Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 01:09:12 AM by George Shelps

mAfter posting under numerous pseudonyms, Jenks has blatantly returned.

Since he is an off-topic bigot, I call upon you, Mr Cones, to excise his posts.

Mr. Shelps to Stop Playing Joe-Censor
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 04:29:23 PM by James Jaeger

>Since he is an off-topic bigot, I call upon you, Mr Cones, to excise his posts.

Since one of FIRM's central observations is that the MPAA studio/distributors are dominated/controlled by a narrowly defined demographic, i.e., politically liberal, not very religious Jewish males of European heritage, it is entirely ON-TOPIC for anyone, including Mr. Jenks, to address the question of exactly what we mean by the term "Jewish."

James Jaeger

Re(1): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 10:00:15 AM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

"Numerous pseudonyms?"

1) I have responded EXPRESSLY to Levine's comment (which is NOT censored) that "Judaism is not racism."
Why should Levine always get a free pass? Why should he get to lie about NUMEROUS things at this forum? Is it because you think he is implicitly "chosen" to be above other commentators, and no one is allowed to respond critically to him?

If he has any integrity at all (and I don't think he does), he should insist upon seeing our argument about WHAT HE BROUGHT UP AT THIS FORUM completely through to its natural conclusion: his moral and factual defeat.

2) The first thought of someone who cannot win a debate is to censor the commments, however intelligent, and documented they are. You're a little toady censor, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Is censorship and allegiance to Jewish racism what being a "Christian" means to you? Your endorsement of censorship, Shleps, is an act of cowardice and deceit.

3) You, Shleps, are a sychophant (psycho-phant?) for racist Israel. All the Jewish defamation of THE PASSION OF CHRIST should open your eyes and make you rethink your support of the anti-Christian Jewish community, but you do not.

We've got a long list of articles of Jewish assault upon THE PASSION here:

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/gibson2.htm

Their position about THE PASSION is often quite the same as yours is here about me: the film should be BANNED, the same way you function here as a KLAN pimp.

4) It is impossible to discuss THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (and so much else) without commentary about the social, political, and cultural worlds that inform it. The CULTURE WAR that informs our day, and THE PASSION OF CHRIST, is not about "film" per se. But the surrounding CULTURE WAR is the HEART of any intelligent analysis of that movie.

5) Everything I have posted in rebuttal to Levine is true, and documented.

Re(2): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 00:57:59 AM by Mitchell Levine

I have responded EXPRESSLY to Levine's comment (which is NOT censored) that "Judaism is not racism."
Why should Levine always get a free pass? Why should he get to lie about NUMEROUS things at this forum? Is it because you think he is implicitly "chosen" to be above other commentators, and no one is allowed to respond critically to him?

- It's hardly a "lie," it's simply not what you believe, and you are NOT the final arbiter of Truth. Jews can be racist in the same way anyone else can be.

That hardly means Judaism is racist when it pledges allegiance to a group which is not a racial group, and accepts all racial groups into its body. All your stupid claim is is a slur.

f he has any integrity at all (and I don't think he does), he should insist upon seeing our argument about WHAT HE BROUGHT UP AT THIS FORUM completely through to its natural conclusion: his moral and factual defeat.

- The only "moral and factual defeat" it's led to is yours: you're just too moronic to realize it. Quite simply, Jews are not a racial group as Caucasians, Blacks, Asians and so on are. You don't like it, but you can't refute it, and you know it. End of story.

The first thought of someone who cannot win a debate is to censor the commments, however intelligent, and documented they are

- Your comments aren't "intelligent," or well-documented: they're illogical, irrational, and filled with factual errors, up to and including characterizing people as "Jewish" that are not. You misquote, quote out of context, and, above all, use pastiches of quotes to try and establish theses that aren't supported by any of your "documented sources." In short, you're a liar.

Anytime you want to get up in public and debate in front of a neutral panel of judges to see whose ability is superior, I'll be there to humiliate you in front of a live audience and watch your fragile ego structure shattered in abject, total defeat.

Of course, that constitutes the entire history of your life, but that's a subject for another day.

Re(3): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 10:53:21 AM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

I invite anyone to read the full content of this thread to make up their minds about the authenticity of our respective positions -- and this discussion is still developing. There is much, much more research at my disposal.

By the way, Mr. Levine, you say this:

"Anytime you want to get up in public and debate in front of a neutral panel of judges to see whose ability is superior, I'll be there to humiliate you in front of a live audience and watch your fragile ego structure shattered in abject, total defeat.
Of course, that constitutes the entire history of your life, but that's a subject for another day."

This is the bravado of third graders, and the focus upon smear and defamation that is the ESSENCE of your position. I am also getting really tired hearing how brilliant you think you are. Tell it to your image in the mirror each morning if you must, but stating that you're brilliant on an Internet forum is considerably less, sir, than "anecdotal." It's kind of weird and it underscores an enormous insecurity on your part.

Let your arguments fly as they may. Claiming you're a genius isn't going to lift them off the ground any higher.

Re(2): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 01:45:22 PM by Mitchell Levine

Once again, Jenks, the Evil Scumbag of FIRM, proves that if he wasn't a stupid asshole that lied, he wouldn't be a stupid, lying asshole

-The question wasn't even "is Judaism racism," but, "do Jews constitute an anthropological racial group?"

Answer: they don't - because you can convert to Judaism, and you can't convert to a racial group, which can be entered only by birth.

His "arguments" to the contrary - typical of his slow-witted, low-powered "intellect" - include the following:

1) It's difficult to convert to Judaism -

The obvious stupidity of this lie is evident in the fact that the degree of difficulty of joining a group doesn't affect it's status as a race: a racial group by definition is IMPOSSIBLE to join except by being born into. No one in history has ever converted to being Asian, because you can't change the color of your skin.

2) "Jews don't like converts."

- Once again, this idiotic lie has nothing to do with the question: if you can convert to a social group, it is by definition not a race.

Of course, exactly why every synagogue in the entire nation goes out of its way to set up programs specifically for converts,if Jews don't like converts is never explained.

His reply "to help cover up their racism!" is ridiculous, as the existence of converts demonstrates that Jews don't meet the anthropological definition of a race.

3) Anthropologists who agree that Jews do not meet the scientific definiton of a race like Gordon Allport, a Scottish Episcopalian minister, are actually "Jewish."

- This should give you a clue about the validity of his "research," and the importance he attaches to factuality.

4) The fact that both white Russians and Ethiopians are considered Jewish "proves" Jews are a race, not an ethnicity.

- Yet another example of the "clear-headed" thinking for which this dickhead is sui generis: Exactly how people with differently colored skin and other contrasting biological indicators could both be members of the same racial group is similarly inexplicable.

The rest of his ignorant bullshit is equally as "factual" as his claim that Allport is Jewish (he has a long history of claiming non-Jews that do things he doesn't like are Jewish).

Re(3): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 09:29:58 PM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

I haven't got time right now to refute every Levine detail. As time allows, I will.

For now, I note that Levine talks about the fact that it's not difficult to convert to Judaism ... Well, ain't that a fact:


In 1997, a rabbi associated with Israel's Ministry of Religious Affairs, Mikhail Dushinsky, was caught in a scandal when he was secretly filmed telling a young couple (two news reporters posing as a Jewish man and his non-Jewish pregnant girlfriend) that he would do a quick under-the-table conversion to Judaism for her (which would expedite access to social services in Israel) for $15,000. [GUARDIAN, 2-22-97] " Don't tell her what's going on," Rabbi Dushinsky told the undercover reporter, "She shouldn't think Judaism is something you buy with money." [SCHOFFMAN, p. 23] After the tape was broadcast on Israeli TV, "dozens of other converts and aspiring converts" came forward with stories of "being subjected to the same sort of extortion." [DERFNER, HIDDEN, p. 10]

Rabbi Alan Lew notes a similar tale in America:

"When [a dying Jewish man's] wife realized that she couldn't be buried next to him because she wasn't Jewish, she decided she wanted to convert, but only on her terms. She wasn't willing to go to the mikvah, she wasn't willing to study, she wasn't willing to be interrogated by rabbis. 'I've been married to a Jewish man for forty years,' she said. 'That ought to be enough.' I said I couldn't convert her under those circumstances, so she found a rabbi who would, an Orthodox rabbi who agreed to convert her for a large sum of money and no other requirements." [LEW, A., 1999, p. 234]

Such "Judaism for sale" stories echo that of the Israeli consular official -- Eliezer Yitzhaki -- in Ethiopia who was recalled to the Jewish state for allegedly selling Israeli tourist visas to Ethiopians for over $4,000 apiece. Many Ethiopians, Jewish or not, seek a better economic prospects out of the African Third World country. [MELMAN, Y., 6-222-01]

Re(4): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 10:39:36 PM by Mitchell Levine

This has nothing to do with the question at hand: organized Judaism requires that a person spend a certain length studying Jewish culture and history before conversion.

Making a conversion to a religion and way of life isn't like changing brands of razor blades; it's a serious commitment, and there's nothing wrong whatsoever with wanting a aspirant to demonstrate their sincerity. Compared to the conversion process in Vedanta that I went through, it's a walk in the park.

The fact that these people took a corrupt shortcut to get what they wanted only makes a statement about them.

Re(3): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 04:53:24 PM by James Jaeger

Mitchell,

I'm glad Jim Jenks has come here to provide an alternative view to my question of whether being Jewish is a function of race, religion or other.

I have carefully read both your posts and Mr. Jenk's posts and it seems to me that basically being Jewish is a matter of race. It also seems to me that people are allowed to "convert" to Judaism so it looks less racist, more politically correct in today's world.

I have re-acquired that book on genetic studies of Jewish genes and will be posting some excerpts from it. Here is scientific DNA evidence that there is a definite Jewish line, especially in the Cohen line. This same book indicates that Jewish inbreeding over the centuries has less of a deleterious effect on mental and physical ability than once thought. I will relate these facts as well to dispel any myths that Jews are at higher risk of mental retardation.


James Jaeger

P.S. I would appreciate if you would stop using foul language to address Mr. Jenks, such as an "Evil Scumbag," "stupid asshole," "bigot," "lying asshole." This goes for George Shelps as well. Any more of this and both your may be deleted.

Lastly, once all views of what it means to be Jewish have been fairly posted, in a gentlemanly fashion, I ask that this discussion relate further posts to the film industry.

Re(4): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 08:21:55 PM by George Shelps

I would appreciate if you would stop using foul language to address Mr. Jenks, such as an "Evil Scumbag," "stupid asshole," "bigot," "lying asshole." This goes for George Shelps aswell. Any more of this and both your may be deleted.

___Right! But you won't delete the posts of a blatant Jew-hater!!

Re(5): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 03:19:34 PM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

My dear Mr. Shelps.

In this thread I am meticulously demolishing Mr. Levine's dissimulation about Jewish identity and its intrinsic, historical racism. And I am not finished yet. There is plenty more to come if he insists upon fighting a lost cause: the cause of lying and propaganda.

It's up to him. He can concede a few things any time.

I am outlining -- in your terms, Mr. Shelps -- Jewish "hate" of the non-Jew.

Your position is that to dare to expose Jewish "hatred" is ITSELF an expression of "hatred." Think about it.

I "hate" injustice and hypocrisy, from any quarter. Don't you? Or do you love it?

Why is Jewish racism and anti-Christian bigotry sacred to you? And why am I a "hater" for asking you this necessary question?

Re(5): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 12:48:35 PM by James Jaeger

>___Right! But you won't delete the posts of a blatant Jew-hater!!

It's totally your opinion that he hates Jews. Whether he does or not, I don't see how this is relevant. Here in America people who have passion about a subject, whether hate or love, have a right to express their views.

Many people hate war. They are haters. Should we also censor them?

James Jaeger

Re(6): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 10:08:14 PM by George Shelps

Right! But you won't delete the posts of a blatant Jew-hater!!

It's totally your opinion that he hates Jews. Whether he does or not, I don't see how this is relevant. Here in America people who have passion about a subject, whether hate or love, have a right to express their views.
Many people hate war. They are haters. Should we also censor them?

You're willing to censor me and Levine.

__"War is hell," said General Sherman,
and hating it is normal.

Hating an ethnic group is a sin.

You should be ashamed of yourself, James.

Re(7): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 10:46:45 PM by MOSHE THE GOYIM


Mr. Shelps. You say: "Hating an ethnic group is a sin."

Mr. Shelps, I "hate" injustice. I "hate" fraud. I "hate" hypocrisy.

As I have illustrated to you countless time, "hating" Christianity is part of Jewish religious belief. Why would this not be so? Jesus was a blasphemer to the leaders of Judaism. And he was despised.

Here's a sampling of what the Jewish Orthox group "Chabad" thinks about Jesus, CITING THE IMPORTANT JEWISH RELIGIOUS TEXT, THE TALMUD:

http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm

Who Was Jesus? Noah's Covenant Web Site[sponsored by the ultra-Orthodox Chabad Lubavitch organization] 2001

"The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other sins of 'Jesus the
Nazarene': 1) He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a).

Re(8): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 28, 2004 at 02:13:27 AM by George Shelps

Shelps. You say: "Hating an ethnic group is a sin."
Mr. Shelps, I "hate" injustice. I "hate" fraud. I "hate" hypocrisy.

___Don't try to dodge the issue. You ascribe all these qualities to Jews and Judaism as a whole.

No ethnic group is free of these failings. But you seem to think the Jews are particularly prone to them...and therein lies your bigotry.


As I have illustrated to you countless time, "hating" Christianity is part of Jewish religious belief.

___This is a theological dispute. You hate a PEOPLE, not a religious doctrine.



Why would this not be so? Jesus was a blasphemer to the leaders of Judaism. And he was despised. Here's a sampling of what the Jewish Orthox group "Chabad" thinks about Jesus, CITING THE IMPORTANT JEWISH RELIGIOUS TEXT, THE TALMUD:

____The ultra-orthodox Chabad group is
a splinter group. The Talmud is often
callled a 'sea" because it contains many
different opinions. You select passages
that support your bias.

The fact that Jaeger refuses to repudiate you is something that will render FIRM ineffective. He is truly
blind to the evil message of your posts here. Levine's characterization of :evil scumbag" is right on!

Yo

Re(9): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 28, 2004 at 08:47:17 AM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

I ask you for the fourth time your opinion about what you would like censored from this forum, all my posts, including the following quote by Moshe Greenberg, the former head of the Biblical Studies department at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Mr. Shelps, you avoid, avoid, avoid, avoid. It is an act of moral cowardice, and self-censorship, to avoid the following quote, which sooner or later you must face to understand what you defend so blindly, and vehemently:


"What emerged for me, from the study of the first chapters of the book and their antecedents was the discovery that the main stream of Jewish
thought is permeated by the genetic spiritual superiority of Jews over
Gentiles, disconcertingly reminiscent of racist notions of our time. Living in Israel for the past twenty years in a Jewish majority that is no
more sensitive to the feelings of minorities within it than Gentile
majorities are.... [with] Jews in their midst, I have come to realize the
vitality of Jewish racist notions, and I am more than ever convinced that
the hold Judaism will have on this and future generations will be gravely
impaired unless these notions are neutralized by an internal reordering of traditional values." [GREENBERG, p. 33]

Re(10): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 28, 2004 at 10:16:50 AM by George Shelps

I ask you for the fourth time your opinion about what you would like censored from this forum, all my posts, including the following quote by Moshe Greenberg, the former head of the Biblical Studies department at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Mr. Shelps, you avoid, avoid, avoid, avoid. It is an act of moral cowardice, and self-censorship, to avoid the following quote, which sooner or later you must face to understand what you defend so blindly, and vehemently:

____The answer is: Greenberg is not a hated of Jews and you are. The fact that he has similar questionable opinions about Jewish 'racism" doesn't lead to put up a hate site on the internet full of vile invective, with the use of such phrases as "Jew Republic."

And i say again, Cones and Jaeger are disgracing themselves and damaging the cause of reform in the film industry by allowing you to use this board as forum for your hate-filled propaganda.

Re(11): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 28, 2004 at 07:15:01 PM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

YOU SAY: The fact that he has similar questionable opinions about Jewish 'racism"

RESPONSE: So you read Hebrew and you've read the traditional Jewish texts, and therefore your "opinion" is better than his, notwithstanding his "opinion" stems from his life's work?

YOU SAY: doesn't lead to put up a hate site on the internet full of vile invective, with
the use of such phrases as "Jew Republic."

RESPONSE: All readers are welcome to visit http://www.jewishtribalreview.org and decide for themselves its morality, ethics, and facts.

Re(10): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 28, 2004 at 10:11:06 AM by George Shelps

I ask you for the fourth time your opinion about what you would like censored from this forum, all my posts, including the following quote by Moshe Greenberg, the former head of the Biblical Studies department at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Mr. Shelps, you avoid, avoid, avoid, avoid. It is an act of moral cowardice, and self-censorship, to avoid the following quote, which sooner or later you must face to understand what you defend so blindly, and vehemently:

____The answer is: Greenberg is not a hated of Jews and you are. The fact that he has similar questionable opinions about Jewish 'racism" doesn't lead to put up a hate site on the internet full of vile invective, with
the use of such phrases as "Jew Republic."

And i say again, Cones and Jaeger are disgracing themselves and damaging the
cause of reform in the film industry by allowing you to use this board as forum
for your hate-filled propaganda.

Re(4): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 06:59:50 PM by Mitchell Levine

For your information, here's is what conservative Ahvat Israel has to say about conversion:

Who is a Jew?

There are two ways someone can be a Jew. You can either be born a Jew, which means that your mother is Jewish, or you can convert. A convert is called a ger which literally means stranger.

Being born a Jew is pretty simple. If your mother is Jewish then so are you, if she isn’t then neither are you. It doesn’t matter whether your father is Jewish or not.

Conversion is much more complicated. Judaism does not actively encourage conversion, in fact, it discourages it. Discouraging conversion helps to filter out those lacking the proper degree of committment.

Once someone has converted to Judaism they have the full status of Jews. They are Jews in every way, and, just like any other Jew, they can never cease to be Jews.

The Torah says it is a special mitzva to love and to be kind to converts even more than to ordinary Jews. Also, it is a mitzva not to be unkind to a convert.

"You shall love the convert, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."
Devarim (Deuteronomy) 10:19

"Do not hurt the feelings of a convert or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."
Shemot (Exodus) 22:20

"Do not oppress a convert, you know how it feels to be a stranger because you were strangers in the land of Egypt."
Shemot (Exodus) 23:9

"When a convert comes to live in your land, do not hurt his feelings. The convert should be to you exactly like a born Jew and you shall love him like yourself, for you were strangers in Egypt - I am HaShem, your G-d."
VaYikra (Leviticus) 19:33-34

The Jewish Nation
It is important to note that a person born to a non-Jewish woman who believes everything that Jews believe and observes every law and custom of Judaism according to the Torah, is still not Jewish. And a person born to a Jewish mother who is an atheist and never practices the Jewish religion is still a Jew. In this sense, Judaism is more like a nationality than like other religions, and being Jewish is like a citizenship.

This has been established since the earliest days of Judaism. In the Torah, there are many references to "the strangers who dwell among you" or "righteous proselytes" or "righteous strangers." These are various classifications of non-Jews who lived among Jews, adopting some or all of the beliefs and practices of Judaism without going through the formal process of conversion and becoming Jews. Once a person has converted to Judaism, he is not referred to by any special term, he is as much a Jew as anyone born Jewish.

Re(5): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 09:43:55 PM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

Who is as Jew? Will you believe what dissimulator Mitchell Levine claims, or a textbook for Jewish high school students published by the American Hebrew Congregations:

A 1964 textbook for Jewish high school students published by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations frames the answer to the "Who is a Jew?" query in as vague terms as possible, yet likewise lobbies for the activist continuance of this indeterminate "Jewish" entity:

"Hard to Answer. By now you have discovered that it's not easy to answer
what first seemed like a simple question: What is a Jew? As a matter of fact,there are some intelligent Jews who do not think the question can be answered all. They say that we Jews are unique; that is to say, we are different from any other group of people on earth ... [Some people feel] that, to some extent, ... we are a religious group, in some ways a nation, in some ways a race, and in some ways a nationality. And yet we are more than any one of these by itself. We are a religious group plus, a race plus, a nation plus, and a nationality plus.
But it is not easy to define what that 'plus' is in each case." [GITTELSOHN, R., 1964, p. 20]

Note that this volume accepts Jewish identity as RACIAL, as well as other things including "nationality," and "distinct from any other people on earth."

Apologia, Levine? What smokescreen route will you take? I see the sweat on your brow.

Re(6): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 10:53:31 PM by Mitchell Levine

There's no sweat here - in some ways, Jews ARE like a racial group: you're automatically considered Jewish if you're born to Jewish parents.

That doesn't mean that Jews ARE a race, because, as they also note, in other ways, they aren't - unlike a biological racial group, you can join the group WITHOUT being born into it. You can't become an Asian by means of any ceremony.

To satisfy a definition, you have to meet ALL the conditions that make it up, not just one. Otherwise, you could conclude that the Third Reich was a Marxist state because both Communism and National Socialism rejected private ownership of the means of production. Marx, Hitler, and modern historians would all vehemently disagree.

Re(7): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 11:09:14 PM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

1) In the face of a veritable avalanche of facts, and the prospect for much more, you start to crumble: "in some ways, Jews ARE like a racial group."

Why, thank you. That may be the first concession you've EVER made on this discussion board, but in view of the Evidence Blizzard coming your way, what option do you have but to concede the truth for once?

You also say, however, "That doesn't mean that Jews ARE a race." The Hebrew Congregations textbook, of course, accepts that Jews ARE a race.

Who we gonna believe? Mitchell Levine, or a Jewish institution?

I underscore too that, Mr. Levine, you are now in the Run-to-the-dictionary zone because some fine hairs must now be split or all is lost for you.

What's at stake in this little thread, of course, is your declared difference between a "racial group" and a "race." Now, I know you think this is your forte, to weasel with smokescreen verbiage out a place you're morally and factually trapped.

I leave the reader to judge the shakey spot at which you have been forced to retreat.

Quick! A lesson in the ENORMOUS difference between "racial group" and "race!" (Perhaps a diversionary exploration in the origin of the word "race?")

Re(8): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 00:33:21 AM by Mitchell Levine

They didn't say "Jews are a race," they said that "in some ways, Jews are a race." They also said that in other ways, they are not.

No Jewish institution anywhere defines Jews as a biological race in 2004, for reasons not the least of which include that most cultural anthropologists don't believe that races even exist, let alone that Jews meet the biological definition of a race.

The ideas of society in 1964 were much different than those of 2004. This is what is said today:

"The idea that the Jews constitute a race cannot be supported by the facts since no set of physical traits can be determined to distinguish this group from another. (Simpson and Yinger, pg. 49). Even Carlton S. Coon, proponent of racial theories, states that Jewish physical characteristics are due to social and "psychological" factors since these traits appear in nonJews as well (Simpson and Yinger, pg. 49). Simpson and Yinger cite Montagu in his rejection of the Jews as a racial group. From a paradigm centered in physical anthropology, he states there can be "no such thing as a jewish physical type, and there is not, nor was there ever, anything remotely resembling a Jewish race" (Montagu, pg. 66 as cited in Simpson and Yinger, pg. 50).

For over a century, certain writers have classified the Jews as a race by using the term "Semitic." This designation does not correspond to the anthropological literature on what constitutes a race. Indeed, the Jews have received a number of nonracial designations by anthropologists. Kroeber calls them "a social quasi-caste based... on religion..." Montagu uses similar language: "a quasi-national group" (Simpson and Yinger, pg. 50). Anthropologist Franz Boas asserts racial purity in unlikely except in cases of aboriginal isolation. He is supported by a number of writers when he points out that "there is no more a Semitic race than there is an Aryan race, since both terms define view, or they reject some element of Jewish law (Kuhn, pp. 1920)." [George Cassuto, What is Race, (2002)

'The Jews As A Race: The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to the popular view, there is no Jewish race. Anthropornetric measurements of Jewish groups in many parts of the world indicate that they differ greatly from one another with respect to all the important physical characteristics." (Enyclopedia Brittanica, vol. 12, page 1054)


"A common error and persistent modern myth is the designation of the Jews as a 'race! This is scientifically fallacious, from the standpoint of both physical and historical tradition. Investigations by anthropologists have shown that Jews are by no means uniform in physical character and that they nearly always reflect the physical and mental characteristics of the people among whom they five" (Collier's Encyclopedia, vol. 13, p. 573).

"The Jewish racial myth flows from the fact that the words Hebrew, 'Israelite', Jew, Judaism, and the Jewish people have been used synonymously to suggest a historic continuity. But this is a misuse. These words refer to different groups of people with varying ways of life in different periods in history. Hebrew is a term correctly applied to the period from the beginning of Biblical history to the settling in Canaan. 'Israelite' refers correctly to the members of the twelve tribes of 'Israel'. The name Yehudi or Jew is used in the Old Testament to designate members of the tribe of Judah, descendants of the fourth son of Jacob, as well as to denote citizens of the Kingdom of Judah, particularly at the time of Jeremiah and under the Persian occupation. Centuries later, the same word came to be applied to anyone, no matter of what origin, whose religion was Judaism.

The descriptive name Judaism was never heard by the Hebrews or 'Israelites'; it appears only with Christianity. Flavius Josephus was one of the first to use the name in his recital of the war with the Romans to connote a totality of beliefs, moral commandments, religious practices and ceremonial institutions of Galilee which he believed superior to rival Hellenism. When the word Judaism was born, there was no longer a Hebrew-'Israelite' state. The people who embraced the creed of Judaism were already mixed of many races and strains; and this diversification was rapidly growing..." [Alfred Lilienthal, Jews: Race or Religion]


Pretty much the only voices claiming that Jews meet the anthropological definition of a race are Neo-Nazis: a quick search of the net reveals such ideas coming from Stormfront.org, the Posse Comitatus, the National Alliance, etc.

Re(9): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 00:56:53 AM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

Mr. Levine. You say this: "Pretty much the only voices claiming that Jews meet the anthropological definition of a race are Neo-Nazis: a quick search of the net reveals such ideas coming from Stormfront.org, the Posse Comitatus, the National Alliance, etc."

Oh, oh! A little too quick of a search! Only "neo-Nazis?" That, of course, is a lie. Here's a really nice article (recent) and I'd be really be interested in your explanation for its Jewish Orthodox-authored (and sanctioned) contents (I'm starting to look forward to your explanations - thanks!):



http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.12.19/news4a.html

Charedi Rabbis Rush To Disavow Anti-Gentile Book, By ALLAN NADLER, [Jewish] Forward, December 19, 2003

"Leaders of the country's most prominent ultra-Orthodox yeshiva are scrambling to distance themselves from a book by one of their disciples, which argues that gentiles are "completely evil" and Jews constitute a separate, genetically superior species.
Written by Rabbi Saadya Grama — an alumnus of Beth Medrash Govoha, the renowned yeshiva in Lakewood, N.J.
— the self-published book attempts to employ classical Jewish sources
in defense of a race-based theory of Jewish supremacy.

Grama's book, published in Hebrew under the title "Romemut Yisrael Ufarashat
Hagalut," includes flowery endorsements from the most revered religious
scholars at the renowned Lakewood yeshiva, including the institution's foremost religious leader, or rosh yeshiva, Rabbi Aryeh Malkiel Kotler.

Yet, in a statement issued Tuesday
in response to queries from the Forward, Kotler rejected Grama's philosophy and said that he had not carefully reviewed the text prior to endorsing it. "We have seen the objectionable statements that allegedly appear in a sefer [book] written by Rabbi Grama, a former student at our yeshivah," wrote Kotler, whose
late grandfather Rabbi Aharon Kotler founded the Lakewood yeshiva.


"I did glance briefly at the book but did not read it carefully — which
is the general practice in providing approbations to the many books
by alumni that come across a desk like mine." In his rare statement
to the press, Kotler added: "In looking at the specific points allegedly contained in the sefer, I can certainly tell you that they are not reflective of normative Jewish thought and are certainly not the philosophy of our yeshivah. Our philosophy asserts that every human being is created in the image of the Lord and the primacy of integrity and honesty in all dealings without exception. I strongly repudiate
any assertions in the name of Judaism that do not represent and reflect
this philosophy."

The statement Tuesday struck a dramatically different chord from Kotler's earlier endorsement of the book, in which he said Grama has written "on the subjects of the Exile, the Election of Israel and her exaltation above and superiority to all of the other nations, all in accordance with the viewpoint of the Torah, based on the solid instruction he has received from his teachers."

Kotler's disavowal of the book on
Tuesday came at the end of an intense, day-long scramble during which
the Anti-Defamation League and the chancellor of Yeshiva University
condemned the book, and several ultra-Orthodox communal spokesmen tried
to convince the Forward not to report its existence.

During the course of the day, a popular bookstore in the heavily Orthodox Boro Park section of Brooklyn told the Forward that it had just pulled the book off of the tables at the author's request. The controversy over Grama's book comes as the yeshiva is close to securing $500,000 in federal funds for a Holocaust library.

Coincidentally, in his book, Grama argues that the Holocaust was both a divine punishment against the Jews for assimilation and also proof of the "true nature and face" of the non-Jewish world.

The book's title could be translated in several ways, including "The Grandeur of Israel and the Issue of Exile" and "Jewish Superiority and the Question of Exile." Grama did not
return a call seeking clarification on this point and other questions
about his polemic. In his book, Grama writes: "The difference between the people of Israel and the nations of the world is an essential one. The Jew by his source and in his very essence is
entirely good. The goy, by his source and in his very essence is completely
evil. This is not simply a matter of religious distinction, but rather
of two completely different species" ...

Among other things, Grama argues: • The differences between Jews and gentiles are not religious, historical, cultural or political. They are, rather, racial, genetic and scientifically unalterable. The one group is at its very root and by natural constitution "totally evil" while the other is "totally good."•

Jewish successes in the world are completely contingent upon the failure of all other peoples. Only when the gentiles face total catastrophe do the Jews experience good fortune. • The Jews themselves brought about their own destruction during the Holocaust, since they arrogantly endeavored to overcome their very essence, dictated by divine law, by leaving their ghettoes and trying to assimilate into Christian European society


... Grama also argues that in opposition to Zionism's advocacy
of Jewish national self-assertion and self-defense, which he views as
an imitation of "gentile ways," the Torah mandates that the Jews, while in exile, should employ such means as appeasement, deception, duplicity and even "bribery" in their dealing with gentiles, so as to avoid their wrath. Grama's full-blown racialist theories
appear to break new ground, building on a handful of hints of national and racial chauvinism occasionally found in the writings of a few earlier rabbinic figures, but combining them into a racialist doctrine with no precedent in rabbinic literature. To be sure, a minority stream exists in the rabbinic tradition — from the 11th- and 12th-century Hebrew romantic poet Yehuda Halevy to the 18th century chasidic sage Levi Yitzhak of Berditchev — which sees the differences between Jew and gentile as innate, rather than merely religious.

Perhaps the most extreme version of this view is found in the central
text of Chabad chasidism, Tanya, whose author, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of
Lyadi, Chabad's founder, maintained that Jewish and gentile souls are
fundamentally different, the former "divine" and the latter "animalistic." That viewpoint has gained ground in recent decades, particularly among charedi thinkers. Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh, who is considered one of the leading ideologues of the Israeli Chabad movement, has written and
spoken widely on the superiority of Jews and was briefly imprisoned in Israel for racial incitement.Yated Ne'eman, an Orthodox weekly in upstate New York that is affiliated with one of Israel's main charedi dailies, has published essays on the question
of whether medical research can be understood to apply to Jews given
the innate physiological differences between Jews and gentiles.

Such arguments, however, have historically stood in tension with the
prevailing rabbinic view that the righteous gentiles of the world —
those who exhibit the basic ethical and moral behavior encapsulated in the "Seven Laws of Noah" — had the same access to personal salvation as fully observant Jews. This view was summed up in the 12th century by Moses Maimonides, arguably the most important Jewish sage of the past millennium, when he wrote in his code of Jewish law: "Anyone who accepts the Seven Laws of Noah and is careful to observe them is one of the righteous among the nations of the world and he has a portion in the world to come."

Re(10): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 01:03:50 AM by Mitchell Levine

That's why I said "pretty much" - you can find extremists in any group, and that's what that guy is, much the same way as Kahane and his followers.

As even the article mentions, virtually everyone but the most radical in the Jewish community rejects this bullshit and did everything possible to distance themselves from it.

That you take this to be normative Jewish thought says everything needed to be about your powers of discernment: this guy is about as typical of Jewish perspectives as the Klu Klux Klan is of Christians.

Re(11): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 10:03:21 AM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

"Extremists," Mr. Levine? This book came out of America's "most prominent ultra-Orthodox yeshiva," "the renowned yeshiva in Lakewood." A yeshiva, as you know, is a Jewish religious school. Apparently, it's the most influential in America.

The book also "includes flowery endorsements from the most revered religious scholars at the renowned Lakewood yeshiva, including the institution's foremost religious leader, or rosh yeshiva, Rabbi Aryeh Malkiel Kotler."

Now, Mr. Levine. Think about this. A number of "religious scholars" endorsed the book. And once it gets out in ENGLISH, they start saying: "Oh, uh, my endorsement was a mistake. I never read the book." Please.

If a Christian "religious school" published books that decreed Jews to be a different, sub-species of human, and a group of Christian scholars endorsed the thing, the Jewish Lobby would have the building bulldozed within a week. ALL politicians would be trying to throw the perpetrators in jail, at the behest of the Jewish Lobby. And the incident would be NATIONAL NEWS.

Now, it is true that the hero in this story is the Forward newspaper, which is a Jewish ethnic journal. They had guts and they deserve a trophy. But the ADL had no choice but to condemn the ugly little racist yeshiva, what else could they do once this got publicized?

And I note to you that this kind of story never leaves the Jewish community, as you know. I think it merits NATIONAL NEWS for all non-Jews, don't you? But, alas! There is a censorial wall in the (Judeocentric) mass media from such a story about prominent Jewish religious school that endorses the notion that non-Jews are a human sub-species.

Re(12): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 10:18:16 AM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

Oh, Mr. Levine. By the way. I quote for you another portion of interest from this article:

"Perhaps the most extreme version of this view is found in the central
text of Chabad chasidism, Tanya, whose author, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of
Lyadi, Chabad's founder, maintained that Jewish and gentile souls are
fundamentally different, the former "divine" and the latter "animalistic." That viewpoint has gained ground in recent decades, particularly among charedi thinkers. Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh, who is considered one of the leading ideologues of the Israeli Chabad movement, has written and
spoken widely on the superiority of Jews and was briefly imprisoned in Israel for racial incitement.Yated Ne'eman, an Orthodox weekly in upstate New York that is affiliated with one of Israel's main charedi dailies, has published essays on the question
of whether medical research can be understood to apply to Jews given
the innate physiological differences between Jews and gentiles."

Now, here we can dovetail into film a bit. You know Chabad, Mr. Levine. It is not obscure. It is not a fringe group. It is everywhere, and has a strong presence in HOLLYWOOD. Stupid Jon Voight, among other Hollywood stars, have been an ACTIVIST in promoting this racist group, and their yearly tele-thon to raise money for their programs.

The chief rabbi of Russia, Berel Lazar, is a Chabad Lubavitcher.

Highly recommended reading about racist Chabad is Stephen Bloom's book, POSTVILLE. Bloom is Jewish, and his book about the racist Chabads who have taken over Postville, Iowa, will stand your hair on end.

Bloom summarizes his book like this:

"Many of the Hasidim I had encountered in Postville pretended to be holy but their actions displayed bigotry and racism of the worst degree. The book explored taboo topics such as bargaining, poor hygiene, atrocious manners, disrepair of homes, Jewish elitism, sexism, crime and prejudice directed at gentiles."

Mr. Levine. Your response to this post, as always, is more than welcome.

Chabad in Hollywood Hills
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 02:34:38 PM by James Jaeger

Two articles below. One dated June 2003 and a very recent one March of 2004.


City refuses Chabad's request to remain in Hollywood Hills
Sun-Sentinel.com/June 6, 2003
By John Holland

Hollywood -- As the clock inched toward 2 a.m. and debate dragged on over what to do with an Orthodox Jewish sect that worships in two small homes, city commissioners seemed weary of what they called the most divisive issue in Hollywood history.

After two years of hearings, promises and testimony, the facts remained clear, even if a solution proved no easier Thursday morning than it ever did. The Chabad Lubavitch wanted to worship in the middle of a residential neighborhood, neighbors wanted to push them out and everybody said the law -- or their version of it -- was on their side.

Then a young congregant pushed the argument away from law and toward religion in a way no one had done, appealing to the commission's Jewish members to ignore legal advice and vote with their hearts.

"I think the Jewish people on this board have to stand up ... you're a Jew, you have to fight for who you are,'' said Zalman Korf, younger brother of the congregation's rabbi.

The plea failed, and garnered scorn from some in the audience and on the commission. About 3:30 a.m., commissioners rejected the Chabad's bid to keep holding services in two small Hollywood Hills homes, giving neighbors the victory and setting the stage for a court appeal that will pit religious freedom against the city's right to decide its own zoning laws.

"I'm sorry I'm going to have to vote against you, but I do,'' Commissioner Beam Furr said, casting what amounted to the deciding vote against the group's application for a special permit to turn two small homes in Hollywood Hills into a permanent house of worship.

The final vote was 5-2, with Mayor Mara Giulianti and Commissioners Furr, Peter Bober, Sal Oliveri and Cathy Anderson voting against the Chabad, although Anderson was consistently on the Chabad's side and switched only after the results were assured to help unify the commission.

The Chabad's leaders promised a quick appeal, and city officials said they would give the group time to find a new home and wouldn't rush to enforce the ruling. Rabbi Joseph Korf, Zalman's brother, said commissioners caved to political pressure and didn't follow the law.

"I feel very let down by the vote, but I can't say that I'm surprised,'' Korf said. "It's very troubling, because we have a lot of elderly members who just want to be able to walk to temple and worship. Now they aren't going to be able to do that.''

The Chabad practice a traditional form of Judaism that includes prohibitions against driving on the Sabbath, meaning most members must live within walking distance of their temple. They bought the properties at 2215 and 2221 N. 46th Ave., in 2000 with the intention of creating a central house of worship, but hid their intentions from the city early on, according to testimony. The Chabad moved to the neighborhood from a nearby strip mall on Sheridan Street.

No issue has ever divided the commission or the city as deeply, commissioners said. The Chabad labeled many of their critics, particularly Oliveri, as intolerant or even anti-Semitic. Oliveri, long an advocate for keeping neighborhoods exclusively for single-family homes, argued the issue was about zoning and planning, not religion.

"It's almost common sense and reasonable that the Chabad will never fit in Hollywood Hills,'' Oliveri said.

Some commissioners, particularly Furr and the mayor, tried to find a middle ground.

Furr, clearly torn between his admiration for the Chabad and his belief that it didn't come close to meeting city planning codes, said he couldn't justify letting members worship in a synagogue surrounded by neighbors who complained about the noise, traffic and garbage the congregation generated.

Giulianti also was sympathetic toward the congregation, but bristled at suggestions by some that the vote reflected a tone of anti-Semitism in the city.

"I've been elected seven times and I'm Jewish and they know I'm Jewish,'' Giulianti said to applause.

From the beginning, city officials have argued that the Chabad, with at least 60 active members, was too large for the small parcel with two homes.

The Chabad also has been circumspect about the total membership, with one senior administrator testifying Thursday morning that there were fewer than 200 total members from around the country. He later admitted he didn't include women and children in his total, putting the actual figure at well over 400 members.

Nearby residents said they've counted well over 100 residents packed onto the tiny property during important Holy days. City officials agreed that has been a problem.

"It's like trying to put 12 pounds in a 10 pound bag; it's just too big for a single-family home,'' Planning Director Jaye Epstein said. "All along we've felt this is a planning issue ... nothing more.''

The nine-hour hearing, which started at 6:30 p.m Wednesday, was actually among the shortest on the subject and had little of the vitriol of previous meetings. About 125 people attended the hearing -- about half of the other gatherings -- and the tone was passionate but more respectful than before.

Throughout the hearing, lawyers and residents focused on state and federal laws designed to strike a balance between religious freedom and a city's right to ensure, orderly, consistent zoning laws.

Under federal law, the city can keep a house of worship out of a neighborhood if they don't create a "substantial burden,'' on the congregation. The city argues that asking the Chabad to move would create only a small burden. Giulianti emphasized that the Chabad moved to the homes on 46th Avenue voluntarily, proof that moving is not a hardship, she said.

Source: http://www.rickross.com/reference/lubavitch/lubavitch19.html



N.America

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Feds investigating if Hollywood discriminated against Jewish sect"

by John Holland ("Sun-Sentinel," March 3, 2004)

Justice Department lawyers are questioning past and current Hollywood employees, reviewing videotapes of commission meetings and examining building code records to determine whether the city discriminated against an Orthodox Jewish sect.

Federal investigators plan to meet with top city officials and employees on March 24 to discuss the city commission's decision to stop the Chabad Lubavitch from worshiping in a residential neighborhood. They are focusing on whether the city treated the Chabad differently from other religious groups operating in single-family neighborhoods, particularly Rosa Lopez, who has turned her home into a shrine to the Virgin Mary without any interference from the city.

The sides have been fighting since 2000, when the sect turned two private homes on 46th Street into a single house of worship. The city said the conversion violated zoning laws, and neighbors complained worshipers are noisy, leave garbage in the area and create a nuisance.

On Oct. 17 the city ordered the Chabad to stop all services. Three days later, the Justice Department's civil rights division began investigating the case.

City attorney Dan Abbott already has given four boxes of records and tapes to the Justice Department, including a list of all zoning violations issued over the past several years, records show.

The Chabad contends that City Commissioner Sal Oliveri harassed them by ordering the city's code enforcement office to write hundreds of unmerited violations. Oliveri has been their harshest critic and led the city's charge to force them out.

The city already has spent about $40,000 in legal fees on the case.

On Tuesday, a lawyer for the Chabad said several large law firms are preparing to file a "significant'' lawsuit against the city.

"We already have a draft and the discussions are very far along. We're just allowing the Justice Department to do its work or it would probably already be filed,'' said Franklin Zemel of Broad and Cassell.

In 2000, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA, designed to give religious groups power to fight local zoning ordinances. While cities can regulate locations for houses of worship, the restrictions must be limited and applied equally to all religions.

Under RLUIPA, the federal government can sue the city if it finds discrimination.

"If we do get sued under some kind of equal protection provision, the city would have a number of very solid defenses,'' Abbott said. One videotape under federal review is from a Sept. 12, 2001, meeting in which the commission gave the Chabad a temporary extension and raised questions of preferential treatment for Lopez, who says she receives monthly visits and messages from the Virgin Mary.

Lopez has been operating for 10 years without a permit, once drawing thousands to her 1301 N. 66th Ave. home, where she still greets about 100 worshipers on the 13th of every month.

On the videotape, Oliveri said Lopez should be exempt from zoning because her services are "a miracle'' to true believers and the venue can not be changed since the Virgin Mary visits that particular home.

"If you people know anything about the Catholic religion, that's called a vision,'' Oliveri said at a packed meeting. "To Christians and Catholics, that's considered a miracle. That's not establishing a house of worship. That is a miracle.''

He later acknowledged that Lopez's services, which once grew so large that she put up portable toilets and needed police officers to direct traffic, had created a "disturbance.''

"The spiritual benefit that may be achieved by the people going there once a month far outweighs any inconvenience,'' Oliveri said at the meeting, drawing jeers from Chabad supporters and Mayor Mara Giulianti.

Giulianti pounced on what she called unequal treatment, and said it could cause problems for the city in the future.

Source: http://www.wwrn.org/parse.php?idd=9788&c=129

Re(4): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 05:55:50 PM by Mitchell Levine

I have carefully read both your posts and Mr. Jenk's posts and it seems to me that basically being Jewish is a matter of race. It also seems to me that people are allowed to "convert" to Judaism so it looks less racist, more politically correct in today's world.

- Sorry, Jim, but that's provably false: the requirements for conversion are discussed directly in the Torah, and have been part of the religion for three thousand years. The Bible is quite clear: anyone that wants to follow the laws of Yaweh and circumsize is welcome to be a Jew. It has been that way at all times, and is not a modern P.C. phenomenon.

If you wanted to convert 300 years ago, you could have done it just as easily as today. Jews by Choice have, and always have had, exactly the same rights as any other Jew, including being buried in Jewish cemetaries, being called to read from the Torah at worship services, having marriage services performed (without regard to the religion of their spouse) in synagogues, Bar or Bat Mitzvahs for their children, and, at this time, citizenship in Israel.

In fact, the Talmud specifically states that anyone who converts to Judaism is automatically reconfigured to possess a "Jewish soul."In other words, the most putatively innate Jewish characteristics are not biologically determinate, and in-group membership is not denied anyone, and that's the way it's always been.

Also, according to the Zohar, a pious convert is much more welcome to the Jewish community than a non-practicing birth member.

I'm much better qualified than either of you to discuss this, because my birth mother is not Jewish, and I am completely welcome in the Jewish community, despite the fact that by the principle of matrilinear succession, I'm not even technically Jewish. No one has ever mistreated me, nor ever made me feel any less Jewish than anyone else, and I live in New York, and attended a Jewish summer camp every year.

Your argument is just as ridiculous as the claim that Christians are a race, despite the fact that they belong to every racial group and have no racial requirement, and that they only accept converts to look "politically correct," would be.

You can find genetic similarities among Irish Catholics, and the Church teaches that only its member can go to heaven, so using your reasoning, the Catholic Church, and therefore all Christians, is racist.

Do you see how bogus that is? The fact that some people in the Cohen line share a genetic marker is only so because a surname is a natural extension of a family line, and genes are passed through families. You could not establish an anonymous donor as Jewish with a blood test, unless they happened to fall in that specific family line, which probably 98% of all Jews do not.

Abraham, the very first Jew, himself converted, and was not racially different than anyone else from his area, including the Arabs, which is why Jews and Arabs have extremely similar genetic composition.

Most American Jews, for example, are not genetically related to the first Jews in Palestine at all, and are related to people that converted in the Polish province of Khazaria.

Thus, your argument is completely without foundation, and is no different than your continuing to maintain that "goyim" means "cattle," despite the overwhelming evidence otherwise.

If you'd like, I'll give you a hundred citations from anthropologists, all of whom agree with me, and none with you. When you can find one academic citation that establishes Jew as a racial group, then you'll have a sound argument. At this time, you don't.

- would appreciate if you would stop using foul language to address Mr. Jenks, such as an "Evil Scumbag," "stupid asshole," "bigot," "lying asshole." This goes for George Shelps as well. Any more of this and both your may be deleted.

- Just as soon as Jenks stops his use of such language directed at me, as his posts are filled with exactly that.

It's rather a double standard for you to allow him to do so, and then tell me I've done something wrong by responding in kind.

Name-Calling
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 03:21:15 PM by James Jaeger

>If you'd like, I'll give you a hundred citations from anthropologists, all of whom agree with me, and none with you.

Maybe you’re right, I don't know if being Jewish is racial or religious or other. I have asked this question to almost every Jewish person I encounter and it seems they all give me a different answer. It seems this is a very heated subject. It's now seeming to me that one is Jewish if they are accepted by other Jews AS a Jew. This makes it almost a club. Thus you are either in the Jewish Club, or you are not. I guess given this reasoning, there must be people who were born to a Jewish mother and who are rejected by other Jews, thus they are not in the Club and thus not Jewish.

It would seem to me that if one were born to a Jewish mother and they rejected Judaism, they should be fully considered a Gentile, or non-Jew. In otherwords, if one can convert to being a Jew, then one should be able to convert to being a non-Jew. No? Or is this not the case? If one cannot convert to being a non-Jew, then I would say the racial aspect is the predominant. Can you give me any references of people who have converted to non-Jewish status and who are now not considered to be Jewish in any way?

>- Just as soon as Jenks stops his use of such language directed at me, as his posts are filled with exactly that.

No you need to stop right now. And if you cite a specific use of "such language" directed at you by Jenks, I will be glad to ask him to stop that as well.

>It's rather a double standard for you to allow him to do so, and then tell me I've done something wrong by responding in kind.

No, I hereby ask Mr. Jenks to also refrain from this sort of language as well. I ask you both to. I also ask anyone and everyone else as well. This includes myself. I know this can be difficult as often times one gets overly passionate, but out of respect for those who may be reading these posts, I think we need to keep the name calling and base language out of the discussion. Fair enough?

James Jaeger

P.S. I PERSONALLY am not offended by such language and feel that it's silly to censor people for ANY word or sound that comes out of a human being. Swear words help understand the emotional state of a writer and thus add bandwidth to the communication. But we live in a frail society, one that can barely tolerate rich communication anyway. The World Wide Web is changing this thanks to Timothy Berners Lee.

Re(5): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 10:55:08 PM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

Back on track, Mr. Levine -- Racism and Jewish identity:

Let's turn to Moshe Greenberg for the beginning of an answer to all this, a scholar described by the periodical Conservative Judaism as "one of the leading scholars of Hebrew scripture in the world," formerly the Chair of the Department of Bible Studies at Hebrew University in Israel. As a young man, Greenberg's first introduction to the racist foundation of Jewish religious literature was in Sefer Hatanya, the central works of Habad hasidim [one of today's ultra-Orthodox groups, also spelled "Chabad"]. Greenberg noted in 1996 that

"What emerged for me, from the study of the first chapters of the book and their antecedents was the discovery that the main stream of Jewish
thought is permeated by the genetic spiritual superiority of Jews over
Gentiles, disconcertingly reminiscent of racist notions of our time. Living in Israel for the past twenty years in a Jewish majority that is no
more sensitive to the feelings of minorities within it than Gentile
majorities are.... [with] Jews in their midst, I have come to realize the
vitality of Jewish racist notions, and I am more than ever convinced that
the hold Judaism will have on this and future generations will be gravely
impaired unless these notions are neutralized by an internal reordering of
traditional values." [GREENBERG, p. 33]

Such traditional values may be found in the memoirs of Yossi Klein Halevi (an American Jew who eventually moved to Israel) and what he was taught as a youth at Brooklyn's Talmudic Academy:

"Jews and goyim [non-Jews] were locked in eternal struggle. For now the
goyim prevailed. But when the Messiah came, we would triumph. Twenty
goyim would cling to each thread of our prayer shawls, pleading to serve
us as protection against divine judgment." [HALEVI, p. 68]

One Talmudic Academy teacher taught that "Jews were the center of the world ... Anything extraneous to Jews was of no real interest to us, or, by implication, God himself." [HALEVI, p. 68]

Levine! Special Delivery!
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 00:37:26 AM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

Mr. Levine, dear Sir. Oh, Wise One.
This is REALLY a great citation by Moshe Greenberg, a very learned Jewish scholar (kind of a HEAVYWEIGHT), and it's so SWELL I'll post it again because I would REALLY like your insightful feedback on it:


Let's turn to Moshe Greenberg for the beginning of an answer to all this, a scholar described by the periodical Conservative Judaism as "one of the leading scholars of Hebrew scripture in the world," formerly the Chair of the Department of Bible Studies at Hebrew University in Israel. As a young man, Greenberg's first introduction to the racist foundation of Jewish religious literature was in Sefer Hatanya, the central works of Habad hasidim [one of today's ultra-Orthodox groups, also spelled "Chabad"]. Greenberg noted in 1996 that

"What emerged for me, from the study of the first chapters of the book and their antecedents was the discovery that the main stream of Jewish
thought is permeated by the genetic spiritual superiority of Jews over
Gentiles, disconcertingly reminiscent of racist notions of our time. Living in Israel for the past twenty years in a Jewish majority that is no
more sensitive to the feelings of minorities within it than Gentile
majorities are.... [with] Jews in their midst, I have come to realize the
vitality of Jewish racist notions, and I am more than ever convinced that
the hold Judaism will have on this and future generations will be gravely
impaired unless these notions are neutralized by an internal reordering of traditional values." [GREENBERG, p. 33]

Re(1): Levine! Special Delivery!
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 01:13:28 AM by Mitchell Levine

That's why the Chabad's are the most right-wing of Orthodox Jews, and make up approximately 2% of the Jewish community.

Ultra-right-wing Christians can be just as "racist," but that doesn't mean Christianity is racist. What's mistaken here is the interpretation given of scriptures, not their message themselves.

The one constant of ALL types of fundamentalisms is general intolerance. That's as true for the most fundamentalist of Jews as it is any other fundamentalist group.

Re(2): Levine! Special Delivery!
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 10:24:51 AM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

Mr. Levine, your lies and dissimulation are being lined up, one by one, and the research is already done to morally and factually dismiss your fraud.

The Chabad organization is not obscure. As you know:


http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/10/19/Books/Books.36571.html

A Messianism Some Call Heresy, Jerusalem Post, October 19, 2001

"Chabad is a potent force: 2,600 institutions around the world, large numbers of English-speaking rabbis, control of most of Judaism in Italy as well as the chief rabbinate of Russia (its Russia budget alone is $20 million a year). It is an organization with immense world-wide financial resources ... In fact, Chabad is a movement of monumental importance. Observant Jews are profoundly dependent on its emissaries all over the world, it plays a major role in kosher food
preparation and supervision worldwide, its rabbis dominate or are poised
to dominate Jewish communities in a startling number of countries."

Re(3): Levine! Special Delivery!
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 10:32:54 AM by MOSHE GOYIM

By the way, Mr. Levine, professor Greenberg is not just talking about Chabad. Read closely the quote; he's talking about the "main stream of Jewish thought."

"What emerged for me, from the study of the first chapters of the book and their antecedents was the discovery that the main stream of Jewish
thought is permeated by the genetic spiritual superiority of Jews over
Gentiles, disconcertingly reminiscent of racist notions of our time. Living in Israel for the past twenty years in a Jewish majority that is no
more sensitive to the feelings of minorities within it than Gentile
majorities are.... [with] Jews in their midst, I have come to realize the
vitality of Jewish racist notions, and I am more than ever convinced that
the hold Judaism will have on this and future generations will be gravely
impaired unless these notions are neutralized by an internal reordering of traditional values." [GREENBERG, p. 33]


Here is the full citation for this quote. Mr. Levine. Look at the title:

Greenberg, Moshe. A Problematic Heritage: The Attitude Toward the Gentile in the Jewish Tradition: An Israeli Perspective. Conservative
Judaism, v. XLVIII, no. 2, Winter 1996, p. 23-35

Your keen response about this "anecdotal" information is more than welcome. As always.

Re(5): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 09:10:59 PM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

You know, I haven't got the time to spend the rest of my life refuting every absurdity of Mr. Levine. As I have time, I'll drop a few zingers on him.

For the moment, per Levine's avalanche of propaganda about "converts to Judaism," take a look at this 1980s news item about "converts to Judaism" who wanted to live in Israel:

For those who do successfully become
converts under strict Orthodox observance in Israel, in 1985 the Israeli Interior Ministry afforded them still another slap in the face, highlighting their status as "second-class Jews." All converts to Judaism were henceforth to have their Israeli identity cards stamped with "convert" next to the word Jew. [JEWISH WEEK, 7-4-86, p. 3]

Neat trick. You see, there's the BORN Jew and the non-born Jew, part of the "Jewish" citizen's discriminatory identity package.

No, no. Bite your tongue. Nothing racist about it.

Re(6): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 11:21:54 PM by Mitchell Levine

That's because, at that time, numerous non-Jews - Jews by neither birth nor conversion - began faking credentials to get Israeli citizenship, including most of the Russian Mafia, which caused many of the internal problems like the Ecstacy trade and so on. Once people figured out they could get out of the collapsing Soviet Union by fabricating credentials as Jews, it became a big movement.

Because of that historical phenomenon, there are actually antisemitic, swastika-wearing skinhead groups preaching straight out of Mein Kampf in the middle of Tel Aviv, defacing Jewish cemetaries, and a lot more.

The point of the legislation was to try to deal with that problem, not that the Israelis like "born Jews" any more than converts.

Israel is a country the size of Rhode Island that has to theoretically offer citizenship to every actual Jew, both by birth and conversion, in the world. For them to be able to that, they have to take some reasonable steps to make sure that their population isn't artifcially inflated by people looking to take advantage.

Especially if there's ever going to be a peaceful, equitable resolution to the Occupation, and the establishment of a prosperous, secure state for the Palestinians. Every time a non-Jew fakes a Russian birth registration listing their nationality as "Jewish," that's just more motivation for the creation of settlements in the Hebron. They do it a lot.

It may sound harsh to American ears, but there WAS a legitimate reason for that policy.

Re(7): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 00:09:22 AM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

YOU SAY: That's because, at that time, numerous non-Jews - Jews by neither birth nor conversion - began faking credentials to get Israeli citizenship,

RESPONSE: That's a silly idea, Levine, conjured out of air. You can do better than that. If what you say were true, why would anyone want to "fake" a SECOND CLASS citizenship card that guaranteed discrimination? Secondly, what does it all say (as you frame it here) about the Israeli state that this exclusionary practice exists? On TWO LEVELS: first between Jews and non-Jews, and then between BORN Jews and "converts to Judaism." Pretty sordid, and there's layers of it, like an onion.

LEVINE: including most of the Russian Mafia,

RESPONSE: The "Russian" mafia is predominately Jewish. We have tons of citations about it. Read Jewish journalist Robert Friedman's book, The Red Mafiya. No need, sir, to blame Gentiles for expressly Jewish crimes.

LEVINE: which caused many of the internal problems like the Ecstacy trade and so on.

RESPONSE: The state of Israel is the world's center for the trade in Ecstasy. We have many online links to the issue, complete with Israeli Jewish names of the kingpins who have been busted.

Merely ONE snippet of the ecstasy story:

A news item in October 1999 noted the breakup of an international ring specializing in the illegal drug "ecstasy." Israeli police announced that 49 suspects around the world had been detained; 24 were Israelis, most of the others were ultra-Orthodox Jewish Americans.
[KILEY, S.] The Detroit Free Press noted that "ultra-Orthodox
Jews served as couriers for a major international drug ring that operated
in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Israel, and the United States ... The
syndicate, led by two Israelis living in Europe, was one of the world's largest producers of the synthetic drug ecstasy." [DET FR PRESS, 10-13-99, p.
59] The ring circulated tons of drugs, including cocaine and heroin. [DUDKEVITCH, M., p. 1] A few months earlier, "seven men were indicted in Brooklyn for allegedly operating an international drug ring that relied on Hasidic couriers dressed in black hats, dark suits, and side curls." [HAYS, T., 7-23-99, p. A8] The key six Israelis arrested in this Ecstasy ring included Igal Malka, Yariv Azulay, Oshri Ganchrski, Eyal Levy, Robert Levy, and Oshri Amar. They were caught with 300,000 tablets on-hand, worth an estimated $7.5 million; 100,000 pills a week were funneled by the gang into the New York metropolitan area. [HENRY, M., 2-25-2000, p. A1]


LEVINE: Once people figured out they could get out of the collapsing Soviet Union by fabricating credentials as Jews, it became a big movement.

RESPONSE: This is a lie, spread by the Jewish Lobby. The heart of the "Russian" mafia in America is well-known and well-documented. It is Brighton Beach, a Russian Jewish enclave near New York City. Again, just for a tune-up, read Robert Friedman's THE RED MAFIYA.

A 1996 investigation (co-sponsored by the New York State Organized Crime Task Force, the New York State Commission of
Investigation, and the New Jersey Commission of Investigation) dismissed popular myths that Russian officials had intentionally implanted criminals into the Jewish immigration rush to America, that the KGB had interests in sowing Jewish migration with non-Jewish Soviet criminals, or that "members of organized
crime groups in Odessa, Ukraine, had smuggled themselves out of the country
by assuming the identities of Soviet-Jews who were either dead or in jail."

As the report noted: "For several reasons, all of these explanations proved inadequate ... The actual number of known Russian-emigre criminals who entered the United States in the 1970s and 1980s, either with or without the
consent of Soviet officials, was relatively small and, in general, their
crimes have been very localized.... History has shown that the growth
of organized crime in any community is invariably linked to the recent
migration into that community by ethnic
groups having weak ties to the dominant political culture." [NEW YORK
ORGANIZED CRIME TASK FORCE, 1996, p. 183]

LEVINE: Because of that historical phenomenon, there are actually antisemitic, swastika-wearing skinhead groups preaching straight out of Mein Kampf in the middle of Tel Aviv, defacing Jewish cemetaries, and a lot more.

RESPONSE: The people you refer to are largely half-Jews like yourself (father Jewish, mother not) who are stuck in Israel, not considered Jewish by Jewish Orthodoxy, and are treated like shit, i.e., in a racist Jewish manner. Saying there are Adolf Hitlers walking around in the heart of Israel are the words of someone who needs psychiatric help. Or better yet, a deep breath and an honest introspection. What's the point in your clinging to Jewish fantasy, Mr. Levine?

LEVINE: The point of the legislation was to try to deal with that problem, not that the Israelis like "born Jews" any more than converts.

RESPONSE: Yours is complete and total fabrication. You are in 100% denial that JEWS are responsible for an ounce of injustice in the entire universe. And you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading total hasbara (propaganda).

All you state here is complete fantasy. We've got the citations, bub, at http://www.jewishtribalreview.org

LEVINE: Israel is a country the size of Rhode Island that has to theoretically offer citizenship to every actual Jew, both by birth and conversion, in the world.

RESPONSE: i.e., a center for Jewish racism and/or bigotry.

LEVINE: For them to be able to that, they have to take some reasonable steps to make sure that their population isn't artifcially inflated by people looking to take advantage.

RESPONSE: Switch this kind of talk about making sure no non-Jews sneak into Israel, and apply it to Nazi Germany in the 1940s and you have an approximate parallel.

The foundation is apartheid: a country for Jews, or a country for Aryans, take your pick.

LEVINE: Especially if there's ever going to be a peaceful, equitable resolution to the Occupation, and the establishment of a prosperous, secure state for the Palestinians.

RESPONSE: There never will be peace as long as Jews slaughter Palestinians on sight without trial.

LEVINE: Every time a non-Jew fakes a Russian birth registration listing their nationality as "Jewish," that's just more motivation for the creation of settlements in the Hebron. They do it a lot.

RESPOND: Here you are defending Jewish bigotry, Jewish racism, Jewish apartheid, and you don't even care. You're blind. All you care about is JEWS. It is completely naturalized in you as a form of self-fulfilling Judeocentric aggrandizement.

LEVINE: It may sound harsh to American ears, but there WAS a legitimate reason for that policy.

RESPONSE: All you do is apologetics, Mr. Levine. You haven't the moral courage to swallow an ounce of blame for ANYTHING in all of Jewish history. This TOO is emblematic of modern Jewish identity.

The true reason for "that policy" of discrimination between Jews and non-Jews is that BORN Jews are truly the KLAN, and the "converts" are at a lower tier. BORN allegiance to the Klan can be trusted more than "convert" allegiance. It's quite like Mossad's solicitation of sayanim (spies/workers on behalf of Israel) with Jewish citizens of other countries throughout the world. Full, father-mother parent Jews are the spies of choice, because their allegiance to the clan is so much deeper. (Read Victor Ostrovsky's book about this -- his years in the Mossad).

Cheers.

Re(8): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 01:37:25 AM by Mitchell Levine

hat's a silly idea, Levine, conjured out of air. You can do better than that. If what you say were true, why would anyone want to "fake" a SECOND CLASS citizenship card that guaranteed discrimination? Secondly, what does it all say (as you frame it here) about the Israeli state that this exclusionary practice exists? On TWO LEVELS: first between Jews and non-Jews, and then between BORN Jews and "converts to Judaism." Pretty sordid, and there's layers of it, like an onion.

- It's not "silly" at all: Judaism makes no distinction between "converts" and born Jews - the Torah specifically states that it's a greater blessing to treat the convert well than the Jew by Birth. It also states that a Jew by conversion can no more leave Judaism than a Jew by birth, except by excommunication, which hasn't happened as far as we know since Spinoza's day.

There's no second-class citizenship: absolutely no distinction is drawn between the two, legally or otherwise. A convert to Judaism can do anything that a Jew by birth can, including obtain full citizenship in Israel through the Right to Return, and study for the Rabbinate.

Because no blood or genetic test can distinguish between Jews and non-Jews, and Jews from across the world look entirely different, there's not even any reason to tell people you're a convert, if you don't wish to.

For people that couldn't get fake birth credentials legitimized by their governments, it's much easier to get bogus conversion records - it happens all the time, as the existence of Neo-Nazi skinhead groups promoting antisemitism with Israel itself indicates.

Because there's nothing that can be done about people fabricating birth credentials, since the governments of those countries are willing to cooperate, conversion credentials - which can be more easily validated, and faked - are scrutinized more thoroughly.

If the Isarelis wanted to stigmatize converts, they didn't have to wait 40 years to do it. The world was far more willing in '48 to tolerate racial and religious discrimination, and there was no shortage of refugee Jews by birth to make up their demographics. At that time, the Israelis believed the "absorpative capacity" of the land was only around 2 million.

Re(9): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 11:18:14 AM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

LEVINE: It's not "silly" at all: Judaism makes no distinction between "converts" and born Jews

RESPONSE: I have already proved evidence to you that in 1985 converts to Judaism had that fact stamped on their national ID card. You acknowledge this as true, and you attempt to explain it away with allusions to the "Russian" mafia that has SNEAKED INTO racist Israel and Nazi skinheads who are marching in Tel Aviv. Please. You are completely off the grid. You might as well blame OFFICIAL Jewish/Israeli convert discrimination on the Wicked Witch of the West. Your efforts at hasbara (Hebrew for propaganda) are getting desperate. And laughable.

Re(2): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts\
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 12:27:53 PM by George Shelps

I I have responded EXPRESSLY to Levine's comment (which is NOT censored) that "Judaism is not racism."
Why should Levine always get a free pass?

___OK, so now you've responded.

But it's off-topic to go any further.

YYou simply want to use this forum to
express your hatred of the Jews.

I exhort John Cones to cancel your posts.

Re(3): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts\
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 09:55:51 PM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

Mr. Shelps, what do you think of Ms. Seidman's condemnation of your religion (via Mel Gibson's The Passion) and why, in your pro-Jewish, pro-Israel favoritism, do you endorse her view?


http://www.etherzone.com/2004/sans022704.shtml

THE NEW TESTAMENT A NASTY LITTLE DOCUMENT, By: Joe Sansone, Ether Zone, February 27, 2004

‘The Passion of the Christ’, Mel Gibson’s depiction of the last twelve
hours of Jesus has finally hit theatres after months of what seem to be nothing more than bigoted attacks. Detractors have called the movie anti-Semitic and have attempted to smear Mr. Gibson and
even his religion in a tasteless campaign of hate. The movie has a narrow, but extremely intense focus, capturing the pain and suffering
of Jesus during torture and crucifixion. It was clearly the intent of Gibson to convey the depth of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice. It is true that
the film shows the Jewish high priest as the driving force behind Christ’s crucifixion, but other members of the Pharisees defended Jesus. The Romans
are also portrayed in a similar light, some sympathizing with Christ and
others lusting for his blood. The movie highlights the worst of Jews,
and the best of Jews, the worst of humanity, and the best of humanity


... After viewing the film it seems that outside of Paranoia, there are
two main reasons why some radical Jews have tried to condemn it as being anti-Semitic.

1) They hate Christians and the idea of Jesus being portrayed as the Messiah. Gibson’s portrayal of Christ is not simply as a philosophical leader. The title itself ‘The Passion of the Christ’ probably irks some beyond belief.

In an article called the Most contentious story ever told Naomi Seidman, the director of the Center for Jewish Studies at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, is quoted as saying, "This movie is a representation of the New Testament, which is a nasty little document, it's hard for Jews to read.''

Clearly, some people hate Jesus Christ. Quite frankly, this is the attitude
that the high priest had in the film and is extremely hypocritical since Seidman is complaining of anti-Semitism while acting anti-Christian.

2) A desire to stay in business. In that same article, Abraham Foxman,
the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, after sneaking into
a screening of the film is quoted as saying the film was "unambiguous"
and a "poisonous accusation that the Jews were responsible for the killing
of Jesus.''

Jews represent less than three percent of the American population and to their credit are overrepresented in most professional fields in America. Clearly anti-Semitism is not running rampant in the United States. Like many in the field of politics, it would seem that the ADL needs a reason to exist and therefore is forced to go to the extreme of creating fear that the possibility of anti-Semitism may arise as a result of a movie. A snapshot of the biblical history of Christ, Gibson’s film is certainly an artistic interpretation of the New Testament, it is however an accurate one as well. Those that attack the film as being anti-Semitic are essentially accusing Christianity of being anti-Semitic, and in fact are being anti-Christian. This is the type of behavior that will fuel anti-Semitism, not Gibson’s movie."

Re(4): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts\
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 02:22:38 AM by Mitchell Levine

Clearly, some people hate Jesus Christ.

- To suggest that this represents the feelings of most Jews, would also suggest that they consider Jesus particularly important, which they don't - Jesus isn't a factor in the Jewish religion. To Jews, it's pretty irrational to hate someone they never met that lived 2,000 years ago.

It's similar to the line of reasoning which led to the conclusion that Jews desecrate hosts - as if Jews would ever give any consideration to the doctrine of transsubstantiation.

In an article called the Most contentious story ever told Naomi Seidman, the director of the Center for Jewish Studies at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, is quoted as saying, "This movie is a representation of the New Testament, which is a nasty little document, it's hard for Jews to read.''

Clearly, some people hate Jesus Christ. Quite frankly, this is the attitude
that the high priest had in the film and is extremely hypocritical since Seidman is complaining of anti-Semitism while acting anti-Christian.

- In some of its antisemitic aspects, it IS nasty; e.g. "The devil is your father," and so on. Most Jews understand that Christianity is not to be judged entirely on that basis, becaused there were historical factors in place, any more than they wish to be judged on the fact that the Old Testament claims all Arabs are descended from the illegitimate child of Sarah's handmaiden. Ancient scriptures reflect the thinking of ancient people, which is different than that of people today.

If Jews believed that the entirety of the Gospels were nasty, however, then that would also include the philosophical teachings for which Jesus is rightly praised as a prophet and important reformer in the Jewish community by virtually one hundred percent of the Jews I personally know, including both myself and my family.

Gibson’s film is certainly an artistic interpretation of the New Testament, it is however an accurate one as well. Those that attack the film as being anti-Semitic are essentially accusing Christianity of being anti-Semitic, and in fact are being anti-Christian. This is the type of behavior that will fuel anti-Semitism, not Gibson’s movie."

- If it were an "accurate portrayal" of the New Testament then it would change nothing arbitrarily, and add nothing of its own that couldn't be confirmed in the Bible in some way.

Gibson did both liberally, and virtually everything changed and added generally intensified the purported "guilt" of Jews in the Crucifixion, including the depiction of Satan as a Aramaic-speaking female that shaved her head and wore wigs, as Orthodox Jewish women do, then and now.

For example, if the movie was intended to be an "accurate" portrayal of the Gospels, why was Matthew 27:25 given to, instead of the crowd, whose ethnicity is never directly established, Caiphas, whose ethnicity is unquestionable?

It's probably true that Gibson DOES believe that Christ died for everyone's sin, and that Jews aren't to be blamed collectively, and that he did say "no man takes my life: I lay it down freely." That's why the film doesn't deserve to be described as antisemitic. He didn't intend to stigmatize Jews, which is what counts.

But distorting and fictionalizing scripture in a manner that blames Jews IS a consistent theme throughout the film, and that's what was being complained about, not the substance of Christian belief.

That doesn't even consider insensitivities like using big hook noses as the focal point of a lap dissolve between scenes (like that was a typical trait of 1st Century Jews in the Galillee in the first place), or having Jewish children morph into demons.

If you really need an explanation as to why that was offensive, you're really hopeless. Of course, that would be the subject of outrage and complaints, just like the Black community would react if the old Amos and Andy episodes were resyndicated.

Neither of those things are rooted in the Bible. They're Gibson's own ad-libs. But insensitivity isn't the same thing as antisemitism.

Re(5): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts\
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 10:46:38 AM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

LEVINE SAYS: "Jesus isn't a factor in the Jewish religion. To Jews, it's pretty irrational to hate someone they never met that lived 2,000 years ago."

RESPONSE:

"[The article in Hebrew by Elliot Horowitz] deals with the character
of Purim over the centuries as a day combining ritual reversal, joys and hostility -- especially towards Christians and its symbols, as
well as with 19th and 20th century historiographical attempts to come
to grips with the troubling evidence concerning the activities of the
Jews as part of the holiday's carnivalesque character. The problematic character of much historiography concerning Purim can be seen in the case of H. Graetz who wrote that it had been the custom to burn Haman upon a gallows which had the form of cross. It was difficult for Jewish historians to speak their minds honestly about what Purim had been
like in the past, for fear it would reflect upon European Jewry. [The
article] stresses the tenacity of anti-Christian Purim practices, especially among European Jewry, in medieval and modern times." -- Religious and Theological Abstracts, 1995, 38, p. 851

Re(4): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts\
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 11:20:30 PM by George Shelps

Shelps, what do you think of Ms. Seidman's condemnation of your religion (via Mel Gibson's The Passion) and why, in your pro-Jewish, pro-Israel favoritism, do you endorse her view?

__No, her view is wrong. It's hard
to understand Christianity from outside
the faith and this writer does not.

Howewver, it is a sin to single out any ethic group for blanket condemnation with a selective use of facts the way you do.

I am convinced that Cones and Jaeger are fatally damaging the cause of film
industry reform by allowing you to spew
your hatred here. They would be wise to delete all your posts from the record.

I haven't yet seen PASSION OF THE CHRIST, but I doubt that it is anti-semitic and I doubt that the film
is anything but a sincere expression of
the Christian faith by Mel Gibson.

Re(5): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts\
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 11:36:13 PM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

Mr. Shelps. You say this: "Howewver, it is a sin to single out any ethic group for blanket condemnation with a selective use of facts the way you do."

Are you aware that the Jewish categorically condemns Christianity for "anti-Semitism," vis-a-vis Christian teachings?

If so, since this is a "blanket condemnation," do you consider it a (Jewish) sin?

Re(6): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts\
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 00:54:14 AM by George Shelps

Are you aware that the Jewish categorically condemns Christianity for "anti-Semitism," vis-a-vis Christian teachings?

If so, since this is a "blanket condemnation," do you consider it a (Jewish) sin?

___Yes, but as usual you're selective. Almost all the Jews I've known respected
Jesus as a great moral teacher.

YYou could learn something from them.

Re(7): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts\
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 00:58:59 AM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

If YES, then why are not complaining about it with equal fervor, the way you complain about me? Why the double standard?

Re(8): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts\
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 03:21:35 AM by George Shelps



If YES, then why are not complaining about it with equal fervor, the way you complain about me? Why the double standard?
R
___No double standard! They're not posting here and you are. You are tainting the FIRM movement with your Jew-hating.


I checked your site to see what you've
been up to recently and I notice you
have two posts by Jaeger up there.

That will further disgrace his reform effort.

Re(9): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts\
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 10:40:58 AM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

What do you think of this quote, by the former (Jewish) chairman of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem?

"What emerged for me, from the study of the first chapters of the book and their antecedents was the discovery that the main stream of Jewish
thought is permeated by the genetic spiritual superiority of Jews over
Gentiles, disconcertingly reminiscent of racist notions of our time. Living in Israel for the past twenty years in a Jewish majority that is no
more sensitive to the feelings of minorities within it than Gentile
majorities are.... [with] Jews in their midst, I have come to realize the
vitality of Jewish racist notions, and I am more than ever convinced that
the hold Judaism will have on this and future generations will be gravely
impaired unless these notions are neutralized by an internal reordering of traditional values." [GREENBERG, p. 33]

Greenberg, Moshe. A Problematic Heritage: The Attitude Toward the Gentile in the Jewish Tradition: An Israeli Perspective. Conservative
Judaism, v. XLVIII, no. 2, Winter 1996, p. 23-35

Re(8): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts\
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 03:20:12 AM by George Shelps



If YES, then why are not complaining about it with equal fervor, the way you complain about me? Why the double standard?
R
___No double standard! They're not posting here and you are. You are tainting the FIRM movement with your Jew-hating.


I checked your site to see what you've
been up to recently and I notice you
have two posts by Jaeger up there.

That will further disgrace his reform effort.

Re(9): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts\
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 03:27:24 PM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

You avoided my question. I ask you again, directly. What do you think of this quote below, by a former Jewish head of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem? Is Mr. Greenberg an "anti-Semite?" Is he a "Jew hater" for exposing the historical stream of racism in Jewish identity? If he is NOT a "Jew-hater" in your eyes, then why am I for broadening the audience for what professor Greenberg says?

But please do not avoid again telling me what you think of the SUBSTANCE of professor Greenberg's quote below:

"What emerged for me, from the study of the first chapters of the book and their antecedents was the discovery that the main stream of Jewish
thought is permeated by the genetic spiritual superiority of Jews over
Gentiles, disconcertingly reminiscent of racist notions of our time. Living in Israel for the past twenty years in a Jewish majority that is no
more sensitive to the feelings of minorities within it than Gentile
majorities are.... [with] Jews in their midst, I have come to realize the
vitality of Jewish racist notions, and I am more than ever convinced that
the hold Judaism will have on this and future generations will be gravely
impaired unless these notions are neutralized by an internal reordering of traditional values." [GREENBERG, p. 33]

Greenberg, Moshe. A Problematic Heritage: The Attitude Toward the Gentile in the Jewish Tradition: An Israeli Perspective. Conservative
Judaism, v. XLVIII, no. 2, Winter 1996, p. 23-35

Re(10): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts\
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 10:21:46 PM by George Shelps

If he is NOT a "Jew-hater" in your eyes, then why am I for broadening the audience for what professor Greenberg says?

___Because your posts and your site are
filled with animosity and contempt for
Jews and Judaism...I gave your use of "Jew Republic" in reference to "The
New Republic" magazine...this is worthy
of Julius Streicher.

Re(11): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts\
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 10:51:44 PM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

I am asking you in good faith for the third time to examine professor Moshe Greenberg's quote that I provide again below, and tell me what you think of it. You are refusing to give an opinion. Why? What are you afraid of?

It's not a very complicated text. You should be able to clearly understand what this Jewish expert in Jewish studies is saying. I ask you again, what do you think about it?


"What emerged for me, from the study of the first chapters of the book and their antecedents was the discovery that the main stream of Jewish
thought is permeated by the genetic spiritual superiority of Jews over
Gentiles, disconcertingly reminiscent of racist notions of our time. Living in Israel for the past twenty years in a Jewish majority that is no
more sensitive to the feelings of minorities within it than Gentile
majorities are.... [with] Jews in their midst, I have come to realize the
vitality of Jewish racist notions, and I am more than ever convinced that
the hold Judaism will have on this and future generations will be gravely
impaired unless these notions are neutralized by an internal reordering of traditional values." [GREENBERG, p. 33]

Greenberg, Moshe. A Problematic Heritage: The Attitude Toward the Gentile in the Jewish Tradition: An Israeli Perspective. Conservative
Judaism, v. XLVIII, no. 2, Winter 1996, p. 23-35

Re(6): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts\
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 00:41:56 AM by Mitchell Levine

It's not a "blanket condemnation" of ALL Christians for "antisemitism," it's a condemnation of those specific Christians, churchs, and Christian teachings that DID perpetuate antisemitism.

Christian antisemitism WAS a major factor in the spread of antisemitic beliefs - that hardly means that all Christians are guilty collectively for it, any more than all Jews are collectively guilty for the Crucifixion. In fact, nothing could be less Christian than antisemitism, as Christ certainly would have condemned it.

It's sad that the Catholic Church didn't until the Vatican II, but crucial to note that it did condemn it.

Re(7): Mr. Cones, Jenks is back, time to delete his posts\
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 11:54:52 AM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

Mr. Levine. I like the way you always try to speak for Mr. Shelps. Apparently he doesn't care.

This issue, per Jews, is that "blanket condemnation" is a crime. Per Christians? For Jews, this blanket condemnation is KOSHER:

Here's a couple GENERIC anti-Christian Jewish quotes and you well know that this is a common opinion in the Jewish community:

"The crime against the Jewish people," declares Rabbi Eliezer Berkovitz, "is
the cancer at the very heart of Christianity... [HALBERSTAM, p. 232] ... In order to pacify the Christian conscience it is said that the Nazis were not Christians. But they were all the children of Christians ... [p. 226] ... Without Christianity's New Testament, Hitler's Mein Kampf could never have been written." [HALBERSTAM, p. 238]

"Let's not shy away from the hard truth," says Joshua Halberstam, "For
many Jews, the unspoken lesson of the Shoah is that they cannot trust Christians with their children. Tens of thousands of Christians with crosses around their necks sent millions of innocent Jews and millions of other innocent men, women, and children to their horrid deaths while many of their fellow Christians cheered." [HALBERSTAM, p. 226]

Same Censorship Theme
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 05:10:05 PM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

Herein lies the same Judeocentric censorship theme, whether in mass culture (in this case France) or this FIRM forum. People must not be allowed to make up their own minds about ANYTHING pertaining to Jews: Jewish Lobbyists and Judeocentric sychophants will make up peoples' minds for them:

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/reuters20040326_423.html

Jewish Brothers Seek French Ban on the Passion, ABC News, March 26, 2004

"Three Jewish brothers urged a Paris court on Friday to ban MelGibson's "The Passion of The Christ" from French cinemas as anti-Semitic only days before the U.S. box office hit is due to open in France. The brothers -- Patrick, Jean-Marc and Gerard Benlolo
-- said at a hastily-arranged hearing that they as Jews felt insulted
by the film, which they had not seen,
and were sure it would provoke anti-Semitic violence. Jewish critics
in the United States, where the movie opened last month, have charged
the film about Jesus Christ's suffering and death unjustly portrayed Jews as his killers, but this appeared to be the first attempt anywhere to ban it. "There is so much violent anti-Semitism in Europe that we cannot let this happen," said Patrick Benlolo, referring to rising anti-Jewish violence, especially in France. The brothers, lawyers for distributor Quinta Communications and the judge
interrupted the hearing to see the film in a private showing at a nearby cinema. The Passion is due to open in France next Wednesday. The distributor urged the judge to throw out the case because the brothers could not use their religion as the basis for a complaint. Its lawyer also argued they did not show how the film could cause public disorder. The dossier the brothers submitted to support their request contained several legal errors
and 15 of its 36 pages were quotes from U.S. movie reviews and an American book in English, which the judge said the court could not accept. "Everybody speaks English, don't they?" Patrick Benlolo replied. The court was due to issue its ruling on Monday."

MORE J. CENSORSHIP IN FRANCE
Posted on March 26, 2004 at 10:10:38 PM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

More censorial World Jewish Klan:

The world view below is quite the same of FIRM's own resident Jewish totalitarian censor, Mr. Levine. For the Jewish Thought Police, everything boils down to the "Nazi-fascist." Here, a powerful, censorial cinema Jew in France decrees that Mel Gibson's movie about Christ that has already been seen and respected by millions of Christians, is "fascist."


http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=504354

'Passion' is fascist propaganda: French film boss, By John Lichfield, The Independent (UK), in Paris 24 March 2004

"An independent French film distributor has described Mel Gibson'sThe
Passion of the Christ as "fascist propaganda". Marin Karmitz, president of the MK2 group, said that he would not show the movie - a runaway box-office success in the United States - in any of his 10 cinemas. In a statement to The Hollywood Reporter, the newspaper of the American movie
industry, M. Karmit said: "I have
always fought against fascism, notably through [the films I show]. For me, Passion is a film of fascist propaganda."

M. Karmitz is president of the French federation of movie distributors, but said that he had no objection to the film appearing in other cinemas in France to allow an informed debate on Gibson's work. He accused the Australian-born director of not only presenting a distorted and anti-Semitic view of the New Testament story but also "turning violence and barbarity into a spectacle". "For two hours, you see a man being tortured, nothing else," said M. Karmitz.

Although he is Jewish, he criticised Jewish lobbies in the US for focusing on the alleged anti-Semitic elements in the movie and not its "culture of violence". "Behind this Passion ... you can glimpse a whole internationale of
religious fundamentalism, a martyrology based on violence, contempt for the body and hatred for [humanity]," he said. The film is due to be released in 600 cinemas across France on 31 March by Quinta Distribution, a company owned by the Franco-Tunisian film producer Tarak Ben Ammar. M. Ben Ammar, who produced Franco Zeffirelli's equally controversial Jesus of Nazareth in 1977 and Roberto Rossellini's The Messiah in 1975, has said the film is not racist or anti-Semitic.

Other French distribution firms have been wary of the movie. The Catholic
hierarchy described itas "challenging". M. Ben Ammar said: "I thought
it was my duty as a Muslim who believes in Jesus, and because I was
brought up to respect all three monotheist religions, to show this movie to the people of France and let them judge for themselves."

New Online Book
Posted on March 27, 2004 at 10:58:21 PM by MOSHE THE GOYIM

A new online book; I haven't read it yet, but it looks promising:


http://www.demischools.org/gibson.pdf

The War on Mel Gibson. The Media vs. The Passion, by Gary North, demischools.org [pdf file; 233-page book]

"Movies have long served as both symbols and tools. They reinforce
people’s opinions. The question is: Do they change people’s opinions?
Hollywood and the secular humanists who have been in control of this tool have always denied that it is a tool. "It’s just entertainment." I think they knew better. Their overwhelmingly hostile reaction to The Passion indicates either that they always knew better or else they have now undergone a transformation in their thinking. I think it’s the former. They always knew. The movies have been crowbars that Hollywood’s humanists have used for a generation to pry Americans
away from their first principles: religious, moral, and cultural.

I think it is time for Christians to recognize what has been done to them. It is also time for Christians to learn how to use this tool to fight back ...

Is The Passion the first step in a systematic, comprehensive counter-attack by Christians in a cultural war that Christians have been losing for almost a century? I think this is the case. So does Hollywood and Hollywood’s cheerleaders in the media. This is why they are horrified. In this book, you will get an idea of just how horrified
they are, and also why. This will cheer you up for the whole week. Maybe longer."

New Cartoon for Kids
Posted on March 24, 2004 at 01:51:41 PM by James Jaeger

There's an excellent new cartoon for kids out by DreamWorks called GEFILTE FISH, INC. It's an undersea mob comedy featuring the anthropomorphic likes of Meyer Sharksky, Scallops Shapiro, Bugsy Seagull and Arnold Squidstein.

Any problems with this?(1)

James Jaeger



-------------------------
http://www.timesstar.com/Stories/0,1413,125%7E1549%7E2025393,00.html

Children's cartoon film 'Shark Tale', By Rosario A. Iaconis, Alameda Times-Star, March 18, 2004

"There's a new breed of anthropomorphic fish roiling the briny
deep. It's the undersea predator spawned by DreamWorks
SKG in "Shark Tale," the upcoming children's cartoon adventure.
Unlike Tinseltown's other aquatic role models, this animated bottom-feeder belongs to a vicious celluloid species: the "Sopranos" goombah stereotype. By grafting the bigoted imagery of "The Sopranos" -- along with a generous whiff of "Goodfellas" and "The Godfather" -- onto a computer-generated flick for kids, DreamWorks' Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen have crossed the line into the cinematic exploitation of children. Ethnic profiling, sinister crime families and mob rubouts are not the stuff of cutesy cartoon comedy.

But the greater issue is the damage done to the self-esteem and psychological development of impressionable minors. Bigotry must not be nurtured at an early age; hatred should not come dressed in primary colors.

Slated for release Oct. 1, "Shark Tale" is a computer-generated minstrel show filled with piscine mobsters who sleep, eat and kill with the fishes -- and sport such names as Don Lino, Luca, Frankie, Lenny and Angie. Robert De Niro, Martin Scorsese, Michael Imperioli and Vincent Pastore provide the guttural voice-overs. And the plot would make Tony Soprano and Uncle Junior proud.

PASSION on Way to $350 Million
Posted on April 7, 2004 at 11:06:37 PM by James Jaeger

Gee, I guess the studio brass at FOX will finance Mel's next picture. See what happens when the narrowly-defined Control Group allows others to tell THEIR unique stories!

But will THE PASSION be nominated for Best Picture and win next March, that's an interesting question?

Many in Hollywood are probably hoping that everyone will forget about it by then. Meanwhile THE PASSION will have raked in over $2 billion world wide. Given a 35% distribution fee, and minimal P&A (thanks to Abe), Mel should be able to pocket a significant sum. But then the Adacemy doesn't care about gross proceeds of distribution.

Maybe Mel should take his cash and purchase DreamWorks SKG. He could re-name it DreamWorks MEL.

James Jaeger

Re(1): PASSION on Way to $350 Million
Posted on April 7, 2004 at 11:22:26 PM by Mitchell Levine

Gee, Jim, that story was SO unique, the "control group" had already financed it being told 20 or so times in the past. The only significant difference between Mel's version and Zeffirelli's is that it's inferior (and gorier).

In other words, the only thing to learn from this story is that prerelease publicity accelerates box office sales.

Mel won't pocket anything other than his investment, because he presold the profits.

Re(2): PASSION on Way to $350 Million
Posted on April 8, 2004 at 10:00:57 PM by James Jaeger

Who wants to see the story of Jesus Christ told 20 times by a bunch of Jews. That's why the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JO