MPs shut down anti-semitic site


by Sunny
16th March, 2009 at 3:25 pm    

Huh?

BT has banned a religious website critical of extremist Jews that it has hosted for four years following a campaign from a group of MPs claimed it was anti-Semitic. It is understood to be the first time that a website in Britain has been shut down under such circumstances. The website, www.catholicvoice.co.uk, takes an inflammatory stance over extreme sections of Judaism that reject non-Jewish races.

How is that anti-semitic? And who gave MPs to use this power? I can only imagine the outrage if a group of MPs shut down a website critical of Islamic extremism.

And it looks like the BBC is now actively engaging in self-censorship: BBC rejects play on Israel’s history for impartiality reasons. Translated to: BBC afraid of accusations of stoking anti-semitism by broadcasting a play Melanie Phillips doesn’t like. In which case it should ban all documentaries critical of the Middle East, South Asia, Christianity or anything else because of “impartiality” reasons too.

And I doubt there will be an outcry by people who usually claim to be defending free speech. The claim that free speech in the UK is only being threatened by Muslims just makes it easy now for authoritarians generally to ban whatever they want without the media hysteria they know would come if it related to Muslims. It gives them cover. There still are no equal standards on free speech. I want to see equal standards: you either ban everything provocative, or nothing.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs,Media,Moral police






298 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    New blog post: MPs shut down anti-semitic site http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/3753


  2. BT closes Catholic website after MP complaints | MediaWatchWatch

    [...] (Hat tip: Pickled Politics) [...]




  1. marvin — on 16th March, 2009 at 3:35 pm  

    And it looks like the BBC is now actively engaging in self-censorship

    You’re pissing me? Jesus f*** christ. I don’t believe it. I mean, after all those years ruthlessly not self-censoring with regards to Islam! All those mohammed pictures! I don’t believe it!

    Wtf are you on sunny? The BBC have always been self-censoring. Are you becoming an “anti-Zionist”???

    On the first point though, WTF are MP’s doing shutting down websites they don’t like??? Unless it’s inciting violence then this is a massive intrusion by the thought police. This is outrageous.

    The BBC not showing dodgy material that could be deemed offensive for a minorities? Par for the course. Always has been. It’s an entirely different kettle of fish.

  2. platinum786 — on 16th March, 2009 at 3:42 pm  

    Wow, they can’t do that can they? Damned thought police, and they dare to critisise China and the middle east etc.

    C’mon, the internet is about freedom of ideas. Unless it’s breaking any laws, why close it down?

    I’m assuming this site was hosted by BT?

  3. David T — on 16th March, 2009 at 3:48 pm  

    The play in question was very clearly anti-semitic. I wouldn’t quickly reach that conclusion.

    However, what made is crystal clear to me is that in the final stanzas of the play, Churchill depicts a Jewish parent justifying Operation Cast Lead in the following terms:

    “Tell her we’re chosen people”.

    If you ask any religious Jew what the notion of “chosen people” is about, they’ll tell you that Judaism teaches that Jews were “chosen” by God for a set of special duties. The theory is that God requires non-Jews to follow only the seven “Noahide Commandments” to live a virtuous life, while Jews are bound by 613 Commandments.

    Being “chosen” is emphatically not about being given a license to do what you want. No Jew would ever argue that this is the case, or uses the phrase in that way.

    It is, however, a very well worn trope of the Jew baiting far right (and now, I think, the far left) to accuse Jews of regarding themselves as “The Chosen People”.

    http://tinyurl.com/cmjbrf

    The argument is, essentially:

    “You Jews think that God exempts you from the normal rules that bind humanity – anything goes for you”.

    That’s precisely what Carol Churchill is doing here.

  4. Hannah — on 16th March, 2009 at 3:51 pm  

    Which of the 613 Commandments call upon you to support the death of innocent gentile children, David Toube?

  5. Sunny — on 16th March, 2009 at 3:56 pm  

    You’re pissing me? Jesus f*** christ. I don’t believe it. I mean, after all those years ruthlessly not self-censoring with regards to Islam! All those mohammed pictures! I don’t believe it!

    Oh dear, you must watch that blood pressure marvin. Don’t want you to lose it you know.

    Tell me something – are you for or against self-censorship?

    David T
    The play in question was very clearly anti-semitic. I wouldn’t quickly reach that conclusion.

    So I assume you’d support Muslims asking for any play to be banned that they considered Islamophobic?

    I’m still waiting for those equal standards everyone keeps talking about.

  6. David T — on 16th March, 2009 at 4:03 pm  

    And who gave MPs to use this power?

    On this Catholic Voice website, what seems to have happened is:

    1. An MP pointed out that a website hosted by BT was fascist and anti-semitic

    2. BT took a look at its T&Cs and decided to terminate the customer’s account for breach of them.

    3. The website was reported to the police. It is, after all, illegal to incite to racial or religious hatred in this country:

    Here’s a longer article on it:

    Run by a man called Tim Johnson, it contained articles such as “To call Jesus a Jew is blasphemy”, “Jews are followers of Satan” and contained references to the notorious forgery “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.

    Mr Mann wrote to the BT subsidiary Plusnet, saying: “The website that I understand is hosted through your organisation has been brought to my attention. It is deeply offensive in content — racist, antisemitic and discriminatory — and therefore full of illegal hate speech and in violation of your own hosting policy.”

    He told them that the site broke the company’s own rules and that he was informing the police.

    http://www.thejc.com/articles/hate-group-mp-acts-close-website

    The website republished the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as fact:

    http://tinyurl.com/c47oed

    When the Sunday Herald says that the website:

    “takes an inflammatory stance over extreme sections of Judaism that reject non-Jewish races”

    … what they mean is that Catholic Voice was a treasure trove of neo Nazi material, that claimed that there was a global conspiracy of Jews, trying to corrupt the world and infiltrate the Catholic Church.

    For some reason, the Sunday Herald appears to think that there is an “extreme section of Judaism”, that is in fact engaged in such a plot!

    That’s how fucked up things are now.

  7. David T — on 16th March, 2009 at 4:05 pm  

    Which of the 613 Commandments call upon you to support the death of innocent gentile children, David Toube?

    Why, the very same one that commands us to bleed them in order to mix blood into our Passover matzohs.

  8. David T — on 16th March, 2009 at 4:07 pm  

    So I assume you’d support Muslims asking for any play to be banned that they considered Islamophobic?

    I’m not asking for any play to be banned.

    I’m just pointing out that a particular meme is anti-semitic.

    For example, I think I would take the view that a play in which a group of Muslim men plotted to rape pre-pubescent children, while exclaiming:

    “After all, Mohammed fucked Aisha when she was 9!!!”

    … was an exercise in anti-Muslim bigotry.

  9. Where's Sid? — on 16th March, 2009 at 4:12 pm  

    If you see Sid, tell him

  10. David T — on 16th March, 2009 at 4:15 pm  

    Yes, somebody get Sid!!!

    Sid!! Sunny is attacking anti fascists for taking on neo Nazis again. He also thinks that presenting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as fact isn’t anti-semitic!

    Sid!!

    SID!!!!

  11. Sunny — on 16th March, 2009 at 4:18 pm  

    He also thinks that presenting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as fact isn’t anti-semitic!

    I’m afraid anti-semitism in itself isn’t a reason enough to shut down a website. In case your English isn’t up to scratch David – that’s my issue.

    Otherwise maybe you could put in a request to shut down the BNP website then?

  12. Dave Rich — on 16th March, 2009 at 4:18 pm  

    It seems like nothing is antisemitic anymore.

    A website hosts the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Sunday Herald calls it “an inflammatory stance”.

    A play claims that Jews indulge in the killing of non-Jewish children because they think they are the “chosen people” and the BBC say it is not “impartial”. What – impartial between people who spread blood libels and people who don’t?

    There is this idea that you can’t criticise Israel without being called antisemitic. In fact the opposite is true: you can get away with as much antisemitism as you want, as long as you claim it is criticism of Israel.

  13. Hannah — on 16th March, 2009 at 4:24 pm  

    For example, I think I would take the view that a play in which a group of Muslim men plotted to rape pre-pubescent children, while exclaiming:

    “After all, Mohammed fucked Aisha when she was 9!!!”

    … was an exercise in anti-Muslim bigotry.

    Of course you meant no offense or bigotry at all by describing scenario?

    What if a play said pro-Israelis like Marvin and David Toube basically endorse the rape, slaughter and torture of non-Israeli people in the name of Israel? What if it said they fantasise about committing such acts themselves? And that Israelis have a sense of racial superiority and believe they are spreading the Sword of David any time an Israeli soldier rapes a Palestinian girl?

    I’m guessing that would be an example in anti-Jew bigotry.

  14. inders — on 16th March, 2009 at 4:34 pm  

    Bt banned it?

    I.E. they refused to host it no more. Why don’t they just move servers to someone who will have them?

    Mountain and molehill.

  15. David T — on 16th March, 2009 at 4:35 pm  

    I’m afraid anti-semitism in itself isn’t a reason enough to shut down a website. In case your English isn’t up to scratch David – that’s my issue.

    I think you’ve misjudged here, Sunny:

    (a) Publication and dissemination of material that incites racial hatred is is a criminal offence.

    Here are two men who were recently convicted in similar circumstances:

    http://www.thejc.com/articles/web-racists-convicted-historic-trial

    I hope you’ll approve of their conviction Sunny – although most of their material was directed at Jews, some of it attacked “brown people”. The evidence included web pages with the following titles:

    “Dumb Niggers, Gloating Jews”

    “Make Niggers History”,

    (b) When people sign up to web hosting services, they sign up to terms and conditions. If you break these terms and conditions, then the hoster has the right to terminate the service.

  16. Sid — on 16th March, 2009 at 4:36 pm  

    Of course you meant no offense or bigotry at all by describing scenario?

    I think David T is saying that the content on the Catholic Voice website is as offensive to Jews as the above would be to Muslims.

    The point I hope everyone agrees on, I hope, is that the Catholic Voice website should *not* be shut down whether it contained antisemitic or anti-Muslim content.

    Don’t we?

  17. Hermes — on 16th March, 2009 at 4:39 pm  

    inders, good point. I hope the website carries on with a different webhost. This type of free speech is desperately needed.

  18. Laura M — on 16th March, 2009 at 4:41 pm  

    Sid: David T’s analogy was with reference to the memes in Seven Jewish Children. Worth keeping the issues separate.

  19. marvin — on 16th March, 2009 at 4:43 pm  

    It shouldn’t be “shut down” as in banned from appearing anywhere.

    Though as has been said if they’ve violated the terms and conditions of a particular provider then the provider has the right to remove the content.

    That’s why most of these sites will host their content on their own websites. If you gonna be hatin’ you can’t do it off someone else’s server.

  20. David T — on 16th March, 2009 at 4:47 pm  

    “The point I hope everyone agrees on, I hope, is that the Catholic Voice website should *not* be shut down whether it contained antisemitic or anti-Muslim content.”

    There are two issues here.

    1. Did Tim Johnson commit the criminal offence of incitement to racial hatred?

    If so, he should be prosecuted. If you disagree with that law, then campaign for its repeal.

    I do, in fact, think that there’s a case for repealing a law which I think is (a) a little bit of a dead letter and (b) not the best way of fighting racism. I’d prefer a strong anti-racist politics.

    However, unfortunately, we’re living in times in which leading progressives like Sunny don’t recognise websites devoted to attacking the “antichrist Khazar Jew” as antisemitic. So, frankly, with or without an incitement to racial hatred law, the situation is very fucked indeed.

    2. Are businesses allowed to terminate contracts when T&Cs are breached.

    Yes.

    Next question.

  21. Dave Rich — on 16th March, 2009 at 4:51 pm  

    The point I hope everyone agrees on, I hope, is that the Catholic Voice website should *not* be shut down whether it contained antisemitic or anti-Muslim content.

    If it contained illegal material then of course it should.

  22. Sid — on 16th March, 2009 at 4:55 pm  

    I’d like to think that Christian Voice’s right to publish either antisemitic and anti-Islamic content would be defended robustly by Sunny. As long as it does not infringe incitement to hatred laws because he has become, by his own admission, “much more militant about free speech”.

  23. David T — on 16th March, 2009 at 4:56 pm  

    I think David T is saying that the content on the Catholic Voice website is as offensive to Jews as the above would be to Muslims.

    Its not offence.

    Offence is fine.

    The point I’m making is that anti-Muslim bigots try to whip up hatred against Muslims by implying that they are paedophiles, whose paedophilia is sanctioned by religious texts. Nobody would put on a play in which evil Muslims tried to rape a little girl while invoking Mohammed. If such a play were put on, it would cause an outrage. I think that we’d have little difficulty in finding a consensus: that this was a vicious attack on Muslims. It wouldn’t be staged by the BBC either.

    Now, that’s not to say that the age of consent isn’t very low in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Or that there are not paedophiles who happen to be Muslims.

    What we’re talking about here is an attempt to imply, falsely, that Islam encourages Muslims to rape children, with the purpose of whipping up hatred against Muslims.

    Just as putting on a play in which a Jewish mother tells her child that the deaths of children in Operation Cast Lead were absolutely fine because “we are the Chosen People”, is a text book example of an attempt to whip up hatred against Jews.

  24. Andrew — on 16th March, 2009 at 5:06 pm  

    The site’s available via archive.org:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20071013033125/http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/

    I would defy anyone to take a look at that filth and say that the Sunday Herald’s characterisation of it is accurate and the MPs were wrong.

    Compare and contrast:

    “Mr Johnson says the second [statement] – “Jews are followers of Satan” – has never appeared on the site.”

    and

    Nations formed by Divine Providence over hundreds of years will formally fall to these Judeo-Mongols from Khazaria and their satanic federal Europe. Since these nations have rejected Christendom, Heaven will now give them over to Satandom.

    Those who patronize the Khazar Jewish media by sponsoring their satanic propaganda…

    Also contains links to 9/11 troofers, aspartame loons, etc.

  25. The Dude — on 16th March, 2009 at 5:10 pm  

    Whatever happened to the notion of ?:

    “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

    I don’t need some jumped-up politically correct thought police protecting me from some dude calling me nigger. I live in Tottenham. We protect ourselves. The same goes for my neighbours who live up the road in Stamford Hill. Fuck! Soon we’ll be burning books and kicking out windows.

  26. David T — on 16th March, 2009 at 5:13 pm  

    Soon we’ll be burning books and kicking out windows.

    Burning other peoples’ books or kicking in their windows is also a criminal offence.

    Of course, burning a book can be an act of expression.

  27. Andrew — on 16th March, 2009 at 5:15 pm  

    The point is that if BT doesn’t want to host the site, it doesn’t have to – and this site, far from being a little bit controversial, was extremely antisemitic. Free speech doesn’t mean that other people are obliged to provide you with a platform.

  28. Hannah — on 16th March, 2009 at 5:22 pm  

    I don’t need some jumped-up politically correct thought police protecting me from some dude calling me nigger

    Clearly you don’t have kids or know anyone vulnerable to mobs of racist thugs. Need I remind you of the damage that word has caused? You might not need “protection” but say that when you have to go to hospital after you get your head kicked in. Are you David Lammy?

  29. Hannah — on 16th March, 2009 at 5:28 pm  

    Of course, burning a book can be an act of expression

    David Toube, possibly burning Palestinian civilians with white phosphorus can be an act of expression?

    It’s odd. Geert Wilders is told to sling his hook, yet when BT censor some website it’s all sunshine and ice cream for David Toube, Sid, and Harry’s Place!

  30. Sunny — on 16th March, 2009 at 5:47 pm  

    However, unfortunately, we’re living in times in which leading progressives like Sunny don’t recognise websites devoted to attacking the “antichrist Khazar Jew” as antisemitic. So, frankly, with or without an incitement to racial hatred law, the situation is very fucked indeed.

    That’s quite a serious allegation David T, and I suggest you rather choose your words carefully because you make such allegations.

    You wouldn’t want me to start twisting your words around and accusing you off all sorts of nasty things. You know, especially since you work as a lawyer and everything and your real name is everywhere.

    The article may have given the wrong impression in what it published on its website. Furthermore, there are different definitions to what is considered anti-semitic. You seem to think think that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, I don’t.

    In this case, I accept some of the content may have been anti-semitic, but the article certainly didn’t give that impression.

    Regardless of that, I stand by my view that BT was wrong to shut the website down as it affects free speech.

    I bet people like marvin would be crying if it involved Muslims. After all, he was enraged when British newspapers refused to carry the Motoon racist caricatures, despite it being their right to do so.

  31. Sunny — on 16th March, 2009 at 5:48 pm  

    The point I’m making is that anti-Muslim bigots try to whip up hatred against Muslims by implying that they are paedophiles, whose paedophilia is sanctioned by religious texts.

    funny you call them anti-Muslim bigots, because a lot of them seem to be prevalent on your blog. And yet those comments never get deleted.

  32. The Dude — on 16th March, 2009 at 5:56 pm  

    It seem I’ve been deleted….Well bang goes the neighbourhood. Sorry Sunny if I’ve caused any offence.

  33. marvin — on 16th March, 2009 at 5:59 pm  

    Ok Sunny’s position:

    The BBC should have aired this antisemitic play,

    The media was absolutely right to not pictorially depict the prophet of Islam!!! Any one who did was a chimp and racist!

    Is this a new position on freedom of speech Sunny? You would now accept the right to draw a picture of historical figures that happen to be revered?

    Death threats were received for somebody who posted a picture of “cry baby mohammed” from an IP address in Bradford. Is picturing mohammed in nappies racist Sunny? Wasn’t Jesus in a nappy in Jerry Springers show?

  34. blah — on 16th March, 2009 at 6:16 pm  

    David T
    “The play in question was very clearly anti-semitic. I wouldn’t quickly reach that conclusion.”

    Haha says the man whose site compared the trashing of a Starbucks to Kristalnacht!!!

    “However, what made is crystal clear to me is that in the final stanzas of the play, Churchill depicts a Jewish parent justifying Operation Cast Lead in the following terms:

    “Tell her we’re chosen people”.

    If you ask any religious Jew what the notion of “chosen people” is about, they’ll tell you that Judaism teaches that Jews were “chosen” by God for a set of special duties. The theory is that God requires non-Jews to follow only the seven “Noahide Commandments” to live a virtuous life, while Jews are bound by 613 Commandments.”

    So you are basically areguing that religious Jews should have a veto about what is said in works of art about Judaism and anything they feel is a misreprensentaion should be banned. Do other religions get that same right? Do we live in a Jewish theocracy?

    “Being “chosen” is emphatically not about being given a license to do what you want. No Jew would ever argue that this is the case, or uses the phrase in that way.”

    The problem is the 613 commandments you mentioned do allow some pretty objectionable things

    For example

    171 says Not to make a loan to an Israelite on interest (Lev. 25:37)

    It is consider a grave sin to lend to a Jew at interest. Yet it is considered AN OBLIGATION to lend to a gentile at interest

    58 To lend to an alien at interest (Deut. 23:21) According to tradition, this is mandatory (affirmative).

    or To exact the debt of an alien (Deut. 15:3) (affirmative). – when forgiving debts of Jews is strongly encouraged

    then there is

    199 To keep the Canaanite slave forever (Lev. 25:46)
    (The Palestinians are of cousre the Canaanites)

    279 Not to kidnap any person of Israel (Ex. 20:13)

    301 That the violator (of an unbetrothed virgin) shall marry her (Deut. 22:28-29) (affirmative).

    302 That one who has raped a damsel and has then (in accordance with the law) married her, may not divorce her (Deut. 22:29) (negative)

    353 Not to make a covenant with the seven (Canaanite, idolatrous) nations (Ex. 23:32; Deut. 7:2) (negative).
    354 Not to settle idolaters in our land (Ex. 23:33) (negative) (CCI26).
    355 To slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city (Deut. 13:16-17) (affirmative).

    Then we get to the stuff on how to deal with the Palstinians. Perhaps these teachings of Judaism might not be considered virtuous.

    601 Not to keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations (Deut. 20:16) (negative).
    602 To exterminate the seven Canaanite nations from the land of Israel (Deut. 20:17) (affirmative).
    607 Not to offer peace to the Ammonites and the Moabites before waging war on them, as should be done to other nations (Deut. 23:7) (negative)
    613 To destroy the seed of Amalek (Deut. 25:19) (CCA77).

    http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

    “It is, however, a very well worn trope of the Jew baiting far right (and now, I think, the far left) to accuse Jews of regarding themselves as “The Chosen People”.”

    Likweise the far right about Islam (even more so) are you then suggesting Islam not be criticised?

    Funny that you dont mind linking to sites like MEMRI which demonising Muslims by cherry picking the worst things Muslims say (much as anti-semitic sites do with Jews) or supporting Mel Phillips who has made a career from demonising the Muslim community

    Nor in fact do you mind mocking the sacred personages of Islam like Muhammed and Jesus (all under the guise of anti-Islamism)

    http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/02/27/sorry-muhammad/

    While condemning attacks on YOUR religion

  35. DavidMWW — on 16th March, 2009 at 6:19 pm  

    marvin wrote:

    Death threats were received for somebody who posted a picture of “cry baby mohammed” from an IP address in Bradford

    Got a link for this please, marvin?

  36. Sunny — on 16th March, 2009 at 6:22 pm  

    marvin: The BBC should have aired this antisemitic play

    They shouldn’t self-censor in fear of causing offence. Do you agree with that or not marvin?

    The Dude – no worries, just don’t think that comment against David Lammy was justified.

  37. chairwoman — on 16th March, 2009 at 6:22 pm  

    “Clearly you don’t have kids or know anyone vulnerable to mobs of racist thugs. Need I remind you of the damage that word has caused? You might not need “protection” but say that when you have to go to hospital after you get your head kicked in. Are you David Lammy?”

    Your hypocrisy leaves me feeling physically sick.

    Your children and vulnerable people need protection from mobs or racist thugs but mine don’t.

  38. blah — on 16th March, 2009 at 6:24 pm  

    marvin

    “Is this a new position on freedom of speech Sunny? You would now accept the right to draw a picture of historical figures that happen to be revered?”

    Er .. werent the people mentioned above by David jailed for publishing cartoons mocking the Holocaust?

    Seems SOME peoples sacred things cant be mocked.

    “Death threats were received for somebody who posted a “picture of “cry baby mohammed” from an IP address in Bradford. Is picturing mohammed in nappies racist Sunny? Wasn’t Jesus in a nappy in Jerry Springers show?”

    How would you feel about picturing some Rabbis at Aushwitz in nappies having just been treated to a session by the strapping lads of the SS? Offended?
    How would you feel about mocking Holocaust survivors generally?

  39. chairwoman — on 16th March, 2009 at 6:26 pm  

    The Dude – no worries, just don’t think that comment against David Lammy was justified.

    Oh for goodness sake!

  40. blah — on 16th March, 2009 at 6:28 pm  

    David T

    “Now, that’s not to say that the age of consent isn’t very low in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Or that there are not paedophiles who happen to be Muslims.”

    Well according to the Talmud its 3 David so you really dont have much of a leg to stand on

    “What we’re talking about here is an attempt to imply, falsely, that Islam encourages Muslims to rape children, with the purpose of whipping up hatred against Muslims.

    Just as putting on a play in which a Jewish mother tells her child that the deaths of children in Operation Cast Lead were absolutely fine because “we are the Chosen People”, is a text book example of an attempt to whip up hatred against Jews.”

    The difference being that Muslims dont believe what you said about the Prophet. Jews clearly do believe they are the “Chosen People”

  41. chairwoman — on 16th March, 2009 at 6:34 pm  

    ” The difference being that Muslims dont believe what you said about the Prophet. Jews clearly do believe they are the “Chosen People””

    It’s quite obvious what we’re chosen for, isn’t it?

    We have a taste of it here every time Sunny wants more ‘hits’.

  42. David T — on 16th March, 2009 at 6:47 pm  

    So, to recap.

    1. Sunny reads an article that claims that an MP has shut down a website because it “takes an inflammatory stance over extreme sections of Judaism that reject non-Jewish races”

    Instead of thinking:

    “Hang on, this doesn’t seem right. Let’s have a look at a cache of this website”

    … he leaps into a classic Sunny-esque tirade about how this sort of thing really isn’t antisemitic at all.

    2. When he discovers that the website is actually a neo-Nazi site, that contains the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, he deletes the words “How is that anti-semitic?”.

    3. But rather than admit his mistake – failing to research the website – or criticising the newspaper report for whitewashing a viciously neo-Nazi website – he threatens me:

    You know, especially since you work as a lawyer and everything and your real name is everywhere.

    Because Sunny can never accept he’s got things a bit wrong. His instinct is to throw chaff and attack everybody else, instead.

    4. Then we get this:

    funny you call them anti-Muslim bigots, because a lot of them seem to be prevalent on your blog. And yet those comments never get deleted.

    I don’t often get people claiming that Muslims are predisposed to paedophilia, because Mohammed had sex with a 9 year old. I do delete and ban commenters from time to time for saying things like this.

    Notably, this thread is absolutely overflowing with impressive anti-semitism, including the following:

    Which of the 613 Commandments call upon you to support the death of innocent gentile children, David Toube?

    But of course, this isn’t deleted by Sunny.

    I’m not complaining. One of the good things about freedom of expression, is that it allows you to see, clearly, where people stand.

  43. blah — on 16th March, 2009 at 6:55 pm  

    David T
    “Notably, this thread is absolutely overflowing with impressive anti-semitism, including the following:”

    Since when was criticising a religious teaching racist?

    “Which of the 613 Commandments call upon you to support the death of innocent gentile children, David Toube?”

    David T
    “But of course, this isn’t deleted by Sunny.”

    Surely the correct answer is “commandments 355, 601,602, 613″

    And give us a break David – far worse stuff about Muslims and Islam is on the HP blog after you post your latest attack on us.

  44. chairwoman — on 16th March, 2009 at 6:56 pm  

    “And give us a break David – far worse stuff about Muslims and Islam is on the HP blog after you post your latest attack on us.”

    What?

  45. chairwoman — on 16th March, 2009 at 7:14 pm  

    “LOL- are you a Muslim scholar? Who did you study with?”

    LOL – are you a Jewish scholar? Who did you study with?

  46. Imran Khan — on 16th March, 2009 at 7:15 pm  

    DaveT – Shouldn’t Harry’s Place and Little Green Footballs be shutdown then because of the commentary there which is anti-Muslim and always displayed under the guise of freedom of speech.

    Chairwoman – Come on have you ever read what is posted there – its damn offensive and tolerated. Some of the comments are a disgrace and never removed.

    Everytime you jump up and support DaveT but what is allowed on his blog is beyond fair criticism.

    I mean for crying out loud they say that WMD were found in Iraq which isn’t correct and tolerated yet won’t like holocaust denial.

    Come on you keep jumping in but DaveT is all over anti-semitism like a rash and then downplays Islamaphobia.

    So are you denying that some pretty unsavoury stuff is said on HP? Cause enough people can look up and see it is allowed.

  47. David T — on 16th March, 2009 at 7:18 pm  

    Blah

    The problem is the 613 commandments you mentioned do allow some pretty objectionable things

    All I said was this piece of fish is good enough for Jehovah!

    Of course the 613 commandments encourage objectionable behaviour. I would strongly recommend that people don’t live their lives according to Bronze Age (or indeed, Medieval) religious codes.

    I mean, there’s some good stuff in there. But most of this sort of stuff is crap. The best that can be said of the bad stuff is that most of it has no application, because it relates to rituals in the Temple which no longer exists, or which require you to do something which is otherwise impossible.

    Just as the Quran and Hadiths are full of contradictory and nonsensical stuff, that sensible Muslims pick and choose between, and “interpret”, Jews do pretty much the same. Or, alternatively, you can just ignore it, altogether, and stick to the nice things like seeing your family on Eid, or going to a Seder.

    Get it? Got it. Good.

    The difference being that Muslims dont believe what you said about the Prophet. Jews clearly do believe they are the “Chosen People”

    Jews believe that they have a particular Covenant with God. That is what “choseness” means. It does not mean that they have a license to do whatever they want. That is what you, and other racists and anti-semites throughout history have claimed. In fact, you’re doing so here, again.

    You’ll certainly find both Rabbis and anti-semites who try to extrapolate from the Bible. So, there are some Jewish religious nuts who have identified the Canaanites as Palestinians. Likewise, there are kooky religious anti-semites who have decided that modern Jews are descended from Canaanites, with no divine right to Israel. Some Palestinians have identified themselves as Canaanites, which would imply a prior claim to the land of Israel.

    So, yeah, you can find this sort of stuff if you look for it.

    By contrast, I’ve not met a Muslim who believes that it is acceptable to have sex with 9 year old. Except that, where Islamist regimes come to power, 9 is the age of consent that they enshrine in law:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5217424.stm

    Nor in fact do you mind mocking the sacred personages of Islam like Muhammed and Jesus (all under the guise of anti-Islamism)

    Boo fucking hoo.

    Neither do I have a great deal of time for Judaism as a religion. In fact, I’ve not found a religion that isn’t essentially a waste of time: although I do like the aesthetic stuff: religious buildings, music and art.

    But the joyless and repetitive stuff? Bobbing up and down? Creepy crawling to God?

    I’ve no particular interest in mocking other people’s religious beliefs, however. Generally speaking, that’s unfair and unnecessary.

    Of course, if religious fascists are going to issue death threats against cartoonists, it is my obligation to publish those cartoons.

    Actually, why am I wasting my time here?

  48. David T — on 16th March, 2009 at 7:22 pm  

    So are you denying that some pretty unsavoury stuff is said on HP? Cause enough people can look up and see it is allowed.

    Below the line, in HP comments, you’ll find arguments are fiercely fought as the ones on PP, between those who support, and those who oppose anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim bigotry.

    Above the line, the best you can do, to identify anti-Muslim bigotry, is the reposting of a cartoon about “sacred personages of Islam”

    The “sacred personages of Islam” FFS!!!! Have you listened to yourself?!

  49. chairwoman — on 16th March, 2009 at 7:26 pm  

    Chairwoman – Come on have you ever read what is posted there – its damn offensive and tolerated. Some of the comments are a disgrace and never removed.

    Imran, have you looked at what goes on here these days? I agree that there are some loopers that comment regularly on HP, but it’s hardly worse than what’s allowed here.

    Have you looked at the comments from Blah and Hermes? They’re only one step away from Kristalnacht, and when you have respected (if boring) playwrights like Ken Loach saying he ‘understands’ why there is a rise in antisemitism, whilst putting in that old chestnut caveat that he deplores violence, it’s hardly a barrel of laughs for my lot.

  50. The Dude — on 16th March, 2009 at 7:27 pm  

    Oh Sunny

    I just can’t help not liking my local MP, Mr Lammy. He took his constituents into a war they wanted NO part of. Obviously, you think different. But why delete the whole post when you could have censored just a portion of it? I hope you appreciate (ie: The Chairwoman) the subtle irony.

  51. Sunny — on 16th March, 2009 at 7:29 pm  

    “Hang on, this doesn’t seem right. Let’s have a look at a cache of this website”

    … he leaps into a classic Sunny-esque tirade about how this sort of thing really isn’t antisemitic at all.

    That rather reminds me of the time Harry’s Place decided to publish blog posts supporting Patrick Sookhdeo, a racist who gives cover to Robert Spencer.

    Not only that, the person who wrote the blog post hadn’t even done the cursory Google search to find this out.

    Was there an apology in writing in support of Patrick Sookhdeo then? Could you point me to towards it? Or is Harry’s Place now supporting bigots too?

    I do delete and ban commenters from time to time for saying things like this.

    Erm, no you don’t Morgoth says it all the time and he constantly posts. As well as people like Josh Scholar. In fact HP comments is infected by people who repeat that meme. You don’t ban them.

  52. chairwoman — on 16th March, 2009 at 7:31 pm  

    “Neither do I have a great deal of time for Judaism as a religion. In fact, I’ve not found a religion that isn’t essentially a waste of time: although I do like the aesthetic stuff: religious buildings, music and art.”

    I am reminded of a conversation that I had with the late Chairman after my mother’s memorial service. A lapsed Catholic, and fervent non-believer, he said ‘Well, I read the prayers, and your crap’s no different from my crap.”.

  53. David T — on 16th March, 2009 at 7:33 pm  

    I rarely ban anybody for good.

    Sorry – I thought you were the guy who was getting increasingly militant about freedom of expression, and who thought that an MP pointing out to an ISP that its T&C’s were being breached was censorship.

  54. marvin — on 16th March, 2009 at 7:34 pm  

    How would you feel about picturing some Rabbis at Aushwitz in nappies having just been treated to a session by the strapping lads of the SS? Offended?
    How would you feel about mocking Holocaust survivors generally?

    Something that Islamists like yourself fail to understand. Like Stephen Fry said “You’re offended, so fucking what?”

    Equivocating Auschwitz where millions of people were gassed to death with a cartoon of Mohammed in nappies is a rather insane comparison, but for an Islamist maybe not so much :P

    How people such as yourself think that drawing Mohammed in nappies is offensive as mocking 11 million people dead is well, beyond any kind of logic.

    Still, even though that it’s fucking offensive, so what. People have a right to be offensive. Some of the best cartoons at the holocaust cartoon competition in Tehran were by Israeli cartoonists, I do believe.

    p.s. DavidMMW emailed you

  55. Rumbold — on 16th March, 2009 at 7:44 pm  

    This does strike me as one of those stories that most bloggers (including myself) get caught out on from time to time. We read a newspaper article, poorly written and sensationalist, then extrapolate a blog post from that, without doing enough to check the background.

    The site breached the hosting company’s policy. I don’t want these bigots prosecuted, but nor do I see why companies should be obliged to give them a platform whatever they say. The site was anti-semitic, and that’s that.

    Anti-semitism can often be detected by people’s choice of words or phrases:

    - Jews causing the death of Jesus.
    - The Protocols of Zion.
    - Casual references to Israel being equivilent to the Nazis.
    - Jewish financial prowess/control.
    - Author ‘understanding’ why anti-semitism happens.

    I am sure there are others.

  56. Imran Khan — on 16th March, 2009 at 7:51 pm  

    Chairwoman – Here is far better than HP despite DaveT’s denial.

    At least here people stand up to stupid anti-semitic comments. There a lot of what is said against Muslims over there taht goes unchecked.

    I’d be more inclined to listen to DaveT if he actually went as far as trying to stop more of it.

    LGF is far worse.

    Interestingly DaveT doesn’t like libel against Jews but is being sued for libel! I’ve never quite worked that one out!

    DaveT – do you support the banning of the extremists in the new Govt of Israel from coming here? You won’t answer that? Do you support a ban on Lieberman for example who advocates an extreme rightist position? What about extremist Jewish Rabbi’s who come here with impunity and recommend ethnic cleansing of Gaza for example – should they be banned?

    You position at the moment is one sided!

    BTW DaveT said – “Above the line, the best you can do, to identify anti-Muslim bigotry, is the reposting of a cartoon about “sacred personages of Islam”

    The “sacred personages of Islam” FFS!!!! Have you listened to yourself?!”

    Actually that wasn’t me! Pays to read comment sometimes and link up and reply to the appropriate poster – wonderful when debating!

    BTW DaveT the problems between the Muslim and Jewish Community are made worse byt the vocal right whinge minority on both sides. I firmly believe that mosques and synagogues need to open up to each other and build dialogue which isn’t shouted down by minority rightist on both sides. The sooner we realise that the better.

    This is what is needed to begin to build relations and everytime either side tries this it is negated by the loud rantings of the minority.

    I’d even go so far as to say even if the Islamists do this then it is to be encouraged to grow rather than attacked as it can lead to change.

  57. Sunny — on 16th March, 2009 at 7:55 pm  

    David T, first you say: I do delete and ban commenters from time to time for saying things like this.

    and then you say you don’t ban them for good.

    So you know they publish bigoted comments, but they’re banned for what… a week? Well that’s a relief! You’re clearly principled on the issue.

    Amusing then that you’re trying to make out that I’m hypocritical.

    You’ve also said nothing regarding the bigoted Patrick Sookhdeo. Not only that, the poster who originally wrote defending him is back on your blog writing for you again.

    So let’s recap:

    Harry’s Place temporarily bans racist posters, and then lets them post shit again.

    Harry’s Place publishes an article supporting someone who posts racist conspiracy theories about Muslims.

    The writer of the post doesn’t do any research on the issue… but the post is neither amended and that original writer is given more space to write on HP.

    Is that a progressive outlook then?
    Answers on a postcard please.

  58. Imran Khan — on 16th March, 2009 at 7:59 pm  

    Sunny – Is it possible that then HP has violated the ISP T&C’s and thus DaveT needs to support banning his own blog in lien with his own principles he has outlined above ;-)

  59. Hermes — on 16th March, 2009 at 8:33 pm  

    ‘Have you looked at the comments from Blah and Hermes? They’re only one step away from Kristalnacht, and when you have respected (if boring) playwrights like Ken Loach saying he ‘understands’ why there is a rise in antisemitism, whilst putting in that old chestnut caveat that he deplores violence, it’s hardly a barrel of laughs for my lot.’

    Chairwoman, can YOU understand why there is a rise in antisemitisim? Or are you on a different planet?

  60. David T — on 16th March, 2009 at 8:38 pm  

    Interestingly DaveT doesn’t like libel against Jews but is being sued for libel! I’ve never quite worked that one out!

    No, I’m not being sued.

    I have been threatened with a libel suit, but not by a lawyer. I received a letter, written on behalf of a fugitive Hamas commander, and written by this firm of “lawyers”:

    http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/03/16/vaz-mireskandari/

    DaveT – do you support the banning of the extremists in the new Govt of Israel from coming here? You won’t answer that? Do you support a ban on Lieberman for example who advocates an extreme rightist position? What about extremist Jewish Rabbi’s who come here with impunity and recommend ethnic cleansing of Gaza for example – should they be banned?

    If you look here, you will see that I support this Government’s ban on Moshe Feiglin:

    http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/03/07/likud-no-2-feiglin-banned-from-britain/

    At least here people stand up to stupid anti-semitic comments. There a lot of what is said against Muslims over there taht goes unchecked.

    Not so.

    Here, for example, is the sort of policing and debunking of bigotry that I encourage:

    George [Edit]
    16 March 2009, 12:53 pm

    “it really is not helpful to trivialise dhimmitude as underpinned by the structures and institutions in those regimes where it prevailed, by using it as a flailing metaphor for the hodge podge of ill advised, good faith or bad faith bungles of the UK gvt.”

    Well this really is up for debate and in my opinion it is more than unhelpful for people like you and Gregg to get an attack of the vapours should someone mention a perfectly sound model, dhimmitude. It is far more sensible to consider how this structure may be applied to contexts and circumstances divorced from its original application. It is not good enough to suggest that structures which have taken centuries to develop might not appear in unexpected places.
    Gregg [Edit]
    16 March 2009, 1:51 pm

    No, I’m sorry, this is just nonsense George. And this sort of nonsense needs to be stamped on in this sort of echo chamber. The argument you are trying to construct is akin to claiming the spread of McDonalds franchises as evidence of American imperialism, or that because the human eye contains elegant mechanism it must have been designed by a thinking being. It seems to you as if you’re applying a perfectly sound model in a perfectly rational way, but you aren’t – you have decontextualised the model so as to render it useless as a model, and your preconceptions are misdirecting your analysis. You are working from the assumption that Europe is in the grip of a desire to subordinate itself to Islam in return for peace, and are looking for evidence to back this up. So, the Scottish government giving money to Muslim womens groups that are trying to prevent arranged marriage and encourage Muslim women to get out more, is somehow Britain being dhimmi. It’s crap, and deep down you know it.

    Gregg [Edit]
    16 March 2009, 5:48 pm

    Hassan:
    As far as I’m aware, people are free to use the portmanteau ‘dhimmitude’ however they see fit.

    Of course, but with freedom comes responsibility, and the liklihood of being mocked when you say incredibly stupid things.

    Why should the government spend taxpayers’ money on discouraging practices which are part of the culture of some communities

    Because that’s how society works.

    when it was government who so ignorantly fostered these cultural oddities in the first place?

    Oh yeah, here we go.

    Of course, it’s a waste of time asking you Gregg as you seem to genuinely enjoy the prospect of government interfering in the personal lives of UK citizens.

    It’s not about interfering in anyone’s personal life. It’s the opposite – it’s educating and empowering people through grassroots projects, giving them the ability to take control of their own lives. And yes, I do genuinely enjoy the prospect of that happening.

    George is quite right and I have no doubt he’s referring to the WELL-DOCUMENTED mediterranean country political integration mechanism known as EuroMed.

    I’m sorry, the great vehicle of European dhimmitude is EuroMed? A partnership that includes Israel and whose six current goals are the de-pollution of the Mediterranean, the establishment of maritime and land highways, combatting natural and man-made disasters, a solar energy plan, a new University in Slovenia, and a Business Development Initiative focusing on small businesses.

    You’ll understand if I don’t start growing my beard just yet.

    It is YOU who mentioned Eurabia and some Islamic masterplan fantasy that YOU YOURSELF have dreamed up.

    No, Bat Ye’or dreamed it up, and George mentioned her.

    We also are pretty good on attacking the BNP, without tolerating anti-British sentiment.

  61. Sid — on 16th March, 2009 at 8:39 pm  

    Erm, no you don’t Morgoth says it all the time and he constantly posts. As well as people like Josh Scholar. In fact HP comments is infected by people who repeat that meme. You don’t ban them.

    There are also lots of commenters on HP who post outstanding stuff in support of Muslims. The thing is on HP, both extremes meet. Which is why comparisons with LGF is ridiculous. They somehow never get mentioned whenever the topic of HP is raised.

    There is a growing umber of antisemitic commenting here on PP but they are discredited and largely seen off but not as conclusively as I would like.

    This is because banning on WordPress is so easily worked around, and the plugins that do exist slow sites down.

    Just as we have identified offensive commenters on HP, would anyone care to kick off a list of commenters who they would like to see banned? There a lot of wankers who post here; fugshite, munir (Blah) and lately Anon (Bob Pitt).

    But do we really want to ban them? So how exactly can we suggest to another blog manager to delete the offenders on his site?

  62. Katy Newton — on 16th March, 2009 at 8:44 pm  

    You wouldn’t want me to start twisting your words around and accusing you off all sorts of nasty things. You know, especially since you work as a lawyer and everything and your real name is everywhere.

    What the hell is this, Sunny?

  63. DavidMWW — on 16th March, 2009 at 8:48 pm  

    Ha ha! The owner of CatholicVoice is now commenting over at MWW. He really is barking!

    Should I ban him? :)

  64. Katy Newton — on 16th March, 2009 at 8:48 pm  

    Seriously. This thread is littered with antisemitic claptrap (because obviously Judaism is the only religion whose books contain barbaric and outdated passages about other nations, right? Of course it is!) and you’re threatening to out David T because he criticised you for saying the Catholic Voice site wasn’t antisemitic? Which, by the way, you richly deserved because you didn’t bother to try and find out what the site actually said. What’s that about? What sort of person are you turning into?

  65. Katy Newton — on 16th March, 2009 at 8:51 pm  

    Just as we have identified offensive commenters on HP, would anyone care to kick off a list of commenters who they would like to see banned? There a lot of wankers who post here; fugshite, munir (Blah) and lately Anon (Bob Pitt).

    Thank you. All of whom have posted antisemitic and antiwhite comment, none of whom are banned. Exactly what came to mind when Sunny, the new king of free speech, astonishingly decided to take a pop at David T for not banning offensive commenters for long enough.

  66. Katy Newton — on 16th March, 2009 at 8:54 pm  

    Chairwoman, can YOU understand why there is a rise in antisemitisim? Or are you on a different planet?

    Ah yes, and Hermes, who called ex-commenter Bananabrain a “jewboy”, and who thinks that antisemitism is all the Jews’ fault. Also allowed to comment without let or hindrance. Hurrah for PP’s moderation consistency!

  67. Imran Khan — on 16th March, 2009 at 8:55 pm  

    DaveT – With respect that doesn’t answer my question. Do you support the ban of an extreme rightist such as Lieberman who will be foreign minister from coming to Europe?

    You support banning someone who carries little significance. But Liberman is in a far more powerful position. So why is an extremist government acceptable in Israel and not elsewhere? This is a Jewish equivalent of Iran and not much is being said to ostracise it.

    Do you support a ban on Rabbi’s who make extremist statements like the Chief Rabbi of Israel on his last trip to the UK when he said all the Palestinians in Gaza should be sent to Egypt? That’s ethnic cleansing?

    Also as regards the ban on this site – isn’t it better to have the site in the open so it can be monitored than drive it underground? Just curious on your take on this from a community perspective.

    Sid – the difference is that here such people are ignored and don’t write commentary. Can you say the same ablout HP when Sunny has given you a recent example?

    Any blog that loves Mel has to accept ridicule!

  68. marvin — on 16th March, 2009 at 8:59 pm  

    No point in banning, fact is like Sid says banning measures are pretty easy to circumvent anyway. I’d rather this stuff was out in the open for them to be challenged, rather than perhaps going underground and getting ‘radicalised’ whether it be Islamist/neo-nazi/anti-muslim in nature.

    And deleting of comments that go way beyond the pale when they are spotted….

  69. Imran Khan — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:03 pm  

    Katy – Hold on people are not threatening to “out” DaveT but are find it amusing that his position is lopsided.

    Poeple have a pop at Muslims often enough and its laughable that people are defending HP for views that you yourself in the past have said you don’t agree with.

    So when others highlight that then that’s outing!

    Sorry but when reasoned commentators including yourself have said that what is posted is beyond acceptable and people highlight this and then you take offence that is a tad confusing.

    As regards anti-semitism here then it isn’t acceptable and people have spoken out including myself. So a lareg difference.

    As regards Bananabrain it is a shame he isn’t here but I woudl say that I feel far worse when I read tghe nonsense posted at certain sites with little or no control.

    Do you get anti-semitic editors here? Noooooooooooooo

    But on HP it is ok to write articles as Sunny pointed out and instead of criticising you are defending the editor of that blog.

    So does that mean it is ok to write dodgy articles about Muslims?

  70. Katy Newton — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:04 pm  

    I don’t approve of banning commenters myself – I have always been in favour of moderating comments rather than contributors. It’s the hypocrisy of Sunny whingeing about HP not banning commenters for long enough when PP for the most part doesn’t ban anyone either.

    As for the main point of this article: I wouldn’t have shut down the site, regardless of how vile it was. But I do not have a problem with ISPs refusing to give racists a platform, whether we’re talking Islamophobes or antisemites. No one is obliged to let people spout filth on their turf, either in real life or online.

  71. Imran Khan — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:09 pm  

    “Ah yes, and Hermes, who called ex-commenter Bananabrain a “jewboy”, and who thinks that antisemitism is all the Jews’ fault. Also allowed to comment without let or hindrance. Hurrah for PP’s moderation consistency!”

    Yes the same site where many many people asked for you and Bananabrain to continue commenting – does that happen at HP to Muslims who face similar issues?

    Come on you are not comparing fairly.

    Most people stood up for you and Bananabrain here and saw through those silly people who attacked you. Can you say the same with hand on heart of the other blog?

    I am suprised and a tad shocked at your defence of that other site. Fair enough people have been unsavoury at times here but we face that regularly over there.

  72. Sid — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:15 pm  

    Sid – the difference is that here such people are ignored and don’t write commentary. Can you say the same ablout HP when Sunny has given you a recent example?

    munir writes plenty of “commentary” usually of the offensive, genocide-denial stuff. You might not find that offensive but to me that’s worse than anything I have read on HP.

  73. chairwoman — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:16 pm  

    “Chairwoman, can YOU understand why there is a rise in antisemitisim? Or are you on a different planet?”

    As much as you can understand why there is a rise in Islamism,

  74. Shamit — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:16 pm  

    Wow…blood pressures seem to be up.

    A Ban often lionises idiots and their screwed up causes — I would rather have them online with rebuttals coming from every possible source for every paragraph they publish. That would be 21st century activism —

    By empowering politicians and law to control what could be said or not said is walking into a far dangerous place – - and I dont want to be living in a society where everything I say is monitored or parameters defined by the State.

    I am confident that British civil society is strong enough to withstand these idiotic urges from people on the fringe. After all, Karl Marx defined his theories here but that did not make us all communists.

    ********************************************

    This battle between PP and HP is getting boring. The dominant feeling on this thread seems to be “either you are with us or against us”. Not really very helpful for having a genuine discourse.

  75. David T — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:17 pm  

    Should I ban him?

    Invite him here.

    Sunny – Is it possible that then HP has violated the ISP T&C’s and thus DaveT needs to support banning his own blog in lien with his own principles he has outlined above ;-)

    Ironically, that has happened.

    We are hosted in the US, but used a UK nameserver.

    I ran a story on a woman who had posted, on multiple occasions, to a trade union activists list, links to articles written by neo Nazis on far right conspiracy theory sites.

    Now, here’s the irony.

    A threat was made to the nameserver, to try to take my story down. It was alleged – falsely – that the story was untrue and defamatory.

    So the short answer is: yes, I’ve been taken down once, by somebody trying to cover up for a racist.

    Amazing, innit.

  76. Imran Khan — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:19 pm  

    Katy – crucial point is that it is difficult to ban commentators. But he doesn’t give a platform to editors to write such things about Jewish people and again I cite his example earlier that an editor was allowed to write nonsense about Muslims recently and I don’t hear you or Chairwoman chastising DaveT for that.

    That is the difference.

    Also his argument for accepting the ban is that they present Protocols as fact when it is fiction and yet his blog has a lovefest with Mel who presents as fact things like Eurabia – the Muslim equivalent of Protocols and this goes by without calls to ban Mel!

    Come on theories such as Eurabia and Londonistan go unchecked and you don’t see MP’s call to ban those or even HP.

  77. chairwoman — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:22 pm  

    “Do you support a ban on Rabbi’s who make extremist statements like the Chief Rabbi of Israel on his last trip to the UK when he said all the Palestinians in Gaza should be sent to Egypt? That’s ethnic cleansing?”

    Imran, FYI the ‘Chief Rabbi of Israel’ is not the same as the Chief Rabbi of the UK (and, I believe, the Commonwealth). Chief Rabbis in Israel are ten a penny, and although I will happily condemn this particular one, his importance is limited.

  78. Imran Khan — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:23 pm  

    Sid – “munir writes plenty of “commentary” usually of the offensive, genocide-denial stuff. You might not find that offensive but to me that’s worse than anything I have read on HP.”

    Back to your usual nonsense. Does munir have editorial rights at PP? You are again twisting things to suit your own tacky agenda and back to your norm.

    Does Munir like you write editorials on HP? Noooooooooooooooooooooo

    The point Sunny made was that HP with whom you have a lovefest allows such people to write editorials. Do you understand the difference? Editorial has sanction, commentary can be anyone – it may be unsavoury but it doesn’t have blog editorial sanction.

    That is a massive difference in policy.

    If you love HP so much ask DaveT to write there and leave PP which is soooooooooo bad for you.

    Its laughable that you can’t see the difference between editorial comment and joe public on the street comment.

  79. Imran Khan — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:29 pm  

    Chairwoman – “Imran, FYI the ‘Chief Rabbi of Israel’ is not the same as the Chief Rabbi of the UK (and, I believe, the Commonwealth). Chief Rabbis in Israel are ten a penny, and although I will happily condemn this particular one, his importance is limited.”

    Not so this one was quite significant and this was illustrated in the fact he was accorded such a welcome at many synagogues and received coverage in The JC. A bit part Chief Rabbi wouldn’t have had the same effect. He is a major Rabbi in Israel and receives lots of coverage in the mainstream press.

    Also the question was to DaveT and not your good self. I didn’t have much doubt on your opinion which I expected to be as it is.

    BTW I don’t want this Rabbi banned but am highlightingthe hypocracy of the situation. I think it is useful to here what extremists say so it can be countered.

    Where I would ban is when such people are elected to high office such as Waldheim etc. That is where it becomes a danger.

    When countries lurch to extremes be it rigth or left then care needs to be taken.

  80. David T — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:30 pm  

    This battle between PP and HP is getting boring.

    Yes, it is

    Is it ok if we stop now?

    Because you, Sunny Hundal, argue in precisely the same fucking annoying way as a university mate of mine WHO CAN NEVER LOSE A FUCKING ARGUMENT BUT ALWAYS KEEP MAKING SQUIRRELING POINT AFTER POINT.

    The aim of argument is to see if you can coax somebody to see flaws in their argument or virtues in yours. It isn’t just to shout in the other person’s face.

    You make arguing very difficult, because on the occasions I’ve made concessions to you, you’ve treated them as if they’re some huge trophy, to be waved in my face.

    You’ve also – I’m afraid – got yourself into a mental space about Jews, akin to those who are constantly in a panic about Eurabia, or Abdurrahman Jafar’s certainty that Sikhs keep their beards long, in expectation of the murder of all the Muslims in the world.

    I mean, ffs! You read a story about a respected anti-racist Labour MP bothering to put down an EDM about a neo Nazi website, read a phrase about “extreme sections of Judaism that reject non-Jewish races”, and thought:

    “Yup. That looks likely. I’ll condemn it”.

    Yes, this is – as somebody said – just one of those things where you post in haste without digging enough. But it really does show your visceral reaction to people combatting anti-Jewish racism.

    Which is summed up in the classic Livingstone Formulation you use at 31:

    You seem to think think that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, I don’t.

    I think that accusation says loads about you.

  81. Imran Khan — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:33 pm  

    DaveT – You fail to see the irony here. You support the banning of an unsavoury site because it presents fiction as fact about the Jewish Community.

    Yet on your own blog as hasd been highlighted you allow editorial commentary which as it turns out presents fiction as fact about Muslims which may be similarly derogatory.

    So if that is the case would you advocate banning your own site for failing your own standards!

  82. blah — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:50 pm  

    katynewton youre nuts

    Since when is criticizing a religion (Judaism) racist ?

    Amazing that you attack me for actually posting the 613 commandments David T mentioned Jews must live by, but DONT attack people who believe as religious doctrine that you should

    601 Not to keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations (Deut. 20:16) (negative).
    602 To exterminate the seven Canaanite nations from the land of Israel (Deut. 20:17) (affirmative).
    607 Not to offer peace to the Ammonites and the Moabites before waging war on them, as should be done to other nations (Deut. 23:7) (negative)
    613 To destroy the seed of Amalek (Deut. 25:19) (CCA77).

    http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

    This incidentally is a Jewish site

    This is the problem with rabid zionists – essentailly anything they dont like -including criticism of their religion or of Israel becomes “anti-semitism”

    They of course can say what they like about others religions

  83. David T — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:52 pm  

    I put a good deal of effort into countering lies and hysteria about Muslims.

    Most of what I have to say, I say about two political parties: Jamaat-e-Islami and the Muslim Brotherhood.

  84. blah — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:54 pm  

    David T
    “Yes, this is – as somebody said – just one of those things where you post in haste without digging enough. But it really does show your visceral reaction to people combatting anti-Jewish racism.”

    Says the man with visceral hatred of anyone who defends Muslims

    He even hates Muslims going swimming together

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-560231/Public-pool-bars-father-son-Muslim-swimming-session.html

  85. blah — on 16th March, 2009 at 9:57 pm  

    David T
    “I put a good deal of effort into countering lies and hysteria about Muslims.”

    You like Mel Phillips and quote from MEMRI!!!!

    And why are the lies and hysteria there in the first place on HP? Because of your constant anti-Muslim stories. Honestly David Muslims are 3% of the UK population but like the bigot you are obsessed by the minority you hate.

    If you dont hate Muslims why the swimming escapade ?
    That had nothing to do with politics. Why go to the Daily Mail an anti-Muslim rag?

    If a person found out that Jews had some event in a public place- deliberately went there then sold the story to an anti-Jewish newspaper – would you consider them anti-Jewish?

  86. blah — on 16th March, 2009 at 10:04 pm  

    David T have you seriously never considered why a near genocidal loon like John P chooses to post at your site from all the sites in the world ?

    Why do Muslim haters feel so welcome at HP?

  87. Katy Newton — on 16th March, 2009 at 10:07 pm  

    FYI, Blah, you newly expert Talmudic scholar, you – the 613 commandments are not all continuing or current obligations. The commandments that you have found (and the fact that you felt compelled to search through 613 commandments of Jewish law to prove that Jews like to kill babies says more about you than anything else) are considered obsolete in Jewish law, because they refer to one-off historic battles that took place, like, six thousand years ago.

    Forgive me if I don’t bother to go dredging up obscure bits of Islamic and Christian scholarship to try and “prove” that all religions have antiquated, obsolete commandments that no one bothers to take any notice of these days. It’s a weak, cheap point, which is why it was you who tried to make it in the first place.

  88. Katy Newton — on 16th March, 2009 at 10:12 pm  

    why a near genocidal loon like John P chooses to post at your site from all the sites in the world

    By that logic, goodness alone knows what it says about PP that you post here, blah.

  89. chairwoman — on 16th March, 2009 at 10:12 pm  

    “601 Not to keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations (Deut. 20:16) (negative).
    602 To exterminate the seven Canaanite nations from the land of Israel (Deut. 20:17) (affirmative).
    607 Not to offer peace to the Ammonites and the Moabites before waging war on them, as should be done to other nations (Deut. 23:7) (negative)
    613 To destroy the seed of Amalek (Deut. 25:19) (CCA77).”

    Mr, or possibly Ms Blah seems to be unaware that these instructions are almost 6000 (six thousand) years old, and that Canaanites et al have not existed for an extremely long time.

    And we are all aware that there are no instructions in the Koran or Haddath where Muslims are required to kill Jews, particularly when they are ‘grassed up’ by trees they have taken refuge behind.

  90. chairwoman — on 16th March, 2009 at 10:13 pm  

    Sorry about the cheap point, Katy :)

  91. blah — on 16th March, 2009 at 10:23 pm  

    Katy Newton

    “Forgive me if I don’t bother to go dredging up obscure bits of Islamic and Christian scholarship to try and “prove” that all religions have antiquated, obsolete commandments that no one bothers to take any notice of these days. It’s a weak, cheap point, which is why it was you who tried to make it in the first place.”

    Thats precisely the point – there are numerous zionist “scholars” of Islam who do precisely that with Islamic texts. And they are given spaces in mainstream media and mainstream bookshops to push this stuff.

  92. Sunny — on 16th March, 2009 at 10:48 pm  

    1) Given that I’ve constantly had to debate loons on HP who keep quoting the Quran at me – it’s rather rich for people to now call that as hate speech.

    I have no problem with people cussing religion. Cuss away. Cuss Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism etc. If its an off-topic discussion however then I will delete people.

    2) Exactly what came to mind when Sunny, the new king of free speech, astonishingly decided to take a pop at David T for not banning offensive commenters for long enough.

    My point isn’t about banning – but about double standards. It’s about David T waving his credentials around while not condemning the same stuff on HP.

    I thought this much would be obvious, given that even BNP people who’ve come here recently haven’t been deleted.

    3) What the hell is this, Sunny?

    Well, it’s quite easy for David T to smear people as anti-semitic without needing much evidence, which is what he’s trying to do here, so I’m pointing out that it works both ways.

    Why should I be labelled anti-semitic by people who can’t comprehend English. The post’s title clearly states it was anti-semitic. I also amended my post later and accepted I didn’t read through it properly.

    But oh no, David T wants to find a conspiracy. It must because I hate Jews and thought ‘yep, this post will do in my quest to demonise them’. I mean really – fuck off.

    And on top of that, poor David T is blowing is top off by using BIG SCARY CAPITAL LETTERS. And yet he curiously completely sidesteps my question asking why Harry’s Place was publishing articles supporting clerical fascist Patrick Sookhdeo.

    But why should he answer that? The man is gold! He’s the true gold standard for porgressive blogging!

  93. chairwoman — on 16th March, 2009 at 10:49 pm  

    Which of the 613 Commandments call upon you to support the death of innocent gentile children, David Toube?

    What if a play said pro-Israelis like Marvin and David Toube basically endorse the rape, slaughter and torture of non-Israeli people in the name of Israel? What if it said they fantasise about committing such acts themselves? And that Israelis have a sense of racial superiority and believe they are spreading the Sword of David any time an Israeli soldier rapes a Palestinian girl?

    If these quotes indicate the opinions of the majority of readers on this site, I can’t imagine why I am wasting my time trying to engage with them.

    And by the way, what on earth is the Sword of David?

  94. Sunny — on 16th March, 2009 at 10:57 pm  

    And you know – so fucking what if Harry’s Place runs articles cussing the BNP? So does the Daily Mail. That doesn’t make that rag any better. I’ve listed a specific example of HP promoting a clerical fascist (as Sid called him) – and yet David T is completely silent about it. And not only that, the same idiot blogger is back on there today.

  95. Sunny — on 16th March, 2009 at 10:59 pm  

    If these quotes indicate the opinions of the majority of readers on this site, I can’t imagine why I am wasting my time trying to engage with them.

    I’m sorry chairwoman – but who said it does? Or does every comment constitute majority opinion?

  96. chairwoman — on 16th March, 2009 at 11:01 pm  

    Well, it’s quite easy for David T to smear people as anti-semitic without needing much evidence,

    Smear? Don’t the words of Blah, Hermes, Fug and Hannah speak for themselves?

    Blah said quite clearly earlier that I shouldn’t be surprised at the increase in antisemitism. Why shouldn’t I be surprised? I am a middle aged woman living in North London. Why on earth should I be prejudiced against because my co-religionists half way across the world are at war with his/her co-religionists.

    Hannah thinks that Jewish children and vulnerable people shouldn’t be protected, and Hermes implies that he/she possesses a handbag made of Jewish skin.

    If David T has read these comments, let alone the ones directed at him, it can hardly be called a smear.

  97. Sunny — on 16th March, 2009 at 11:01 pm  

    I made two points in my original thread: both about free speech.

    No one has actually properly engaged with those points. You people are just screaming and shouting and frankly I’ve got work to do than keep checking back here for more examples of people accusing each other of racism, Islamophobia, fascism, anti-semitism and whatever else.

  98. chairwoman — on 16th March, 2009 at 11:02 pm  

    Or does every comment constitute majority opinion?

    I don’t know whether it does or not. And nor do you.

  99. Sunny — on 16th March, 2009 at 11:03 pm  

    Smear? Don’t the words of Blah, Hermes, Fug and Hannah speak for themselves?

    I’m talking about him smearing me. I don’t take responsibility for other people’s stupid comments.
    I’ve continually disagreed with all the regulars you list – especially fug, who I find an unsufferable twat.

    There’s actually a T&Cs page at the bottom of this website.

  100. chairwoman — on 16th March, 2009 at 11:05 pm  

    No one has actually properly engaged with those points. You people are just screaming and shouting and frankly I’ve got work to do than keep checking back here for more examples of people accusing each other of racism, Islamophobia, fascism, anti-semitism and whatever else.

    When you put the ingrediants into the pot, you’re responsible for the meal

  101. The Dude — on 16th March, 2009 at 11:21 pm  

    Morgoth

    That’s a load of crap! Sunny didn’t have any problems with turning me over and I only called a nigger a nigger. Sunny, like everyone else, (ie: Katy) occasionally makes mistakes. That’s life! Shit happens but I rather have Sunny banning me morning, noon and night than backing down one inch on the idealism of free speech and the fluid exchange of ideas. Katy submits rightly or wrongly than this thread is littered with anti-semitism but seems incapable in replying in kind. Instead of engaging in the debate and occasionally winning it, she just wants to whack it stone cold dead. For the life of me, I simply can’t recognise the sense in that. A couple of years ago I got booted from a forum for daring to call members of my own community, racist. I have no intention of keeping mum and walking down that blind alley.

  102. Sunny — on 16th March, 2009 at 11:22 pm  

    Possibly. Its annoying when threads turn out like this on PP these days.

    But then I do have a point to make about how people who previously stood for ‘liberty’ and ‘free speech’ are now showing hypocritical tendencies.

    Next time I’ll just keep comments closed.

  103. David T — on 16th March, 2009 at 11:26 pm  

    your football

  104. The Dude — on 16th March, 2009 at 11:31 pm  

    Sunny

    Big mistake! That’s what these reactionary twats want. Don’t give it to em!
    Keep the faith. You are NOT alone. I support you. Please Sunny, don’t let them beat you down. If you loose hope, what hope remains for the rest of us?

  105. Katy Newton — on 17th March, 2009 at 12:41 am  

    Sunny, like everyone else, (ie: Katy)

    *sigh*

    Is there any point in asking you what this means?

  106. Katy Newton — on 17th March, 2009 at 12:51 am  

    she just wants to whack it stone cold dead

    Jesus CHRIST, that’s such bullshit. You do this to me all the fucking time. I said in terms, up there, that I did not believe in banning commenters from websites and I would not have closed down the website that Sunny posted about no matter how vile it was. I’ve got to hand it to you, Dude, you never, NEVER fail to misrepresent my views. Why for the love of everything can you not just READ WHAT I SAY? How many more times are we going to have this conversation?

  107. The Dude — on 17th March, 2009 at 8:01 am  

    Katy

    You’re right! You are reasonable, considered and morally right in ALL THINGS. But that was NEVER the problem. YOU are not the problem. I am! In contrary, I have never been a reasonable man and I will NEVER occupy the moral high ground. Sometimes defending free speech and free thought, means that often I have to stand on quicksand but defend it I will against ALL COMERS.

    Imran Khan wrote this about you:

    “Sorry (Katy) but when reasoned commentators including yourself have said that what is posted is beyond acceptable and people highlight this and then you take offence that is a tad confusing.”

    Then you responded in kind:

    “I don’t approve of banning commenters myself – I have always been in favour of moderating comments rather than contributors. It’s the hypocrisy of Sunny whingeing about HP not banning commenters for long enough when PP for the most part doesn’t ban anyone either.

    As for the main point of this article: I wouldn’t have shut down the site, regardless of how vile it was. But I do not have a problem with ISPs refusing to give racists a platform, whether we’re talking Islamophobes or antisemites. No one is obliged to let people spout filth on their turf, either in real life or online.”

    Well Katy, like I said, I do have a problem! People should be FREE to spout their “filth” where ever they want to and others (like you) should be willing and able to oppose them on exactly the same ground. That’s the essential difference between you and me. You give with one hand ( your personal opposition to banning), then take away with the other ( your support of ISP’s if they should choose do your dirty work for you). It is typical of the way you play things, you cloth a IRON like reasoning in a soft velvet glove. I don’t! David T and Blah are essential two sides of the same coin. Love them or hate them, they both have a place on this forum. They both make contributions (of a kind). That’s what I’m interested in hearing and examining the argument. I can’t see the point of saying that they have the right to say what they want, then (under my breath) plot in undermining their right to say it.

    Katy< I once said something about you that was both wrong and offensive. At the time I was so angry I couldn’t see the wood for the tree’s but that could NEVER be a justification for the way I acted. Ever since, you have thought that I have had a personal beef against you and you wouldn’t be a million miles from the truth. I have to admit it, you do get under my skin. But more that this, you frighten me. I can deal with the looney tunes that inhabit the forum threads both here and on Harry’s Place but reasonable, nice, respectable people like you scare the living shit out of me. This is WHY we are going to be having this conversation again and again.

  108. fug — on 17th March, 2009 at 11:12 am  

    I think we are moving towards a post-antisemitism phase, where Zionophilia is no longer privileged. The concept and its practice have become quite polluting.

    The bbc wont lead on it though, their age of dominance is pretty much coming to an end, perhaps folks shouldn’t expect them to.

  109. Sid — on 17th March, 2009 at 11:28 am  

    So too the impunity of mickey mouse Islamists.

  110. David Jones — on 17th March, 2009 at 11:37 am  

    ‘The claim that free speech in the UK is only being threatened by Muslims’

    I haven’t seen anyone make that claim. Who makes that claim?

    Pure demagoguery

  111. Leon — on 17th March, 2009 at 12:07 pm  

    Dear lord…

    Ok, people seriously, look out side, the sun is shining, it’s a beautiful day. Step away from your keyboards and go re-discover just how amazing the world can be again.

    If it helps, think of the good people in your lives, your friends, your family and partners. :)

  112. Katy Newton — on 17th March, 2009 at 1:24 pm  

    I can’t see the point of saying that they have the right to say what they want, then (under my breath) plot in undermining their right to say it.

    For crying out loud. I don’t think that any private individual or private organisation should be required to give someone a platform to express views that the individual or organisation in question finds offensive. There are any number of WordPress or Blogger platforms that people use to host racist sites, because neither WordPress nor Blogger are bothered. All power to them. BT is. That’s BT’s right. I am not “undermining” their right to freedom of speech, because (1) I don’t support BT’s decision to close them down and (2) I wouldn’t have made that decision myself if I did host websites.

    I just accept that BT is entitled to close them down if it wants to.

    I’m sorry if the fact that I use logic and reason, and my refusal to accept that free speech involves forcing private companies to give platforms to anyone who wants one, “frightens” you. How lovely to learn that my belief that BT was entitled to withdraw the facility it provides in accordance with its terms and conditions is more frightening to you than the Islamophobes, racists and antisemites who infest the internet generally and HP and PP in particular. But then that’s nothing to do with my views (which have been echoed by a number of people above) and everything to do with the fact that you don’t like me very much on a personal level, as you’ve just admitted.

  113. Ravi Naik — on 17th March, 2009 at 2:10 pm  

    Well Katy, like I said, I do have a problem! People should be FREE to spout their “filth” where ever they want to and others (like you) should be willing and able to oppose them on exactly the same ground. That’s the essential difference between you and me.

    Actually, Dude, the fact you have a problem is inconsequential and irrelevant. BT hosts websites and they define the terms and the material they deem to be offensive or unacceptable. Such policies exist in virtually every provider, and if you don’t like their policy you move your material somewhere else.

    While Sunny raises a pretty good point (although this example is rather weak), I do not think we can draw a line in the sand, and say you either publish everything or you engage in self-censorship.

    Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of any developed society, but there is the assumption that people use it in good faith: to build, not to demonise.

    Obviously there are those who are going to abuse it. The litmus test, in my view, is the lies and dishonesty. When a site – like the one presented – brings about the Protocols, I am assuming they are abusing freedom of speech, because this trashy document is known to be a forgery and has been used over the last few decades to demonise Jewish people. BT is within its right to ban such material, including white supremacist material, sexist material and any material that demeans people based on lies, stereotypes and plain dishonesty. It is not a matter of disagreeing or finding it offensive.

    The BNP is a different beast. Their language is subtle and well-crafted. They talk about immigrants instead of “coloureds”, they talk about “British culture” instead of “whites”, they talk about losing cultural heritage, instead of miscegenation. Hence, their “wink wink” racist message passes through the filters… and so it should.

    My point is that when talking about “freedom of speech”, we need a historical and social context, and work hard to achieve balance. Making a line in the sand will not do.

  114. Imran Khan — on 17th March, 2009 at 7:14 pm  

    DaveT – here lies the rub that you can’t quite grasp. On HP you give voice as Sunny has highlighted to people whose views are quite dodgy (that’s being polite) regarding Islam.

    You shout loudly at anti-semitic comments – no problem there – but you give editorial voice to people with quite dodgy views on Islam.

    So why is one acceptable and one isn’t. Saying you do challange anti-Islamic views doesn’t hold much weight when you give editorial voice to people with dodgy views on Islam.

    Kate and Chairwoman – as I said the difference between HP and PP is that you don’t get people with dodgy views on Judaism being given ***Editorial*** comment.

    If anything people with strange views on Islam are given editorial comment.

    As regards the comment about killing Jews behind trees that hadith as is well known applies in a battle at the end of time and isn’t applicable at any other time. To imply it is – well its frankly sad.

    What I find especailly sad is that relations between Jews and Muslims are at a low ebb and the extremists on both sides have the loudest voices but that doesn’t mean we should all join in.

    I would remind you that the very laws you claim have been repealed are used as a justification for what goes in the Middle East by some Jews but that doesn’t make them any more right than an idiotic Muslims being anti-semitic.

    We need to stand up to this and not get caught up in the nonsense posted.

    As I said you do get sily anti-semitic commentators here but more often tahn not people step in and say they are being daft. They are not given editorial rights. So how on earth can you compare that to HP where dodgy views on Muslims have been given editorial rights and linkage is provided to Mel Phillips, Daniel Pipes etc. who hold very dodgy views on Islam and Muslims.

    Show me where an editor has been permitted such rights with regards to Judaism and I’ll boycott this site in support of you.

    What I find strange is your defence of HP and DaveT when clear editorial examples are given and instead of saying it is wrong you are defending him and his blog. Either you support what goes on there or you don’t and you’ve said in the past you don’t so you know what goes on.

    Fact is HP was very vocal on a boycott of IslamExpo for example but isn’t as vocal in calling for a boycott on say Mel Phillips.

    BTW the old defence that they are MB and JI is also unfair as organisations get labelled and then ostracised. This is happening with many good charities and goes by unquestioned.

    If you think HP is good for building community relations then you are far off the mark.

    Anyway if you can show me where an editor has been given licence to write misleading articles about Jews as Sunny has highlighted happened on HP, which DaveT won’t address then I’ll boycott his site in support of you. So lets see the evidence of an editor writing such things.

  115. The Dude — on 17th March, 2009 at 7:21 pm  

    Ravi

    I wouldn’t call BT’s decision either “inconsequential and irrelevant” in regards to matters of freedom of speech but I would call it the thin end of a very thick wedge. Legal does not make it right. There are many on this forum who are of the mind that debate is a one way street. It isn’t. Katy proved that with me. She didn’t like what I said and she replied in kind and ALL power to her. Now I might not agree with her BUT and this is the important bit, at least I had the opportunity to hear her argument. She wasn’t silenced. What really scares me is (along with Katy) is the day when my voice and other voices are silenced because some politically correct do-gooder objects to the way I choose to think and speak. Today it’s BT, where next, who next and who is going to watch the gatekeepers? All this pussy footing around is hiding the cruel fact that our long cherished right to speak what we think, when we think it is being curtailed and for what? So that the BNP can speak nicely and sensitive souls are not upset. Fuck that for a load of cobblers.

    Katy

    We live in hope!

  116. Sunny — on 17th March, 2009 at 11:50 pm  

    Ravi: Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of any developed society, but there is the assumption that people use it in good faith: to build, not to demonise.

    But then you could apply that to a whole range of speech. Why allow the subtle racism of the BNP, and not the outright hatred of the National Front? The impact is the same. In fact the BNP end up with even more institutional legitimacy, and hence become more pernicious.

  117. douglas clark — on 18th March, 2009 at 12:33 am  

    Sunny,

    Maybe I missed it somehow. But what, exactly is Pickled Politics new (?) view on freedom of speech. Perhaps you could spell it out because I am not understanding it at all.

    I eventually got munir to comment on something I’d said and spent a bit of time in composing a reply. My reply is still there, last time I looked, but his original comment isn’t. It could be argued that his comment was an ad hominem, but he’s posted stuff about Sid that is far worse.

    I have lost the plot on this. If you are advocating free speech on this site then it has to be damn near absolute, subject to legal recourse and suchlike. But if there are limits then I think everyone is entitled to know what they are.

    I am very fond of this place. Less so if the likes of Sonia doesn’t feel it’s worth posting here anymore. Or bananabrain. Or some others who seem to be on the verge of giving up.

    There are a core of people here who can hold their own against almost anyone. You could call them the awkward squad if you like. They know who they are.

    What you had done was create a space where Jews and Muslims could discuss stuff, sometimes with the gloves off, but with mutual respect. The growing respect that Katy and Anas had for each other is something worth building on.

    My point. This has become a far more aggressive forum. I’m up for it, but tell us the rules.

  118. Ben — on 18th March, 2009 at 5:27 am  

    Sunny: “…I made two points in my original thread: both about free speech…”

    One’s right to free speech does not translate into another’s obligation to provide a platform for that free speech. And the right to free speech is not an absolute right, nor has it ever been. There are many categories of speech that are illegal, ranging from sedition, revealing state secrets, libel and slander against individuals, incitement to racial or religious hatred, and conspiracy to commit crimes.

    It is arguable where the line lies between incitment to religious or racial hatred and mere expression of antipathy or disrespect. And maligning the motives and character of others’ beliefs is in truth at the foundation of political debate in a free society. Certainly it is reasonable to lean on the side of permissiveness when judging whether something is to be allowed or not. Even deliberate misrepresentation, when done satirically, is allowed. But surely bearing false witness inside or outside of a court of law is always a crime.

    BT is a publicly owned organization, and it is against the public interest to oblige it to provide a platform for anti-Jewish calumnies. The Royal Court is publicly funded, and it should not be allowed to defame and incite against the Jewish community with incendiary lies such as “Jews believe they may kill Gentile children because they are the Chosen People”. The same applies to the influential national institution that is the BBC, especially since historically such accusations have led to the commission of serious crimes against Jews in Britain and elsewhere.

    Depriving Caryl Churchill and Tim Johnson of a publicly funded platform is not suppressing their right to free speech – they can go to Hyde Park any day of the week and spout their opinions as much as they choose. Or they can go to the private sector for their web-site or theatre stage. And if they are in breach of the law, they should go to jail.

  119. firsttimecommenter — on 18th March, 2009 at 7:17 am  

    Sunny: I made two points in my original thread: both about free speech.

    Free speech? Here’s what I think about free speech. I believe you can say what you like, and the government shouldn’t censor you, but individuals can react how they want. That is the other side of free speech.

    So here is my reaction: I’m no longer reading PP. You put up a summary which you may not have suspected was a lie. Someone pointed out it was a lie. The summary is still up there. I believe this blog has turned towards racism and I’ll have no part of it.

    “But!” someone will no doubt shriek, “Harry’s Place is racist! Why can’t we be too?”

    News for you – I’ve never followed Harry’s Place. But if you want to equate your site with it, fine, because from now on I’m never going to follow Pickled Politics either.

  120. douglas clark — on 18th March, 2009 at 7:26 am  

    Ben,

    Your comment at 119 is actually another extremists charter. It should not be illegal to say something, and the consequence should not be jail. It should be cultural alienation. There have always been nutters around who think, say, that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is true. There is little or no point in engaging with people like that, beyond pointing out that it is a forgery, lest others are convinced.

    Is it worthwhile to arrest them, prosecute them and bang them up? No, it isn’t. We should just point at them, with the index finger of our right hand making screwy motions aimed at our brain. Similar contempt should be a directed at some of my other béte noirs, such as climate change denialists, holocaust deniers, male supremacists, religious gatekeepers and the like….

    Frankly, there isn’t enough room in jails for stupid.

  121. douglas clark — on 18th March, 2009 at 7:46 am  

    firsttimecommentator,

    Shouldn’t that be lasttimecommentator?

    This site is worth reading for the comments under the main posting, as much as anything. I would remind you that people write editorial here for free, and that they are just as human as you. Walking away because you think something is racist, without explaining why exactly, or engaging with the arguement, will probably keep you pure, but it would be far more to the point to add content.

    Anyway.

    Your loss.

  122. douglas clark — on 18th March, 2009 at 8:37 am  

    One of the reasons I like this site is because folk that write editorial, or above the line as we are now expected to acknowledge it, a la David T, also engage in the comments. Some of Sids’ best commentary has been in the threads where he has defended his editorial until hell froze over. There is a pretty clear understanding, I think, that no-one that writes editorial here can just write it and then walk away.

    Which was what angered me about CiF. They still had the assumption that editorial comment was sacrosanct, and us plebs were just a nuisance. I was banned (on CiF) for telling truth to power.

    You see that implied relationship? It came as something of a shock to Observer/ Guardian writers to realise that actually, their audience were just as bright as they were. Probably brighter. Sunny has never underestimated his audience like that.

    So, that sort of arrogance has never had a place here. I don’t think there is anyone who writes regularily on PP that doesn’t engage with the comments on their thread.

  123. Ravi Naik — on 18th March, 2009 at 10:10 am  

    What really scares me is (along with Katy) is the day when my voice and other voices are silenced because some politically correct do-gooder objects to the way I choose to think and speak. Today it’s BT, where next, who next and who is going to watch the gatekeepers?

    I believe you are mixing two things: first, it is the right to speak your mind without the state criminalising you. The second is giving you a platform to speak your mind. BT or anyone else is not obliged to give anyone a platform. Sunny and his merry picklers are within their right to ban anyone who they deem to be offensive, without actually infringing on anyone’s right to speak their mind.

    But then you could apply that to a whole range of speech. Why allow the subtle racism of the BNP, and not the outright hatred of the National Front? The impact is the same. In fact the BNP end up with even more institutional legitimacy, and hence become more pernicious.

    I do not believe the impact is the same – while the BNP is able to get away with racist messages camouflaged with something more mellow, their message can be easily hijacked by any mainstream party – talking about controlling immigration and highlighting British culture is something Labour has done. Not so with FN message, which is far more hardcore, violent and hateful.

    In any case, I am not for criminalising speech – but I certainly think that mainstream institutions have the right to be more selective about whom they give a platform. If the message is violent, hateful, dishonest and full of lies, what is the point of promoting such views in a mainstream platform?

    I am not sure why you brought this example, and like Douglas I am puzzled by your position on this issue.

  124. Timothy Johnson — on 20th March, 2009 at 3:46 pm  

    If Catholic Voice were “anti-Semitic” or racist according to a valid legal definition of such terms, it should be censored and criminalized. But the fact is it is neither.

    The Catholic Church unequivocally condemns racism of all kinds. Its opposition to certain ideologies or religious movements has nothing whatsoever to do with the race of their adherents. It focuses exclusively on their teachings and practices. To act otherwise would contradict the very message of the Church which is “catholic”, i.e. open to all men, irrespective of their racial antecedents.

    Thus, an authentic “Catholic voice” will never seek to defend the Church against a “race” per se. This would be utterly preposterous, for no one race is ontologically superior to another. Even the Hebrew nation was chosen by God not because of some kind of innate, genetic superiority, but simply as a temporary vehicle to prepare the way for the coming of Christ – and we know that Christ came to save ALL MEN.

    Furthermore, hatred of any kind, whether race-based or otherwise, is always a grievous sin. And to seek to incite hatred in others, for whatever reason, is an appallingly evil thing to do. Catholic Voice is more than happy, therefore, that genuine inciters of hatred should suffer the full rigours of just legislation.

    The mission of Catholic Voice is essentially a defensive one: to defend the Catholic Church (and indirectly the Gentile world) against its ideological enemies, who seek to use their alleged racial superiority and proclaimed victimhood to subvert and undermine it. It does this to the praise and glory of Almighty God, and because it is totally anti-racist and anti-hate.

    So how is it then that Catholic Voice has attracted such opprobrium recently? How is that ministers of parliament should use such colourful invective against its author, even describing him as a “known fascist”?! Could it be that the website failed to provide sufficient clarity regarding its objectives and left itself open to misinterpretation? Or might there be another explanation?

    Now I think everyone would agree that, if discussion of a controversial subject is to be outlawed and made taboo, the deployment of infectious, febrile calumny against its proponents is a very effective means. Once rational discussion has been widely displaced with schoolboy insults and casual name-calling, then many unfortunate people won’t even realise that, by joining in the fray, they will be committing the very sin that they claim to be denouncing – that of inciting hatred and spreading calumny. This, I submit, is exactly what has happened in my case. It is text-book.

    So, if we’re going to denounce people as “anti-Semites”, let’s first make sure we’ve got our facts right and are not just jumping on the bandwagon of popular hysteria. It might also be worth remembering that, according to several reputable authors, the great majority of Jews alive today are probably not Semites at all but Caucasians originating from the ancient kingdom of Khazaria in the Russian steppes. If this should prove indeed to be the case, then clearly the word “anti-Semite” is a misnomer and should be abandoned, at least in any self-respecting legal system.

  125. chairwoman — on 20th March, 2009 at 4:08 pm  

    “It might also be worth remembering that, according to several reputable authors, the great majority of Jews alive today are probably not Semites at all but Caucasians originating from the ancient kingdom of Khazaria in the Russian steppes.”

    Aaarrrggghhh! Not this old canard again! I think this was quite satisfactorily debunked when genetic testing discovered that all Cohen men tested were genetically similar regardless of geographic location and/or physical appearance.

    Incidentally, recent genetic testing of Jews and Palestinians have found remarkable similarities.

  126. Ravi Naik — on 20th March, 2009 at 4:27 pm  

    Incidentally, recent genetic testing of Jews and Palestinians have found remarkable similarities.

    That’s not surprising, is it?

  127. Katy Newton — on 20th March, 2009 at 4:37 pm  

    are probably not Semites at all but Caucasians

    YAWN. Number one: extensive genetic testing has established that the vast majority of people of Jewish descent share a common ancestor in the Middle East. Number two: the descent of the Jewish people is well documented and there was no mass disappearance or extinction of “real” Jews replaced by a bunch of pretendy Khazars. Number three, whilst I agree that “antisemitic” is a somewhat factually inaccurate term as applied to Jew-hatred, it isn’t because Semites are not Caucasians. There is no Jewish race. Nor is there a Semitic race. The Semites are/were a people, descended from various ancient peoples in the Middle East, including the ancient Hebrews, and they come in all races, skin colours and nationalities. There are Caucasian Jews and non-Caucasian Jews, and there are Caucasian Semites and non-Caucasian Semites – whatever proponents of various ethnocentric masterracces may think.

    Here endeth the nth debunking of antisemitic racial myths. Again.

    (And no, I’m not linking. You can find all of this out for yourself by putting “Semites” or “Semitic people” into Google.)

  128. Timothy Johnson — on 20th March, 2009 at 4:38 pm  

    “Debunked” maybe but certainly not “refuted”. DNA testing seems too unreliable at present to prove the thesis either way, and tests have varied widely depending on who’s carried them out. So the jury (if ever there was such a distinguished anonymous body) is still very much out.

    Remember that the Turin Shroud itself was “debunked” in 1988 thanks to some very dubious carbon-dating “evidence”. The following year, forty-five businessmen and ‘rich friends’ showed their gratitude by donating £1 million to one of the scientists involved at Oxford – significantly on Good Friday! Inflation is terrible. The price was once a mere 30 pieces of silver.

  129. Ravi Naik — on 20th March, 2009 at 5:22 pm  

    If Catholic Voice were “anti-Semitic” or racist according to a valid legal definition of such terms, it should be censored and criminalized. But the fact is it is neither.

    Catholic voice hosted the Protocols, an anti-semite fabrication to incite hatred against Jews. It has been proved to be both a forgery and to have been plagerised from a French novel. Most neo-nazi and Islamist sites host this fabrication – so the Catholic Voice is in good company.

    “Debunked” maybe but certainly not “refuted”. DNA testing seems too unreliable at present to prove the thesis either way

    That’s the most accurate technology we have. Who are these “reputable authors” you mention, and what technology did they use to say otherwise?

    Remember that the Turin Shroud itself was “debunked” in 1988 thanks to some very dubious carbon-dating “evidence”. The following year, forty-five businessmen and ‘rich friends’ showed their gratitude by donating £1 million to one of the scientists involved at Oxford – significantly on Good Friday! Inflation is terrible. The price was once a mere 30 pieces of silver.

    How is finding that the “Shroud of Turin” is a fraud betraying the Catholic faith? And I am wrong to say that the Vatican accepted the results?

  130. Don — on 20th March, 2009 at 6:03 pm  

    Timothy,

    Could it be that the website failed to provide sufficient clarity regarding its objectives and left itself open to misinterpretation? Or might there be another explanation?

    Yes, the explanation is that it’s a standard anti-semitic conspiracy-nut site.

    We read the cached articles. No problem with the clarity. Clear as a mountain stream, mongol-jews conspiring to bring down gentile-christian society, terrorist bombings all directed by jews using innocent moslems as dupes, freemasons in on the act, yadda yadda yadda.

    Go peddle your dreary blatherings elsewhere.

  131. Timothy Johnson — on 20th March, 2009 at 6:13 pm  

    Thanks for your questions, Ravi.

    Remember that Amazon and many other bookstores actually sell the Protocols. I’m sure you don’t think that they’re all closet anti-Semitic organisations endorsing neo-nazism and Islamism. Personally, I think the book is a masterpiece of conspiratorial literature that should be studied in all schools and universities irrespective of its alleged authorship.

    As for Joly, he appears to have borrowed from an earlier version of the Protocols to produce his “Dialogue in Hell”, not the other way round. See http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=9064 for Henry Makow’s take on this.

    As for DNA testing, too much faith can be put in it. It’s just too speculative a technology at present. Authors like Koestler, Brook or Wexler demonstrate their thesis without reliance on it.

    As for the Turin Shroud, this is the holiest relic in Christendom. Whilst it’s true that belief in its authenticity is not a matter of Catholic faith, to falsify a scientific experiment in order to debunk the Shroud as a fraud, thereby contradicting all the other scientific proofs of its genuineness, must necessarily constitute a serious attack on the Church herself. Those 45 businessmen and rich friends were certainly very keen to express their gratitude. The fraud, involving the deliberate switching of samples, is documented here: http://www.crc-internet.org/shroud.htm. This document stands as a public accusation against Tite, Hall and all their other accomplices, an accusation which they’ve never seen fit to answer.

  132. chairwoman — on 20th March, 2009 at 6:23 pm  

    I have just discovered the ideal gift for the antisemite who has everything.

    It’s the Protocols of the Elders of Zion jigsaw!

    We all know what to get Munir for his birthday :)

  133. Ravi Naik — on 20th March, 2009 at 6:56 pm  

    Remember that Amazon and many other bookstores actually sell the Protocols. I’m sure you don’t think that they’re all closet anti-Semitic organisations endorsing neo-nazism and Islamism. Personally, I think the book is a masterpiece of conspiratorial literature that should be studied in all schools and universities irrespective of its alleged authorship.

    Is that what Catholic Voice does? To study conspiratorial literature? Why did the protocols appear in the Catholic Voice in the first place, and did it warn readers that it was a fabrication?

    As for Joly, he appears to have borrowed from an earlier version of the Protocols to produce his “Dialogue in Hell”, not the other way round. See http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=9064 for Henry Makow’s take on this.

    According to the above link, Henry Makow believes that the protocols are real.

    Authors like Koestler, Brook or Wexler demonstrate their thesis without reliance on it.

    Based on what? What technology did they use that is more accurate than genetic tests?

    As for the Turin Shroud, this is the holiest relic in Christendom. Whilst it’s true that belief in its authenticity is not a matter of Catholic faith, to falsify a scientific experiment in order to debunk the Shroud as a fraud, thereby contradicting all the other scientific proofs of its genuineness

    Pope John Paul II said: “Since we’re not dealing with a matter of faith, the church can’t pronounce itself on such questions. It entrusts to scientists the tasks of continuing to investigate, to reach adequate answers to the questions connected to this shroud.”

    And there is no scientific proof that it is real: it is almost impossible to establish that. Even if there is scientific proof that the shroud originated during Jesus’ lifetime, how can you prove it is him? Instead, it is far easier to prove that it is a forgery.

    All you have shown so far are unproven conspiracies, that quite frankly belong to a trashy Dan Brown novel.

  134. fug — on 20th March, 2009 at 7:25 pm  

    i guess they are cool with storm forge then. shame

  135. Timothy Johnson — on 21st March, 2009 at 1:43 am  

    There’s appears to be some confusion regarding my last contribution.

    - Catholic Voice believes that “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” was written by the leaders of the Jewish cryptocracy. It linked to several websites ably defending this thesis and demonstrating that so-called “proofs” of alternative authorship do not stand up to scholarly scrutiny.

    - Yes, Henry Makow does believe that the Protocols are “real”. That was my point. I think you will find that all truly informed Jews believe the same, although many will adamantly refuse to admit it. I may disagree with Makow on certain points, but nevertheless I strongly recommend his website http://www.savethemales.ca. My favourite quote: “I wasted much of my life getting a conventional education.”

    - Genetic DNA tests simply aren’t reliable at present. More established, tried-and-tested methods have to take priority: historical, cultural, archaeological and linguistic. Note that the “Cohen Modal Haplotype” theory positing a “Y-chromosomal Aaron” ancestor for the Kohanim (referred to above by Chairwoman) suggests some inter-breeding between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews in the early stages of the latter’s evolution, but to claim that this disproves Koestler, Brook, Wexler et al. is pushing the genetic thesis too far in my view.

    - Those who claim that there is “no scientific evidence that [the Shroud] is real” or that “it is easier to prove that it is a forgery” would appear to be living in a world of invincible ignorance. Even the mainstream news has moved on from the outdated view that the carbon-14 dating represents the last word on the Shroud’s authenticity: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4210369.stm

    - Finally, I’m afraid I can’t see that my “proofs” are so self-evidently inferior to the “counter-proofs” confidently asserted by my disputants on this website.

  136. Leon — on 21st March, 2009 at 2:46 am  

    The probable truth that god doesn’t exist kinda puts a kink in your laughable claims about the shroud….

  137. Timothy Johnson — on 21st March, 2009 at 5:03 pm  

    “The probable truth that god doesn’t exist…”

    “The fool has said in his heart: there is no God”. (King David, Psalm 14.1)

  138. Don — on 21st March, 2009 at 5:23 pm  

    The wise man says it out loud.

  139. Beavis — on 21st March, 2009 at 5:31 pm  

    “God is dead and no one cares, if there is a hell, i’ll see you there”

    (Trent Reznor, Nine Inch Nails, The Downward Spiral)

  140. Timothy Johnson — on 21st March, 2009 at 8:40 pm  

    “God is dead and no one cares…”

    There are no true atheists. The only reason people parade their atheism with such proud glee is to bury under ridicule what their intellects subconsciously suspect to be true but which their wills emphatically wish were not. How unspeakably terrible to live in such schizophrenic denial about the very ground of one’s being.

  141. Ravi Naik — on 22nd March, 2009 at 1:54 pm  

    Catholic Voice believes that “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” was written by the leaders of the Jewish cryptocracy. It linked to several websites ably defending this thesis and demonstrating that so-called “proofs” of alternative authorship do not stand up to scholarly scrutiny.

    There is an unanimous consensus by all reputable institutions that the Protocols are a forgery. Not only that, but a rather bad one. But you will say that all these scientific institutions are controlled by the same Jewish cryptocracy, and therefore, they were bound to say that. Moving on.

    Those who claim that there is “no scientific evidence that [the Shroud] is real” or that “it is easier to prove that it is a forgery” would appear to be living in a world of invincible ignorance.

    This is not something you can debate on, or a matter of opinion. There is NO scientific evidence that the Shroud is real, and if there is I would like to know. To prove that the shroud is real, you would have to prove that it belonged to Jesus Christ and not somebody else. Good luck with that. On the other hand, proving that it is a hoax only requires evidence that it originated after (or before) Jesus’ lifetime.

    I am Catholic, but I believe in science and rational thought. You obviously decided to forgo both of them.

    There are no true atheists. The only reason people parade their atheism with such proud glee is to bury under ridicule what their intellects subconsciously suspect to be true but which their wills emphatically wish were not.

    You should stop being so pretentious. Speak for yourself, not on behalf of others.

  142. Timothy Johnson — on 23rd March, 2009 at 5:18 pm  

    Ravi, From what you write, it appears we share much in common. We are both members of the Catholic Church who profess a healthy regard for “science and rational thought” – a regard which, despite your mistaken claim to the contrary, I am far from wishing to relinquish.

    The Protocols
    I would suggest you read Waters Flowing Eastward at http://crashrecovery.org/Waters/index.htm and form your own opinion on this controversial subject rather than relying on “reputable institutions” to tell you what you’re allowed to believe. The Church has never regarded reputability as a criterion for truth, knowing full well from Our Lord’s example that truth is often only encountered on the “narrow path” of ridicule and persecution.

    Holy Shroud
    I’m having a little difficulty believing you’re genuinely interested in learning the scientific evidence for the authenticity of the Holy Shroud, given the blatant prejudice and devastating ignorance of sindonology displayed in your remarks. However, here’s a link summarising much of the evidence: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html.

    Atheism
    Sacred Scripture doesn’t share your scrupulous concern for the delusional consciences of professed atheists. King David, inspired by the Holy Spirit of God Himself, has no qualms about calling such people “fools” (Ps 14.1). Saint Paul teaches that atheism is utterly irrational and without excuse (Rm 1.18-23), and that the offender is punished by God by being allowed to fall into an utter degradation of character (Rm 1.24-32). Ultimately, unless he repents, the atheist will always go to hell (Hb 11.6).

  143. Cold Beer — on 23rd March, 2009 at 6:51 pm  

    It’s hardly surprising that you hate atheists, Timothy, when your website quotes articles like this:

    Rest assured, Judaism and secular humanism are brothers-in-arms, compatriots, confederates, partners in the Jewish war against us.

    What you fail to consider is that the eighth level of hell is reserved for hypocrites. And there can be no bigger hypocrite than one who pretends to serve God while preaching hatred against those made in his image.

    I sincerely hope you manage to repent before anything happens to you.

  144. Timothy Johnson — on 23rd March, 2009 at 10:24 pm  

    Cold Beer, I’m afraid you misread me entirely if you believe I’m motivatd by “hatred”. See my views on this subject above (comment 125):

    “Furthermore, hatred of any kind, whether race-based or otherwise, is always a grievous sin. And to seek to incite hatred in others, for whatever reason, is an appallingly evil thing to do…”

    It is a spiritual work of mercy – hence an act of the highest charity – to instruct the ignorant and counter grievous error. Now the Church has always regarded atheism (both practical and theoretic) as a damnable error, a position which is entirely scriptural, as I have demonstrated above. True followers of Christ will always uphold this teaching in both public and private. They will count it as an honour to suffer misconceived accusations of hatred for doing so.

  145. douglas clark — on 24th March, 2009 at 12:08 am  

    Timothy Johnson @ 136,

    Look.

    Catholic Voice believes that “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” was written by the leaders of the Jewish cryptocracy. It linked to several websites ably defending this thesis and demonstrating that so-called “proofs” of alternative authorship do not stand up to scholarly scrutiny.

    provide your evidence. For goodness sake, provide any evidence whatsoever for this.

    As far as I remember, and I’m doing this without the benefit of googling, the Protocols were a Russian fake, given the pogroms of the last of the Czars or some such. You do know what a pogrom is, don’t you? You do understand how some idiots can deliberately tell lies?

    How has that completely passed you by?

    You are in danger of appearing completely naive, or stupid or some such…

  146. douglas clark — on 24th March, 2009 at 12:16 am  

    Timothy Johnson @ 145,

    I am an atheist. I don’t give a monkeys what you think. But, could you keep your spiritual works of mercy to yourself, please?

    Just out of curiosity, how are atheists guilty of a ‘damnable error’ exactly? We have heard the same stuff you did and rejected it.

    Our ignorance, if that is what it is, comes from having rejected theistic belief systems, after have been inculcated in them by folk such as yourself….

    Just asking.

  147. Ravi Naik — on 24th March, 2009 at 1:11 pm  

    I would suggest you read Waters Flowing Eastward at http://crashrecovery.org/Waters/index.htm and form your own opinion on this controversial subject rather than relying on “reputable institutions” to tell you what you’re allowed to believe. The Church has never regarded reputability as a criterion for truth, knowing full well from Our Lord’s example that truth is often only encountered on the “narrow path” of ridicule and persecution.

    When it comes to scientific truth – then all we have is the reputation of the institution. And that’s the Church’s position as well, since Catholic schools teach Science (including evolution and the big bang theory) without any alterations. You seem to believe in things based on your “gut”, and you give credibility to people who frankly have no scientific reputation apart from fertile imagination.

    I’m having a little difficulty believing you’re genuinely interested in learning the scientific evidence for the authenticity of the Holy Shroud

    I am not going to debate this issue with you, as even the Church has not declared the shroud as authentic. Why is that? Another conspiracy?

    Well, it is because of lack of evidence. Even if the carbon dating process is inaccurate, it still doesn’t prove it is the burial shroud of Jesus. Any rational individual understands this.

    Sacred Scripture doesn’t share your scrupulous concern for the delusional consciences of professed atheists.

    I am always surprised that people who are judgemental like yourself and think they are mighty Christians, forget the basic teachings of Jesus Christ, like the one where he said “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. Stop throwing stones at atheists, and pretend like you know what God is going to them, or even to you.

  148. Timothy Johnson — on 24th March, 2009 at 7:01 pm  

    I think anyone looking for clear extrinsic proof of either the authenticity or inauthenticity of the Protocols is going to find it elusive. Of course, those determined to regard them as a fraud from the outset will have no difficulty viewing the conspiracy theory contained in Philip Graves’ Letter to the Times (1921) as constituting exactly such proof.

    Basing themselves on this weakly-supported conspiracy theory, Protocols-deniers talk ad nauseam about them provenly having been plagiarised from Joly’s 1864 Dialogues, carefully concealing from their audience the possibility that the revolutionary Joly (who never claimed to have originated these ideas himself) was utilising an earlier documentary version of the Protocols. In his preface he writes that his book “personifies in particular a political system which has not varied a single day in its application since the disastrous and (alas) too far-off date of its enthronement”.

    This interpretation fits so much better with the intrinsic evidence of the documents themselves as Nesta Webster, in the Appendix to her Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, so well demonstrates.

    Douglas Reed in his Controversy of Zion writes: “Probably so much money and energy were never before in history expended on the effort to suppress a single document.” In my view the leaders of world Jewry would do better spending their time and energies openly analysing and publicly denouncing the viciously supremacist contents of said document rather than concentrating all their ire on its allegedly fraudulent provenance.

    Those who regard themselves as genuinely independent-minded thinkers will never be satisfied with simply reading about the Protocols. They’ll want to read them for themselves. After all, the 24 chapters shouldn’t take more than a few hours of reading. They’re also contained in Waters Flowing Eastward at http://crashrecovery.org/Waters/index.htm which has a whole section on their authenticity.

    Remember the Protocols don’t stand alone in happy isolation. There’s the extraordinary Harold Rosenthal interview, the revelations of Benjamin Freedman, and of course Rakovsky’s Red Symphony which explain the true origins of WW2. See http://www.savethemales.ca/000334.html. Readers should also consult E. Michael Jones’ The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History and Michael Hoffman’s Judaism Discovered, both available via Amazon.

  149. Katy Newton — on 24th March, 2009 at 7:32 pm  

    What utter twaddle you do talk. The reason people think that the Protocols is a false document is because it was lifted wholesale from Joly’s book (in which the would-be world dominator was Machiavelli). And it is somewhat duplicitous of you to suggest that there is any doubt about Joly’s source material. If you’ve done any reading on this subject at all, and I am sure you have, then you will be aware that Joly’s content was in turn lifted from a contemporaneous novel by Eugene Sue, in which the alleged world dominators were the Jesuits. Odd that you didn’t mention that, as I’m quite sure you’d be aware of it. Too close to the bone for a good Catholic, perhaps?

    Anyway. Joly doesn’t even mention Jews in his book, so that’s sort of the end of your argument right there, isn’ t it? I’ve read it. It’s a satire about Napoleon III and French empire-building. But the other reason no one thinks that Joly lifted his content from an “earlier version of the Protocols” is that there is no evidence whatsoever of any version of the Protocols before 1903 – substantially postdating Joly’s book. But evidence rather gets in the way for you, doesn’t it? You want everyone to ignore the actual evidence – which goes entirely against you – and assume that the Protocols are a genuine document, and then call upon modern Jewry to denounce a 100-year-old document that you can’t prove was written by a Jew or reflected Jewish opinion or practice in the first place.

    I’m afraid, Timothy, that out here in the real world we like to look for evidence, not paranoid speculation. Produce some, or keep your Jewhating claptrap to yourself.

  150. Imran Khan — on 24th March, 2009 at 7:42 pm  
  151. Katy Newton — on 24th March, 2009 at 8:04 pm  

    good stuff, Imran :-)

  152. Imran Khan — on 24th March, 2009 at 8:35 pm  

    Katy – Thanks – I strongly suggest putting up some links somewhere – maybe on a website somewhere that is easy to reference so this nonsense can be refuted.

    You know what I find interesting and its hardly mentioned is that if Jews controlled the world they seemed to lose an awful lot of money when supposedly having such control!! That kind of exposes this lie.

    Oh look they control the world and oh look they lost billions! Does that mean they control the world!

  153. Don — on 24th March, 2009 at 8:51 pm  

    I doubt that Timothy has had this much attention from anyone not wearing a tin-foil hat for some considerable time. It must be such a thrill for him.

  154. Timothy Johnson — on 24th March, 2009 at 9:38 pm  

    Thanks for the spirited critique, Katy.

    The Protocols… was lifted wholesale from Joly’s book.

    That’s stretching things rather too far. Admittedly there is much that is verbatim, but, as Webster writes, “the Protocols are a vast improvement on the Dialogues of Joly. The most striking passages they contain are not to be found in the earlier work, nor, which is more remarkable, are several of the amazing prophecies concerning the future which time has realized. It is the latter fact which presents the most insuperable obstacle to the Times solution of the problem.”

    Joly’s content was in turn lifted from a contemporaneous novel by Eugene Sue, in which the alleged world dominators were the Jesuits.

    I’ve no problem with the idea that Crétineau Joly may have plagiarised Eugène Sue’s Les Mystères du Paris. As indicated earlier, I regard him as having plagiarised an earlier version of the Protocols to produce his Dialogues. Therefore, this consummate plagiarist would only be acting in character by borrowing additional material from the anti-Catholic Sue.

    Joly doesn’t even mention Jews in his book, so that’s sort of the end of your argument right there, isn’ t it?

    Hardly. Joly was a Jew himself and a freemason of the Lodge of Mizraim. His real name was Joseph Levy. He played a dangerous enough game plagiarising the proto-Protocols to produce his work, so he was hardly likely to take the needless risk of declaring the document’s true authors. That would have meant publicly attacking his own co-religionists, not to mention unnecessarily exposing his plagiarised sources.

    There is no evidence whatsoever of any version of the Protocols before 1903.

    Webster would take issue with you on this. She mentions two other significant parallels: the documents of the Haute Vente Romaine contained in an earlier work by Joly (1859) and the programme of Bakunin’s Alliance Sociale Démocratique (1864). Lucien Wolf also found parallels in the work of the German Goedsche.

  155. Katy Newton — on 24th March, 2009 at 11:55 pm  

    Joly was a Jew himself and a freemason of the Lodge of Mizraim. His real name was Joseph Levy.

    This would be more speculation, yes? As in something you can’t prove? You’ve lifted your answer almost word for word from one article by Henry Makow which has been reprinted by other conspiraloons all over the web. I’m not aware of anything to suggest that he was Jewish, but it doesn’t actually matter whether he was or not. That’s the thing. The fact is that he wrote a thinly veiled attack on Napoleon III, who was in power at the time, which was mostly plagiarised itself and which was plagiarised in turn to produce a document which people like you are still using against the Jews today.

    I think the problem I have with people like you, apart from your general creepiness, is that you operate on inverse logic. It’s as if, in your world, the less evidence there is to prove something, the more likely it is that it’s true. It’s pointless.

  156. douglas clark — on 25th March, 2009 at 12:09 am  

    The currently favoured author of the Protocols appears to be an anti-semite called Matvei Golovinski:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matvei_Golovinski

    or here:

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/27585.html

    Webster wrote in 1924 and appears somewhat unsure of herself. At one point she seems to think that it might all be an Illuminati agenda!

    http://tinyurl.com/cpwvwz

  157. Imran Khan — on 25th March, 2009 at 10:17 am  

    Timothy – Apart from a manuscript which you have no proof was a work of fact (it may well have been intended as fiction or even sattire if your claim the author was Jewish) and written over a century ago – what proof is there for the Jewish control of the world?

    If the author was Jewish maybe he wrote it as sattire because he was fed up of anti-semitism and people saying Jews controlled the world. Entirely possible. How do you know the novel wasn’t written as a form of ridcule against this very argument?

    If as claimed Jews do control the world then I’d say they are doing a pretty poor job because:

    1. People know about it.
    2. Their “supposed” control is pretty damn poor because they got killed en-masse in the holocaust. So if they had control why were they getting killed?
    3. For people supposedly in control they suffered massive lossesn in the financial crisis which wiped out many charitable projects which surely are needed to retain control so if they controlled the world they wouldn’t allow projects which get them influence to lose their funds would they.
    4. If they did control the world surely they would run a better publicity campaign that a publication of a poor manuscript.
    5.If they controlled the world then how the hell are we able to discuss it when we haven’t asked for their permission and are outside of their control when discussing their control!
    6. Just because its written doesn’t make it fact. Some people believe the Devil’s Bible was written by a Monk who made a pact with the devil but it doesn’t make it fact. Most likely it was written by a devout monk. Similarly Protocols is probably a poor work of fiction.
    7. If Jews control the world then why do they have lobby organisations which surely wouldn’t be needed if they controlled the world then they wouldn’t need to lobby!
    8. Why were they persecuted in Europe if they controlled Europe let alone the world? You can’t be persecuted and control a continent.
    9. If they controlled the world why did they face expultion and severe restrictions in Europe until fairly recently? How can you control and be restricted in what you can do? Don’t forget that until recent times Jews couldn’t be elected to high office in this country. So how did they control without the ability to be in high office?!
    10. If Protocols is fact then why was it published in an uncontrolled manner when the people supposedly in control were being exposed and could have controlled to stopped its release?
    11. If they control the world then why did anti-semitism take hold? It can’t be for sympathy because then as it takes hold then fiction becomes believable as fact which is surely counter to the aim of control!
    12. Where’s the evidence?

    The arguments make no sense and are not backed up by historical facts.

    One could argue for some influence to a varying degree but control is hardly backed up by facts.

    Katy – As you allegedly control the world and as we are friends can I have a Fred Goodwin style pension please ;-)

    Tim if Katy doesn’t deliver and she is Jewish then what?

    Clearly this is nonsense peddled as fact and is part of a problem to always blame minorities for the wider issues in Europe. In short I say its feckin nonsense and we all know it is.

  158. Leon — on 25th March, 2009 at 4:01 pm  

    The Protocols of Zion? Hahahaha you’ll be telling the stuff in the bible is true next! :D

  159. Timothy Johnson — on 26th March, 2009 at 12:11 am  

    Imran, You raise some good questions. Let me try to do justice to them.

    But, first of all, I hope you’ll agree with me that all such dialogue should be carried out in charity and with a genuine desire to discover the truth. Name-calling and other such ad hominem attacks can never be justified and are in fact particularly shameful when employed by those who profess to oppose hate-speech of any kind. Bossy, contemptuous put-downs are not just childish but betray a lack of confidence in the power of one’s own arguments. Sadly, though, as Plato portrays so well in his famous analogy of the Cave (Republic), those who wish to live in a cosy delusional state of mind often react with exactly such hostility when confronted with alternative versions of reality. Now to your questions…

    If as claimed Jews do control the world then I’d say they are doing a pretty poor job because: 1. People know about it.

    A worldwide Conspiracy of this nature cannot be kept completely hidden. It’s true that many people entertain suspicions about it, but it’s equally clear they don’t dare pursue them very far as that might expose them to ridicule. Should any really effective and knowledgeable opposition to the Conspiracy arise, it’s usually quickly quashed.

    2. Their “supposed” control is pretty damn poor because they got killed en-masse in the holocaust. So if they had control why were they getting killed?

    It was the leaders of supremacist Jewry that set Hitler up in the first place. It’s true that he later fell out of favour with them, but in persecuting ordinary Jews he did exactly what his secret Zionist backers wanted, that is to force ordinary Jews out of Germany into Palestine whither they were initially so reluctant to go. Hitler himself had many Jews in his army – around 150,000 soldiers and 1,000 officers. He himself and many of his high-ranking personnel were themselves half or at least a quarter Jewish. The shocking truth is that supremacist, Zionist Jews architected the very real suffering of ordinary Jews during WW2.

    3. For people supposedly in control they suffered massive losses in the financial crisis which wiped out many charitable projects which surely are needed to retain control, so if they controlled the world they wouldn’t allow projects which get them influence to lose their funds would they.

    The leaders of supremacist Jewry manipulate all financial crises. Such activity is documented in the financial section of the Protocols, a section without parallel in Joly or other alleged sources. The recent turmoil on the markets is no unforeseen accident as they would have us believe. Since they have uncontested monopoly control over the credit of all governments, they can’t lose.

    4. If they did control the world, surely they would run a better publicity campaign than a publication of a poor manuscript.

    They don’t control the world openly – at least not yet. They do it from the shadows. That’s why it’s correct to describe them as a cryptocracy. But I think we may see a sea-change soon. Christian opponents of their rule, not to mention others who cherish their freedoms, will be persecuted under a new Terror – a prediction based on the Third Secret of Fatima revealed in 2000.

    5.If they controlled the world, then how the hell are we able to discuss it when we haven’t asked for their permission and are outside of their control when discussing their control!

    It’s only on the Internet that the last true vestiges of freedom from their control exist. And their stooges in government are now making sure that even that’s coming to a end, as demonstrated by the closing of Catholic Voice.

    6. Just because its written doesn’t make it fact. Some people believe the Devil’s Bible was written by a Monk who made a pact with the devil but it doesn’t make it fact. Most likely it was written by a devout monk. Similarly Protocols is probably a poor work of fiction.

    The Protocols isn’t a novel or a work of fiction as you imagine. It’s an astonishingly subtle and quite ruthless plan for world domination, the like of which has never been seen before.

    7. If Jews control the world, then why do they have lobby organisations which surely wouldn’t be needed if they controlled the world then they wouldn’t need to lobby!

    Despite their democratic show, their lobby groups are becoming ever more dictatorial. But you’re right in thinking they won’t be needed in the future once an open judeocracy is (temporarily) established.

    8. Why were they persecuted in Europe if they controlled Europe let alone the world? You can’t be persecuted and control a continent.

    Again, it’s only recently that supremacist Jewry has attained such a height of power. In the past, history shows us that, having attained a level of influence within a nation, they’ve always overplayed their hand, often being expelled from various nations altogether, as they were from England in 1290 (a decree that has never formally been reversed, although it’s arguably been derogated in practice). I should point out that I’m not personally in favour of such punitive across-the-board overreactions by governments. Individuals should be punished for their individual crimes. Most Jews in this country are perfectly decent, law-abiding citizens who would be appalled were they to discover how certain extremist elements in Jewry are operating.

    9. If they controlled the world, why did they face expulsion and severe restrictions in Europe until fairly recently? How can you control and be restricted in what you can do? Don’t forget that until recent times Jews couldn’t be elected to high office in this country. So how did they control without the ability to be in high office?!

    One has to distinguish between hidden and public influence, and supremacist Jewry is amazingly adept at the former. The internationalist Jews who returned to England under Elizabeth I hid their identity very effectively. William Cecil and his son Robert, both crypto-Jews, virtually ruled England for 52 years (the regnum Cecilianum), persecuting Holy Church most terribly during that time. The Jews tried to gain more open acceptance at the time of Oliver Cromwell’s revolution, but didn’t succeed too well until the reign of Charles II.

    10. If Protocols is fact, then why was it published in an uncontrolled manner when the people supposedly in control were being exposed and could have controlled to stopped its release?

    Trust me, the supremacist Jews have always done everything in their power to contain the enormous damage caused by this exposure. Even Victor Marsden, the translator into English, appears to have died in rather suspicious circumstances. We’re all called by God to oppose their diabolical schemes, and to those who do He often grants extraordinary success. Remember, Divine Providence rules supreme.

    11. If they control the world, then why did anti-semitism take hold? It can’t be for sympathy because then as it takes hold then fiction becomes believable as fact which is surely counter to the aim of control!

    It would be wrong to regard anti-Semitism as harming the cause of the Self-Chosen. On the contrary, as Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism so clearly recognised, anti-Semitism is instrumental to their cause. Is it sympathy they thereby seek to engender? I’d suggest it’s rather a false Gentile guilt-complex that completely paralyses any opposition. Consequently, those who combat Judaic supremacism with hatred in their hearts are utterly foolish, since they only end up assisting them in their goals. We should oppose anti-gentilist malefactors firmly but fairly, and always with charity and prayer. They should be treated just like everyone else, neither receiving special privileges nor being marked out for special punishment.

    12. Where’s the evidence?

    All around us, starting with the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Obtain Michael Hoffman’s Judaism Discovered and E. Michael Jones’ The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. Study the Protocols and discover firsthand why it’s such a mistake to concentrate solely on the extrinsic evidence for their authenticity. Father Denis Fahey’s works are also excellent, as is Elizabeth Dilling’s The Plot Against Christianity. Explore Henry Makow’s site http://www.savethemales.ca as well as http://www.iamthewitness.com and http://www.realjewnews.com. We all have to make our own discoveries.

    Let’s not worry too much about our pensions on this earth. After all, there’s an eternal Pension in Heaven set aside for each of us if only we’re found worthy of it.

  160. Katy Newton — on 26th March, 2009 at 12:32 am  

    It’s a bit rich to whinge about ad hominem attacks and lack of “charity” when your “argument” consists of a list of wild, baseless allegations about a secret order of “supremacist Jews” being responsible for every single social crisis since 1290, Timothy.

  161. Sunny — on 26th March, 2009 at 1:31 am  

    Timothy: It was the leaders of supremacist Jewry that set Hitler up in the first place.

    lol, what the fuck? I’ve just caught up with this thread and frankly, you are a crazed conspiracy theorist nutjob.

  162. Rumbold — on 26th March, 2009 at 9:25 am  

    Timothy Johnson:

    Thank you for explaining your thinking. As far as I can tell, your theories rely on the Catch 22 mode of thought. This means that whatever the Jews do can be attributed to part of their control of the world. No argument can counter this, as it has no basis in fact or logic.

    Take your assertion that the Holocaust was a Jewish conspiracy. Do you offer any real evidence? No. Any informed guesswork? No. Yet because it fits into your mindset, it must be true.

    There is one thing I don’t understand though. Roman Catholics are supposed to follow the Pope. In the 19th century the Pope declared himself infallible, and past and present popes have rubbished the idea that the Holocaust was a Jewish conspiracy. So you are disobeying a man that you believe to be infallible, unless, of course, you are not a proper Roman Catholic.

  163. chairwoman — on 26th March, 2009 at 9:41 am  

    As it’s almost Pesach (or Passover in the common parlance), may I suggest our Tim takes extra care of his children.

  164. chairwoman — on 26th March, 2009 at 9:44 am  

    Before anybody takes that too seriously, gallows humour. OK?

    As our Matzot are manufactured in huge quantities in factories these days, I think it might be noticed that many Christian children disappeared around this time of year.

  165. Rumbold — on 26th March, 2009 at 9:55 am  

    When will you reveal your true form to us Chairwoman?

    Some Romans used to believe that it was Christians who stole children and used their blood in rituals (‘Blood of Christ’ and all that).

  166. douglas clark — on 26th March, 2009 at 10:20 am  

    Chairwoman is, quite obviously, a shape shifting alien.

    Not :-)

    Whereas young Mr Johnson may well be.

    It is quite insulting, well, I am not too up on being insulted to be honest, to read this sort of crap here. Foolishly, I thought these idiots had died out.

    Apparently not.

  167. chairwoman — on 26th March, 2009 at 10:30 am  

    “When will you reveal your true form to us Chairwoman?”

    “Chairwoman is, quite obviously, a shape shifting alien.”

    For those of you who remember the TV series ‘Dinosaurs’, picture ‘Earl Sinclair’s’ wife, ‘Fran’. :)

  168. douglas clark — on 26th March, 2009 at 10:32 am  

    Rumbold,

    I am reminded of the Jewish joke, which I paraphrase:

    “What’s the big deal? He was only dead for a couple of days….”

  169. Sid — on 26th March, 2009 at 10:48 am  

    I think the jokes goes like this:

    One Rabbi complains to the other Rabbi about Jews being victimised for the death of Christ again.

    The other Rabbi replies, “What’s the big deal. We only killed him for a few days”

    :-D
    **cracks me up every time, that one.

  170. Sid — on 26th March, 2009 at 10:51 am  

    I wonder how many hundreds of years of will take before Muslim jokes enters the rich canon of European religious jokes, of the “There was this catholic priest, jewish rabbi and muslim imam” type?

  171. Jai — on 26th March, 2009 at 10:58 am  

    Sid,

    I remember a joke about “3 young maulvis walking down a street” which is apparently hundreds of years old and from the subcontinent. A Pakistani-American guy posted it on Sepia Mutiny a few years ago. It was pretty funny.

    Wanna hear it ? It’s actually not offensive to Muslims, more of a ‘Father Ted’ kinda thing.

  172. douglas clark — on 26th March, 2009 at 11:01 am  

    Yup.

    That is, sort of the point, that Timothy Johnson seems incapable of seeing.

    To return to the point. Sunny is not wrong to argue that idiots such as Mr Johnson should be heard. It is up to the rest of us to take him down a notch or two.

    I’d like to think that that is the point of this internet thingy?

  173. Katy Newton — on 26th March, 2009 at 11:01 am  

    When will you reveal your true form to us Chairwoman?

    Shhh! The stars are not aligned!

  174. Sid — on 26th March, 2009 at 11:07 am  

    Jai, say it.

  175. Jai — on 26th March, 2009 at 11:10 am  

    Katy & Chairwoman,

    As an unwitting minion of my Jewish Overlords, may I just take this opportunity to thank both of you for rigging the Oscars this year and giving ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ all those awards.

    It was really nice for you to do that as a little favour to the Asian crew for welcoming you onto Pickled Politics during the past few years. Not that we had any choice in the matter, of course — this is, after all, your website. Hell, it’s your internet.

  176. Sid — on 26th March, 2009 at 11:16 am  

    sing it kids,
    Jesus don’t want me for a sunbeam
    Because sunbeams aren’t made like me

  177. douglas clark — on 26th March, 2009 at 11:23 am  

    Katy & Chairwoman,

    Can I just say it is important, to me at least, that you do not give up on posting here?

    Just saying.

  178. Jai — on 26th March, 2009 at 11:23 am  

    Sid,

    Jai, say it.

    3 earnest young maulvis are walking down the street somewhere in India during the region’s pre-colonial period. Suddenly, they notice an absolutely gorgeous woman ahead gently sashaying towards them, a bejewelled vision of elegant beauty, a houri on earth.

    Stunned, the first maulvi glances at her, then closes his eyes, saying “Zubanallah, zubanallah…..”

    The second maulvi looks at her for a few seconds, then averts his eyes, shaking his head and thinking “Mashallah, mashallah…..”

    The third maulvi keeps staring right at her, muttering “Inshallah, inshallah…..

  179. Sid — on 26th March, 2009 at 11:28 am  

    haha! good one. Although those formulas should be:

    Stunned, the first maulvi glances at her, then closes his eyes, saying “Nauzubillah!” (God protect me)

    The second maulvi looks at her for a few seconds, then averts his eyes, shaking his head and thinking “astaghfirullah!” (God forgive me)

    The third maulvi keeps staring right at her, muttering “Inshallah! Inshallah!” (God willing!)

  180. Rumbold — on 26th March, 2009 at 11:29 am  

    Heh.

    Jai:

    You only liked Slumdog because the song ‘Jai ho’ got you thinking…

  181. Steve M — on 26th March, 2009 at 11:31 am  

    Sid, How have you missed this one? (Original by the ‘Austin Lounge Lizards’)

  182. Jai — on 26th March, 2009 at 11:34 am  

    Rumbold,

    I think it was some kind of veiled slur about the type of girls I hook up with.

    Sid,

    Thanks for that ;) I think the original version was for people who was aware of some of the more well-known Urdu terms but not the more hardcore stuff.

    ************************

    By the way, Katy, since your posse is in charge of everything significant that happens in the world, can I just say that I have some concerns about the way you decided to end the final series of Battlestar Galactica this week.

  183. Steve M — on 26th March, 2009 at 11:36 am  

    There’s also ‘One True God’ by the aforementioned ‘Austin Lounge Lizards’.

  184. Rumbold — on 26th March, 2009 at 11:38 am  

    Jai:

    Well, it is not for me to judge.

    “but not the more hardcore stuff.”

    That got me remembering the first Punjabi adult chatline.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJvI6ad-WrM

  185. Sid — on 26th March, 2009 at 11:43 am  

    SteveM, my true god-damn excellent!

  186. Steve M — on 26th March, 2009 at 11:46 am  

    Something wrong with ‘Jesus loves me but he can’t stand you’?

  187. Sid — on 26th March, 2009 at 11:52 am  

    Jesus don’t like Joos, Moozlims and those weirdos who don’t cut they hair.

  188. Jai — on 26th March, 2009 at 12:01 pm  

    Rumbold,

    That got me remembering the first Punjabi adult chatline.

    Heh, great stuff. Yet another classic sketch.

    GGM really does need to be resurrected, especially in our post-9/11 and post-7/7 society.

  189. Steve M — on 26th March, 2009 at 12:13 pm  

    Sid, I meant the song.

  190. Sid — on 26th March, 2009 at 12:20 pm  

    And these are the lyrics:

    I know you smoke, I know you drink that brew,
    I just can’t abide a sinner like you.
    God can’t either, that’s why I know it’s true,
    That Jesus loves me but he can’t stand you.

    I’m going to heaven when I die,
    ’cause I’ve crossed every T and I’ve dotted every I
    My preacher tells me I’m god’s kind of guy,
    That’s why Jesus loves me and you’re gonna fry.

    God loves all his children, by gum,
    That doesn’t mean he won’t incinerate some,
    Can’t you feel those hot flames licking you?

    I’m raising my kids in a (self)righteous way,
    So don’t be sending your kids to my house to play,
    Yours will grow up stoned, left leaning and gay,
    Jesus called me and you’re gonna pay.

    Jesus loves me this I know, he told me where you’re gonna go,

    There’s room for your kind down below, Jesus loves me, this I know.

  191. Jai — on 26th March, 2009 at 12:27 pm  

    Replace ‘Jesus’ with ‘Allah’ (but leave the rest of the lyrics exactly as they are) and that could be Anjem Choudary or some other Islamist nutter ranting away.

    Some people have more in common with each other than they think.

  192. Imran Khan — on 26th March, 2009 at 2:46 pm  

    Timothy – I’ve read your reply and I have the following comments:

    Timothy – “Should any really effective and knowledgeable opposition to the Conspiracy arise, it’s usually quickly quashed.”

    But you are contradicting yourself. Such theories have abounded for hundreds of years and not been quashed. The fact that Protocols is supposed to be a hush hush revelation of Jewish control and has been around for over a century proves that it isn’t quickly quashed!!!

    Timothy – “It was the leaders of supremacist Jewry that set Hitler up in the first place. It’s true that he later fell out of favour with them, but in persecuting ordinary Jews he did exactly what his secret Zionist backers wanted, that is to force ordinary Jews out of Germany into Palestine whither they were initially so reluctant to go. Hitler himself had many Jews in his army – around 150,000 soldiers and 1,000 officers. He himself and many of his high-ranking personnel were themselves half or at least a quarter Jewish. The shocking truth is that supremacist, Zionist Jews architected the very real suffering of ordinary Jews during WW2.”

    Do you have any proof from accepted sources and academics fromleading universities?

    Again this is a contradiction with history because Hitler himself didn’t want Jews to go to Palestine but resettle elsewhere as he wanted to conquer that area himself. Hitler wanted an empire like the British and had his eyes set on the east and dominions near Germany.

    So again you are contradicting yourself because the people you say controlled him and brought him to power had a different plan to his own plan which he can’t have because he was under control.

    Timothy – “The leaders of supremacist Jewry manipulate all financial crises. Such activity is documented in the financial section of the Protocols, a section without parallel in Joly or other alleged sources. The recent turmoil on the markets is no unforeseen accident as they would have us believe. Since they have uncontested monopoly control over the credit of all governments, they can’t lose.”

    Again this isn’t true. The leading Jewish bank was Goldman Sachs and they almost went to the wall.

    Because of the financial crisis anti-semitism has risen as people blame the Jews again for the crash, so what benefit did this have to Jewish control of the world when all it brought was blame and re-enforcement of age old conspiracy theories as well as negative attention which is not good if you as you claim they want to maintain quiet control of the world.

    Also it is worth highlighting a bit of history to refute another point. Jews did not control the financial system. Because of restrictions in Christianity and wanting to bypass these, Christians asked Jews to take care of their wealth and earn interest on it which they couldn’t do. Hence Jews set-up banks which they were asked to do by the wealthy Christians and then they got blamed for doing what they were asked to do because they grew wealthy.

    So they were persecuted.

    Now that bit of quick history tells us the complete opposite to the claim namely one of control, where the Jews got wealth not influence but wealth in Europe that led to persecution. So they didn’t have control as this shows us because when they neared a position of comfort they were persecuted.

    Timothy said – “They don’t control the world openly – at least not yet. They do it from the shadows. That’s why it’s correct to describe them as a cryptocracy. But I think we may see a sea-change soon. Christian opponents of their rule, not to mention others who cherish their freedoms, will be persecuted under a new Terror – a prediction based on the Third Secret of Fatima revealed in 2000.”

    Ok so having read the Vatican website and this prediction I read it:
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

    Now this prediction is to do with Russia and Communism and universal calls for justice, human righst etc.

    At the heart of this prediction is a claim by the Catholic Church that it must consecrate the entire world and everyone in it which Pope John Paul II apparently did.

    If anything one could at a real stretch – and I mean a real stretch say that this refers to the loss of religion during communist times as the prediction isn’t very clear. But what does that have to do with Jewish control given that their rights as well as other faiths rights were curtailed under communism?

    Most Jews left Russia for Europe, America and Israel so how was this part of a control thing because the people who are supposed to control left!

    Timothy – “It’s only on the Internet that the last true vestiges of freedom from their control exist. And their stooges in government are now making sure that even that’s coming to a end, as demonstrated by the closing of Catholic Voice.”

    Again this is contradictory, lets take the Protocols as an example, freedom is being restricted to the internet but this has been freely circulated in many forms for over a hundred years despite supposed restrictions on freedom.

    Timothy – “The Protocols isn’t a novel or a work of fiction as you imagine. It’s an astonishingly subtle and quite ruthless plan for world domination, the like of which has never been seen before.”

    Does the writer say that?

    Timothy – “Despite their democratic show, their lobby groups are becoming ever more dictatorial. But you’re right in thinking they won’t be needed in the future once an open judeocracy is (temporarily) established.”

    No no no – you said they control the world and now your saying they are on the way to controlling the world. Either they control it as the Protocols say or they don’t. If they did control it as it claimed then that was already in place over 100 years ago when the book was written in order for the book to be true. So 100 years ago they had control and that then doesn’t explain the lobby groups. They wouldn’t be needed because the Protocols is supposed to be fact not fiction. If its fact you don’t need to lobby if you have control.

    Example – In Communist Russia the Communist Party didn’t have lobby groups because they had control. So if the Jews had control of the world why do they have lobby groups if the control has been in place for over one hundred years. It doesn’t add up.

    Timothy – “Again, it’s only recently that supremacist Jewry has attained such a height of power. In the past, history shows us that, having attained a level of influence within a nation, they’ve always overplayed their hand, often being expelled from various nations altogether, as they were from England in 1290 (a decree that has never formally been reversed, although it’s arguably been derogated in practice). I should point out that I’m not personally in favour of such punitive across-the-board overreactions by governments. Individuals should be punished for their individual crimes. Most Jews in this country are perfectly decent, law-abiding citizens who would be appalled were they to discover how certain extremist elements in Jewry are operating.”

    Again contradictory – Protocols is over a century old and defined as historic as many things are when they get over 100 years old. So you can say recent and rely on an old book which claimed supremacy at the time.

    The book is a basis for this claim and its date is a line in the sand from when it was written to say that Jews controlled the world so it can’t be claimed as a recent thing.

    Timothy – “One has to distinguish between hidden and public influence, and supremacist Jewry is amazingly adept at the former. The internationalist Jews who returned to England under Elizabeth I hid their identity very effectively. William Cecil and his son Robert, both crypto-Jews, virtually ruled England for 52 years (the regnum Cecilianum), persecuting Holy Church most terribly during that time. The Jews tried to gain more open acceptance at the time of Oliver Cromwell’s revolution, but didn’t succeed too well until the reign of Charles II.”

    History shows that opposite. Elizabeth I was a strong ruler and rarely listened to many people even those she liked.

    2 people having influence for 50+ years is hardly the basis for proof of international control.

    I’m sure you can find quickly influential Christians who had influence for many decades but they are not then accused of international control are they?!

    Timothy – “Trust me, the supremacist Jews have always done everything in their power to contain the enormous damage caused by this exposure. Even Victor Marsden, the translator into English, appears to have died in rather suspicious circumstances. We’re all called by God to oppose their diabolical schemes, and to those who do He often grants extraordinary success. Remember, Divine Providence rules supreme.”

    Well hardly Hitler a well known anti-semite opposed the Jews and his reign lasted a few years so hardly divine long term success.

    I am tired of typing but could say more but a lot of this is simply whispers with little basis.

    It is a bit like some Sufi and Brailwee sects claim that Abdul Wahab was a Jew although all he called for was a return to Orthodoxy in Islam. So blaming another community is easy and often nonsense.

    Basically you are asking us to believe in a major international conspiracy which can’t be be proved despite the fact it has alledgedly gone on for so long.

  193. douglas clark — on 26th March, 2009 at 4:23 pm  

    Can I just say that this is Pickled Politics at its’ best?

  194. chairwoman — on 26th March, 2009 at 4:25 pm  

    Dougie, I concur. It’s a shame there’s been so much other stuff in between.

  195. Rumbold — on 26th March, 2009 at 4:42 pm  

    Agreed Douglas. And well done Imran Khan.

  196. chairwoman — on 26th March, 2009 at 4:51 pm  

    Yes, Imran, you were superb :)

  197. Sid — on 26th March, 2009 at 5:12 pm  

    Agreed all. And great comment Imran, I’m proud of you.

  198. douglas clark — on 26th March, 2009 at 5:54 pm  

    Just a thought.

    As Don has said elsewhere we share a common set of beliefs, don’t we?

    I like to think so.

    I have more in common, I like to think, with Imran Khan than I have with my next door neighbour, or a very weird commentator on this internet thingy.

  199. Don — on 26th March, 2009 at 6:18 pm  

    Yes, that was real dedication, Imran. I was happy to go with mockery and contemptuous abuse.

  200. Jai — on 26th March, 2009 at 6:26 pm  

    I take it Imran gets a group hug from the PP family, then ? :)

  201. douglas clark — on 26th March, 2009 at 6:36 pm  

    Yup.

    And what is interesting is that this has fallen off the front page and is only being kept alive by the comments.

  202. douglas clark — on 26th March, 2009 at 6:44 pm  

    Yup.

    And what is interesting is that this has fallen off the front page and is only being kept alive by the comments.

    (This message may appear twice, or not at all… blame it on PP, not me,,,)

  203. Timothy Johnson — on 26th March, 2009 at 9:00 pm  

    Rumbold, You raise a good question:

    There is one thing I don’t understand though. Roman Catholics are supposed to follow the Pope. In the 19th century the Pope declared himself infallible, and past and present popes have rubbished the idea that the Holocaust was a Jewish conspiracy. So you are disobeying a man that you believe to be infallible, unless, of course, you are not a proper Roman Catholic.

    The fact is that the Pope is only infallible when he solemnly declares on a matter of faith or morals that is binding on the whole Church. Outside this ecclesial sphere of faith and morals, he is as fallible (i.e. deceivable) as you or I.

    Now I openly maintain that, as regards the “Holocaust”, he is sorely deceived, and I took issue with him on exactly this point in Catholic Voice shortly before it was taken down.

    It’s true that Pope Benedict publicly deplores so-called “Holocaust-denial” and has even recently seen fit to punish clerics over it (e.g. Bishop Williamson), but no one can justly be excommunicated for denying beliefs that lie outside of Divine Revelation and possess no intrinsic connection to it. These are matters of free historical enquiry, and the ministers of Holy Church, unless they abuse their office, will always respect the liberty of her children therein.

    That said, of course, those who maintain

  204. Rumbold — on 26th March, 2009 at 9:03 pm  

    Timothy Johnson:

    Thank you for that clarification. I didn’t know that a distinction existed. I still think that Imran Khan (#193) roundly took apart your argument though.

  205. Imran Khan — on 26th March, 2009 at 9:51 pm  

    Timothy – “The fact is that the Pope is only infallible when he solemnly declares on a matter of faith or morals that is binding on the whole Church. Outside this ecclesial sphere of faith and morals, he is as fallible (i.e. deceivable) as you or I.”

    So was the Pope infallible when he declared the crusades which were binding on the whole church?

    You do realise that although “infallible” the Pope ordered the death of thousands of Jews and Muslims by allowing Crusaders leeway to commit gross crimes against humanity. So was this infallible?

    You claim the Jews controlled the world and still do but one of the Pope’s Representatives – Richard the Lionheart who went to the Middle East to rid the lands of Muslims and those that lived with them namely Jews, non-white christians and other religions.

    Now here is the issue when the Pope’s Representative – remember you said the Pope was infallible – got ill it was the leader of the Muslims Saladin who sent his personal physician to treat him. That physicians name was none other than the renowned Jewish Scholar Maimonides.

    Side note: for those that don’t know Maimonides is held in such high regard even today by the Orthodox Community that some Orthodox will hurt you if you say anything bad about Maimonides. The reason is because he is held in such high regard – thats his status.

    Side Note 2: During Richard’s reign Jews were heavily persecuted and many killed. Not at Richard’s orders but that was the climate of the time.

    Now please remember you claim that Jews controlled the world and this control was exposed by the Protocols centuries later.

    So here we have a leading Jewish Theologian and Scientist who has been sent to treat an ill representative of the infallible Pope who has ordered holy war. Maimonides treated Richard the Lionheart and returned to live in the Muslim world.

    Why do I tell you this little remembered and sometimes little know historical fact.

    Well Timothy said Jews controlled the world and thus had been subject to those who hit back at their plans.

    Now here we have someone who has been sent by the Pope to wipe out essentially anyone who wasn’t white and christian in the Holy Land. We have the leading Jewish Thelogian of the time who is sent to treat him.

    Now if Jews controlled the world – why was he sent by a Muslim Ruler – a Muslim Ruler to treat someone who had come to kil them both?

    Also if Jews controlled the world then why was a leading Catholic Envoy of the Pope cured by a Jewish Doctor? What did Maimonides have to gain by keeping Richard alive if the Jews wanted to or even controlled the world. Richard was his mortal enemy and surely a major blockade to the “Jewish World Control Plan” so why keep him alive?

    It wasn’t part of the Jewish World Control Plan because there was no such plan.

    But remember this was the nonsense being peddled then and still Maimonides treated him despite the grave danger that Richard posed to the Jews leaving aside the supposed control plan.

    This exposes the reality that there wasn’t a plan to control the world it was simply a figment of immagination that carried on through the centuries until it was put together in a FICTIONAL work called the Protocols.

    Historical evidence clearly shows there was no plan.

    One other point just to refute the Jews Control The World point. The oldest complete Torah in the world is the Aleppo Codex and was written by the Jewish Community in what is now Syria and moved to Jerusalem. It was written in the 10th Century and there it remained under study for centuries.

    The Crusaders came and ransacked Jerusalem under orders from the Pope who is infallible in religious matters pertaining to the entire Church. So the Crusades applied to the entire Church so this order is infallible and not a method for Jews to control the world because the Pope is immune to Jewish Control because we’ve already been told that in Religious Matters applying to the entire Church he is infallible and divinely guided. So this can’t be part of a Jewish Control The World Plot.

    The Crusaders having killed non-white Christians, Muslims and Jews then took the Torah for ransom.

    The Jews fled to Egypt and there arranged the payment of the ransom, most likely having fled they wouldn’t have had all the money so its quite possible they had to turn for aid to the Muslims who ruled Egypt.

    So if Jews controlled the world why did they lose their most valuable religious manuscript at that point and why if they controlled the world did they have to pay to get it back?!

    In the 20th Century how many dictators pay for things in their own control. They just take, take, take.

    But no here we see they had to pay to get their own religious manuscript back and yet they controlled the world! Does that argument make sense anymore?

    That is of course not mentioning the fact that the Jews who controlled the world went to Egypt which was under Muslim control!!!!

    Oh and if you want to carry on trying I’ll start on the Spanish Inquisition as further proof against your argument ;-)

    I am only stopping because I am busy and just had time to type two examples quickly :-)

    It is clear the Jews Control The World Argument is fictional nonsense and I can keep refuting your arguments using factual historical evidence.

  206. Timothy Johnson — on 26th March, 2009 at 10:11 pm  

    Imran, I’ve just noticed your reply, for which many thanks. I’ll try to answer your objections in the next day or two when I’ve had time to do them full justice.

  207. Refresh — on 27th March, 2009 at 2:35 am  

    ‘Oh and if you want to carry on trying I’ll start on the Spanish Inquisition as further proof against your argument’

    Imran, I like your style. Do continue.

  208. Ravi Naik — on 27th March, 2009 at 8:07 am  

    So was the Pope infallible when he declared the crusades which were binding on the whole church?

    Imran, it doesn’t work like that.

    “Infallibility” only comes to play when the Pope declares explicitly it to be so, and this is done very rarely. In the last 3 centuries, it only happened twice.

  209. Rumbold — on 27th March, 2009 at 9:48 am  

    Regarding the Spnaish Inquisition, the pope authorised it, but it was strictly controlled by the Spanish monarchs. A more appropriate example would be the older Papal Inquistion, which had a remit everywhere else, and was under control of the church.

    Also, I think papal infallibility only dates from the 19th century.

  210. chairwoman — on 27th March, 2009 at 11:17 am  

    Before anybody else says it – “Nobody asks for the Spanish Inquisition”.

  211. Ravi Naik — on 27th March, 2009 at 11:24 am  

    Also, I think papal infallibility only dates from the 19th century.

    Correct, Rumbold. Furthermore, the official position of the Church is not necessarily considered part of the Catholic doctrine. For instance, their official stance is that the Holocaust was real, and they even made this priest a saint. However, denying the Holocaust is not considered going against the Church.

  212. Ravi Naik — on 27th March, 2009 at 11:38 am  

    It is clear the Jews Control The World Argument is fictional nonsense and I can keep refuting your arguments using factual historical evidence.

    Refuting is only possible if both of you agree with the same rules. You can’t say you are beating Timothy in chess, when he is playing checkers.

    Timothy pretty much exemplifies how we establish the truth: by trust. You are not providing concrete “factual historical evidence”, you are providing the information from what you, I and mainstream consider to be credible sources: historians, scientists, etc. In other words, we trust their word because we ourselves have not seen the evidence, nor do we have the expertise to evaluate that evidence.

    Timothy does not believe in them. He believes that everyone (including Jewish survivors) are controlled by a cryptocracy. He trusts non-reputable sources (his criteria is whoever agrees with his conspiracies).

    In any case, I still believe that any ISP has the right to define what material can be hosted in their machines, and shut down if they violate them. I am also content that the material that Timothy hosted in his site is deeply anti-semitic.

  213. Timothy Johnson — on 27th March, 2009 at 7:06 pm  

    To answer your objections, Imran.

    The fact that Protocols is supposed to be a hush hush revelation of Jewish control and has been around for over a century proves that it isn’t quickly quashed!!!

    The judeocrats no longer concentrate on quashing the Protocols themselves. That might well prove counter-productive. They no longer make simplistic strategic errors of this kind. Instead they target those who view the Protocols as authentic evidence of their global conspiracy. Furthermore, they wish those who purchase a copy of this work to know that they are forbidden to contest the theory that it’s a plagiarized forgery, and this on pain of being regarded as psychotic hate-mongers. That’s why (i) booksellers like Amazon are perfectly free to sell the work, but (ii) are required to provide a “health warning” placed by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.

    Do you have any proof from accepted sources and academics from leading universities [regarding your claim that Hitler was sponsored by international Judaism]?

    Academia was bought up long ago with the immense power of Jewish finance. But if you’re interested in this question, Jim Condit Jr. provides a very thorough 2 hour presentation at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6759022809518563654. It answers your other erroneous claims on this subject.

    The leading Jewish bank was Goldman Sachs and they almost went to the wall.

    Real financial control doesn’t lie with commercial banks. It lies with the Rothschild-owned central banks like the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve. Casualties further down the line are just minor collateral damage in the grand scheme of things. If they happen to be Jewish, that’s no bad thing, as it “proves” that Jews suffer like everyone else, effectively putting gentiles off the scent.

    Because of the financial crisis anti-semitism has risen…

    Indeed. But remember the paradoxical truth stated previously: genuine anti-Semitism, as opposed to the kind Catholic Voice was accused of, doesn’t harm the judeocrats at all. On the contrary it positively aids them. Riots and other acts of public disorder against Jewish institutions and banks only further their plans to impose a police-state on us. It’s a textbook application of the Hegelian triad: thesis meets antithesis and leads to synthesis. In other words, create a serious problem, arouse an unhealthy reaction to it, and then impose your pre-determined solution. The judeocracy are complete masters of the technique and befuddle the so-called “goyim” every time.

    It is worth highlighting a bit of history… Jews set up banks which they were asked to do by the wealthy Christians and then they got blamed for doing what they were asked to do because they grew wealthy.

    Perhaps you refer to the Knights Templar, traditionally regarded as the first modern bankers. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with banking per se. But fraudulent practice, usury, and fractional reserve banking are simply immoral. Surely anyone who practices such criminality should be punished irrespective of their religious convictions. Jewish historians tend to present Jewish financiers as entirely blameless in such affairs and persecuted solely out of gentile greed and jealousy. But is this credible?

    [The Message of Fatima] is to do with Russia and Communism and universal calls for justice, human rights etc. At the heart of this prediction is a claim by the Catholic Church that it must consecrate the entire world and everyone in it which Pope John Paul II apparently did.

    The Message of Fatima refers to neither Communism nor to a consecration of the world as you incorrectly state. It mentioned “Russia” and requested the formal consecration of “Russia” by the whole hierarchy of the Catholic Church, led by the Pope, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This is a pre-condition both of world peace and of the conversion of “Russia”. Such a consecration has never been carried out by any Pope in the manner clearly stipulated by Heaven. Apart from Pope Pius XII, they have refused to use the word “Russia” at all in their substitute consecrations.

    Now Catholic Voice had its own very particular take on what the Blessed Virgin Mary meant by “Russia”, this interpretation being at the core of its thinking. You can read it here on the Web Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20071012235842/www.catholicvoice.co.uk/khazar.htm. Simply put, “Russia” refers to the Khazar Jew conspiratorial elite, the Ashkenazi wing of international Jewry which hails from the ancient steppes of Russia. I believe they will be the object of the most extraordinary conversion in the history of the Church.

    The Protocols… has been freely circulated in many forms for over a hundred years despite supposed restrictions on freedom.

    It hasn’t been circulated quite as freely as you imagine. However, as I’ve indicated above, that discussion is academic, since the judeocrats are more interested in chanelling our interpretation of the book than outlawing the book itself.

    Does the writer say that?

    Not quite sure what you mean by this.

    You said they [the judeocrats] control the world and now your saying they are on the way to controlling the world.

    Not true. The judeocracy doesn’t openly control the world – at least not yet. The Protocols say the same thing, e.g. “When we ascend the throne of the world…” (no 21). They congratulate themselves on their past successes but focus more on what they intend to do after they have achieved total, open hegemonic control over the goy. At present, their power is deliberately hidden and anonymous. That’s why we call it a cryptocracy.

    Protocols is over a century old… So you can[’t] say [it’s] recent…

    I don’t.

    History shows that… Elizabeth I was a strong ruler and rarely listened to many people even those she liked.

    Yes, she undoubtedly had some talent for leadership but her key policies were devised by the crypto-Jew William Cecil, the arch-chameleon of his day (he used to walk about court during Mary’s reign with a huge rosary by his side, throwing it away to become a Protestant as soon as Elizabeth ascended the throne). What Cecil wanted he got, including the head of Mary Queen of Scots which Elizabeth weakly tried to save.

    People having influence for 50+ years is hardly the basis for proof of international control.

    Clandestine Jewry likes to use malleable gentiles in its cause and will extend their lives for as long as they continue to be useful. Consider the cases of Popes John Paul I and John Paul II. The former was murdered after 33 days for attempting to clear the Vatican of judeo-masonic infiltration, whereas the latter (born of a Jewish mother) who failed to investigate his predecessor’s suspiciously untimely death, and who spent much of his time visiting synagogues and apologizing to the Jews for alleged Christian persecution, reigned for almost 27 years.

    Hitler, a well known anti-Semite, opposed the Jews and his reign lasted a few years, so hardly divine long term success.

    The true history of WW2 has been rewritten by “The Party” (to borrow an analogy from Orwell’s 1984). Hitler came to power on the back of Jewish Wall Street money. He was of Jewish extraction himself, although he carefully sought to hide this. His Aryan brand of racism mirrored Jewish racism, and his occultic interests mirrored Jewish kabbalism. His anti-Semitism was cultivated by the cryptocracy in order to push liberal German Jews into Palestine and so force them to retain their Orthodox Jewish identity which they were rapidly losing. The cryptocrats even had Woodrow Wilson block Jewish immigration into the US lest German Jews should emigrate there instead – a disaster for their Zionist plans.

    “From the 19th century until the ascension of the Third Reich, Germany had been the centre of the movement known to history as the ‘Haskalah’, which cultivated and inspired the Judaic version of the Enlightenment that revolted against the Talmud. It was German Judaics who pioneered the break with 2000 years of suffocating rabbinic rules, regulations and totalitarian mind control. This was an unconscionable sin in the eyes of the rabbis of Orthodox Judaism… According to leading… rabbis such as Schneerson, Yosef and Schach, the instrument of [God’s] righteous wrath was Adolf Hitler.” (Judaism Discovered, pp. 829-830, Michael Hoffman)

    The cryptocracy brought Hitler down because he went “Bonapartist”. In other words, he used his new-found muscle to turn against the hand that fed him – in his case by deciding to create his own money rather than borrowing it on credit from them.

  214. Katy Newton — on 27th March, 2009 at 9:10 pm  

    Secret Jews killed Mary Queen of Scots. You read it here first.

  215. Timothy Johnson — on 27th March, 2009 at 9:37 pm  

    Ravi, I think your last contribution (213) is particularly perspicacious.

    Despite appearances, however, I believe I’m genuinely motivated by a desire to know the truth not by any desire to embrace so-called conspiracy theories as such.

    As regards what you write about ISPs having a perfect right to take down websites they don’t approve of, I agree with you 100%. I wrote to my ISP on the very day Catholic Voice was taken down to inform that I understood their difficulty following John Mann’s hostile criticism and I thanked them for hosting my website in the past. Unfortunately the Sunday Herald misrepresented me as criticising them for “hounding me off the Internet”.

    Finally, I’d be obliged if you could tell me where you locate your definition of “anti-Semitism”.

  216. Rumbold — on 27th March, 2009 at 9:58 pm  

    Timothy Johnson:

    What evidence would convince you that your theories are false?

  217. Don — on 27th March, 2009 at 11:42 pm  

    A desire to know the truth is healthy, a desire to know The Truth is not.

  218. Katy Newton — on 28th March, 2009 at 12:18 am  

    Clandestine Jewry likes to use malleable gentiles in its cause and will extend their lives for as long as they continue to be useful.

    Secret Jews hold the secret to eternal life. You read it here first.

  219. douglas clark — on 28th March, 2009 at 12:25 am  

    Timothy Johnson,

    Two points if I may.

    There is nothing in the biographical details of William Cecil to suggest he was a crypto Jew. If anything he was at heart a Puritan, albeit a strangely ambitious one. He also seemed to have been extremely loyal to Elizabeth 1, and she to him. It was his rejection of a Catholic succession that did for Mary Queen of Scots, there seems to be no arguement there. But, if he was conspiring with anyone, it was with Elizabeth 1.

    So I don’t know why you feel free to call him a crypto Jew. His family seems to trace it’s roots back in English history.

    —————

    More to the point, I came across this whilst googling the internet:

    http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/jim-condit-jr-ohio-kkk.htm

    Goodness! What nasty things they have to say about Jim Condit Jr!

    I must admit I thought it must be some other chap, but the pictures, on your google link and on mine above, look the same don’t you think?

    Are you sure you want this chap as an, ahem, bedfellow?

    I make no comment one way or the other on the accuracy of the allegations, which include the nasty notion that Jim Condit Jr may have links to Stormfront and thus to the KKK. But these comments are coming from an organisation that seems to share similar beliefs to your good self. Perhaps you’d like to call them up? Maybe they can clear up this little, err, misunderstanding.

  220. Timothy Johnson — on 28th March, 2009 at 1:40 pm  

    There is nothing in the biographical details of William Cecil to suggest he was a crypto Jew.

    Douglas, I agree that publicly available evidence for the Jewish roots of the powerful oligarchic Cecil family does appear to be a little elusive – perhaps you’ll want to say “non-existent”.

    John Coleman refers to the “Jewish Cecil family that had controlled the British monarchy since a Cecil became the private secretary and lover of Queen Elizabeth I …” (Conspirators’ Hierarchy), and we have circumstantial evidence in Cecil’s passionate anti-Catholicism, his employment at Court of Jews like Dr Lopez, his relations with the Jewish Venetian bankers, his own close association with the kabbalist John Dee (educated by Rabbi Loew), and, if the historian William Thomas Walsh is correct, his help in establishing an early version of Freemasonry, the Gentile arm of International Jewry.

    However, I accept that judaeophile machinations don’t constitute proof of Jewishness, so I’m not going to push this particular point at present.

    Goodness! What nasty things they have to say about Jim Condit Jr!… Are you sure you want this chap as an, ahem, bedfellow?

    I enjoyed the abuse. A very nicely put piece of guilt-by-association. But the fact is that Catholic Voice never had any “bedfellows”. It was quite eclectic. It had differences of opinion, often of a very substantial nature, with every website or author it ever quoted. Is that so strange? How many people, for example, do you know who think exactly alike with you on every major issue?

    Back to Jim Condit Jr. If these allegations are true, this wouldn’t be the first time I’ve taken issue with him. In the past he and I have communicated with each other concerning his sedevacantist views. He believes that the papal see is empty and that the current incumbent is an anti-pope. I don’t.

    However, his allegedly white-racist views should not prevent any fair-minded person from giving his well-documented video a hearing. At most, it should simply put them on guard for evidence of such bias. I myself didn’t see any.

  221. Ravi Naik — on 28th March, 2009 at 2:47 pm  

    Douglas, I agree that publicly available evidence for the Jewish roots of the powerful oligarchic Cecil family does appear to be a little elusive – perhaps you’ll want to say “non-existent”…

    However, I accept that judaeophile machinations don’t constitute proof of Jewishness, so I’m not going to push this particular point at present.

    You already pushed it, until Douglas forced you to admit that there is no concrete evidence. But that won’t stop you from believing that William Cecil was a crypto-Jew who controlled England for many decades.

    There is absolutely no evidence that there is a cryptocracy lead by Jews – in fact, common sense would say otherwise – not only for the fact that Jews were massacred and persecuted by the Vatican first, and then by an “enlightened” Europe, but also it makes no sense that an alleged powerful cryptocracy would expose herself in such a ridiculous and open document like the Protocols.

  222. chairwoman — on 28th March, 2009 at 3:30 pm  

    It’s astonishing that somebody manages to combine rampant antisemitism with the literal worship of at least two Jews, Jesus and Mary, and utmost respect for many others, Joseph, the Apostles, and John the Baptist (and his Mother, St. Anne) to name but several.

    I am genuinely baffled why somebody of this mindset would imagine that these Jews would intercede with The Almighty on his behalf.

    And blown away by the hypocrisy of it all.

  223. Don — on 28th March, 2009 at 3:50 pm  

    I wonder how Timothy would reconcile this with his theory.

    http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/222708

  224. blah — on 28th March, 2009 at 4:45 pm  

    chairwoman
    “It’s astonishing that somebody manages to combine rampant antisemitism with the literal worship of at least two Jews, Jesus and Mary, and utmost respect for many others, Joseph, the Apostles, and John the Baptist (and his Mother, St. Anne) to name but several.

    I am genuinely baffled why somebody of this mindset would imagine that these Jews would intercede with The Almighty on his behalf.”

    Not really since they dont see them as “Jews” anymore – they see it in religious terms not racial terms. Indeed Judaism has the same view- someone like Jesus, based on the view they have of him from Christian sources, would have considered to have left the religion and no longer be a Jew .

    The notion that Jews are a race rather than a religion is a later invention of the Nazis. Opposition before that on a Christian basis was because they werent Christians and opposition to the teaching of their religion. Being Jewish is a religion not a race.

  225. Don — on 28th March, 2009 at 5:14 pm  

    Blah,

    You’re mistaken on pretty much all counts.

  226. Ravi Naik — on 28th March, 2009 at 5:40 pm  

    You’re mistaken on pretty much all counts.

    What exactly do you disagree?

  227. douglas clark — on 28th March, 2009 at 5:47 pm  

    Timothy, you are doing what all good conspiracists do, you are throwing up names as though that proved your point or something.

    The evidence from the time suggests that Elizabeth the First died a Virgin Queen. It is far more likely that she was enamoured of Robert Dudley, The Earl of Leicester than a man thirteen years her senior.

    An earlier draft of my previous post was going to refer to Dr Lopez, not through Cecils’ employment of the doctor – is there any evidence whatsoever that he was involved in that? – but in his complete silence on the subject of Dr Lopez execution for an alleged poisoning plot against Elizabeth. Given that his entire life and works had been directed at supporting her and protecting her, this is somewhat unsuprising and I excised it from my final comments.

    John Dee always comes up, doesn’t he? The wikipedia entry suggests that he was nothing like the person you describe…..

    John Coleman? Who the heck is John Coleman? I’d like to see his sources for his knowledge of an affair between William Cecil and Elizabeth the First as it appears to have passed all other historians by.

    If you type ‘John Coleman Conspirators Hierarchy’ into Google the first reference is to a site called educate yourself. (For some reason I can’t link directly to it..)

    Which might be better referred to as mis-educate yourself.

    ———————

    On the subject of Jim Condit Jr, I’ll pass. I’ll merely remind you that he is one of your ‘references’, not mine.

  228. Timothy Johnson — on 28th March, 2009 at 5:48 pm  

    “It’s astonishing that somebody manages to combine rampant antisemitism with the literal worship of at least two Jews, Jesus and Mary.” (Chairwoman)

    I dealt with this misconception on Catholic Voice in the article “To Call Jesus a Jew is a Blasphemy”. You can find a copy at the bottom of http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=3606.

    I largely agree with Blah’s comments. So in fact do the rabbis, as proved by the following:

    If an ethnic Jew adopts Christianity, he is considered by the rabbis to have lost not just his religion but his ethnic identity as well. On the other hand, if he were to adopt a non-Christian religion like Buddhism, he would still be considered an ethnic Jew, albeit not a religious one.

    This indicates the total gulf between Judaism and Christianity. It also shows how fundamentally misleading it is to insist that Jesus and Mary were “Jews”. They weren’t. They were Judaeans. Don’t let anyone tell you the two terms are synonymous.

  229. Don — on 28th March, 2009 at 7:14 pm  

    Ravi,

    The idea of Jewishness as a race was not an innovation of the Nazis. In medieval times they were often considered a distinct species, physiologically different, not human.

    If one is jewish through the matrilinean line then one is considered as jewish, regardless of religious belief or adherence. It is not a simple matter of religious belief.

    Blah is right on one point, Timothy and his deranged ilk can rationalise away the jewish origins of their faith. As far as I can tell from reading the bible, Jesus was in no doubt at all that he was jewish.

  230. chairwoman — on 28th March, 2009 at 7:30 pm  

    Blah

    “someone like Jesus, based on the view they have of him from Christian sources, would have considered to have left the religion and no longer be a Jew .”

    Jesus was always a Jew. He wanted people to be more observant rather than the other way round.

    It was those that came after him, Paul in particular, that made it a new religion. Pre Paul, it was just one of many Jewish sects.

  231. chairwoman — on 28th March, 2009 at 7:38 pm  

    Timothy – I am always astonished at the way some Christians manage to completely misunderstand the origins of their religion.

    My late husband, though an avowed disbeliever, was a ‘cradle Catholic’ educated at a strict Catholic boys’ school in the North West. Though he had rejected the Church’s teaching, his grasp of Catholic theology was a credit to his teachers. I wish he were here to correct your misconceptions.

    Of course to misconstrue the bible is somewhat ingenuous, but the only way that you can balance your rabid anti-Jewishness with your worship of Jews.

  232. douglas clark — on 28th March, 2009 at 7:52 pm  

    Timothy,

    It is convenient, handy even, to hide behind the word ‘blasphemy’ isn’t it? Lets you get away with almost anything, in some circles, I’d have thought.

    It is a while since I’ve read the Bible, but I agree with Don. Jesus was a Jew, saw himself as such and as an allegedly religious Christian why are you contradicting him?

    In Revelations Jesus says:

    “I, Yeshua (“Jesus”), have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the assemblies. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.”

    Recalling, perhaps that David was a Jew. And the claimed for descent of Jesus from such illustrious ancestors. Doesn’t sound a lot like denial to me.

    Or here:

    “But one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals.”

    That is Jesus – again – claiming an inheritance from his Jewish roots.

    Not that I believe a word of it, you understand….

  233. douglas clark — on 28th March, 2009 at 8:05 pm  

    Chairwoman,

    Here is an old, nerdy, joke:

    “No honey, I can’t come to bed yet.

    There is someone wrong on the internet.”

    Just saying.

  234. Katy Newton — on 29th March, 2009 at 1:10 am  

    If an ethnic Jew adopts Christianity, he is considered by the rabbis to have lost not just his religion but his ethnic identity as well.

    You do talk nonsense, don’t you? Jewish religious law is not concerned with “ethnic identity” and nor are rabbis. The fact that someone has converted from Judaism to Christianity doesn’t stop them from having a Jewish mother. If a Jew is baptised, he becomes a Christian as far as religion goes, and stops being a Jew (although it is very easy for Jews who convert out to return to Judaism if they decide to). Same for converts to Islam or Buddhism or anything else. That doesn’t mean he can’t join his family for Friday night dinner or go to synagogue with them or eat smoked salmon and chopped liver or run the world economic system or whatever it is that your fevered brain considers to be ethnic Jewish activity.

  235. chairwoman — on 29th March, 2009 at 9:26 am  

    Douglas – It makes a change from ‘too tired’. :)

  236. Ravi Naik — on 29th March, 2009 at 12:36 pm  

    It was those that came after him, Paul in particular, that made it a new religion. Pre Paul, it was just one of many Jewish sects.

    That is absolutely correct. Jesus did not want to break his Jewish roots, but rather reform them. Which is why – and Timothy seems to forget that – the Catholic faith does include the Old Testament.

    Furthermore, Jesus only preached to Jews – it was, as Charwomen said – one of many Jewish sects. It was St. Paul who made it a religion and expanded it to non-Jews, starting with Romans. It is known this was a point of contention between the disciples and St. Paul. The disciples – include St. Peter – believed that only Jews could be saved.

  237. Timothy Johnson — on 30th March, 2009 at 12:32 pm  

    “Jewish religious law is not concerned with ‘ethnic identity’ and nor are rabbis.” (Katy Newton)

    In this, Katy, you diverge from the Orthodox rabbis. Perhaps, however, you don’t claim to represent Orthodox Judaism but rather a more liberal, reformed variety.

    Rabbi Neusner writes: “Jews who practise Christiantiy cease to be part of the ethnic Jewish community, while those who practise Buddhism remain within it.” (Defining Judaism, Jacob Neusner)

    The fact is that Jews are primarily defined by their attitude to Jesus, only secondarily by their racial antecedents. Those who convert to Christianity are excommunicated religiously and ethnically. Even those who simply read the Gospels are seen as “idolaters” bound for hell (BT Sanhedrin 90a).

    Maimonides wrote: “A person who proselytizes any single Jew, whether man or woman, on behalf of false deities [foremost among whom is Jesus], should be stoned to death.” (Mishneh Torah)

    The 12th invocation of the Amidah – the central prayer of Judaism recited three times daily – is the curse on Christians.

    “Jesus was a Jew.” (Douglas Clark)

    Douglas, you and Chairwoman appear to be missing my point altogether. It turns on the fundamental distinction between “Judaean” and “Jew”. Failure to understand it, I maintain, is at the root of so much misunderstanding today.

    “Jews” are nowhere mentioned in Sacred Scripture. Trust me in this. I read the Scriptures in the ancient Greek regularly, both the Septuagint and the New Testament. The term employed is always Ioudaioi (Judaeans).

    In my short article (linked to above) I trace the evolving application of the word “Judaean” within Sacred Scripture and then go on to discuss the origin of the much later English term “Jew”. I maintain that the latter term should be applied strictly to those “pseudo-Judaeans” who deny Jesus.

    This is in line with what the Evangelist St John wrote in his Apocalypse (2.9, 3.9) where God Himself expressly tells us not to confuse the Synagogue of Satan with Judaeans.

    Hence my confidence in proclaiming:

    – that Our Lord Jesus Christ was a “Judaean”, not a “Jew”;

    – and that, given the antithetical nature of these two designations, it is (objectively speaking at least) blasphemous to say otherwise.

  238. bananabrain — on 30th March, 2009 at 3:10 pm  

    against my better judgement, i thought i should perhaps lend a hand here. it is nice to see reasoned argument winning the day for once as opposed to the ongoing tolerance for the malevolent wittering of what now appears to be an ensconced chorus of islamist trolls and their “progressive” figleaves. i have neither the time to waste nor the inclination to engage in dialogue where only condemnation is sought.

    your friend “timothy johnson” seems to be taking refuge in sources where he no doubt expects that refutation of his ludicrous and disgusting views will be more difficult than merely pointing out that his sources are neo-nazis. this is known as the “expose the talmud” gambit.

    In this, Katy, you diverge from the Orthodox rabbis. Perhaps, however, you don’t claim to represent Orthodox Judaism but rather a more liberal, reformed variety.

    perhaps, then, you’d like me, as a more traditionally-minded, halakhically-observant jew, to point out the copious difficulties with your arguments?

    Rabbi Neusner writes: “Jews who practise Christianity cease to be part of the ethnic Jewish community, while those who practise Buddhism remain within it.” (Defining Judaism, Jacob Neusner) The fact is that Jews are primarily defined by their attitude to Jesus, only secondarily by their racial antecedents.

    that is an understandably self-serving interpretation of a quote for which you give no context and, of course, mislead by extrapolating a general principle which suits you. the issue here is one of apostasy. all interpretations of jewish law hold that worship of anything/One but G!D makes one a “min”, or heretic. what of course you fail to point out is that anyone who worships using a statue of buddha would also be violating this principle. it would make far more sense to use islam as an example than buddhism if neusner were making the argument you are attributing to him. the reason he doesn’t is that he isn’t making it in the first place, as you well know.

    Those who convert to Christianity are excommunicated religiously and ethnically.

    perhaps you’d like to tell us what an “ethnic” excommunication looks and sounds like, i’m sure i’m not aware of the existence such a procedure.

    Even those who simply read the Gospels are seen as “idolaters” bound for hell (BT Sanhedrin 90a).

    the precise text has rabbi aqiba saying, in the context of people who do not receive a “portion in the World to Come” (this is *not* the same as going to “hell”, which is a far later concept and generally involves the word “gehinnom”), that this group includes those who read “external books”. the gospels are not referred to by name, albeit there are some who would of course include them in a list which includes gnostic literature and greek philosophy. the jerusalem talmud gives three examples, namely the apocryphal “wisdom literature” of ben sira and ben la’anah, but also goes on to compare the specific example of homeric poetry to reading a letter. it is worth noting that in spite of the fact that the talmudic sages forbid ben sira, it is obvious from various other places that not only did were its contents well-known, but quite often quoted. some authorities conclude that the prohibition can only therefore be against public reading of these works, as if they were scriptural, whereas private reading would not count. and, incidentally, rabbi aqiba lived about 100 years after jesus, which of course was several centuries before the gospels became canonised, so there’s a bit of a logical problem there to say the least.

    i think that disposes of that example.

    Maimonides wrote: “A person who proselytizes any single Jew, whether man or woman, on behalf of false deities [foremost among whom is Jesus], should be stoned to death.” (Mishneh Torah)

    stoning, as maimonides also makes clear elsewhere, is the standard penalty for idolatry and, incidentally, also the same penalty as that for gathering sticks in violation of Shabbat. there are many other ways that one can incur this particular death penalty which cannot, of course, be practically carried out if you know anything about the jurisprudential checks and balances. if you give the location of this quote, i think we’ll find that the bit you’ve put in [quotes] is in fact not in the text and is, in fact, your interpretation. the fact is that maimonides regarded christianity as idolatrous. this view did not become normative, it was rejected by rabbeinu gershom (germany, C11th), rabbeinu tam and the tosafists (france C12th) and more importantly the meiri, who explicitly points out that not even image-worship is the criterion of idolatry, but rather unethical and violent behaviour, as in the case of the seven canaanite nations. and those that are aware of it single out rambam’s view as being both ignorant and inaccurate when applied to the christians with whom they, unlike him, are familiar.

    The 12th invocation of the Amidah – the central prayer of Judaism recited three times daily – is the curse on Christians.

    no it isn’t. that bit refers to “heretics”/”sectarians”, “enemies”, “slanderers” and “traitors” and that they should be confused, scattered and destroyed; the language implies Divine retaliation, which firstly implies that there’s something to be retaliated for and, secondly, that this should be accomplished by Divine action, not human. the confusion arises from the fact that the word “min” is sometimes conflated with christians in some Talmudic arguments, but that would be highly dependent on context and in no case that i am aware of is the amidah itself understood to be referring to christians.

    It turns on the fundamental distinction between “Judaean” and “Jew”. Failure to understand it, I maintain, is at the root of so much misunderstanding today. “Jews” are nowhere mentioned in Sacred Scripture. Trust me in this. I read the Scriptures in the ancient Greek regularly, both the Septuagint and the New Testament. The term employed is always Ioudaioi (Judaeans).

    so basically, it’s ancient hebrews you like and modern jews you don’t. tell me, what would “jews” actually *be* in septuagint greek, then? are you telling me it wouldn’t be “judeans”? oh, of course, i forgot, this is an argumentum ad khazariam:

    the great majority of Jews alive today are probably not Semites at all but Caucasians originating from the ancient kingdom of Khazaria in the Russian steppes.

    there’s no such thing as a “semite”. it’s a sociolinguistic term, not an ethno-political one. in any case, my family’s roots and that of all non-european jews (including half the population of israel) go back to 586CE babylon (before jesus by some time, of course) whereas the khazar conversion didn’t happen until centuries later. presumably you have some way to pretend that that doesn’t matter.

    I think anyone looking for clear extrinsic proof of either the authenticity or inauthenticity of the Protocols is going to find it elusive.

    the same could be said for david icke’s theory about lizards from outer space, one of which, of course, i am.

    history shows us that, having attained a level of influence within a nation, they’ve always overplayed their hand, often being expelled from various nations altogether, as they were from England in 1290 (a decree that has never formally been reversed, although it’s arguably been derogated in practice).

    i believe that reputable historians have now concluded that this occurred because edward I’s jewish population had in fact run out of money after being taxed into the ground to pay for his wars in france and scotland, so this was just a way to score cheap points with the church.

    William Cecil and his son Robert, both crypto-Jews

    hur hur hur hur. this is a new one on me.

    Simply put, “Russia” refers to the Khazar Jew conspiratorial elite, the Ashkenazi wing of international Jewry which hails from the ancient steppes of Russia. I believe they will be the object of the most extraordinary conversion in the history of the Church.

    well, we sephardim and mizrahim are mortally offended at being ignored. i object. why do the herring-munchers get to be the “conspiratorial elite”? *we* invented the fishball, not them.

    the judeocrats are more interested in chanelling our interpretation of the book than outlawing the book itself.

    so me trying to influence debate is a bad thing, here? i should just shut up and leave you to it, wingnut?

    Consider the cases of Popes John Paul I and John Paul II. The former was murdered after 33 days for attempting to clear the Vatican of judeo-masonic infiltration, whereas the latter (born of a Jewish mother)

    JP2 had a jewish mother? where does it say that? same place it says that hitler was jewish, perhaps?

    his own close association with the kabbalist John Dee (educated by Rabbi Loew)

    dee and the maharal (rabbi loew) were in prague at the same time for a few years in the late 1580s. i’m not sure what sources you are relying on for “educated by”, as it isn’t mentioned by dee’s most prominent biographer, benjamin woolley, or by anyone who has written about the maharal apart from the novel by lisa goldstein, who also points out that it isn’t recorded that they ever met, or that they didn’t. also, from what i know of dee’s work, it doesn’t show a great deal of kabbalistic influence that i can see. nor does the maharal’s work show much evidence of, say, scrying or enochian. so calling dee a “kabbalist” is stretching things considerably. but then again, that’s pretty much what you’ve done here from beginning to end, ain’t it?

    I largely agree with Blah’s comments.

    that’s hardly surprising, given that he is a malevolent little maggot just like you.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  239. Ravi Naik — on 30th March, 2009 at 4:37 pm  

    “Jews” are nowhere mentioned in Sacred Scripture. Trust me in this. I read the Scriptures in the ancient Greek regularly, both the Septuagint and the New Testament. The term employed is always Ioudaioi (Judaeans).

    The term employed is “Ioudaioi”, but there is no consensus what the translation is.

  240. Ravi Naik — on 30th March, 2009 at 5:14 pm  

    It turns on the fundamental distinction between “Judaean” and “Jew”. Failure to understand it, I maintain, is at the root of so much misunderstanding today.

    I am curious: what Greek word is used to denote Jews as opposed to Judaean?

    In Portuguese and Spanish, the terms “Jew” and “Judaean” are actually the same (“Judeu” and “Judío”) and they originate from the Latin word Iudeus, which means from the land of Judea. The fact that the Old French and Middle English corrupted the Latin word to something rather different (Jew), should not give solace to your conspiracy theories.

  241. chairwoman — on 30th March, 2009 at 5:26 pm  

    bananabrain – Yay!

  242. Imran Khan — on 30th March, 2009 at 5:37 pm  

    Timothy – “The judeocrats no longer concentrate on quashing the Protocols themselves. That might well prove counter-productive. They no longer make simplistic strategic errors of this kind. Instead they target those who view the Protocols as authentic evidence of their global conspiracy. Furthermore, they wish those who purchase a copy of this work to know that they are forbidden to contest the theory that it’s a plagiarized forgery, and this on pain of being regarded as psychotic hate-mongers. That’s why (i) booksellers like Amazon are perfectly free to sell the work, but (ii) are required to provide a “health warning” placed by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.”

    With respect you are going round in circles. To say that they no longer makes mistakes of this kind defeats your own earlier argument that they controlled the world and Protocols was an expose. If the Jews controlled the world then by logic they had to have had control over 100 years ago in order for Protocols to be an expose.

    Thus if they controlled the world then Protocols couldn’t have been released. To say they learnt from that means you are admitting that when the book was written it based on fact.

    If it wasn’t based on fact then it is fictional or unsubstantiated theory.

    Timothy Said – “Academia was bought up long ago with the immense power of Jewish finance.”

    But history shows this isn’t true. As you yourself admitted anytime Jews got forward and some influence they were as you said punished – I’d say persecuted. So they never had time to get this purchasing of Academia completed.

    Timothy Said – “Real financial control doesn’t lie with commercial banks. It lies with the Rothschild-owned central banks like the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve. Casualties further down the line are just minor collateral damage in the grand scheme of things. If they happen to be Jewish, that’s no bad thing, as it “proves” that Jews suffer like everyone else, effectively putting gentiles off the scent.”

    This is getting circular if the Gentiles are put off the scent then how did Protocols emerge!

    The Rothschilds are like any other family who due to circumstances in the world got power and not through a conspiracy theory.

    In fact most Jewish Banks have only become global players in the past 150 – 200 years and this was during a period when Jews were still heavily persecuted and had limitartions on positions in government in Europe.

    Basically what you seem to be saying is that a small minority of the wider Jewish Community run the world. But this argument makes massive assumptions. Those Jews who “supposedly” run the world would then have to ensure that they keep tight control on their own family to ensure continued control. That is exceptionally hard to achieve in todays world.

    I can’t control who my family marry and I don’t run the world. So how is someone who runs the world going to do this.

    Timothy Said – “Indeed. But remember the paradoxical truth stated previously: genuine anti-Semitism, as opposed to the kind Catholic Voice was accused of, doesn’t harm the judeocrats at all. On the contrary it positively aids them. Riots and other acts of public disorder against Jewish institutions and banks only further their plans to impose a police-state on us. It’s a textbook application of the Hegelian triad: thesis meets antithesis and leads to synthesis. In other words, create a serious problem, arouse an unhealthy reaction to it, and then impose your pre-determined solution. The judeocracy are complete masters of the technique and befuddle the so-called “goyim” every time.”

    How do you define genuine and fictional anti-semitism?

    It can’t possibly aid them because it will cause problems and issues within their own community. I can’t see how anti-semitims aids the Jewish Community because it causes barriers and may hinder cohesion so how on earth can it aid them?

    Timothy said – “Perhaps you refer to the Knights Templar, traditionally regarded as the first modern bankers. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with banking per se. But fraudulent practice, usury, and fractional reserve banking are simply immoral. Surely anyone who practices such criminality should be punished irrespective of their religious convictions. Jewish historians tend to present Jewish financiers as entirely blameless in such affairs and persecuted solely out of gentile greed and jealousy. But is this credible?”

    So if the Jewish Financiers were to blame why did such devout Christians go to them?

    I don’t see this as stacking up as an argument because the Financiers were given the money and at the time the biggest owners of wealth were Royalty and the Church. Given the power of the church it didn’t have to go to Jewish Financiers, they were hardly forced now were they. They made that decision to circumvent their own religious restrictions. The argument being it was the Jews who earned the interest and thus any money they gave was simply that earnings and not interest.

    It wasn’t as if the Jewish Financiers went to the Church or the Pope and said we’ve got a way for you to circumvent your rules on interest. They were asked to do it.

    No one had to go to a Jewish Banker they chose to so that they could increase their wealth.

    As an example in the colonial wars in America then the English, French and Spanish were fighting to increase their lands and wealth. These are all non-Jewish countries with massive military power. So how can they be forced to go to Rothschilds? They chose to go to them.

    Timothy Said – “The Message of Fatima refers to neither Communism nor to a consecration of the world as you incorrectly state. It mentioned “Russia” and requested the formal consecration of “Russia” by the whole hierarchy of the Catholic Church, led by the Pope, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This is a pre-condition both of world peace and of the conversion of “Russia”. Such a consecration has never been carried out by any Pope in the manner clearly stipulated by Heaven. Apart from Pope Pius XII, they have refused to use the word “Russia” at all in their substitute consecrations.”

    The Vatican clearly state that the Pope did as required by Heaven:
    http://www.vatican.edu/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

    As this article clearly states the person who saw the vision said the universal act of consecration was completed as instructed:
    “Sister Lucia personally confirmed that this solemn and universal act of consecration corresponded to what Our Lady wished (“Sim, està feita, tal como Nossa Senhora a pediu, desde o dia 25 de Março de 1984”: “Yes it has been done just as Our Lady asked, on 25 March 1984”: Letter of 8 November 1989). Hence any further discussion or request is without basis. ”

    So again you have no proof for your assertion that it wasn’t completed.

    Timothy Said – “Not quite sure what you mean by this.”

    I am asking if the writer of the Protocols explicitly stated that the book was an expose?

    Timothy Said – “Clandestine Jewry likes to use malleable gentiles in its cause and will extend their lives for as long as they continue to be useful. Consider the cases of Popes John Paul I and John Paul II. The former was murdered after 33 days for attempting to clear the Vatican of judeo-masonic infiltration, whereas the latter (born of a Jewish mother) who failed to investigate his predecessor’s suspiciously untimely death, and who spent much of his time visiting synagogues and apologizing to the Jews for alleged Christian persecution, reigned for almost 27 years.”

    Whats your proof that John Paul II was born of a Jewish Mother?

    Are you also saying Christians didn’t persecute Jews?

    Sidenote to Chairwoman – See you shouldn’t have restricted the Inquisition for me :-)

    Timothy Said – “The true history of WW2 has been rewritten by “The Party” (to borrow an analogy from Orwell’s 1984). Hitler came to power on the back of Jewish Wall Street money. He was of Jewish extraction himself, although he carefully sought to hide this. His Aryan brand of racism mirrored Jewish racism, and his occultic interests mirrored Jewish kabbalism. His anti-Semitism was cultivated by the cryptocracy in order to push liberal German Jews into Palestine and so force them to retain their Orthodox Jewish identity which they were rapidly losing. The cryptocrats even had Woodrow Wilson block Jewish immigration into the US lest German Jews should emigrate there instead – a disaster for their Zionist plans.”

    So if they had this grand plan based on limiting liberal Jews how come liberal Jews went to Palestine?

  243. Imran Khan — on 30th March, 2009 at 5:40 pm  

    Katy Said – “Secret Jews killed Mary Queen of Scots. You read it here first.”

    History tells us that during Elizbethan times there were hardly any Jews in the UK. Elizabeth was a stauch Protestant and she hardly listened to anyone so why would she listen to an advisor to Mary – her sister and not Quen of Scots to execute the other Mary.

    Given the fact she felt threatened by Spain who take on the advisor of her sister.

  244. Imran Khan — on 30th March, 2009 at 5:56 pm  

    Timothy – “Rabbi Neusner writes: “Jews who practise Christiantiy cease to be part of the ethnic Jewish community, while those who practise Buddhism remain within it.” (Defining Judaism, Jacob Neusner)”

    I think you’ll find that is the point Katy is making. Jesus didn’t cease becoming part of the Kewish Community and as the bible indicates was an active member of the Jewish Community. He went to the Temple and tried to revert back to the Law of Moses.

    Why would Jesus do that if he wasn’t Jewish?

    Is there any evidence his followers or his mother gave up their religion? No.

    Timothy Said – ““Jews” are nowhere mentioned in Sacred Scripture. Trust me in this. I read the Scriptures in the ancient Greek regularly, both the Septuagint and the New Testament. The term employed is always Ioudaioi (Judaeans).”

    What doers that prove except merely that the Greeks referred to the Jews and Judean. Muslims refer to Jews as the Children of Jacob.

    Judean could refer to the Jews of Judea equally?

    The reason Orthodox Jews do not accept the notion of Jesus as put forth by Christians is because they don’t accept the notion put forth by Paul in his writings. Baring in mind that Paul was not a disciple and never met Jesus.

    Also as I understand it Jesus said that he didn’t come to replace the laws of Moses so if he followed the laws of Moses and is born of a noble Jewish Mother then in Jewis Law he is Jewish.

    The fact that the Jewish Leadership didn’t accept him is another matter but he went to the Temple and practised there.

  245. Imran Khan — on 30th March, 2009 at 5:57 pm  

    Bananabrain – Welcome back Dude!

  246. Imran Khan — on 30th March, 2009 at 6:15 pm  

    Bananabrain Wrote – ” the great majority of Jews alive today are probably not Semites at all but Caucasians originating from the ancient kingdom of Khazaria in the Russian steppes.

    there’s no such thing as a “semite”. it’s a sociolinguistic term, not an ethno-political one. in any case, my family’s roots and that of all non-european jews (including half the population of israel) go back to 586CE babylon (before jesus by some time, of course) whereas the khazar conversion didn’t happen until centuries later. presumably you have some way to pretend that that doesn’t matter.”

    I think here he is referring in a roundabout way to European Jewry compared to the Jews of Yemen who some say are more semetic.

    European Jews would be both Sephardi and Ashkernazi with the theory being that they became Jewish as a result of conversion and not through the bloodline of Prophet Jacob.

    I might be wrong but I’ve seen this theory mentioned occassionally before.

    Bananabrain wrote – “so me trying to influence debate is a bad thing, here? i should just shut up and leave you to it, wingnut?”

    No this just mean that you are not one of “the control the world Jews”! So no point me asking you for a big pension ;-)

    BTW the allegation that the Pope John Paul II mother was Jewish is made in right wing sites I won’t post here.

    His other links to Judaism include being a substiture goalkeeper on the Jewish side in Jewish and Catholic football matches and his relationship with a Jewish girl in school.

    Interestingly his mother died when he was 8 so its unlikely she had much if any influence on him.

  247. blah — on 30th March, 2009 at 9:25 pm  

    Some interesting quotes which emphasise how being Jewish is a religious not a racial belief

    “In 1993, Israel’s Supreme Court, in a case involving a couple affiliated with Jews for Jesus, ruled that Jews who adhere to the Christian beliefs are regarded by Israeli law as “members of a different faith,” and are not eligible for the automatic citizenship that Israel grants Jews. ”
    http://www.adl.org/special_reports/jews4jesus/legal_cases.asp

    Can a Jew believe in Jesus?

    I was accosted at the beach today by a guy from Jews for Jesus. He offered me a New Testament in Yiddish and said that many Jews have been “saved” by accepting Jesus as the messiah. I just ignored him. Then I saw a big ad in the newspaper from the same people. My question: Can a Jew believe in Jesus?

    Answer:

    Of course a Jew can believe in Jesus. Just like a vegetarian can enjoy a rump steak, a peace activist can join a violent demonstration, and a dictator who preaches martyrdom can surrender himself to his enemies. As long as logic and clear thinking are suspended, anything makes sense!
    http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/160992/jewish/Can-a-Jew-believe-in-Jesus.htm

    Why am I not finding any information or acknowledgement of Messianic Jews? Is it not true that one who is born a Jew can in no way forfeit that identity as a Jew no matter what he/she believes. Don’t they deserve some recognition? Question: Is a Jew still consider Jewish if he/she follows the teaching of Buddha?

    Answer

    The Jewish people do say that there’s “More than one way to be a good Jew.” We have Chassidic vs. Misnagdic, Sefardic vs. Ashkenazic, and even the Talmudic split between Shammai and Hillel.

    Yet there are limits to pluralism, beyond which a group is schismatic to the point where it is no longer considered Jewish. For example, everyone considers Messianic Judaism and belief in Buddah as outside of the Jewish sphere.

    Historically, any Jewish group which denied the basic principles of Jewish tradition — Torah and Mitzvah-observance — ultimately ceased to be part of the Jewish people

    http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_messianicjews.htm

  248. Timothy Johnson — on 30th March, 2009 at 10:46 pm  

    In answer to BananaBrain whose points I much enjoyed reading despite the name-calling…

    - I have accurately quoted from Jacob Neusner (a Jewish scholar well-known for his translation of the Talmud). Now he’s quite emphatic on this point: it is “the iron-clad consensus among contemporary Jews” that “Jews who practise Christianity cease to be part of the ethnic Jewish community.” His position concerning Jewish apostates who convert to Christianity seems entirely in accord with Talmudic teachings: “Christians are allied with hell, and Christianity is worse than incest” (BT Avodah Zarah 17a), and “When the Messiah comes, he will destroy the Christians.” (BT Sanhedrin 99a)

    - Concerning Rabbi Akiva’s contribution to the Tractate Sanhedrin (90a), you appear to rely on the relevant notes contained in the Soncino edition. Now these are evidently framed to appease gentile opinion and mislead them as to the true nature of Talmudic teaching. This type of dissimulation is standard practice. Hence also the systematic mistranslation of “goyim” as idolaters, heathens, etc. The Steinsaltz edition is the version to consult. Reading the New Testament is strictly forbidden to Orthodox Jews. Surely you know this. BT Rosh Hashanah 17a says much the same thing about “uncanonical books” – codeword for the New Testament. As for the Church’s delay in formally canonising the books of the New Testament, this has no relevance to the argument, because all the books of the New Testament are “uncanonical” in the eyes of the rabbis.

    - You’ll find the quote from Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim V’Chukkoteihem, 5:1. Although there has been some debate over the centuries as to what constitutes idol-worship, the fact is that “the vast majority of the rabbinic authorities consider Christianity to be idol worship, and they forbid a Judaic from entering a church.” (Michael Hoffman, Judaism Discovered) According to the Mishnah (Avodah Zara 11b), Jews are even forbidden to enter any city containing a church – a rule circumvented by the requirements of living as anusim, i.e under duress in a gentile society.

    - The minim are defined as those who reject the so-called Oral Law of the Sages, chief amongst whom are Christians. Even if you disagree with me as to the target of the particular malediction contained in the 12th Amidim prayer, do you really think it appropriate for Jews to curse anyone?

    - Judaism, at least in its written form, is a post-biblical religion, so one shouldn’t expect there to be “Jews” in the Sacred Scriptures. However, in Jesus’ day the majority of the Pharisees, the chief priest and the scribes had already succumbed to the false man-made religion of the “Traditions of the Elders” – so one could designate these unfaithful Israelites “proto-Jews”.

    - If there are no Semites, as you claim, then clearly you must be in agreement with me that the word “anti-Semitism” is a misnomer, which is the very point I was making. Secondly, however you choose to define the descendants of Shem, it seems you believe “non-European Jews” only trace their origin back to the Babylonian Captivity (586 BC) – not to Shem.

    - David Icke and his daft personal theories never found any support on Catholic Voice. Sorry to disappoint, but you’re not a shape-shifting lizard!

    - Regarding Edward I’s expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290, I disagree with your reputable historians. Great liberality had been extended to them by the Statute of Jewry of 1275 and Jews were freely allowed to trade with non-Jews. Even after the edict, the expulsion was enforced very humanely, Jews being given 90 days to arrange their affairs, sell their properties and depart. Cynical interpretations of King Edward’s motives don’t appear to square with the evidence.

    - I’m sorry my personal theory about “Russia” in the Secret of Fatima doesn’t encompass the Sephardim. Your time will come though. Saint Paul predicts the eventual conversion of all the Jews in his Letter to the Romans.

    - “Channelling interpretation” about the Protocols was a euphemism for bullying everyone into accepting its alleged hoax status. I must remember to call a spade a spade next time.

    - There’s various evidence on the Internet concerning Pope John Paul II’s “Jewishness”. Here’s one link: http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-religions-christianity-penetration-pope-john-paul-2-jewish.html.

    - As for John Dee, I’m sticking with Frances Yates on this, in particular herThe Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age and The Rosicrucian Enlightenment. Evidently it’s no longer considered politically correct to point out that Dee was a dedicated kabbalist. After all, Kabbala is a key plank of Judaism.

    - Finally, and pardon me for asking, but would you call a fellow Judaic a maggot? Or do you reserve this term solely for non-Judaics?

  249. douglas clark — on 31st March, 2009 at 6:30 am  

    Can I just say ‘welcome back’ to bananabrain?

    That is a ‘hit down’ beyond my abilities.

    Timothy Johnson @ 249 seems to me at least explain what he actually is. And it ain’t pretty.

    Channelling interpretation” about the Protocols was a euphemism for bullying everyone into accepting its alleged hoax status. I must remember to call a spade a spade next time.

    No, it wasn’t. It was a deliberate attempt to claim they were true.

    You, sir, have a lot to answer for.

  250. douglas clark — on 31st March, 2009 at 9:57 am  

    Timothy,

    Why don’t you get yourself a new web site? It can’t be that hard. If you ever do, then we can discuss whether the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were originally written in Greek.

  251. Ravi Naik — on 31st March, 2009 at 10:03 am  

    Judaism, at least in its written form, is a post-biblical religion, so one shouldn’t expect there to be “Jews” in the Sacred Scriptures.

    So, in your mind, what is the origin of Judaism? And who are the present-day Judeans?

    It is unfortunate that you would cite as a credible source the filthy JewWatch site, which is run by a well-known American neo-nazi. You do have a lot of explaining to do.

  252. douglas clark — on 31st March, 2009 at 10:14 am  

    Sorry for this, and that.

    Timothy Johnson seems to me to be a dangerous idiot. The sort of chap that the internet allows.

    I don’t want him silenced. I do want him challenged.

    Which is the other side of this internet thingy.

    Just saying….

  253. bananabrain — on 31st March, 2009 at 10:22 am  

    dear oh dear, what a nasty can of worms.

    Real financial control doesn’t lie with commercial banks. It lies with the Rothschild-owned central banks like the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve.

    i struggle to see how the rothschilds “own” the bank of england. so far all you have provided in the way of evidence for this sort of allegation is speculation about parentage. unless you feel that the worcester counter cricket club, of which mervyn king is a patron, is a front for the conspiracy. unless it’s the university of helsinki.

    The reason Orthodox Jews do not accept the notion of Jesus as put forth by Christians is because they don’t accept the notion put forth by Paul in his writings. Baring in mind that Paul was not a disciple and never met Jesus.

    imran, the reason jews (not just orthodox ones) don’t accept the notion of jesus as put forth by christians is that a) we find the notion that G!D came to earth as a human ridiculous and nonsensical and b) however exceptional a teacher and human being he may have been, he didn’t qualify for the status of messiah either.

    as for neusner, i’m familiar with his work and an excellent scholar he is.

    the iron-clad consensus among contemporary Jews” that “Jews who practise Christianity cease to be part of the ethnic Jewish community.”

    did he actually say “ethnic”? because if so, then his wording is misleading. a jew who practices christianity, as i have already said, becomes an apostate and thus ineligible for inclusion in a minyan (prayer quorum), a witness at a beth din, effectively unable to participate in religious and communal activities. if he recants and returns to judaism, this ceases to apply. ethnicity is not something you can change willy-nilly. now, i notice you’re still not providing the entire sentence, there is a strategically missing section. presumably this enables you to twist neusner’s interpretation to suit your agenda.

    “Christians are allied with hell, and Christianity is worse than incest” (BT Avodah Zarah 17a), and “When the Messiah comes, he will destroy the Christians.” (BT Sanhedrin 99a)

    these two are standard inclusions in the list of supposedly talmudic quotes that are circulated again and again in white supremacist (and islamist) circles. a full list can be found here:

    http://skepticwiki.org/index.php?title=The_Talmud_(Myths_and_Misquotes)&printable=yes

    which includes the provenance of the quotes concerned from such luminaries as various anti-jewish catholics and members of the ku klux klan. i think we’re all now aware of what you are, “timothy”.

    Concerning Rabbi Akiva’s contribution to the Tractate Sanhedrin (90a), you appear to rely on the relevant notes contained in the Soncino edition. Now these are evidently framed to appease gentile opinion and mislead them as to the true nature of Talmudic teaching.

    in order for that to be true, you’d need to co-opt such luminaries of the “wissenschaft das judentums” and bible criticism movements as krochmal and graetz (to say nothing of the soncinos) to mysteriously agree to act as appeasers for this putative “talmudic agenda”. seeing as their entire life’s work was about demystifying jewish texts and dissecting them with the tools of academia, no matter how distressing that was to the traditional community, i find that a puzzling conundrum. but then again, according to you, everyone’s in on it!

    Hence also the systematic mistranslation of “goyim” as idolaters, heathens, etc.

    so it’s only about christians? amazing how that would have to ignore everyone from graeco-roman pagans to other jewish sectarians such as the sadducees. no, your persecution mania and ego demands that it must be a veiled attack on christians, to which i say, i think not.

    The Steinsaltz edition is the version to consult.

    on the contrary, the original aramaic is the version to consult. how is your aramaic, or do you just rely on recycled attacks from white supremacist websites?

    Reading the New Testament is strictly forbidden to Orthodox Jews. Surely you know this. BT Rosh Hashanah 17a says much the same thing about “uncanonical books” – codeword for the New Testament.

    i’ve already addressed that in my last post – “external books” refers to anything from the NT to homer. i’ve got a couple of copies myself. they’re on the shelf next to the “book of mormon”, hehehe. i must not be a very good jew then.

    As for the Church’s delay in formally canonising the books of the New Testament, this has no relevance to the argument

    it does if you are saying that the gospels are being objected to 200 years before they’re available.

    You’ll find the quote from Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim V’Chukkoteihem, 5:1.

    i’ve already explained how other authorities dispute rambam’s ruling. this is standard fare: you pick one authority and claim that it is a) undisputed and b) interpreted exactly to suit your agenda, when in fact it is far more specific and far less authoritative in any case. i’ll have a check in the original when i have a moment, but if you want something that is halakhically binding and Talmudically based, you’d need the Shulhan ‘Arukh, which is far later (C16th) and also differs between the sephardi and ashkenazi contexts. and stop referring to hoffman as your authority, you might as well refer to david duke – or david icke for that matter.

    According to the Mishnah (Avodah Zara 11b), Jews are even forbidden to enter any city containing a church – a rule circumvented by the requirements of living as anusim, i.e under duress in a gentile society.

    that must be why there aren’t hordes of haredim picketing the church of the holy sepulchre in jerusalem, where they’re definitely not anusim. yet that doesn’t happen. curious, that.

    The minim are defined as those who reject the so-called Oral Law of the Sages, chief amongst whom are Christians.

    says you. actually, at the time, we were far more concerned about the sadducees, to say nothing of the romans.

    Even if you disagree with me as to the target of the particular malediction contained in the 12th Amidim prayer, do you really think it appropriate for Jews to curse anyone?

    the actual text (which as i say it three times a day i know pretty well) has both ashkenazi and sephardi variants and is not worded as a curse, it is worded as an appeal for Divine protection from the machinations of our enemies and those who would do violence against us. you are a case in point as to why this is necessary.

    Judaism, at least in its written form, is a post-biblical religion, so one shouldn’t expect there to be “Jews” in the Sacred Scriptures.

    what nonsense. tribally speaking, we’re all from benjamin judah or levi (nowadays), so we can trace our lineage directly back to the family of jacob. this doesn’t make any sense.

    However, in Jesus’ day the majority of the Pharisees, the chief priest and the scribes had already succumbed to the false man-made religion of the “Traditions of the Elders” – so one could designate these unfaithful Israelites “proto-Jews”.

    this is, interestingly enough, the exact same argument made by islamists (clearly this is where they learnt it) to “prove” that people calling themselves jews (and christians) these days do not qualify as “ahl-e-qitab”, since all the *real* ahl-e-qitab converted to islam, therefore anyone who didn’t is “kafir”, therefore all positive statements about jews are taken to refer to pre-islamic-conversion jews and all negative ones are about anyone who’s still maintaining their “denial”. what’s sauce for the goose and so on.

    If there are no Semites, as you claim, then clearly you must be in agreement with me that the word “anti-Semitism” is a misnomer, which is the very point I was making.

    it’s not the very point you were making. the very point you were making was that “anti-semitism” isn’t a valid concept. jew-hatred, which is what you are peddling, is undisputedly real, so when casuists like yourself (perhaps i might describe you as “pilpulistic”?) start with that argument i like to call a spade a spade. you don’t like “anti-semitism”? fine. let’s call it what it is: jew-hatred. you are a jew-hater.

    Secondly, however you choose to define the descendants of Shem, it seems you believe “non-European Jews” only trace their origin back to the Babylonian Captivity (586 BC) – not to Shem.

    er…. what has that got to do with anything? the iraqi jews do trace our origin back to the babylonian captivity, but the yemenis trace theirs back further, as do the ethiopians. in fact, there were always jews in israel, living in a village called peki’in.

    Regarding Edward I’s expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290, I disagree with your reputable historians.

    there’s a surprise – you prefer disreputable ones.

    Great liberality had been extended to them by the Statute of Jewry of 1275 and Jews were freely allowed to trade with non-Jews.

    indeed, great liberality. apparently, between 1219 and 1272, 49 taxes were imposed on british jewry to the tune of 200,000 marks, which was a great deal of money in those days.

    Even after the edict, the expulsion was enforced very humanely, Jews being given 90 days to arrange their affairs, sell their properties and depart.

    very humane, a whole 90 days to dismantle your life and leave the country!

    Cynical interpretations of King Edward’s motives don’t appear to square with the evidence.

    it’s amazing how you suddenly start appealing to evidence when it suits you, whereas in the case of jewish texts, all you can provide is white supremacist slanders. as for cynicism, how about the fact that all their property was declared seized by the crown and all outstanding debts payable to jews transferred to edward himself? i’d say that was a fairly large financial motive.

    I’m sorry my personal theory about “Russia” in the Secret of Fatima doesn’t encompass the Sephardim. Your time will come though.

    i can hardly wait.

    Evidently it’s no longer considered politically correct to point out that Dee was a dedicated kabbalist. After all, Kabbala is a key plank of Judaism.

    it is, but there’s nothing of dee’s work i’ve ever seen that indicated kabbalistic influence.

    Finally, and pardon me for asking, but would you call a fellow Judaic a maggot? Or do you reserve this term solely for non-Judaics?

    not at all. i reserve it solely for jew-hating bigots like yourself and the islamist troll brigade.

    it’s interesting that when it really comes down to backing up your vile lies, where do you start posting links? oh, i see, “jewwatch.com”, proud winner of “most jew-hatingest site on the internet”. you are a salutary if dreadful lesson that jew-hating is not the exclusive preserve of the unlettered and incoherent. it’s also instructive to see just how you have adopted the language of anti-zionism to provide a further figleaf for your message of paranoid delusion and bile. clearly religious extremists of all stripes do agree on something and if it’s that they are willing to lie about me in order to further whatever sick agenda they have then that’s something worth knowing. never before has it been made so abundantly clear to me how islamist jew-hatred draws so strongly on christian jew-hatred.

    btw: i’m not sure i am back. i just think you needed a bit of a hand with this particular troll. personally, i’d ban him. refuting him is a waste of time unless he’s likely to change his views.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  254. douglas clark — on 31st March, 2009 at 10:42 am  

    Good to see you back, Mr Bananabrain, sir…

  255. Ravi Naik — on 31st March, 2009 at 10:55 am  

    btw: i’m not sure i am back. i just think you needed a bit of a hand with this particular troll. personally, i’d ban him. refuting him is a waste of time unless he’s likely to change his views.

    I do not think he should be banned, nor is the goal of the debate to change anyone’s view. His views and methods of discerning the truth are abhorrent to you and me, but he does provide his sources, and is not being personally disrespectful with anyone here. And if you want to learn the anatomy of worldwide conspiracies…

  256. munir — on 31st March, 2009 at 11:05 am  

    bananabrain

    “this is, interestingly enough, the exact same argument made by islamists (clearly this is where they learnt it) to “prove” that people calling themselves jews (and christians) these days do not qualify as “ahl-e-qitab”, since all the *real* ahl-e-qitab converted to islam, therefore anyone who didn’t is “kafir”, therefore all positive statements about jews are taken to refer to pre-islamic-conversion jews and all negative ones are about anyone who’s still maintaining their “denial”. what’s sauce for the goose and so on.”

    Ive never ever heard that argument- you are just making it up as you go along arent you?

    “Even after the edict, the expulsion was enforced very humanely, Jews being given 90 days to arrange their affairs, sell their properties and depart.

    bananabrain
    “very humane, a whole 90 days to dismantle your life and leave the country! ”

    Apparently when west Jerusalem was invaded by the Israelis they gave the Arabs 15 minutes to leave.
    How humane!

    “never before has it been made so abundantly clear to me how islamist jew-hatred draws so strongly on christian jew-hatred.”

    or how Jewish (and others) Muslim-hatred draws so strongly on anti-semitism themes

  257. munir — on 31st March, 2009 at 11:11 am  

    What is interesting about bananabrains taking apart of Timothy Johnson is he rightly condemns Johnson for taking from white supremacist sites to learn about Judaism. Yet he would never criticise those who learn Islam from Muslim-haters (many of them Jewish).

  258. Imran Khan — on 31st March, 2009 at 11:15 am  

    Bananabrain wrote: ” The reason Orthodox Jews do not accept the notion of Jesus as put forth by Christians is because they don’t accept the notion put forth by Paul in his writings. Baring in mind that Paul was not a disciple and never met Jesus.

    imran, the reason jews (not just orthodox ones) don’t accept the notion of jesus as put forth by christians is that a) we find the notion that G!D came to earth as a human ridiculous and nonsensical and b) however exceptional a teacher and human being he may have been, he didn’t qualify for the status of messiah either.

    as for neusner, i’m familiar with his work and an excellent scholar he is.”

    You, know that, I know that, Katy knows, that, Chairwoman knows that and in fact most people here know that.

    But Timothy made a point and I answered that and focussed on the Orthodox because of his implication that the Orthodox are different in this regard.

    So it was trying to refute that slant he was starting to take.

  259. Imran Khan — on 31st March, 2009 at 11:21 am  

    Timothy wrote – “I’m sorry my personal theory about “Russia” in the Secret of Fatima doesn’t encompass the Sephardim. Your time will come though.”

    Hold on how can you dispute what was seen when the lady who saw the vision has stated that the Pope consecrating the world with the words on the website was what was seen in the vision which you didn’t see but have a theory on even though you didn’t see it.

  260. bananabrain — on 31st March, 2009 at 11:37 am  

    His views and methods of discerning the truth are abhorrent to you and me, but he does provide his sources, and is not being personally disrespectful with anyone here.

    i’ve tried being personally respectful, but unless everyone observes this as a code of conduct it’s a bit pointless. i reserve personal lack of respect for people who are demonstrable liars and bigots. everyone else i am i hope, completely polite to.

    “munir”:

    Ive never ever heard that argument- you are just making it up as you go along arent you?

    not at all. it was gleaned from a long discussion i had with a very well-informed islamist (as opposed to someone like you who merely repeats slogans and ill-digested bullet points from “anti-zionism 101″) who was up on all their apologetics. i had to really back him into a corner to get him to admit it, but it was instructive when i finally did get him to lay it out for me. the immensity of the double-speak impressed me, especially given that sunni islamists take great pleasure in accusing shi’a of taqqiyah, when they are themselves engaging in an impressive feat of dissimulation and misdirection. which is, of course, what “timothy” presumably believes i am doing. what i’ve not seen laid out quite so impressively before is the structural similarity of the arguments which runs in exact parallel. here we have a fine example of precisely what the *reputable* historian bernard lewis shows in his very fine book “semites and anti-semites”, whereby an originally christian anti-jewish polemic has been adopted by muslim jew-haters, via the infatuation of pan-arabist discourse with fascism. it’s all those old nazis hiding out in egypt and syria, unfortunately.

    Apparently when west Jerusalem was invaded by the Israelis they gave the Arabs 15 minutes to leave.

    “apparently”? apparently, you’re incapable of making any argument that isn’t about having a go at the israelis. what a terrible waste of everyone’s time.

    he would never criticise those who learn Islam from Muslim-haters (many of them Jewish).

    yes i do. i’ll do it now. you shouldn’t learn islam from muslim-haters. personally, i learned islam from muslims – and better-educated ones than yourself. do you have any points to make that aren’t irrelevant whataboutery?

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  261. douglas clark — on 31st March, 2009 at 10:08 pm  

    It seems to me, so it does. that folk here attack bananabrain. Just ’cause he exists or summat.

    Bananabrain is perhaps the most intelligent person to regularily write on here. We should cherish that, rather than calling calumny on him.

  262. blah — on 31st March, 2009 at 11:00 pm  

    “munir”:

    Ive never ever heard that argument- you are just making it up as you go along arent you?

    bananabrain
    “not at all. it was gleaned from a long discussion i had with a very well-informed islamist”

    I see – so the text of the Quran and the interpretatition of jurists throughout the agres that the Chritian and Jews are indeed ahl ul kitab (or qitab as you oddly spelt it) is junked in favour of the words of an anonymous “islamist” you fail to name . Well Im convinced.

    “ i had to really back him into a corner to get him to admit it,”

    To admit what? That you were right and now more about Islam than him? Cant be much of an authority then can he?

    “ but it was instructive when i finally did get him to lay it out for me. the immensity of the double-speak impressed me, especially given that sunni islamists take great pleasure in accusing shi’a of taqqiyah, when they are themselves engaging in an impressive feat of dissimulation and misdirection. which is, of course, what “timothy” presumably believes i am doing.”

    The problem with the taqiyyah libel is it incriminates its holder’s argument – if everything Muslims says is “taqiyya” i.e lying then the extremists positions you quote are also. And why you think you should be exempted from the accusation of dissimulation of beliefs whne you are happy to accuse others is beyond me.

    “ here we have a fine example of precisely “what the *reputable* historian bernard lewis “

    you are right to put it in quotation marks

    and here is a fine article which outlines on the similiarities between Christian anti-semitism and Islamophobia- and indeed many of these attitudes once belived about Jews have been adopted by Jewish Islamophobes towards Muslims:

    “. In consequence, where a hundred years ago the cultivated Western public problematized Jews, it is now Muslims who are feeling the pressure. Antisemites once baited the Jews as an alien, Oriental intrusion into white, Christian lands, a Semitic people whose loyalty to its own Law would always render its loyalty to King and Country dubious. Christianity, on this Victorian view, recognised a due division between religion and state; while the Semitic Other could not. There was little wonder in this. The Christian, as heir to the Hellenic vision of St Paul, was free in the spirit. The Semitic Jew was bound to the Law. He could hence never progress or become reconciled to the value of Gentile compatriots. Ultimately, his aim was to subvert, dominate, and possess.[v]

    Few in the West seem to have spotted this similarity. One of the great ironies of the present crisis is that many of the most outspoken defenders of the State of Israel are implicitly affirming antisemitic categories in the way they deny the value of Islam. Pim Fortuyn, the Dutch anti-immigration politician who proposed the closure of all of Holland’s mosques, published his book Against the Islamisation of our Culture to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the creation of Israel. Yet his book is filled with characterisations of the new Muslim presence that fit perfectly the categories of antisemitism. The Muslim Other is irrational. He mistreats his women. He follows primitive dietary laws. He is driven by the Law, not the Spirit. He must, therefore, be always the same, a single phenomenon, incapable of reform. His intentions are not to enrich his country of adoption, but to overcome it for the sake of a transnational religious enterprise of domination and contempt. [vi]

    We are, in a sense, the New Jews. An odd transposition has taken place, with one religious community ducking from beneath a Christian yoke, which then found Muslim shoulders to rest on.[vii] We have little time or inclination to contemplate the irony of this strange alteration, however; since we cannot forget the fate of the prejudice’s earlier victims, and its current prospects. The road from Auschwitz to Srebrenica was not such a crooked one; and the new rightist politicians in the West are surely positioned somewhere along that road.”

    http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/AHM-TradorExtradNew.htm

  263. bananabrain — on 1st April, 2009 at 3:02 pm  

    I see – so the text of the Quran and the interpretatition of jurists throughout the agres that the Chritian and Jews are indeed ahl ul kitab (or qitab as you oddly spelt it) is junked in favour of the words of an anonymous “islamist” you fail to name. Well Im convinced.

    i can do better than that: have a read of the actual discussion here: http://www.interfaith.org/forum/rabbinic-interpretation-and-jewish-law-7708.html

    what you seem not to have grasped about what i am saying is that whereas many reputable jurists, as you say, *are* able to argue that i, personally, at this moment, am ahl-e-kitab (if you prefer), if one wishes to be takfiri about it, as some do, there is still a significant body of opinion that can argue for me and every other jew alive today to be declared kuffar despite being jewish, by virtue of remaining jewish post-Qur’anic revelation, which is the position adopted by almost every type of islamist, from maududis to saudis to hizbollah to al-qaeda.

    as i’ve said on previous threads on PP (here at #39, for example: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1818) the muslim theologians of my acquaintance are adamant that this stuff refers to *only* the jews of mecca and medina at the time of muhammad, but these other eejits take every critical reference to “the jews” in the Qur’an as referring to all jews since the time of muhammad, everywhere and whenever. if you are unaware of this then you are simply not up to date with the issues. the positive references to jews and to “ahl-e-kitab” (people of the book) are only considered by these people to refer to jews *before* the time of muhammad and jews in the time of muhammad who became muslims, the same way as this vile white supremacist jew-hater is trying to “prove” that the biblical israelites that the catholic church reveres are a different group, nay, a different species, from the jews of today.

    The problem with the taqiyyah libel is it incriminates its holder’s argument – if everything Muslims says is “taqiyya” i.e lying then the extremists positions you quote are also.

    a good point, actually. but that’s not what i’m saying. i’m saying that sunni disingenuousness (as demonstrated there) is ironic considering they themselves accuse the shi’a of taqqiyah. i’m not making a general accusation of that. i don’t think you, for example, have the education or intelligence to be able to sustain the declaration that the ahl-e-kitab are OK, whilst maintaining that contemporary jews and christians do not qualify for that status, which is by definition disingenuous. it’s different from outright dissimulation, or “lying” if you prefer, but there’s certainly a similarity that is adequate for irony.

    And why you think you should be exempted from the accusation of dissimulation of beliefs whne you are happy to accuse others is beyond me.

    because i’m making it in a very specific case, to support a central plank of my argument, namely that islamist jew-haters have clearly been influenced by european racist jew-haters not only in terms of content, but tactics and structure, which i think is quite interesting.

    and here is a fine article which outlines on the similiarities between Christian anti-semitism and Islamophobia- and indeed many of these attitudes once belived about Jews have been adopted by Jewish Islamophobes towards Muslims

    a cursory reading of this article (which i think is probably quite good, except for “We are, in a sense, the New Jews.” – the old jews haven’t gone anywhere! and “the new rightist politicians in the West are surely positioned somewhere along that road.” – if he’s talking about new labour, he’s surely talking out of his bum) reveals that it does not actually support the second part of your sentence, about these putative “jewish islamophobes”. now, i presume you’re referring to mel phillips or daniel pipes or something (the article doesn’t mention this i believe) and i don’t feel any need to defend them, since i don’t agree with them in the first place. their judaism ought not to matter, because as far as i can see it doesn’t actually form part of their views on islam. judaism as a religion doesn’t really have much of a view on islam except that it’s definitely not idolatry and that some of the things some of its exponents make about judaism and the Torah are incorrect. judaism says very little about islam per se as part of the middle east.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  264. Candide — on 2nd April, 2009 at 10:19 am  

    I’ve been coming to this site regularly since it was first created. I’ve always found the articles informative and the posts from Pickle regulars and newbies to be interesting, funny, educational etc. But most of all, I liked the respect people showed to each other’s views, race and religion and still have heated debates.

    For the past 6 months or so, I’ve found it to have changed. There has now become a constant attack on Jews, Judaism and Israelis. I first noticed it when Platinum 769 crept into Pickled Politics from Sunny’s now closed Barficulture forum and came out with the line “Jew infestation” in Europe. His posts on the Pakistani Defence Forum which someone managed to find showed how deep his hatred is towards Jews. He admins in that site, and promptly took down his remarks. The ironic thing is that racists use the word “infestation” when they talk about his religion and race. Ive now noticed he’s keeping control of his outbursts. Leopard. Spots.

    Now every time I read articles on here, there is a constant attack on all things related to Jews, Judaism and Israel. It’s always the same posters. Sometimes it’s the same poster with a different name. Even on this thread about an idiotic website, someone brings up and attacks Israel. Funny. Some posters style of writing leads to the conclusion that they the same person. Then you get the so-called newbies with names such as “Mary”, “Hannah” etc. Again, their style of writing shows they aren’t that new at all.

    Barficulture was closed down because of the idiots that turned it into a cesspit of racists and retarded posts. I hope this site doesn’t have the same fate.

    I can completely understand why certain regular posters have left this site, or do not post as much. It’s sad really, since their posts were far more interesting and wide-ranging that these new Jew-hating one-trick ponies that now post.

    I find Timothy Johnson’s views to be vile. As a Catholic I find him embarrassing. He’s obviously from the same catholic school of thought as Mel “sugar tits” Gibson. His views on Catholicism is so messed up that I find myself laughing when I read his posts. I don’t know which has been the funniest. Probably his view that Jesus and Mary were not practising Jews. Especially when the gospels are littered with the Jewish Rituals they performed, e.g., Jesus’ circumcision, bar mitzvah (when he got lost in the Temple), praying at the Temple, celebrating Passover etc. The Old Testament and Gospels which he claims to have read, follow, and consider Holy Scripture are full of stories of people who were Jewish. Wake the f. up. Timothy, your hatred has blinded you to the hypocrisy and has made you a laughing stock.

    Forget this rather silly 19th century Germanic term of anti-Semitism and hiding behind whether you are or your not and whether if the term is apt or not. Say it like it like it is – you’re a Jew-hater. Your hatred of Jews is unbelievable. The whole idea that the world is ruled by Jews would be hilariously funny, if it wasn’t for the underlying racism that you bring up and stir.

    If the world is ruled by Jews, why haven’t you met an untimely death by the hand of our secret rulers for your anti-Jewish bullshit? It could easily have been done without them showing their hand, say a road accident. Before you came onto the news, you were a no-body. Actually you still are, since your site didn’t even make it onto the main news, just on some blogs and neo-Nazi, Islamists sites. If you were gone, you wouldn’t be missed by the general public. Only your fellow Jew-haters would weave a tangled conspiracy for you in your memory. I’m sure your drooling at the thought. It wouldn’t be worth much since these people probably blame the hole in the ozone layer on the Jews as well. So why hasn’t it happened? Obviously you will come up with some retarded conspiracy laced theory as to why you’re still breathing.

    The only one I would believe is that its because you haven’t left your sad little bedroom and pc with your Jewish conspiracy poster mounted on your wall which you got from your Neo-Nazi-Islamist Digest subscription.

    One thing that has been positive about his thread is how people have come together and dismantled Timothy’s crazy views.

  265. bananabrain — on 2nd April, 2009 at 1:39 pm  

    For the past 6 months or so, I’ve found it to have changed. There has now become a constant attack on Jews, Judaism and Israelis.

    …every time I read articles on here, there is a constant attack on all things related to Jews, Judaism and Israel. It’s always the same posters. Sometimes it’s the same poster with a different name. Even on this thread about an idiotic website, someone brings up and attacks Israel. Funny. Some posters style of writing leads to the conclusion that they the same person. Then you get the so-called newbies with names such as “Mary”, “Hannah” etc. Again, their style of writing shows they aren’t that new at all.

    Barficulture was closed down because of the idiots that turned it into a cesspit of racists and retarded posts. I hope this site doesn’t have the same fate.

    I can completely understand why certain regular posters have left this site, or do not post as much. It’s sad really, since their posts were far more interesting and wide-ranging that these new Jew-hating one-trick ponies that now post.

    so it’s not just me, then.

    actually, i was not nearly so disheartened by the obvious jew-haters as by the craven, cavilling, moral equivalence displayed by many (although fortunately not all) of the lefties here which gave me a well-timed reminder not to rely on what i still believe are essentially good people standing up for decency in the face of a trite remark. no, in most cases we jews are expected to be moral hostages for the “progressive” conduct of the israeli government and expected to condemn or cheer in line with the party line.

    well, feck the lot of ‘em. feck the so-called israel lobby which these eejits think tells me what to think, feck the israeli political class and feck mel phillips too – but most of all, feck the weasels of the left with their desire to treat the palestinians as a lapel badge and poster fodder instead of treating them like human beings.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  266. douglas clark — on 4th April, 2009 at 12:38 pm  

    Candide, bananabrain,

    You probably don’t agree with me all the time, and I’m out of my comfort zone talking about religion at all, so I probably say stuff in a way that either or both of you might think is a bit crass.

    But, one of the interesting things about this here site is that it does allow a dialogue, maybe not the best of dialogues admittedly, between people that might never encounter each other in real life.

    I value your contributions, and I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in saying that.

  267. bananabrain — on 6th April, 2009 at 11:39 am  

    douglas,

    it’s not people saying crass things about religion that annoys me. it’s when i see sustained, unpleasant prejudice excused by other people who ought to know better. i’m tired of being continually asked to account for the actions of people i disagree with by people who simply want to prove they’re right. i find it a futile exercise engaging with the blah/munir tendency and i find the exercise of ritual condemnation as practiced by the left wing utterly pointless as well. it’s the repetition as well. i’ve said it once, i’ve said it a thousand times. well, now i’m tired of it. there are better avenues for what i’m trying to do and the “us-and-them” and whataboutery mentality that seems to take over practically every comment thread nowadays just does my head in. i know who the people are here that i have meaningful discussion with. i’m in contact with some of them offline, fortunately.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  268. Jai — on 6th April, 2009 at 12:06 pm  

    I value your contributions, and I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in saying that.

    No you’re not alone. Bananabrain, I second Douglas’s remarks above.

    The comments about some relatively-new participants on PP pushing an antisemitic agenda are spot-on; whether you’re currently just passing through or will decide to take a more active role on PP again is of course completely up to you, but I do think that people such as you who have razor-sharp minds are needed here in order to effectively fight back against the bigotry and propaganda.

    But…..like I said, it’s up to you. I can understand that dealing with that kind of nonsense from belligerent anonymous strangers with clear psychiatric issues is a blood pressure-raising hassle you can do without (Katy doesn’t hang out here so much anymore either, as you might have noticed).

    Candide made some brilliant points in #265 too.

    (Although, as a fellow long-term commenter, I should mention that I’ve noticed a dramatic improvement in Platinum786′s conduct and attitudes. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I would hope that the previous offensive remarks about Jewish people were youthful idiocy and ideas which he would now completely retract and disavow).

  269. bananabrain — on 6th April, 2009 at 12:20 pm  

    i doubt it, in his case. i am not a “keyboard warrior”, but neither am interested in engaging with the sort of limited mind that thinks that “zionist” is by definition an insult. at the moment i am pretty pissed off with the israelis, but i can’t bear getting sucked into those slanging matches, because my definition of being reasonable and not taking sides is not simply to say “both sides are as bad as each other” and to draw moral equivalence between hamas and the idf. it comes down to this; either PP is a site where jews are welcome, or it isn’t. when it becomes dominated by abusive and venomous tirades about “supporters of israel” and other such coded warnings, then it is is time for me to recognise i’m wasting my time expecting dialogue. with that said, my faith has been somewhat restored by the response to the protocolista on this thread, but i won’t be forgetting january and february in a hurry. i’ll see you chaps around then, i hope.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  270. Ravi Naik — on 6th April, 2009 at 1:22 pm  

    either PP is a site where jews are welcome, or it isn’t. when it becomes dominated by abusive and venomous tirades about “supporters of israel” and other such coded warnings, then it is is time for me to recognise i’m wasting my time expecting dialogue.

    I find these comments from you and Katy to be both tiresome and depressing. If you can’t ignore trolls and feel psychologically drained by these conversations, then it is a good idea not to come here. Life’s too short to be drained by anonymous trolls.

    I am also not sure what PP could do to make you and Katy more welcome – you have Jai, Douglas and god knows who else, to beg you to stay everytime you threaten to leave. What more do you want to feel welcome? I have not seen any other commentators having the same respect and reverence as our Jewish commentators – not that you do not deserve it, but it makes your comment somehow disingenuous.

    On top of that, the fact that you claim your faith on PP was somehow restored by this thread because we confronted Timothy and his blatant antisemitism, is frankly insulting.

  271. Leon — on 6th April, 2009 at 3:14 pm  

    But, one of the interesting things about this here site is that it does allow a dialogue, maybe not the best of dialogues admittedly, between people that might never encounter each other in real life.

    Indeed, and some of us have taken that a little further into the real world. Ideally, I’d like to see more real world meets, meeting the humans behind the words adds a context no amount of commenting or blogging can achieve.

    Further to that, creating a real social fabric increases civil conduct in my view. I’ve met Katy and Sid in recent times, both posters I’ve had heated discussions with in the past, and can attest that they are indeed two of the loveliest people you’re likely to meet. It means that when I read their words I’m put in mind the person while I evaluate the post/argument put forward.

    I’d encourage more commenters and writers to meet up and also not to just wait for the big formal/Sunny attended meets either. Each of us can create and re-create this place for the better.

  272. Leon — on 6th April, 2009 at 3:15 pm  

    Heh I think I just had a “We the people…” moment…:D

  273. bananabrain — on 6th April, 2009 at 3:22 pm  

    then, ravi, you obviously don’t understand what i find tiresome and depressing about dealing with the level of anti-jewish venom we’ve been facing recently. sorry, but you’re really not getting it. try being jewish and facing it. i’m not asking for special “respect” or “reverence”. the fact remains that comments involving jews or israel seem to run longer than almost anything else primarily because normal restraint, logic, politeness and common decency seems to disappear from some posters the instant the subject is breached. i’d prefer the restraint, but it’s not up to me.

    most anti-jewish prejudice these days has learned to be covert, to cloak itself in more politically acceptable terminology, you know, like the BNP changing their language? these people are not completely thick. if people cannot detect it unless a guy comes right out and says stuff like “jews control the media” or “the protocols are real” then that is hardly my fault. i am not one of these people who sees anti-semites everywhere. prior to the current imbroglio i posted perfectly happily on PP for about 4 years. search the archives – you will not find me complaining about jew-haters before about the end of last year. that was when it suddenly rose up like a great fetid wave. i felt i wasn’t getting the support i was entitled to from people i considered to be fair-minded and sensible, albeit i know from this thread that hearts are in the right place. it is just a shame that it needed the bigotry to be as obvious as it has been here to make the case. if you find that insulting i really think it is for you to examine your assumptions about what constitutes civilised dialogue.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  274. Jai — on 6th April, 2009 at 3:53 pm  

    Bananabrain,

    i doubt it, in his case.

    If you’re referring to Platinum786 (as opposed to the other individual you mentioned previously) then perhaps the best move would be for Platinum786 to simply apologise for his previous remarks, retract them, and for everyone concerned to shake hands and move on.

    If Platinum786 has the integrity and decency he now clearly appears to possess then hopefully he’d be willing and able to do this. It would be the honourable thing to do, and I’m sure it would result in everyone involved respecting him for it.

    However, regarding certain other individuals…..

    but neither am interested in engaging with the sort of limited mind that thinks that “zionist” is by definition an insult…..when it becomes dominated by abusive and venomous tirades about “supporters of israel” and other such coded warnings,

    …..it is an entirely different matter. Virulent bigotry towards Jewish people and indeed a deep hatred of pretty much everyone who isn’t Muslim (as per their definition of the term), especially Hindus and Sikhs, is very much an ongoing problem with Munir/Blah (who, incidentally, is the same person, in case you’ve missed that during your absence).

    And following on from that…..

    normal restraint, logic, politeness and common decency seems to disappear from some posters the instant the subject is breached…..assumptions about what constitutes civilised dialogue.

    …..the “normal” behaviour you’ve mentioned above not only disappears entirely, it wasn’t even there in the first place. There are limits to the feasibility of engaging in civilised dialogue with people whose hatred is resulting in mentally disturbed behaviour, to the extent that their attitude towards (and perception of) their targets is recognisably psychotic.

    By the way, once again, I do agree completely with your observations about the fact that some discussions on PP go completely berserk if Jews and/or Israel are involved. I’ve commented on this disturbing tendency myself on previous occasions. Very neurotic behaviour in some quarters; it’s like the antisemitic equivalent of Little Green Footballs.

  275. bananabrain — on 6th April, 2009 at 3:57 pm  

    well, exactly. but what ravi seems to be saying, rather sadly, is that katy and i have some sort of persecution complex. in fact, the opposite is true. that does not prevent me from perceiving persecution when it is actually happening.

    and, yes, i know munir/blah is the same person, but he is not the only one we’re talking about here. and, like i said, it’s not just the islamist trolls that are the problem. on the other hand, i am an ardent admirer of yourself, sid, soru, leon, rumbold and various others, ravi usually included. it’s the weaselly moral equivalence of the left i object to.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  276. Katy Newton — on 6th April, 2009 at 4:15 pm  

    I find these comments from you and Katy to be both tiresome and depressing. If you can’t ignore trolls and feel psychologically drained by these conversations, then it is a good idea not to come here.

    Fuck off. I’ve said nothing here to merit being dragged into this. BB and I get a hard time from some regular commenters on here for being Jewish. You do not get the same abuse and you have no idea what it’s like. I’ve seen you bridle when people criticise or are uninformed about Catholicism and the only reason you aren’t like that more often is that this site doesn’t attract as many anti-Catholics as it does anti-Jews. You don’t have a clue.

    I’m aware that people like you are just irritated when people like me point out that we’re being trolled so for the most part I don’t say anything at all. I’m glad you prefer that, Ravi.

  277. bananabrain — on 6th April, 2009 at 4:19 pm  

    in any case, leon is right and we should take the sensible stuff into real-life. i’m game.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  278. Jai — on 6th April, 2009 at 4:30 pm  

    Bananabrain,

    on the other hand, i am an ardent admirer of yourself

    Thank you, it’s very kind of you to say so.

    but what ravi seems to be saying, rather sadly, is that katy and i have some sort of persecution complex.

    I think that feeling that large numbers of other people are “ganging up” on you is pretty justified under the circumstances. Apart from you, Katy and her mother, it’s not as though there are huge numbers of other Jewish commenters here. So if you appear to be on the end of some kind of sudden “feeding frenzy” whenever the topics of Jews, Israel, or I/P rear their heads, with some other commenters clearly having an axe to grind and aggressive, sometimes hypocritical agendas to push, then of course you’re going to feel as though you’re being persecuted. Your response is completely understandable.

    in fact, the opposite is true. that does not prevent me from perceiving persecution when it is actually happening.

    Agreed.

    However, the statement by Ravi which I’ve quoted at the bottom of this post is still good advice — not in the sense of “If you can’t stand the heat then get out of the kitchen”, and certainly not in a rude way (“If you don’t like it here then you know where the door is”), but in the spirit of not wasting your own time and energy. As Ravi said, life’s too short for such nonsense, and we all have better things to do. If keeping a detached perspective starts proving too difficult then hey, take a break or escape the party completely by climbing out of the bathroom window. There’s no reason why your real life and emotional wellbeing should be affected by emotionally-draining anonymous strangers (especially in the cases of those who are obviously suffering from genuine psychiatric disorders) who are too screwed up to see (or accept) exactly how deranged their own behaviour is.

    If you can’t ignore trolls and feel psychologically drained by these conversations, then it is a good idea not to come here. Life’s too short to be drained by anonymous trolls.

  279. Katy Newton — on 6th April, 2009 at 4:40 pm  

    Well, this is nice.

  280. douglas clark — on 6th April, 2009 at 4:41 pm  

    Leon @ 272,

    I would really like to meet up with quite a few of you, because I am curious about the people behind the posts. (Without the formality of it being some sort of major event. I’m crap at major events.)

    However, when you live five hundred miles away it’s difficult financially to justify a day trip to London. And it’d probably take y’all about a couple of hours to just penetrate my accent :-) More Rab C Nesbitt than Doctor Finlays Casebook….

    But you should encourage more meet ups between people that do live a tad nearer. Because what you say is the way forward…

    I do, genuinely think, that the similarities between us – people that are interested in the debates and discussions here – are much greater than our differences.

    I have learnt an awful lot by sticking with PP through thick and thin. You do see people change, without naming names, (well OK one, me), and there are other commentators here that have obviously been influenced by what they have read.

    If we are to believe that folk are mutable, that they can be influenced, or can influence us, then, given the reasonably decent level of intellect, and the reasonably fair level of debate, you’ve got to hope the more intractible commentators give up. For their ideas are without either merit or foundation.

    This was a thread about censorship, and is perhaps an object lesson in why censorship isn’t needed.

    Just sayin’

  281. Jai — on 6th April, 2009 at 4:53 pm  

    Katy,

    Do you not think it’s ever so slightly topsy turvy to leave the trolls to troll whilst inviting the people they’re trolling to take time out?

    No, it’s just friendly advice in the interests of the people concerned preserving their sanity and keeping their blood pressure down. As a certain well-known North Indian saint said about 500 years ago, “Don’t argue with fools”. It’s very good advice, for multiple reasons.

    By the way, the trolls are not “left to troll”; their rantings are regularly removed by some of the people running this website, and until they’re banned completely, several of us have taken a fairly proactive approach when it comes to hitting back at them.

  282. Ravi Naik — on 6th April, 2009 at 4:56 pm  

    You do not get the same abuse and you have no idea what it’s like. I’ve seen you bridle when people criticise or are uninformed about Catholicism and the only reason you aren’t like that more often is that this site doesn’t attract as many anti-Catholics as it does anti-Jews. You don’t have a clue.

    I have no doubt that you and Bananabrain feel that comments against Israel and Jews are unique, and no one can understand bigotry and hate unless you are Jewish. As a dark-skinned person, and someone who is a direct target from a legitimate political party for expulsion because for them I do not belong in this country, I find that quite amusing.

    Also, on the subject of Catholicism, I was one of the first here in this thread to voice against Timothy’s claims (#130). I did bridle on that one, yes.

    It is not wrong to feel sensitive when people say things that are personal to you. It’s personal to me when people claim that Indians are intellectually inferior than others based on pseudo-scientific research (something I am debating right now in PP) – it’s not something you necessarily feel sensitive to; no doubt that threads that put Muslims in a bad light will make Refresh, Blah, Ashik and Munir quite active, not necessarily you and me. And language that is unfair against Israelis and Jews will make you and Bananabrain angry.

    What I object to is your constant whining about leaving, or accusing everyone of being insensitive or tolerating hate, and that you need proof (like this thread) that we are not dancing with anti-Semites.

    I think you, bananabrain and chairwoman are important to PP, because you provide a unique perspective. I have learnt a lot from you, and I do believe at some level the trolls as well.
    But it is also apparent that you feel emotionally drained from these debates.

  283. Jai — on 6th April, 2009 at 5:04 pm  

    Ravi,

    make Refresh, Blah, Ashik and Munir quite active,

    Mate, like I mentioned earlier, “Blah” and “Munir” are the same person. The people running this website and who have access to the relevant systems are aware of this too. Irrespective of the guy’s continuing attempts to prove otherwise by writing posts under the username “Blah” last week and falsely addressing responses to “Munir”; he was basically talking to himself and still pretending to be different commenters.

    But it is also apparent that you feel emotionally drained from these debates.

    You can’t blame them. Some people can become extremely personal and quite vicious. It’s like a complete stranger continuously shouting abuse at you from across the street and calculating the attacks to “go for the jugular”, especially when it involves strawman arguments and ‘tu quoque’ tactics.

  284. Ravi Naik — on 6th April, 2009 at 5:10 pm  

    But it is also apparent that you feel emotionally drained from these debates.

    You should feel that the majority of people here does cover your back. But it is very off-putting to start accusing people of tolerating anti-semitism, or to believe that you are the only ones who understand what hate or bigotry is. It is quite a pointless exercise to debate who’s got it worse. It is much better if we all stick together, and fight bigotry in all forms and shapes. And educate us if we do not get it.

  285. Katy Newton — on 6th April, 2009 at 5:14 pm  

    Brilliant with the straw men there, Ravi. Firstly, I did not suggest that Jew hatred was unique or that you as a dark skinned person have not suffered racism. What I said was that you have never had the level of personal trolling, racist or otherwise, that I have suffered on this site – and for what it’s worth, I don’t think bb has either, although he’s had his share. I get the bulk of it. You know perfectly well that I would not suggest that Jew hatred is worse than any other sort of racism and I am outraged that you would put those words in my mouth to score a point.

    Secondly, I don’t “whine” about leaving. I see people on this site as my friends and I like to think that they would be upset if I just stopped commenting because of a bunch of racist trolls. In MY world, you see, when people who aren’t unreasonable racist fuckwits are pestered and bullied by people who are, it’s the racists we ask to leave, not the people they’re shitting on. That’s why I tell people that I don’t want to be on the site anymore. Think of it as feedback. There is no obligation upon anyone to take any notice of it but do not say to me that telling someone “I do not want to comment on here anymore because it has become a cesspit of racism” is unreasonable, and do NOT accuse me of “whining” about blatant Jew-hatred unless you think I am actually making it up.

    Thirdly, the reason I am particularly fucked off is this: I don’t say very much here anymore, because I’m fed up with people like fug and hermes and munir/blah and whoever having the run of it. If that’s the way people want the site to be, that’s fine, and I’ll just drop in and say something every now and again. I have not asked for any of these people to be banned, I have not accused you or Sid or Leon or Sunny or anyone else of being antisemitic – in fact I have defended this site on other forums where it is considered to be antisemitic – and I have not asked for or suggested that this particular thread is “proof” of anything, one way or the other. The reason I am fucked off, Ravi, is that you took comments that BB made about how he felt about this thread, and you lumped me in with them and started making out that we’re constantly whining. We aren’t. I’ve just left you all to it, for the most part, and so has BB.

    What has been made very clear to me here is that you see anything that BB says as ascribable to me, and vice versa, simply because we are both Jewish. I know you aren’t antisemitic, I am not suggesting anything like that, but it pisses me off that you’re being so intellectually lazy here.

  286. Katy Newton — on 6th April, 2009 at 5:19 pm  

    The weird thing is that I really liked this thread. It was great to see so many people who don’t normally agree uniting against a dyed in the wool bigot. I really enjoyed it. It’s a shame, Ravi, that you decided to come in at the end and tell BB and (for some reason) me to fuck off home if we don’t like it here. I really don’t get where that came from.

  287. douglas clark — on 6th April, 2009 at 5:19 pm  

    One final comment if I may, and I’d like you all to really think about manipulation:

    Timothy Johnsons’ work here is done. Despite all efforts it is us that are squabbling. And we ought to be a damn sight better than that…stronger than that, even.

  288. Ravi Naik — on 6th April, 2009 at 5:27 pm  

    What I said was that you have never had the level of personal trolling, racist or otherwise, that I have suffered on this site

    Hold on, Katy. How can you possibly know the amount of racist abuse I have endured to make any sort of comparison, and to claim I do not get it? Speak for yourself, do not assume that you know me.

    The reason I am fucked off, Ravi, is that you took comments that BB made about how he felt about this thread, and you lumped me in with them

    Fair enough. I apologise for lumping you with BB.

  289. Sid — on 6th April, 2009 at 5:29 pm  

    I don’t think katy is “squabbling” with anyone. She is saying, quite rightly, that she gets dragged into *other people’s* squabbles completely unnecessarily, without any relevance whatsoever simply because she is regarded as one of the “Jews in residence”.

    And furthermore, I don’t agree with this perception of Ravi’s that we all have our own indvidual identities to defend whenever the conversation turns that way. This thread, or discussion rather, was kicked off because of the entry of a hate-inciting troll. Bigotry is something we should all be arguing against and not just regarded as the battleground of a few Jewish members whose personal identities and vested interests are under attack. And on this thread I’m glad to see we did by and large.

    Lastly, my disagreements with Muslim commenters are mostly over the question whether exremist Islamist groups are representative of Muslim identity. I don’t think they are, whereas the ones Ravi mentioned seem to think they do.

  290. Katy Newton — on 6th April, 2009 at 5:29 pm  

    How can you possibly know the amount of racist abuse I have endured to make any sort of comparison, and to claim I do not get it?

    ON THIS SITE. I said that loud and clear, several times. ON THIS SITE. You aren’t seriously going to try and tell me that you get trolled to the same extent that I do on here, are you?

  291. Katy Newton — on 6th April, 2009 at 5:31 pm  

    She is saying, quite rightly, that she gets dragged into *other people’s* squabbles completely unnecessarily, without any relevance whatsoever simply because she is regarded as one of the “Jews in residence”.

    Thanks – that is what I was getting at but I did not say it so cleverly.

  292. Ravi Naik — on 6th April, 2009 at 6:02 pm  

    And furthermore, I don’t agree with this perception of Ravi’s that we all have our own indvidual identities to defend whenever the conversation turns that way. This thread, or discussion rather, was kicked off because of the entry of a hate-inciting troll. Bigotry is something we should all be arguing against and not just regarded as the battleground of a few Jewish members whose personal identities and vested interests are under attack. And on this thread I’m glad to see we did by and large.

    Actually, Sid, that’s what I said in #285 – that we should fight bigotry against all forms. What I also mentioned is that we are more sensitive to certain issues than others. This was a subtle point that not everything gets caught under our radar – it doesn’t mean that we condone it.

  293. Ravi Naik — on 6th April, 2009 at 6:05 pm  

    You aren’t seriously going to try and tell me that you get trolled to the same extent that I do on here, are you?

    I don’t consider to be abused in PP. But I am very active in white supremacist forums – and I get abused and trolled. I like to think you are not the only one who gets it.

  294. chairwoman — on 6th April, 2009 at 6:11 pm  

    But I am very active in white supremacist forums – and I get abused and trolled. I like to think you are not the only one who gets it.

    Where? Can anyone play?

  295. Ravi Naik — on 6th April, 2009 at 6:11 pm  

    I don’t think katy is “squabbling” with anyone. She is saying, quite rightly, that she gets dragged into *other people’s* squabbles completely unnecessarily, without any relevance whatsoever simply because she is regarded as one of the “Jews in residence”

    No, Sid. I do feel that both bananabrain and Katy did threaten to leave, and both of them accused others of tolerating anti-semitism. That is why I mentioned both of them.

    But I apologised to Katy because it was wrong to bring her up when she was not in the original conversation. That was wrong and rude.

  296. douglas clark — on 6th April, 2009 at 6:15 pm  

    Sid,

    How do you do that?

    My point is that, by divisiveness, Timothy Johnson has won.

    And you pick up on a single word, ‘squabble’.

    And you have the gall to link that to Katy? I don’t think Katy is divisive, so there you go.

    This was what I was thinking about when I wrote what I did:

    You can’t blame them. Some people can become extremely personal and quite vicious. It’s like a complete stranger continuously shouting abuse at you from across the street and calculating the attacks to “go for the jugular”, especially when it involves strawman arguments and ‘tu quoque’ tactics.

    And it struck me that it is us that are in disarray
    and that Timothy Johnson Esq, bigot of this parish, walks away with a smile and a jig.

    We ought, to stretch an analogy a bit, be all linking arms and laughing at the nutter on the other side of the street.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.