Having been sowing the anti-Zionist seeds year in and year out since the mid-2000s, and having witnessed the horror of many of our seeds hijacked by the BS camp from the late-2000s schism onwards, it is truly a reward to be able to see at least some of those seeds grow as they were meant to:
If you’re Jewish, you should probably also prepare yourself for the various forms of anti-Israel sentiment, and maybe even anti-Semitism, you’re likely to encounter on your new college campus.
In the past year alone, as a Jewish student at McGill University in Montreal, I’ve been called a “Zionist b—-.” I’ve been told several times that Jews haven’t suffered (never mind the Spanish Inquisition, Eastern European pogroms and centuries of violence and marginalization leading up to the Holocaust). I’ve seen my friends mocked for their Judaism in crude, hateful language on popular anonymous social media platforms. When I asked if a student publication would write about instances of anti-Semitism on campus in its end-of-year issue, I was told that those instances were already covered in “mainstream Zionist media.”
By no means do I defend every action of the Israeli government, but Israel as a Jewish homeland plays an integral role in my identity. I love Israel and firmly believe in its right to exist, just as I believe in a Palestinian state. I also consider myself a liberal and care deeply about a range of injustices, including gender inequality, homophobia and the racial opportunity gap.
Yet so many of my liberal peers, with whom I share so much common ground, have actively excluded Jewish students from their social-justice organizations. The activist community’s demonization of Israel is apparent again and again in my interactions on campus. These clubs propagate the idea that Zionism underpins many of the world’s problems, as well as claim that Jews have no right to feel connected to Israel and that any Jew who does feel a connection to his or her religious homeland is part of the problem. Despite many of our shared values, my Jewish peers’ and my attempts to reach out to these groups have often been dismissed.
Because they are not liberals any more. They have already started the shift towards becoming True Leftists. They have started to care about internal consistency in their positions, and have understood that identitarianism and social justice are mutually exclusive, and therefore that Jews who claim to care about social justice, while retaining support for Jewishness, Judaism and Israel, are LYING.
As you begin your journey as a Jewish college student, you may find that the students involved in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) against Israel, which is on the rise on campuses across North America, are the same students who are active in feminist collectives, LGBT groups, environmental organizations and anti-racism clubs. As a Zionist, this can be extremely disheartening — why should you be alienated from a cause because you believe Israel has a right to exist?
To all you pre-schism Jew-aware activists out there who many years ago told me not to waste my time trying to convert leftists to anti-Zionism, face it: you were never worried about me wasting my time, you were worried about me succeeding. You actively wanted leftists to continue siding with Jews so that leftists could be portrayed as PC cowards and hence rightists would gain credibility by being the only non-PC side in the discussion. This is now no longer possible. By leftists turning anti-Zionist while remaining staunchly leftist on other issues, rightists have lost what was their single most - perhaps even only - effective line of propaganda against leftists.
As the Millennial generation takes positions of leadership in the evangelical churches of America, we may see Christian Zionism and support for Israel vanish. It is a process that is already underway.
Today’s 20-year-olds and 30-year-olds think of themselves as well-informed about Israel’s role in the Middle East and its struggle with the Palestinian people. They are likely to feel strong empathy with the oppressed Palestinian people, and they unanimously join the rest of the world in condemning the State of Israel.
…
today’s young evangelical Christians are far more likely to march under the slogan, “End the Occupation,” than the slogan, “We stand with Israel.” They are following in the footsteps of mainstream denominations such as the Presbyterian Church in the USA, which sponsors boycotts on Israeli products and has published statements condemning the State of Israel for their occupation of Palestine.
And to all you pre-schism Jew-aware activists out there who told me to just give up on Christianity altogether, I’m glad I didn’t listen to you either.
In the view of anti-Zionists, Israel is unworthy of Christian support because it is home to Jews who have rejected Jesus as their Messiah. Anti-Zionist evangelicals contend that support for Israel thwarts efforts to share the Christian faith with Muslims in the Middle East. (In other words, Christianity would be more attractive to Islam if we could present it to them as anti-Jewish and anti-Israel.)
This last sentence is what I have been saying all along. This is the key to fulfilling the prophecy of the Second Christ and the Mahdi fighting side by side against the Antichrist/Dajjal/Jewish Messiah. I still believe firmly in this prophecy. How many more times must I demonstrate my prescience before all of you out there (I’m addressing the lurkers, not our team members) start taking this prophecy seriously enough to join us in working towards it? Because, just like all the other stuff above, Christian-Mohammedan solidarity will not happen unless we do the long, patient and mostly thankless work needed to make it happen. But I would not be asking you to do such work in the first place if I had any less than absolute confidence that, if done well, it will not be done in vain.
So what are you waiting for? Join us!
Dugin’s Guideline - In Trump We Trust: http://youtu.be/aOWIoMtIvDQ
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/479532/Nigel-Farage-is-another-of-Moscow-s-darlings-as-Putin-backs-Right
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-03-25/putins-western-allies
This is the origin of the right ^^^
AS: NS GERMANY WAS ABOUT WHITES …..->We Dreamed Of Something Marvellous - Léon Degrelle: http://youtu.be/iEeSPc5oTcM
@JJ
“Identitarian annoyers use it as an excuse to divide social justice groups”
We should also note that the far-right is increasingly employing the tactic of deliberately promoting division among groups which they fear working together:
http://aryanism.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/troll.jpg
We need to raise awareness of far-right trolling, but also of the way the False Left structurally sets itself up to be divided, as you have articulated very well in your comment above. This will speed up the leftist switch to the True Left as they see that this is by far the best way to avoid being targeted by divisive psychological warfare.
@jens
You are a useful idiot. “Whites” are mentioned in the WORDS. National Socialist Germany, on the other hand, appears in the CLIPS. Someone just superposed the two to make a video. I could make a video superposing those exact same words over clips of Bernie Sanders rallies.
AS: im not usefull idiot, why im beinh called a name when i really want to descover the top of matter . bbecause i agree with you guys in many ways . i dont hate other people because of their color BUT i do not agree with this demasculation about gays and so on in the third rich There are a ton of factors to why the Romans fell. Immorality definitely contributed to this. Jews and multiculturalism were a big factor. Also the Huns, they pushed the Germanic tribes West and South. And the empire itself was ancient… Things rise and fall… That’s just how it is…
@AS If we ignore the clips entirely, and just listen to what Degrelle is saying, he does use the word, “White,” in his language, referring white people, on two occasions.
I’m under the impression that if Degrelle was around today, growing up in a country like my own, he would not be concerned with skin color; so much has changed in the world. Also his words in the video don’t directly show that he was specifically concerned with skin color, but that the war he fought in was concerned with the fate of Europe, which at the time happened to be comprised of almost entirely ‘white-skinned’ people.
@Jens He also says, “And have only one desire, that this SPIRIT could be reborn.”
He also talks about transcending materialism and the domination of the mind. Something the modern western world is devoid of understanding.
@Aestheticaf
“he does use the word, “White,” in his language, referring white people, on two occasions.”
That was exactly what I was referring to in my previous comment when I wrote:
“Whites” are mentioned in the WORDS.
@jens
“im not usefull idiot”
Yes, you are. Having to deal with your non-stop nonsense wastes our time that could have otherwise been spent doing something more positive. This is true of the entire far-right. If it had never existed, we wouldn’t be spending most of our time restating the utterly obvious - Islamophobia and racism are wrong - over and over and over again instead of concentrating on serious anti-Zionism as we had originally signed up to do after solving 9/11, or even being able to expand to many other important issues such as veganism, childcare, environmentalism, population control, etc. that the 21st century was originally supposed to be all about (to say nothing of fun topics such as religion, mythology, aesthetics, 2D video games, etc.) all of which we have now with extreme reluctance placed to the back of the queue out of the sheer urgent need to stop the far-right first. Fuck you.
“i dont hate other people because of their color”
I didn’t ask you whether you hate other people because of their colour. Hunters generally do not hate their prey, but will still hunt them. The notion that racism is about “hate” is a False Left mischaracterization. Racism is about selfishness.
Hatred is what we need more of today: hatred of selfishness, hatred of non-empathy, hatred of in-group/out-group double standards, hatred of the moral inversion of society such that today ramming a refugee-filled rubber dinghy using a speedboat is called “heroism” while volunteering at asylum centres is called “cuckoldry”.
AS Donald Trump for African Americans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEj8IjrId-Y
@AS
“Perhaps Jens has Joetunn blood memory(?)”
I believe that this is a given.
As
Jewish Prime Minister of (then) Great Britain, Benjamin Disraeli, rightly stated “all is race; there is no other truth, and every race must fall which carelessly suffers its blood to become mixed” (Tancred, p. 106).
“No man will treat with indifference the principle of race. It is the key to history, and why history is often so confused is that it has been written by men who are ignorant of this principle and all the knowledge it involves. . . Language and religion do not make a race—there is only one thing which makes a race, and that is blood” (Benjamin Disraeli, Endymion p. 249-250).
Anyone who wants to free the German blood from the manifestations and vices of today, which were originally alien to its nature, will first have to redeem it from the foreign virus of these manifestations.
Without the clearest knowledge of the racial problem and hence of the Jewish problem there will never be a resurrection of the German nation.
The racial question gives the key not only to world history, but to all human culture.-Adolf Hitler
1872-80 Benjamin was minister at that time he “written by men who are ignorant of this principle and all the knowledge it involves.” 1872-80
We won’t actually know who gets purged from the intelligence services will we, as it will all be classified?
Judging from the contempt many pro-Zionist U.S. Congress members have for members of the CIA who are anti-Israel, as seen in the following video, we can only speculate on whose heads are actually going to roll can’t we…?
I’d Dump the Israelis Tomorrow -Ex-CIA Michael Scheuer Tells Congress
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHl1JnQoIWQ
And we’re left with idiots like Kasper, and others of his mental capability and understanding who write articles such-as the following:
IT BEGINS: Buchanan Calls for Heads to Roll at CIA and NED, Investigations of ‘Saboteurs’ https://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2016/12/22/it-begins-buchanan-calls-for-heads-to-roll-at-cia-and-ned-investigations-of-saboteurs/
Americans possibly cheering on their own downfall, nothing new…
Merry Christmas…
The Birth of Eashoa Msheekha and the Western Prejudice: http://www.v-a.com/bible/AAC/birth_of_eashoa_msheekha_and_the_western_prejudice.html
Syrian village clings to Aramaic language - 25 Dec 07
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW6Q2wzCElU
Why do you refer to me?
I was reading over the article about religion of Islam, and wondered if your statement about Abu Bakr being democratically appointed is actually incorrect. It seems that the key that caused his appointment was Umar IBM al-Khattab giving bayah to Abu Bakr, and this was based on clear indications that Muhammad pbuh actually looked to Abu Bakr as his successor, such as asking him to lead the prayer as he got too sick. Up until then the Prophet always was imam for the prayers… Also there are other ahadith that I can bring. Anyway, I don’t think it is true to say Ali was appointed by Fueherprinzip as opposed to the others being democratically elected. Umar was appointed successor to Abu Bakr before he died… There was a council involved with Uthman and Ali but these were selection of the best candidate from a few possibilities, but this was done by learned council (shura), not by laymen and democracy…
Democracy is completely opposed to Islam, and the functioning of Shura to make decisions should never be confused with democracy. Ultimately the decision rests on the Amir (leader) who can take into account the council’s opinion,but even if the majority decide something, the Amir is totally free to choose something else if it seems best.
This functioning of Shura was revealed to the Prophet pbuh to aid him in hearing from Allah in his decisions, giving freedom for people to express their heart, believing that Allah could give wisdom to others that the Prophet could choose to give heed to.
I believe the division of Shia from Sunni is a later fabrication. For sure, there were personal conflicts between Companions may Allah be pleased with them, but Ali gave his daughter to Umar to marry (one who later Shia scholars accuse of homosexuality) and named three of his sons Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, whereas Shia following their scholars curse these men and the Prophets beloved wife Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her.
Anyway, didn’t know exactly where to post all this, but I thought it would be worthwhile to open this discussion.
Yes I agree with Sayfullaah. Also, the Ansar wanted a man of the Ansar to become the Caliph but ‘Umar stopped them and pointed to Abu Bakr. Democracy is far from Islamic as in the Islamic religion, a layman cannot make jurisdictional decisions, that is restricted to the religious scholars. A Caliph is appointed either he takes authority by force in which the Muslims, whether we like it or not, should obey. It’s the same if the person assumes power peacefully with the consent of the scholars. The only time we Muslims should disobey the Caliph is when he strays away from the Qur’aan and Sunnah.
And Allaah knows best.
@Saifullah al-Maslul
If there is a council of learned who can appoint and, as far as I know, even remove the ruler, where does power ultimately rest?
Also which method of decision does this council employ?
@Abu Haydar
“The only time we Muslims should disobey the Caliph is when he strays away from the Qur’aan and Sunnah.”
And what if the Qur’aan is wrong on some issues? This was already asked by AS, not long ago, in the comment section of another blog post, but you still haven’t answered.
I am sincerely interested in your response too, and I imagine other Aryanists also.
@Abu Haydar
Sorry for the double post, but I had another thing to add.
“Now Hitler took Strasser to task for placing ‘the idea’ above the Führer and wanting ‘to give every party comrade the right to decide the nature of the idea, even to decide whether or not the Führer is true to the so-called idea.’ That, he cried angrily, was the worst kind of democracy, for which there was no place in their movement. ‘With us the Führer and the idea are one and the same, and every party comrade has to do what the Führer commands, for he embodies the idea and he alone knows its ultimate goal.’
As Hitler said, if the masses can decide whether or not the leader is true to the idea what’s the difference with democracy?
The function of the leader is to lead its people on a certain path towards the idea. If the people themselves knew already which one was the best path, they would not need a “leader” but a “representative”.
This is what happens in a democracy: a representative is elected for the sake of practicality, and the people can dismiss him if they don’t like what he does.
@Miles
“And what if the Qur’an is wrong on some issues?”
There is nothing wrong with enjoining the good and forbidding al Munkar (evil) (Qur’an 3; 104)
“If there is a council of learned who can appoint and, as far as I know, even remove the ruler, where does power ultimately rest?
Also which method of decision does this council employ?”
That’s also not what Islam is and what we’re trying to say. Both the Qur’an and Sunnah came to the Prophet and exited his blessed lips, as I pointed out, ‘Umar disagreed when the Ansar decided than an Ansari man should become the first Caliph since the Prophet ordered it (I.e. in electing Abu Bakr). The religious scholars cannot do a thing without resorting to those two sources. We have a concept in Islam called “al Bida’ah” (innovation) that is to introduce a new thing to Islam which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never commanded people to do.
@Saifullah
“Umar IBM al-Khattab giving bayah to Abu Bakr”
If Umar had been the standing second-in-command AND Mohammed had not already appointed a successor, then Umar could have reasonably appointed a successor. As it was, Umar was NOMINATING Abu Bakr for popular consensus. That is usurpation.
“this was based on clear indications that Muhammad pbuh actually looked to Abu Bakr as his successor”
“Of whomsoever I had been Master (Mawla), Ali here is to be his Master. O Allah, be a supporter of whoever supports him (Ali) and an enemy of whoever opposes him.” - Mohammed
“He is Ali Ibn Abi Talib, my brother, the executor of my will (Wasiyyi), whose appointment as your guardian and leader has been sent down to me from Allah, the mighty and the majestic.” - Mohammed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_the_pond_of_Khumm#The_hadith
“Also there are other ahadith that I can bring.”
You are welcome to do so.
“even if the majority decide something, the Amir is totally free to choose something else if it seems best.”
When Umar came to the door of the House of Fatima, He said: By Allah, I shall burn down the house over you unless you come out and give the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr. At this point, Fatima apprached Umar and said, O Umar, would you dare? Do you wish to set my house on fire? Umar said: Yes, Unless you give Bayya to Abu Bakr, and enter into that which the majority of the Ummah have agreed to.
…
Furthermore, it is reported: On the day of pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar hit the stomach of Fatima until she miscarried Muahassan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_at_Fatimah%27s_house#Sunni_Reports_that_support_the_Shia_view
Indeed I can believe that it seemed best to Ali at the time to avoid being burned to death…..
“Ali gave his daughter to Umar to marry (one who later Shia scholars accuse of homosexuality) and named three of his sons Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman”
This was how Ali managed to hang around within the power circle long enough to eventually get back the throne that should have been his in the first place.
@AS - For the record, the whole story of Umar going to burn the house of Fatima is a lie, which you are free to believe if you like. But actually there is proof that over the issue of inheritance that Fatima approached Abu Bakr about and got the negative response based on the rulings of the Prophet, that although she remained silent after, the few ahadith that say that she was angry was an assumption of certain narrators that was interpolated, and not actually the case. Fatima and Abu Bakr were reconciled before her death. If you wish to swallow the lies produced by Shia scholars way later, the Majoos in Persia who were basically being led into their evil mockery of Islam by a Jew, then you are free to do so.
https://islamistruth.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/fadak-truth-vs-falsehood/
@Saifullah
“If you wish to swallow the lies produced by Shia scholars”
The link I provided in my previous comment was to: “Sunni reports that support the Shia view”…..
Even if you don’t believe the house-burning threat, why was Ali not invited to the meeting in which Umar nominated Abu Bakr, but only informed afterwards about (and demanded to accept) the conclusion reached in his absence? Does this sound fair to you?
If (as you claim) Ali never had any objection to Abu Bakr as caliph, then what harm could there possibly have been in inviting Ali to the meeting? If anything, Ali’s presence at the meeting would have satisfied Ali’s followers that there was no foul play going on, and thus eliminated the risk of schism. Not inviting Ali only makes sense if Abu Bakr and Umar knew perfectly well that Ali’s presence would have obstructed their plan, and hence needed to pull a fast one.
More to the point, would you yourself under similar circumstances behave as Umar or Abu Bakr did? Or would you, on the contrary, honourably insist that Ali be present before the subject of succession is discussed?
_____
Bonus reference:
Muhammad stood up and said, “O sons of Abd al-Muttalib, by Allah, I do not know of any person among the Arabs who has come to his people with better than what I have brought to you and I have verily came to you with the best of this world and the hereafter, and Allah has ordered me to invite you to it. So who of you, will help me in this mission and to be my brother (akhí), my successor (wasiyyí), and my caliph (khalifatí) among you?”
Muhammad repeated this three times, no one present responded to him except the youngest of them — ‘Ali b. Abí Tãlib. He stood up and said, “I will be your helper, O Prophet of God” thrice.
Muhammad then put his hand on the back of Ali’s neck and said, “Inna hadhã akhhí wa wasiyyí wa khalífatí fíkum, fasma‘û lahu wa atí‘û — Verily this is my brother, my successor, and my caliph amongst you; therefore, listen to him and obey.”.[3] However a handful of the people then laughed and said to Abu Talib that Muhammed has ordered you to obey your son.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_the_invitation_of_the_close_families
@Abu Haydar
“There is nothing wrong with enjoining the good and forbidding al Munkar (evil) (Qur’an 3; 104)”
I completely agree with this sentence. But I don’t believe the Qur’an fully respects it, since it also contains expressions of praise for Jewish prophets.
I still feel my other questions haven’t been answered yet.
Who chooses the caliph? If it is a “council”, what method do they employ to decide?
When the need for interpretation of the “sources” arises, why should the interpretation of a group of scholars or even of the masses (see my previous comment) be allowed to contradict the leader’s own interpretation?