reply to post by DJW001
Previous: Zionism/Zionist is not: Jewish (however many jewish people were manipulated to buy into this false concept)
You: .... True, Zionism is a philosophy that can be subscribed to by people who are not Jewish, true. But I'm not sure about your use of the word
Here is why I said "manipulated". Jewish people were discriminated against but they were living with it. Then came a mass movement, not because they
all had the same idea at the same time. That only leaves that some people put certain things in motion that caused like a snowball effect.
P: Zionism = a conspiracy by a small minority to motivate masses of people to move to a foreign land in order to create wars. Wars are being used by
governments to control the masses. Religious beliefs are used for that purpose.
Y: No, that's not what Zionism actually means; but thank you for providing an insight into what you think it is. Presumably, you believe the
Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an authentic document.
What I gave what not the dictionary definition, we can look that up, I gave what it implies, what it is
(IMO: a conspiracy). As you
noted below, I observe and draw conclusions from the observation, rather than "go with the flow". Just because something is the accepted belief by
most people that is not a strong argument for its truth, in my view. If you scream "Fire" in a crowded theater, there is a good chance people will
die. As with the mass movement, people are easy to misdirect. (Outside of this discussion, I encourage you to remember that governments use wars to
control the masses.)
P: Anti-Semitism = a racist ideology, similar to white supremacy, that promotes hate. While hate speech is unpleasant, the criteria to be applied is
whether it inflicts harm. If harm has occured there is a legal system to receive compensation. If Freedom of Speech is voided, then any criticism of
anybody must become illegal, not exclusively that against semites.
Y: Interesting. Your definition of Anti-Semitism is good, but I find it interesting that you find hate speech objectionable only if it is effective. I
agree that Freedom of Speech is important, provided that it comes with a corresponding responsibility. To keep the discussion on topic: the people and
organizations that the Wiesenthal Center criticize have every right to make the sort of statements they do, and the Wiesenthal Center has every right
to criticize them for what they said.
I did not say, or did not mean to say, that I don't find it objectionable (distasteful), only that it should not be illegal when it (physically or
financially) hurts/damages somebody (IMO). I left the door open for those who feel strongly that it should be illegal - if they are willing to submit
themselves to the same standard - but how can you set a standard that is verifyable? We need to be consistent before anything else.
P: Anti-Semitism is not: criticism of actions by jewish people, and of Israel, particularly with regards to policy, especially foreign policy and the
policy regarding Palestinians. Freedom of speech is particularly important when it comes to politics and religion.
Y: On the other hand, those with an irrational hatred of all things Jewish will naturally be critical of anything and everything that Jews,
individually or collectively, do. Therefore, although many people who are not Anti-Semitic can find cause to criticize the State of Israel and its
policies, Anti-Semites will always criticize the State of Israel, its policies and its citizens. The very existence of Jews is a Jewish state would be
objectionable to an Anti-Semite. Therefore, clearly, not everyone who criticizes Israel in an Anti-Semite, but all Anti-Semites will be critical of
... and because not everyone who criticizes Israel is an Anti-Semite you cannot make it illegal. You can respond in kind, but notice that if hate
begets hate it is a vicious circle. It is like saying people will always hate the US because the US is the superpower and people hate when somebody is
more powerful than they are. Therefore, hate of America should be illegal. No it should not. People should have the right to burn the flag.
P: watch the hands of Joe Biden
Y: Oh dear. Seeing secret Illuminati hand signals, are we?
I see his signal and I hear his voice. You can mark it off as meaningless (even what he says) but I have come to believe that symbols are very
powerful. You see many of them in any church. Governments use many of them on their banknotes, architecture, the obelisks, even the layout of the
streets in Washington DC. We shake hands because it is a symbol, we would not do it if it had no meaning. Mr Biden's hands are expressing a message
just as are his words.