has caught on to the fact that jews were and are disproportionally responsible for the destructive revolutionary forces of feminism, immigration and the collapse of their beloved (though absurd) jesus cult.

(The fact that the jesus cult is a jewish revolution goes over the dumb goy head.)

———
BTW many of the commentators here are batsh!t crazy religious nuts.

Anti Semitism is not the side effect of Islam’s war with Israel. But Israel is the side effect of jewish hypocrisy –as are the stubborn –non secular– Hasidic _etc_ jewish cloisters littered throughout the west (surrounded by their jewish instigated and run welfare-state _motes_).

Now rather than denouncing me –and therefore dismissing me– as an “anti semite”, why don’t you all look in the mirror as your way of attempting to figure out the historic “nature” of this situation/problem that way.

…The “nature” of the knee is it does not reflex out if the hammer-thing doesn’t hit it.

Now if the smart jews –very few here at this site (most appear to be non self aware religious /Israel nuts) say that “even if jews were not ‘trouble maker liberal revolutionaries’, the host culture [goyim] would still xenophobic-ally try to expel them anyway”, I’d say you’re probably right (since ancient tribal migration is the true root of the problem). But we’ll never get a chance to test that, since jews seem unable, historically, to stop their ‘natural’ instinct for destructive liberal revolutions and hypocritical ambition and hegemony.

(Note to chritians, “conservatives” and religious/Israel types: spare me and yourself your responses. Seriously, you dunces.)

Still more misspent passion, absent any truer focus and better tempered sense. (And you are aware, are you not, that A. Hitler and Mussolini both invoked Roman paganism and the virtue of power and will in a manner similar to what you’re suggesting? Or that Nietzsche can be credited with at least a small, supportive role in a culturally similar vein?)

Essentially however, I’m not convinced of your prophetic or pagan/oracular voice, or whatever you imagine it to be. Iow, you seem to be much impressed with your ability to prophesy and declaim, absent any argument in support of your inveighment, and that’s why insulting – yet accurate – descriptions such as “mindless,” “pat” and “facile” were used. (As to your quibble about “prepackaged,” I more simply intended that to resonate with “simplistic” and “pat,” not in the sense you imagined.)

However, an acknowledgement. My criticism was somewhat, if only somewhat, misplaced. Perhaps my attention was momentarily arrested by your sneer concerning “Christian rot,” without so much as a hint of what you’re referring to in any coherent sense, much less a more considered argument in support of that summary condemnation. Nonetheless, I now see that you were referring to an imam, rather than the Pope, in mentioning the “illiterate prophet in St. Peter’s Square.” In addition to the “Christian rot” summation you were also prophetically envisioning an imam calling to prayer from St. Peter’s square, additionally still prophesying great masses of converted Christians, so I missed the totality of your prophetic sense and vision. Such a pastiche of prophesy and invective, I admit to becoming confused.

I won’t respond to the entirety, but I will respond to a final item. To indulge an enormous amount of understatement, you rather miss the focus, emphasis and tone of Benedict’s 2006 Regensburg address. In referring to the excerpt at the very end of that address, “[i]t is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures,” what is being invoked is not some stolid, multi-culti sensibility and invitation. Rather, a certain resonance with that logos, and all the depth and breadth and mystery, properly understood, it suggests, is what is being invoked. Benedict is not suggesting his people get in touch with their people so they can brown bag a multi-culti, feel-good discussion over lunch. Neither here nor elsewhere did you respond in a more substantive sense, beyond the modest correction taken note of.

Passion, better reined in, might be helpful, might lend insight, might lend support to a better founded hope and vision. But your own passion is not only incoherent, it is presumptive and cynically dissolute. I do share some of your “concerns,” but I’m more inclined to appreciate and weigh the considerations of decidedly other social commenters and thinkers.

I’ll answer your insults point by point.

“…Your expression of pat, facile, pre-packaged contempt misses the mark, not that you were aiming high in the first place…”

If my opinions are pat and pre-packaged, I challenge you to name the packager or prefabricator of the ideas I’m parroting. Please quote somebody whose statements mirror mine. Facility I admit to readily and take for a compliment.

“…sniffing sanctimoniously about an “illiterate prophet in St. Peter’s Square…”

The words of the Hebrew prophets among whom Mohamed counted himself the latest and greatest among equals are part of the world’s greatest literature. They were brilliant poets while Mohamed was illiterate and innumerate. This is an intellectual not a social criticism. . Literacy and numeracy (symbolic expression) are fundamental to abstract thinking. Mohamed’s was a crude and primitive mind.

In any event, “illiterate” is the mildest adjective I can think of to describe the prophet of the Arabs. Mohamed was an amoral savage–a thief, a betrayer a murderer, a rapist and worse.

There is not a single Mosaic commandment the pirate prophet did not transgress. What is sin to a follower of Moses or Jesus is virtue to a follower of Mohamed. Christians and Jews hold the Golden Rule sacred. To a Muslim, the concept of putting yourself in the other guy’s shoes and seeing things from his point of view, is alien, cowardly and contemptible.

“…’Christian rot,’ etc. was expressive of mindless contempt and little more…because present-day Europe can rightly be conceived as post-Christian…”

One of the more amusing conceits of Christianity is that it is the religion that conquered an empire. In fact, Christianity rotted out ancient Rome from within. The new religion corroded and undermined the hard martial values of the demigod race descended from the the hideous war-god Mars and made it vulnerable to its enemies.

The failure of the Caesars to extirpate the poisonous new faith resulted in the internal weakening of the empire to the point where it could no longer resist barbarian pressure from outside. Toward the end, Caesar could no longer muster his legions in sufficient strength to defend the frontiers. Troops desperately needed on the front were continually distracted by peacekeeping duties to quell rioting in the largely Christian cities. Every time the legions were pulled out of the cities for duty at the front, the Christian bishops, who were little more than urban gangsters, would take the opportunity to lead their followers against upstart competitors vying for their holy seats and the legions would have to be called back.

When news of the disastrous final battle reached the cities—Caesar and the legions annihilated by the Goths and a thousand years of empire brought to a close—the bishops in the cities sent up public prayers of thanks and wild celebration broke out among their followers. After a brief period of uncertainty, the followers of the Prophet swept in to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the Roman Empire. The children of the treasonous bishops and their followers who had beaten and bloodied each other in roiling street battles over minor matters of faith, more often than not masking larger issues of political power and wealth, were prostrate on their faces, worshiping Allah and his prophet Mohamed. As do their descendents to this day.

Today, an extensively evolved Roman Catholic Church finds itself in the ironic and uncomfortable position of having inherited the guardianship of western civilization from the great empire it destroyed. The stern and stoic values of the “Pagan” Romans are now its own . And the barbarians are once again at the gates.

Alas, the church has a challenger. A form of godless Christianity called Socialism. Like the fractious Christianity of the early Church, the new secular faith is rotting out and undermining western civilization. And like the Caesars of old, the Pope has lost the loyalty of his people and can no longer marshal a defense.

…“It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures.”)…

History repeats itself but never exactly. A modern pope may imagine himself a “Roman” Catholic leader of the “New Israel” but a genuine Etruscan or Jew would credit neither presumption. The Helios worshiping Caesars and their legions lived up to their stoic polytheistic beliefs and were courageous to the very end. Not so the Church. Its moral cowardice was evidenced by its deafening silence in the face of Nazi atrocities during the last century. Its cowardice is manifest today in its silence about Muslim atrocities.

The Church has had fifteen centuries for “the dialogue of cultures” with the Muslims. Negotiations with those who make a virtue of treachery are an exercise in self-delusion. I suggest the Pope borrow a page from Constantine and begin scouting new digs. There’s an iconoclastic Imam with a sledgehammer and a bucket of whitewash waiting to move in and redecorate the Vatican.

Naftali: Thank you for thoughtful support.

As for the Arabs of Mandate Palestine, Transjordean was carved off the eastern three-quarters of the Mandate to make an Arab state, with the agreement of the Zionists. One of the conditions was that there be no Jewish settlement east of the Jordan. The Zionists probably thought they were clearing the way for unrestricted Jewish settlement west of the river. Naturally they were betrayed in this.

The Jews agreed to every partition scheme of what was left of the Mandate, even the Peel Plan of 1937 that would have left them with nothing more than Tel Aviv, Haifa, and their suburbs. The invariable Arab response was “NO,kill the Jews.”

If you start a war intending the destruction of a neighboring state and the genocide of its people, as the Arabs did, and lose, as the Arabs did, you may expect to lose some land as a result. You should be thankful you did not lose more than you did. Anyone in doubt about that shoiuld look at the German experience with Silesia and Prussia after 1945. And we should note that the Arabs fled even from places, like Haifa, where Jews were begging them to stay. The Druze stayed and have done well for themselves in Israel. They are far safer there than in any Sunni-dominated country.

When Israel’s enemies say “Peace in the Middle East” they mean the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its Jewish inhabitants. When they whine for “American evenhandedness” they mean we should help them do this. No, nay, never.

If America incures the hatred of genocidal maniacs because we stood in solidarity with the most persecuted people in history and helped them survive the threats against them, that is a point of honor for us. But as trumper noted in #5 anti-Americanism has now morphed into something very like antisemitism. I think they have become two sides of the same coin. America and the Jews; we shall stand or fall together.

The indigenous population was driven from their homes due to a war which they started. No war, no refugees.

Britain was given the mandate to form a Jewish state by the League of Nations, which did have the right to assign that to Britain. The creation of Israel was no different than the creation of Lebabnon or Syria or Iraq. Did anyone ask the Iraqis if they wanted to be ruled by a king airlifted in from the Arabian peninsula? Or the Jordanians?

The claim that the “palestinians” are paying for the evil done by the Nazis is spurious. The Mandate for Palestine came into effect 20 years before the Holocaust started. It was only British subterfuge and backstabbing that prevented Israel from being formed before the Second World War started. Their responsibility for the destruction of European Jewry is almost as great as the Nazis.

9 times out of 10, any subject remotely to do with Israel turns into a debate on whether or not Israel has the right to exist.

Let me answer that definitively, yes, completely, Israel has a right to exist.

I doubt, however, whether Jew haters par excellence, such as Hassan Nasrallah, Mahmoud Ahmadinejhad and the Hamas killers have a right to exist.

Fascinating. I asked you about sovereignty, you didn’t answer, and perhaps this is my fault.

This article is about the roots and nature of antisemitism and you are turning it into a debate on whether Israel has the right to exist.

Do you have anything to say about the phenomenon of antisemitism? Or perhaps you’d like to say something about whether it’s okay for Jews to be killed in order to settle property disputes?

And by the way, I never made any mention of the Bible.

I asked you questions. You still need to explain the concept of sovereignty.

I asked you to clarify your definition of ‘their homeland’. You didn’t do that. You made it more confusing by saying that the Arab natives of British property have rights because they lived there, whereas the Jews, who also lived there, don’t have such rights. If I misunderstood, then you have to clarify that.

I didn’t say anything at all about the Bible. I don’t even know from where you inferred that.

And as a matter of fact, yes Britain did have that right. That’s where the idea of sovereignty comes in.

So until we get the word sovereignty properly defined, I guess we can’t really define ‘illegal settlements’.

You also completely avoided the issue of the wars, and territory acquired during a war, and how that relates to sovereignty.

So basically, this is one big question. Don’t reply as if I made one big statement, if you please.