RK:I am really having a tough time digesting all of
Stevertigo's barbs at Jews diatribes on this list. His
obsession with Jews, and those who hate Jews, is the only
common link to his contributions to Wikipedia.
Ah. So in other words "I didnt
bother to actually read what
Steve wrote, but I's sure it was Jew bashing from that anti-Semite." Sorry
Robert, Ive been cluing people into how the term anti-Semite is commonly
used to slander people who speak the truth about Israeli atrocities in the
name of Yahave. Next question.
RK: Do people here recall his attempts to promote Nazi
Holocaust deniers as mainstream academics that deserve
respect? His repeated edits which attempt to deny that
anti-Semitism exists in many articles? His attempts to
claim that anti-Semitism doesn't mean hatred of Jews at
all? His constant Jew-baiting, where he lists a handful of
people that much of the Jewish community views as
anti-Jewish - whom he then presents as heros?
None of this is true, of course. I
did write an essay on David Irving which
essentially said 'for all of his Holocaust denials, at least he never killed
anyone, which is more than can be said for that IDF bulldozer driver that
murdered Rachel Corrie. Read your Ten Commandments baby...
RK: Does anyone here do constant atheist baiting?
Christian
baiting? Hindu baiting? No. We only see Stevertigo's Jew
baiting...and it has been gooing on for quite some time.
I still dont understand the term "Jew baiting". It sounds like something
southern Aryan racists might say... of course, Jewish American Zionists,
according to their literature dont consider racist Jew-hating White
Supremacists as "anti-Semitic" because many are close with Christian
Zionists... and its the liberal who considers Palestinians as actual human
beings who is the "real anti-Semite" Jew hater.
(
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c10-s20.html )
RK:Consider his newest post: He finds a handful of
people of
Jewish descent who say anti-Jewish things, which many Jews
find anti-Semitic. Stevertigo quotes them, promotes them
for the sole purpose of attacking Jews, yet then claims
that he can't be anti-Semitic, because they are Jews, and
Jews cannot be anti-Semitic. Is anyone fooled by this
childish wordplay?
No. Noone is fooled by your childish wordplay. They all actually
read the
last posts, (tracing through the header-changes) and they know that you
obviously didnt.
RK:By the way, Stevertigo himself knows that his claims
are
false. A phenomenom common to many ethnic and >national groups is the
existence of self-hatred.
Yes, and this would explain your behaviour, Roberticus.. I submit these
quotes from (
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/19antis1.htm )
"The assumption of an eternal anti-Semitism ... has been
adapted by a great many unbiased historians and by even a greater number of
Jews. It is this odd coincidence which makes the theory so very dangerous
and confusing. Its escapist basis is in both instances the same; just as
anti-Semites understandably desire to escape responsibility for their deeds,
so Jews, attacked and on the defensive, even more understandably, do not
wish to under any circumstances discuss their share of responsibility."
Hannah
Arendt, Origins, p. 7 (Jewish historian)
"For some Jews and perhaps some of the Jewish leadership, the fear is that
if anti-Semitism completely disappears then the Jewish community might erode
or dissolve." Stanley Rothman, (in STALLSWORTH, p. 67)
RK:Examples of people who are sometimes considered
Jewish
anti-Semites are Noam Chomsky and Israel Shahak. Referring to works by
Israel
Shahak and others, The ADL's >report on
The Talmud and Anti-Semitism states "In
distorting the
normative meaning of rabbinic texts, anti-Talmud writers
frequently remove passages from their textual and
historical context....Those who attack the Talmud
frequently cit ancient rabbinic sources without noting
subsequent developments in Jewish thought....Are the
polemicists Anti-Semites? This is a charged term that
should not be used lightly, but the answer, by and large,
is yes. Now and then a polemicist of this type may have
been bon Jewish, but their systematic distortion of the
ancient texts, always in the direction of portrarying
Judaism negatively, their lack of interest in good-faith
efforts to understand contemporary Judaism from
contemporary Jews, and their dimissal of any voices
opposing their own, suggests that their goal in reading
ancient rabbinic literature is to produce the Frankenstein
version of Judaism that they invariable claim to have
uncovered."
Rubbish. Utter rubbish. You refer to The ADL as an unbiased
source??? "one
of the main pillars" of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli press
casually describes it." (Neccessary Illusions) Tell me, what do you think
about what Dennis Bernstien says:
"Everyone else is terrified. The only ones who begin to open their mouths
are the Jews in this country. You know, as a kid, I sent money to plant
trees in Israel. But now we are horrified by a government representing a
country that we grew up loving and cherishing. Israel's defenders have a
special vengeance for Jews who don't fall in line behind Sharon's
scorched-earth policy because they give the lie to the charge that Israel's
critics are simply anti-Semite."
(
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?dir=7&story=3132…
st=3&printable=1 )
RK:Chomsky and Shahak, not surprisingly, are about the
only
> people of Jewish descent that Stevertigo agrees with. What
> conclusion can one draw from this?
No they are not. Im sure I agree with you on
some issues. And now you admit:
your criteria for *who is anti-Semitic is directly linked to *which Jews
they do or do not agree with. I see now. Thank you for clarifying, Robert.
RK:No, Stevertigo, the term is merely used to
accurately describe you.
Of course!! I agree!! It's a "term merely
used" by racist Jewish bigots to
slander critical thinking people like me. Thank you and God bless. :) -SV
Ps. I should add that Its Hanlon's Razor that allows me to respond in kind
to you RK, otherwise the Murphy's Law of: "never argue with a fool" would
forbid me.