Archive for the ‘Dialectics’ Category

U.S. Media Mocks Victims in Egypt

February 6, 2011

In response to the mocking news reports from the U.S. establishment press on the violence in Egypt which the Israeli/U.S. backed Mubarak regime is most responsible for, and the Israeli/U.S. scheming towards imposing another Israeli puppet regime as a replacement for Mubarak, and the recent revelations on the sellout of the Palestinian Authority, this post from 2007 seems relevant again:

The Judeo-Masonic Tradition of Mocking the Victim

Benedict’s Kabbalistic Two-Step

January 1, 2010

After Pius move, Pope Benedict practices delicate Jewish dance

By Ruth Ellen Gruber

December 31, 2009

ROME (JTA) — For at least the third time in his papacy, Pope Benedict’s XVI is doing the Jewish dance that takes him one step back, one step forward.

The step back came when Benedict made a move in mid-December to bring Holocaust-era Pope Pius XII a bit closer to sainthood. The step forward will come in mid-January, when Benedict visits Rome’s main synagogue — a trip planned long before Benedict’s move on Pius.

The question is what impact the visit will have on ruffled Catholic-Jewish relations.

“It is an important event, a milestone in the dialogue,” Rome’s chief rabbi, Riccardo Di Segni, told Vatican Radio about the planned synagogue visit. “We have great expectations for what it can mean in terms of the general climate.”

Analysts said Benedict’s move on Pius is part of the pope’s effort to shore up conservative forces within the church.

“The pope apparently has chosen to balance his unquestionable commitment to the Catholic Church’s good relations with world Judaism with his commitment to recuperating the religious right wing of Catholicism,” said Lisa Palmieri Billig, the American Jewish Committee’s liaison to the Vatican. “Obviously his path is strewn with warring obstacles.”

Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, an expert in interfaith relations and the vice president of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, said, “The great struggle of this moment is shoring up the most traditional elements of his church as he fights the growing secularization and Islamification of the European stage, which is right before his eyes.”

Bretton-Granatoor said that the visit to the synagogue in Rome is “far more telling about the state of Catholic-Jewish relations” than the move to elevate Pius …

Full article:

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/12/31/1009976/pope-dances-with-the-jews

Also see:

More on Benedict’s Easter Baptism Spectacle

Benedict’s Zionist Easter “Convert” Attempts Resuscitation of “Islamofascist Threat” for U.S. Presidential Election

Vatican Warns Against Islamic Sharia Law While Embracing Rabbinic Noahide Law

Rabbi Eugene Korn Creating a “Catholic” Golem

The “Church Militant” With Rabbis in Command

Benedict XVI, Hexagram Hat Make Cover of Foreign Policy Magazine


Primary Consideration for Sainthood: Were They Good For “The Jews”

Let’s Apply Standards Fairly

Let He Who is Without a Double Mind Cast the First Vote

September 29, 2008

Let He Who is Without a Double Mind Cast the First Vote

By Craig Heimbichner

As the presidential (s)election circus flashes on screen in a perpetual hypnotic hype, we are seeing the predictable reactions of percipients on both the Left and Right—partisan zealotry and mindless support of the “party candidate” as though there were a substantial difference between the two death-oriented, war-mongering male prostitutes, McCain and Obama. But such is to be expected. The Group Mind has been tethered like a cow and ranges in an establishment pasture, thinking that the twin halves of the circle are somehow disconnected. Democrats and Republicans alike roam in this carefully circumscribed kabbalistic sphere, grazing in the sefirah of the day.

The induction of a Double Mind in the populace has been a masterstroke of the Cryptocracy. The herd behaves as though it truly believes there is a real choice available in this two-party system, never wondering why there isn’t a strong alternative third party available, just as the cow doesn’t seem to mind the limits of its grazing ground (except for the occasional jerk of the rope when the cud-chewing bovid ventures too far).

One of the recent manifestations of this controlled myopia has been—on the Right—the call by certain activist Catholics to have sacramental communion withheld from abortion-supporting politicians, and, by extension, the faithful who in turn vote for them. In other words, priests are being pressured to withhold giving communion to Democrats for their implicit or explicit support for the termination of life.

Notably absent, however, is a similar call to withhold communion from war-mongering politicians, and, by extension, the faithful who vote for them. War is patently a grand termination of life, but such in-your-face data appear to escape the above activists, who are quite agitated within their half of the grand grazing pasture as they stare across the grass into the eyes of their blinking bovine counterparts.

In fact if support for death-oriented politicians became the bar for advancing to communion each Sunday Mass, the pews would remain filled and the liturgy would proceed at a quick pace to its conclusion. Such is the triumph of the Double Mind in our day, and while the above example exposes the blind hypocrisy of the Right, the mirror mentality exists no less on the Left. Witness the support for Obama by antiwar protesters who have suddenly “not noticed” his endorsement of the recent slaughter of civilians in Afghanistan inflicted by this country’s armed forces. The spectacle on both Left and Right is a sick jest worthy of the Joker, a recently revived apropos pop-cultural symbol.

Like the two pillars of the Kabbalah, Mercy and Severity, the Left and Right continue to provide a framework upon which to scaffold “thought.” Here’s an interesting dream: what if voting were limited to those free of the duality imposed by the cultural controllers, con artists, and Cryptocrats channeling information to the populace?

Perhaps the voting booths would remain as empty as the confessional.

Originally published here:

http://www.paranoidsonline.com/2008/09/let-he-who-is-without-double-mind-cast.html

Craig Heimbichner is the author of Blood on the Altar

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/cgi-bin/store/agora.cgi?cart_id=6916854.20938*DY0ao1&p_id=10009&xm=on&ppinc=product

Benedict’s Hegelian Method

September 26, 2008

Witness the reaction to these two recent actions by Benedict XVI:

Pope Benedict Selects Rabbi to Speak to Synod

Pope replaces all members of Liturgical Celebrations Office

What is the synthesis of this? Double-minded Catholics who are euphoric about neoconservative liturgies and vestments even as the Gospel is trashed by the prelates celebrating those liturgies: Kosher Katholicism.

And note that Benedict’s neoconservative liturgical commission will be headed by priests from the homo-founded Legionaries “of Christ” and Opus Judei.

See:

The Double-Mind in Occult Philosophy by Craig Heimbichner

Benedict’s Hegelian Method

September 26, 2008

Witness the reaction to these two recent actions by Benedict XVI:

Pope Benedict Selects Rabbi to Speak to Synod

Pope replaces all members of Liturgical Celebrations Office

What is the synthesis of this? Double-minded Catholics who are euphoric about neoconservative liturgies and vestments even as the Gospel is trashed by the prelates celebrating those liturgies: Kosher Katholicism.

And note that Benedict’s neoconservative liturgical commission will be headed by priests from the homo-founded Legionaries “of Christ” and Opus Judei.

See:

The Double-Mind in Occult Philosophy by Craig Heimbichner

Rabbis and Kosher-Catholic Priests in Pilpul

June 20, 2008

Pilpul, simply put, is a rabbinic dialectical process of “debate” or discussion by which a predetermined outcome is arrived at. It’s the Pharisaic tradition which Jesus Christ condemned calling it a “tradition of men” which “makes void the word of God.” Both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds are filled with pilpul which in most cases is for the purpose of circumventing Biblical law. The article below tells of rabbis and kosher-Catholic priests engaged in pilul for the purpose of circumventing the Gospel which condemns the very act they are engaged in. See Mark 7;13 for Christ’s condemnation and Mishnah tractate Nedarim for the pilpul through which the “corban” that Christ condemned in Mark 7;13 was synthesized. And note that Jesus did not only condemn the Pharisaic “corban” invention and ritual hand washing, but He said, “many other such like things you [Pharisees] do.”

Believe me when I tell you, in this “Judeo-Christian dialogue”–what is in reality pilpul–the rabbis aren’t interested in hearing the Gospel. They’re interested in finding ways around the Gospel, like their Pharisaic ideological forefathers found ways around Old Testament law. They intend to make the Gospel of none effect.

… if there were a transcript of the proceedings it would read very much like a discussion in the Talmud.

Rabbis and Catholic priests in dialogue

By Mark L. Shook – St. Louis Post Dispatch

June 19, 2008

The Vatican has taken great pains to define and structure religious dialogues between faith communities. As recently as June 7, Pope Benedict II spoke to the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue of “the importance of truth being the goal of all dialogue and charity being the motivation behind all dialogue.” The content of the council’s meeting and the Pope’s statement seem to imply that religious dialogue is in need of guidelines to keep Catholic participants true to Church doctrine. But very few inter-faith dialogues deal with matters of deep theological import. Most are simply efforts to establish rapport and understanding.

Religious dialogues succeed or fail because of trust and respect. Achieving trust and respect takes time and dedication. Here is yet another example of a process which does not respond well to our need for instant gratification. Rabbis and priests in St. Louis have been in dialogue with each other for more than ten years. That dialogue would never have gotten off the ground had it not been for the personal bonds of friendship which existed between Father Vincent Heier, former Ecumenical officer of the St. Louis Archdiocese, and the late Rabbi Robert P. Jacobs, in his capacity as Executive Vice-president of the St. Louis Rabbinical Association. The two of them set out to create an atmosphere of dialogue which was faithful to the aspirations of the Vatican II process of reconciliation between Jews and Catholics.

We are still going strong. Every other month, a group of about twelve dialogue participants sit down to a kosher lunch provided by an anonymous donor, and over corned beef and turkey, hold a free-wheeling discussion. Sometimes the topics touch on clergy politics, i.e., “How do rabbis/priests get assigned to congregations? At other sessions, the news of the day may form the subject matter. For the most part the dialogue centers around an agreed upon topic with readings sent out in advance. Several sessions were devoted to a careful reading of Pope Benedict’s book, Jesus of Nazareth. Most recently the group studied fundamental documents of belief of the various expressions of Judaism, from Maimonides Thirteen Principles of Judaism to the latest platform of Reform Judaism. No question or comment is ever treated as off the subject. In fact, if there were a transcript of the proceedings it would read very much like a discussion in the Talmud.

Dialogue participants do not sugar-coat their questions or their responses. With the presence of Reform, Conservative and Orthodox rabbis, there is sometimes more intra-Jewish heat generated than heat between Jews and Catholics. Along the way there is significant learning and teaching which takes place. Our priests come to appreciate the wide range of Jewish responses to religious and moral questions of the day and our rabbis develop a more nuanced understanding of how the Church works in developing its teachings and public positions.

Just for the record, no one in these dialogues has converted anyone. Both sides remain true to their faith. What really takes place is a sorting out of real and imaginary differences. Not all or even most of the real differences can be bridged. The sages of Judaism believed that theological conflicts among rabbis were like sparks striking steel and resulted in illumination. I would include this image as a worthy description of true dialogues between persons of all faiths. For each participant there is a strengthening of faith.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/civil-religion/catholic/2008/06/rabbis-and-catholic-priests-in-dialogue/

Rabbis and Kosher-Catholic Priests in Pilpul

June 20, 2008

Pilpul, simply put, is a rabbinic dialectical process of “debate” or discussion by which a predetermined outcome is arrived at. It’s the Pharisaic tradition which Jesus Christ condemned calling it a “tradition of men” which “makes void the word of God.” Both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds are filled with pilpul which in most cases is for the purpose of circumventing Biblical law. The article below tells of rabbis and kosher-Catholic priests engaged in pilul for the purpose of circumventing the Gospel which condemns the very act they are engaged in. See Mark 7;13 for Christ’s condemnation and Mishnah tractate Nedarim for the pilpul through which the “corban” that Christ condemned in Mark 7;13 was synthesized. And note that Jesus did not only condemn the Pharisaic “corban” invention and ritual hand washing, but He said, “many other such like things you [Pharisees] do.”

Believe me when I tell you, in this “Judeo-Christian dialogue”–what is in reality pilpul–the rabbis aren’t interested in hearing the Gospel. They’re interested in finding ways around the Gospel, like their Pharisaic ideological forefathers found ways around Old Testament law. They intend to make the Gospel of none effect.

… if there were a transcript of the proceedings it would read very much like a discussion in the Talmud.

Rabbis and Catholic priests in dialogue

By Mark L. Shook – St. Louis Post Dispatch

June 19, 2008

The Vatican has taken great pains to define and structure religious dialogues between faith communities. As recently as June 7, Pope Benedict II spoke to the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue of “the importance of truth being the goal of all dialogue and charity being the motivation behind all dialogue.” The content of the council’s meeting and the Pope’s statement seem to imply that religious dialogue is in need of guidelines to keep Catholic participants true to Church doctrine. But very few inter-faith dialogues deal with matters of deep theological import. Most are simply efforts to establish rapport and understanding.

Religious dialogues succeed or fail because of trust and respect. Achieving trust and respect takes time and dedication. Here is yet another example of a process which does not respond well to our need for instant gratification. Rabbis and priests in St. Louis have been in dialogue with each other for more than ten years. That dialogue would never have gotten off the ground had it not been for the personal bonds of friendship which existed between Father Vincent Heier, former Ecumenical officer of the St. Louis Archdiocese, and the late Rabbi Robert P. Jacobs, in his capacity as Executive Vice-president of the St. Louis Rabbinical Association. The two of them set out to create an atmosphere of dialogue which was faithful to the aspirations of the Vatican II process of reconciliation between Jews and Catholics.

We are still going strong. Every other month, a group of about twelve dialogue participants sit down to a kosher lunch provided by an anonymous donor, and over corned beef and turkey, hold a free-wheeling discussion. Sometimes the topics touch on clergy politics, i.e., “How do rabbis/priests get assigned to congregations? At other sessions, the news of the day may form the subject matter. For the most part the dialogue centers around an agreed upon topic with readings sent out in advance. Several sessions were devoted to a careful reading of Pope Benedict’s book, Jesus of Nazareth. Most recently the group studied fundamental documents of belief of the various expressions of Judaism, from Maimonides Thirteen Principles of Judaism to the latest platform of Reform Judaism. No question or comment is ever treated as off the subject. In fact, if there were a transcript of the proceedings it would read very much like a discussion in the Talmud.

Dialogue participants do not sugar-coat their questions or their responses. With the presence of Reform, Conservative and Orthodox rabbis, there is sometimes more intra-Jewish heat generated than heat between Jews and Catholics. Along the way there is significant learning and teaching which takes place. Our priests come to appreciate the wide range of Jewish responses to religious and moral questions of the day and our rabbis develop a more nuanced understanding of how the Church works in developing its teachings and public positions.

Just for the record, no one in these dialogues has converted anyone. Both sides remain true to their faith. What really takes place is a sorting out of real and imaginary differences. Not all or even most of the real differences can be bridged. The sages of Judaism believed that theological conflicts among rabbis were like sparks striking steel and resulted in illumination. I would include this image as a worthy description of true dialogues between persons of all faiths. For each participant there is a strengthening of faith.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/civil-religion/catholic/2008/06/rabbis-and-catholic-priests-in-dialogue/

"There’s No Place for Morals"

May 22, 2008

The opinion piece below written by Hebrew University of Jerusalem Professor, Yehezkel Dror is titled, “When Survival of the Jewish People Is at Stake, There’s No Place for Morals.” This is the rabbinic mentality in a single sentence–Judaism being a tribal racket, nothing takes precedence over the tribe. Couple this with rabbinic paranoia and dialectics and you have a self-perpetuating religious system of anti-morality. Any old “threat” will suffice. For example, the rabbis decry marriage of Judaic persons to “Gentile” “shiksas” and “shkutzim” as “a threat to the survival of the Jewish people” tantamount to another “Holocaust.” See:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-orthodox-racism.html

This is but one example. In truth, there has never been a time in 2000 years of Judaism when the rabbis have not been screaming of a threat of “genocide” of “The Jews.” Recall the Talmudic tall-tale of the Roman “genocide” of 4 BILLION Jews in one city, Bethar! (Gitin 57b). If the rabbis stopped summoning the specter of “genocide” of “The Jews” they would have to get real jobs.

There is never a time for true morality in Judaism, not that Judaism has any concept of true morality to begin with. What Yehezkel Dror is really saying is that there is no place for Christian, Biblical morals. That’s what the rabbis were saying during the 2006 Israeli destruction of Lebanon: that Christian moral standards weakened the resolve of the Israeli military and caused danger to “The Jews;” there are no innocent women and children on the “enemy” side during “war.” What the rabbis refer to as “war” is actually indiscriminate destruction of defenseless nations.

The astute among us will recognize this same rabbinic swindle at play in Washington D.C. where it is said that “preemptive” destruction, torture, the forfeiture of our God-given constitutional rights and the abandonment of Christian morality are all necessary due to “the Islamofascist threat.”

Alan Dershowitz spelled it out here:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2008/02/dershowitz-and-death-of-us.html

The proof text here is Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 46a. The rabbis say that the law can be put aside and a person can be executed or flogged, even if they haven’t broken any law, if the rabbis deem that “the times require it.”

When Survival of the Jewish People Is at Stake, There’s No Place for Morals

By Yehezkel Dror – Forward

Thu. May 15, 2008

There is little disagreement that every Jewish leader, organization, community and individual has a duty to help ensure the continuity of the Jewish people. But in a world where the long-term existence of the Jewish state is far from certain, the imperative to exist inevitably gives rise to difficult questions, foremost among them this: When the survival of the Jewish people conflicts with the morals of the Jewish people, is existence worthwhile, or even possible?

Physical existence, I would argue, must come first. No matter how moral a society aspires to be, physical existence must take precedent.

Clear external and internal dangers threaten the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state. It is very likely that the collapse of Israel or the loss of its Jewish nature would undermine the existence of the Jewish people as a whole. And even given the existence of a Jewish state, less clear but no less fateful dangers threaten the long-term sustainable existence of the Diaspora.

When the requirements of existence conflict with other values, therefore, realpolitik should be given priority. From the threat of a disastrous conflict with Islamist actors such as Iran, to the necessity of maintaining distinctions between “us” and “others” in order to limit assimilation, this imperative ought to guide policymakers.

Regrettably, human history refutes the idealistic claim that in order to exist for long, a state, society or people has to be moral. Given the foreseeable realities of the 21st century and beyond, harsh choices are unavoidable, with requirements of existence often contradicting other important values.

Some might argue that putting existence first may be counter-productive in terms of existence itself, because what may be regarded as immoral action can undermine external and internal support essential for existence. However, the calculus of realpolitik gives primacy to existence, leaving limited room for ethical considerations. The unfortunate reality is that the Jewish people may be faced with tragic choices in which important values have to be sacrificed for even more important ones.

Responsible decisions in such difficult situations require clear recognition of the involved moral issues, careful pondering of all relevant values and acceptance of responsibility for one’s autonomous judgment. They also demand an effort to reduce to a minimum the violation of moral values.

Nonetheless, when faced with such choices, the Jewish people ought not be captivated by political correctness and other thinking-repressing fashions. When it comes to China, for example, efforts to strengthen the rising superpower’s ties to the Jewish people should trump moral-minded campaigns to alter Beijing’s domestic policies and handling of Tibet. The same goes for Turkey: Given its crucial peacemaking role in the Middle East, discussion of whether the Ottomans committed genocide against the Armenians ought to be left to historians, preferably non-Jewish ones.

That is not necessarily to condone China’s policies, or to deny Armenian history. Rather, it is to recognize that however just such moral stances may or may not be, the Jewish people must give primacy to existence.

What is required is a priori pondering of values, so as to have guidelines ready for judgment in specific contexts and under crisis conditions. The overall issue is whether the imperative for the Jewish people to exist is a categorical one overriding nearly all other values, or one among many imperatives of similar standing. Given both the history and current situation of the Jewish people, I would argue that the imperative to assure existence is of overriding moral weight.

Let us leave aside reliance on transcendental arguments, biblical commands and sayings of the sages, all of which are open to various interpretations. The justification for giving priority to the needs of existence is four-fold.

First, the Jewish people has an inherent right to exist, just as any other people or civilization.

Second, a people that has been regularly persecuted for 2,000 years is entitled morally, in terms of distributive justice, to be very tough in taking care of its existence, including the moral right and even duty to kill and be killed if this is essential for assuring existence — even at the cost of other values and to other people. This argument is all the more compelling in light of the unprecedented killing only a few decades ago of a third of the Jewish people — mass murder that was supported directly and indirectly, or at least not prevented when possible, by large parts of the civilized world.

Third, given the history of Judaism and the Jewish people, there is a good chance that we will continue to make much-needed ethical contributions to humanity. However, in order to do so we require a stable existence.

Fourth, the State of Israel is the only democratic country whose very existence is endangered by deeply hostile actors, again, without the world taking decisive countermeasures. This justifies — indeed, requires — measures that would be not only unnecessary but also potentially immoral in other circumstances.

The Jewish people should give much more weight to the imperative to assure existence than to other values. There are, of course, limits; nothing can justify initiating genocide. But with the few exceptions where being killed and destroyed is better than transgressing against absolute and total norms, assuring the existence of the Jewish people, including a Jewish State of Israel, should be valued as a top priority.

Thus, if the security of Israel is significantly strengthened by good relations with Turkey and China, but in some views Turkey is guilty of genocide in the past against the Armenians and China of now repressing Tibetans and domestic opposition, Jewish leaders and organizations should support Turkey and China, or at least remain neutral when it comes to their affairs. At a minimum, Jewish leaders should not join the chorus of liberal and humanitarian actors condemning Turkey and China.

Similarly, Jewish leaders should support harsh measures against terrorists who potentially endanger Jews, even at the cost of human rights and humanitarian law. And if the threat is sufficiently grave, the use of weapons of mass destruction by Israel would be justified if likely to be necessary for assuring the state’s survival, the bitter price of large number of killed innocent civilians notwithstanding.

To be sure, there is much room for debate on what is really required for existence. Giving priority to the imperative to exist does not imply supporting each and every policy of Israel. Indeed, the opposite is true: Diaspora leaders, organizations and individuals have a duty to criticize Israeli policies that in their view endanger the Jewish state and the Jewish people’s existence, along with an obligation to propose alternative existence-assuring policies.

But at the end of the day there is no way around the tough and painful practical implications of prioritizing existence as an overriding moral norm over being moral in other respects. When important for existence, violating the rights of others should be accepted, with regret but with determination. Support or condemnation of various countries and their policies should be decided upon primarily in light of probable consequences for the existence of the Jewish people.

In short, the imperatives of existence should be given priority over other concerns — however important they may be — including liberal and humanitarian values, support for human rights and democratization.

This tragic but compelling conclusion is not easy to swallow, but it is essential for the future of the Jewish people. Once our existence is assured, including basic security for Israel, much can and should be sacrificed for tikkun olam. But given present and foreseeable realities, assuring existence must come first.

http://www.forward.com/articles/13388/

"There’s No Place for Morals"

May 22, 2008

The opinion piece below written by Hebrew University of Jerusalem Professor, Yehezkel Dror is titled, “When Survival of the Jewish People Is at Stake, There’s No Place for Morals.” This is the rabbinic mentality in a single sentence–Judaism being a tribal racket, nothing takes precedence over the tribe. Couple this with rabbinic paranoia and dialectics and you have a self-perpetuating religious system of anti-morality. Any old “threat” will suffice. For example, the rabbis decry marriage of Judaic persons to “Gentile” “shiksas” and “shkutzim” as “a threat to the survival of the Jewish people” tantamount to another “Holocaust.” See:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-orthodox-racism.html

This is but one example. In truth, there has never been a time in 2000 years of Judaism when the rabbis have not been screaming of a threat of “genocide” of “The Jews.” Recall the Talmudic tall-tale of the Roman “genocide” of 4 BILLION Jews in one city, Bethar! (Gitin 57b). If the rabbis stopped summoning the specter of “genocide” of “The Jews” they would have to get real jobs.

There is never a time for true morality in Judaism, not that Judaism has any concept of true morality to begin with. What Yehezkel Dror is really saying is that there is no place for Christian, Biblical morals. That’s what the rabbis were saying during the 2006 Israeli destruction of Lebanon: that Christian moral standards weakened the resolve of the Israeli military and caused danger to “The Jews;” there are no innocent women and children on the “enemy” side during “war.” What the rabbis refer to as “war” is actually indiscriminate destruction of defenseless nations.

The astute among us will recognize this same rabbinic swindle at play in Washington D.C. where it is said that “preemptive” destruction, torture, the forfeiture of our God-given constitutional rights and the abandonment of Christian morality are all necessary due to “the Islamofascist threat.”

Alan Dershowitz spelled it out here:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2008/02/dershowitz-and-death-of-us.html

The proof text here is Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 46a. The rabbis say that the law can be put aside and a person can be executed or flogged, even if they haven’t broken any law, if the rabbis deem that “the times require it.”

When Survival of the Jewish People Is at Stake, There’s No Place for Morals

By Yehezkel Dror – Forward

Thu. May 15, 2008

There is little disagreement that every Jewish leader, organization, community and individual has a duty to help ensure the continuity of the Jewish people. But in a world where the long-term existence of the Jewish state is far from certain, the imperative to exist inevitably gives rise to difficult questions, foremost among them this: When the survival of the Jewish people conflicts with the morals of the Jewish people, is existence worthwhile, or even possible?

Physical existence, I would argue, must come first. No matter how moral a society aspires to be, physical existence must take precedent.

Clear external and internal dangers threaten the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state. It is very likely that the collapse of Israel or the loss of its Jewish nature would undermine the existence of the Jewish people as a whole. And even given the existence of a Jewish state, less clear but no less fateful dangers threaten the long-term sustainable existence of the Diaspora.

When the requirements of existence conflict with other values, therefore, realpolitik should be given priority. From the threat of a disastrous conflict with Islamist actors such as Iran, to the necessity of maintaining distinctions between “us” and “others” in order to limit assimilation, this imperative ought to guide policymakers.

Regrettably, human history refutes the idealistic claim that in order to exist for long, a state, society or people has to be moral. Given the foreseeable realities of the 21st century and beyond, harsh choices are unavoidable, with requirements of existence often contradicting other important values.

Some might argue that putting existence first may be counter-productive in terms of existence itself, because what may be regarded as immoral action can undermine external and internal support essential for existence. However, the calculus of realpolitik gives primacy to existence, leaving limited room for ethical considerations. The unfortunate reality is that the Jewish people may be faced with tragic choices in which important values have to be sacrificed for even more important ones.

Responsible decisions in such difficult situations require clear recognition of the involved moral issues, careful pondering of all relevant values and acceptance of responsibility for one’s autonomous judgment. They also demand an effort to reduce to a minimum the violation of moral values.

Nonetheless, when faced with such choices, the Jewish people ought not be captivated by political correctness and other thinking-repressing fashions. When it comes to China, for example, efforts to strengthen the rising superpower’s ties to the Jewish people should trump moral-minded campaigns to alter Beijing’s domestic policies and handling of Tibet. The same goes for Turkey: Given its crucial peacemaking role in the Middle East, discussion of whether the Ottomans committed genocide against the Armenians ought to be left to historians, preferably non-Jewish ones.

That is not necessarily to condone China’s policies, or to deny Armenian history. Rather, it is to recognize that however just such moral stances may or may not be, the Jewish people must give primacy to existence.

What is required is a priori pondering of values, so as to have guidelines ready for judgment in specific contexts and under crisis conditions. The overall issue is whether the imperative for the Jewish people to exist is a categorical one overriding nearly all other values, or one among many imperatives of similar standing. Given both the history and current situation of the Jewish people, I would argue that the imperative to assure existence is of overriding moral weight.

Let us leave aside reliance on transcendental arguments, biblical commands and sayings of the sages, all of which are open to various interpretations. The justification for giving priority to the needs of existence is four-fold.

First, the Jewish people has an inherent right to exist, just as any other people or civilization.

Second, a people that has been regularly persecuted for 2,000 years is entitled morally, in terms of distributive justice, to be very tough in taking care of its existence, including the moral right and even duty to kill and be killed if this is essential for assuring existence — even at the cost of other values and to other people. This argument is all the more compelling in light of the unprecedented killing only a few decades ago of a third of the Jewish people — mass murder that was supported directly and indirectly, or at least not prevented when possible, by large parts of the civilized world.

Third, given the history of Judaism and the Jewish people, there is a good chance that we will continue to make much-needed ethical contributions to humanity. However, in order to do so we require a stable existence.

Fourth, the State of Israel is the only democratic country whose very existence is endangered by deeply hostile actors, again, without the world taking decisive countermeasures. This justifies — indeed, requires — measures that would be not only unnecessary but also potentially immoral in other circumstances.

The Jewish people should give much more weight to the imperative to assure existence than to other values. There are, of course, limits; nothing can justify initiating genocide. But with the few exceptions where being killed and destroyed is better than transgressing against absolute and total norms, assuring the existence of the Jewish people, including a Jewish State of Israel, should be valued as a top priority.

Thus, if the security of Israel is significantly strengthened by good relations with Turkey and China, but in some views Turkey is guilty of genocide in the past against the Armenians and China of now repressing Tibetans and domestic opposition, Jewish leaders and organizations should support Turkey and China, or at least remain neutral when it comes to their affairs. At a minimum, Jewish leaders should not join the chorus of liberal and humanitarian actors condemning Turkey and China.

Similarly, Jewish leaders should support harsh measures against terrorists who potentially endanger Jews, even at the cost of human rights and humanitarian law. And if the threat is sufficiently grave, the use of weapons of mass destruction by Israel would be justified if likely to be necessary for assuring the state’s survival, the bitter price of large number of killed innocent civilians notwithstanding.

To be sure, there is much room for debate on what is really required for existence. Giving priority to the imperative to exist does not imply supporting each and every policy of Israel. Indeed, the opposite is true: Diaspora leaders, organizations and individuals have a duty to criticize Israeli policies that in their view endanger the Jewish state and the Jewish people’s existence, along with an obligation to propose alternative existence-assuring policies.

But at the end of the day there is no way around the tough and painful practical implications of prioritizing existence as an overriding moral norm over being moral in other respects. When important for existence, violating the rights of others should be accepted, with regret but with determination. Support or condemnation of various countries and their policies should be decided upon primarily in light of probable consequences for the existence of the Jewish people.

In short, the imperatives of existence should be given priority over other concerns — however important they may be — including liberal and humanitarian values, support for human rights and democratization.

This tragic but compelling conclusion is not easy to swallow, but it is essential for the future of the Jewish people. Once our existence is assured, including basic security for Israel, much can and should be sacrificed for tikkun olam. But given present and foreseeable realities, assuring existence must come first.

http://www.forward.com/articles/13388/

New Testament and Catholic Schools Processed by Talmudic Dialectics

November 20, 2007

“As above, so below,” so says the Hermetic tenet. What happens in Rome is happening in the local parishes. Benedict and his favorite rabbi, Jacob Neusner have demonstrated how it should be done. Background on that HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE. And evidence of it’s filtration down to the parishes is supplied below.

Anyone who has read the talmudic texts will recognize the dialectical pilpul at play here–the lawyerly process of synthesizing anti-biblical interpretations of biblical texts. What makes it even more diabolical here is that one of the rabbis engaged in the process is wearing a priest suit and the subject is the New Testament.

Also relevant is the method by which Benedict and Kasper’s favorite Hasidic sophist, Martin Buber synthesized change and “new truths” through dialogue, a process which he called “dialogical thinking” HERE.

Workshop bridges Catholic, Jewish beliefs
By Cortney Fielding

… Searching for answers to students’ probing questions, Bonar and 35 other teachers from Catholic schools across Los Angeles County participated last week in the Anti-Defamation League’s fifth-annual regional “Bearing Witness” program at the American Jewish University in West Los Angeles.

Through an intensive three-day workshop of lectures and discussions led by Jewish and Catholic leaders, scholars and Holocaust survivors, the program provides Catholic school teachers with the training and resources necessary to teach their students about anti-Semitism, the Holocaust and Catholic-Jewish relations, said Matt Freedman, an associate director at the Anti-Defamation League …

Evette Escamilla, a sixth- and seventh-grade history teacher at St. Marianne’s Catholic school in Pico Rivera, said her school valued the opportunity to be part of a dialogue that could be introduced into the classroom.

“Our principal really urged us to come and participate in this week of discussion and reflection,” she said. “It’s wonderful that we actually get to experience this.”

Escamilla said she was most intrigued by a dialogue session between a rabbi and priest, who offered up similar interpretations of events chronicled in the Christian New Testament.

After the dialectical sorcery is done and the Catholic school teachers have been processed to believe that these Talmudic Khazar swindlers are somehow related to Jesus Christ, they’re compelled to transmit this mental virus to the children back at their schools:

“The person we follow as Catholics is Jewish. We can’t ignore his Jewishness,” said Bonar. “We can’t ignore this context when we teach our own religion. Ignoring it plants these seeds of hate.”

full article:

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_7444857

More on the joint USCCB and ADL plan for the subversion of Catholic schools, “Bearing Witness” HERE.

.