Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av Givati
Du fortsätter att undvika att kommentera de som kritiserar terrorstaten Israel och att hålla en dialog.
Ditt arabhat är avgrundsdjupt och det finns uppenbarligen små möjligheter att bota dig från denna psykopatologiska hjärnskada. Gång efter annan visar du prov på detta hat i dina inlägg.
När det gäller Cohn och hans hänvisning till en likartat psykopatologiskt sjuk rabbe så visar det sig att denne rabbin 'påstår' att Shahak tvingats(!!) erkänna - "
was eventually 'forced' (tvingad med våld?)
to admit that the orthodox jew...simply did not exist" - sin utsago som felaktig, helt utan referenser eller något som bevisar sanningshalten i denne zionistförsvarande och goyimhatande rabbins påstående. Vem fan kan lita på en engelsk överrabbin med Lordtitel? Inte mycket 'tzadik eller adonaj
' över honom inte!
Cohn ljuger när han påstår att Shahak hävdar att
alla judar -
Dr. Shahak, who tells us, over and over, that all religious Jews teach hatred (and worse) of non-Jews - skulle predika hat. Varken Shahak (eller jag
) har någonsin påstått något liknande. Tvärtom har jag hedrat den sefardiska hållningen mot gojjer som är mer jämlik och avspänd jämfört med ashkenazims. Jag har den svenska översättningen av Shahaks läsvärda bok och jag undrar helt stillsamt om du läst boken? Nä, trodde väl det. Du förlitar dig helt på dina hatpredikande bundsförvanter. Patetiskt!
Jag visste att du till slut skulle komma dragande med en annan sjuklig lögnare. För tusan Givati, du försöker försvara lögnare med lögnare! Denne Mathis har avslöjats som lögnare tidigare i denna tråd (och även blivit vederlagd på FB's rev-forum):
http://www.flashback.org/showpost.php?p=3673816&postcount=585
Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av BlizzardKing
http://www.mediamonitors.net/leonard7.html
I F. Roderich-Stoltheim's (aka Theodor Fritsch) bok 'The Riddle Of The Jew's Success' (Hammer-Verlag/Leipzig; 1927) kan man i kapitel V, 'The peculiar Morality of Jewdom' (s. 53-54) läsa följande:
"---That the Hebrew is not very paricular with regard to his moral obligations towards other people, is fairly well known. One is wont to excuse him much in this respect, and to overlook his lack of conscientiousness with the remark that he had been frequently unjustly persecuted in "olden times". and thus had been driven, by dire necessity, to the adoption of a lax moral code.. In this respect also, many "worthy souls" are inclined, out of ill-considered aimiability, to speak disparagingly of their own nation by imputing the responsibility for their moral deficiencies of the Hebrew to their own Christian ancestors. These fine folk could easily ascertain from the Bible, that the bad ethics of the Hebrew are as old as that nation, and already existed before there were any Christians. The Hebrews were already decried, far and wide, in ancient Egypt, Babylon and Syria on acount of their questionable morality and business tactics; consequently, the Christians cannot be blamed for the moral shortcomings of the jewish people.
Already we can learn out of the Old Testament that their law allows the Hebrews to treat the "non-Jew" - "the stranger" - very differently to those of their own faith and blood. In this respect already, the "Chosen People" place themselves in the strongest contrast to all other nations, who are designated as "strangers". It is continually reiterated that it is permissible to do all kinds of things towards a "stranger", which it is forbidden to do towards the fellow-Jews. Thus, for wxample: "You may practise usury against the "stranger", but not against your brother." (5. Moses 23, 20).
A sharp distinction is always drawn between the Jews, and the rest of the nations. All the moral commandments of the Hebrew extend only to members of their race; all other races are excepted. What is forbidden to be done to Jews, is permitted towards those, who are not Jews. 5. Moses, 15. 3: "You may put pressure on the stranger, but you must be lenient to him, who is your brother." The contempt shown for all those, who are not jews, goes so far as to regard unclean food and garbage as good enough for the "stranger". 5. Moses, 14, 21: "You shall not eat offal; you may give it to the 'stranger' in your gate so that he may eat it, or sell it to another 'stranger'".
All the commands, made with reference to one's neighbour, are not comprhended by the Jew as by the Christians, who regards them as referring to all men; he - the Jew - accepts them quite literally, and as referring only to the actual neighbour, the member of the same race, the fellow-Jew. When we read in 3 Moses: 19, 13: "Thou shalt neither overreach nor rob thy neighbour", the jew considers that he is released from any like duty towards those, who are not jews. The writings of the Rabbis express this particular comprehension of the text quite unmistakably.---"
Anser man sig vara 'utvald av Gud' och att man blivit 'lovad det förlovade landet av Gud' så innebär det i praktiken att man ser ner på de som inte är 'utvalda' och därmed inte blivit lovade något geografiskt område. Hur sjukt är inte ett sådant beteende?
Du svarade inte på min fråga; För du kan väl inte på allvar mena att du tror på hans (Cohn's) yranden om Chomsky som neonazistsympatisör?
