Whacking the AhMADinejad Whack Job
Just Me
now gone from merely "questioning" the Holocaust to unequivocally
denying it as a prefabricated lie to justify establishment of the
Zionist state. Video here . . .
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090918/wl_nm/us_iran_8
The most telling thing about Mahmoud Madman's rhetoric is what it
suggests by reverse analysis, that if the Holocaust did indeed occur,
therefore Israel's reinstatement upon the world map *is* justified,
necessary, inevitable--despite any consequent displacement of a former
non-Jewish population. Because, guess what? Death is worse than
displacement, and Nothing is more unequivocal than necessity. Video
here . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCAjmuA1HDk&feature=related
It is necessary, inevitable and unequivocal therefore that Mahmoud
Whackjob be whacked.
Where is the team of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS needed to sign up for the
job?
Applications being scrutinized and scrupulously considered here.
--
JM http://whosenose.blogspot.com/2008/06/by-force-of-historical-necessity.html
Grand Mal
"Just Me" <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ded87fa-2425-4047...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> Who will volunteer to whack the whack job? Seen the latest? He has
> now gone from merely "questioning" the Holocaust to unequivocally
> denying it as a prefabricated lie to justify establishment of the
> Zionist state. Video here . . .
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090918/wl_nm/us_iran_8
Wait a minute.
This is the quote as reported in the article...
"The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is
false
Who put those words in brackets in there? Did Ahmed-on-a-jihad (or whatever
his name is) actually say that the holocaust is a lie or say that the
pretext for the creation of Israel is a lie?
Because it's not the same thing.
Just Me
> "Just Me" <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7ded87fa-2425-4047...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Who will volunteer to whack the whack job? Seen the latest? He has
> > now gone from merely "questioning" the Holocaust to unequivocally
> > denying it as a prefabricated lie to justify establishment of the
> > Zionist state. Video here . . .
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090918/wl_nm/us_iran_8
>
> Wait a minute.
> This is the quote as reported in the article...
> "The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is
> false
> Who put those words in brackets in there? Did Ahmed-on-a-jihad (or whatever
> his name is) actually say that the holocaust is a lie or say that the
> pretext for the creation of Israel is a lie?
Both. For which reason he nukes his own position, just as he does by
use of the term "pretext". Never mind his use of "pretext" because
the term itself is a pretext full of meanings that force a conclusion
not justified by fact. He merely alleges that such a "pretext"
exists. He uses that term to avoid the one it is there to replace
which would be "reason". Whether he likes it or not, what he's really
saying is . . .
>"The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is
> false.
He nukes himself even worse by adding the term "false" since according
to definition, any "pretext" is either false or misleading. According
to Webster's, a "pretext" is . . .
"a purpose or motive alleged or an appearance assumed in order to
cloak the real intention or state of affairs."
Had the man an ounce of logic or honesty in his head, he should have
said . . .
"Putting the Holocaust as the reason for the creation of the Zionist
regime is a pretext."
But *reason* is the thing he, a Madman, cannot conceive of being any
use for an argument.
--
JM
Grand Mal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, he was addressing a group at a university in Tehran, presumably in
Farsi, so there might be translation issues.
I don't doubt that he would, in private conversation, deny the holocaust.
I'm betting, though, that he's not an idiot and has left a back door open in
his rhetoric.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
I think what he is getting at is the long held view that the Zionist
movement was only put into place in an imperial sense to colonize the
middle east with Europeans. This has been held in that part of the
world since the mid 1800's. The idea was reinforced when the arab
tribal nations helped to defeat the Turks in WW1 but were not
recognized as a legitimate society by th evictors and were set upon as
spoils of war.
Marko Amnell
Ahmadinejad's statements denying the Holocaust, asserting that
Israel should be destroyed, etc. are certainly absurd and
provocative, but it helps a lot to understand why he says such
outrageous things if one graps that he is *not* speaking primarily
to an international audience. He is targeting his rhetoric mainly
as the domestic audience, in particular peasants, workers and
other lower class segments of society in the vast Iranian
countryside. The coverage of his statements in the international
media gives the impression that he is targeting the White House,
Tel Aviv, London, Paris, etc. but that is not the case at all.
Ahmadinejad's success is based on his ability to speak to the
common man, to reach out using populist rhetoric and vernacular
speech to segments of the population that more elitist politicians
cannot reach. In the Middle East, conspiracy theories and
anti-Semitic opinions are widespread in the grassroots. Ahmadinejad
is shrewdly playing to this audience, and it works in the polls.
Does he really believe any of these things? It is doubtful. One
indication he may not hold these beliefs himself, and thus may
not be making them seriously in the sense in which he is
understood by the international media, is that he appoints
moderates that have supported him to key positions, even
when their appointments are opposed by conservative elements
in Iranian politics.
Don Phillipson
----------------------------------"
> . . . he is getting at is the long held view that the Zionist
> movement was only put into place in an imperial sense to colonize the
> middle east with Europeans. This has been held in that part of the
> world since the mid 1800's.
Problem_1: the Zionist movement dates only from the very late
19th century.
2. Most Zionist settlers before 1914 came from eastern
Europe (largely the Austrian and Russian empires) and
thus differed in experience from the assimilated Jewish
communities of Britain, France, Germany etc.
> The idea was reinforced when the arab
> tribal nations helped to defeat the Turks in WW1 but were not
> recognized as a legitimate society by th evictors and were set upon as
> spoils of war.
3. The Great Powers of 1919 reorganized the Middle East to
suit their own preferences rather than its inhabitants'. But
most Arab tribes had remained loyal to the Ottoman Empire
during WW1. (T.E. Lawrence's "Arab Revolt" was a sideshow
compared with the conventionally modern British invasions from
Egypt and Basra.) Thus (for example) Baghdad (with the largest
Jewish community of any city in the world) was placed in 1919 into
a new kingdom headed by a prince from southern Arabia. His
father had in 1918 occupied Damascus with the aim of becoming
king of Syria, with British support, but when French armies
replaced British armies his Arab supporters lost interest so
the claim withered.
Middle East politics was indeed shaped by colonial habits, i.e.
the French supported republican institutions in their zone while
the British supported monarchs in their zone: but the
difference seemed in the long run to make little difference
to the resident populations.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx-------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------"
>
> > . . . he is getting at is the long held view that the Zionist
> > movement was only put into place in an imperial sense to colonize the
> > middle east with Europeans. This has been held in that part of the
> > world since the mid 1800's.
>
> Problem_1: the Zionist movement dates only from the very late
> 19th century.
> 2. Most Zionist settlers before 1914 came from eastern
> Europe (largely the Austrian and Russian empires) and
> thus differed in experience from the assimilated Jewish
> communities of Britain, France, Germany etc.
>
Ok I worded that incorrectly. The last sentance should have read "
This notion of european colinization has been held in that part of the
world since the mid 1800's.
> > The idea was reinforced when the arab
> > tribal nations helped to defeat the Turks in WW1 but were not
> > recognized as a legitimate society by th evictors and were set upon as
> > spoils of war.
>
> 3. The Great Powers of 1919 reorganized the Middle East to
> suit their own preferences rather than its inhabitants'. But
> most Arab tribes had remained loyal to the Ottoman Empire
> during WW1.
Most Arab tribes had little real involvement in the war period. For
some, I'm sure ther was only a passing awarness of what was going on
in distant lands. And what assurances would they have had that to
change their loyalties there would have been a reward of self
determination? As we can see from 1919, none.
(T.E. Lawrence's "Arab Revolt" was a sideshow
> compared with the conventionally modern British invasions from
> Egypt and Basra.) Thus (for example) Baghdad (with the largest
> Jewish community of any city in the world) was placed in 1919 into
> a new kingdom headed by a prince from southern Arabia. His
> father had in 1918 occupied Damascus with the aim of becoming
> king of Syria, with British support, but when French armies
> replaced British armies his Arab supporters lost interest so
> the claim withered.
>
> Middle East politics was indeed shaped by colonial habits, i.e.
> the French supported republican institutions in their zone while
> the British supported monarchs in their zone: but the
> difference seemed in the long run to make little difference
> to the resident populations.
I don't agree. I think there was as much anti imperialism in the
middle east and north Africa as there was in India. To the Arabs and
Palistinians and Persians, the enforced creation of a European state
with support of the European powers after WW2 was just another example
of that imperialism.
Don Phillipson
----------------------------------"
> > Middle East politics was indeed shaped by colonial habits, i.e.
> > the French supported republican institutions in their zone while
> > the British supported monarchs in their zone: but the
> > difference seemed in the long run to make little difference
> > to the resident populations.
> I don't agree. I think there was as much anti imperialism in the
> middle east and north Africa as there was in India. To the Arabs and
> Palistinians and Persians, the enforced creation of a European state
> with support of the European powers after WW2 was just another example
> of that imperialism.
Seems unlikely . . .
1. During WW2 (and despite "Quit India" movements) more than 2 million
Indians volunteered to join the British-controlled Indian army. Elsewhere in
the Middle East, with a tenth the total population, it seems unlikely that
200k people ever volunteered to fight for either the Allies or Axis (or
Vichy.)
2. Imperialists may have believed in 1920 that endowing Syria, Lebanon,
Transjordan and Iraq with European-drafted constitutions made
them "European states:" but the actual inhabitants of Syria, Lebanon,
Transjordan and Iraq rather obviously did not: and nor did the kings
of Egypt, Libya, Arabia etc. The only major exceptions appear to
have been Turkey (consciously neo-European) and Persia (consciously
archaic under its "Shahanshah.")
Alborz
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
The Ahmad nejad will provocate and provocate
He will arm the Armee,and provide more missiles and maybe nukes
and he will help , Hisbullah and Hamas, Iraqi Resistnce and very
probably
Afghan Taliban.
He Will F.ck you every day aghain and again , for more Years Ahmadi =
For more Years f.cking for US, Nato and israel.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx-------------------------------------------------
The imperialists were the Europeans.
Just Me
"Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
All this is straying from the question which has nothing to do with
"European imperialism"--unless you think ahMADdineNUTJOB is not nuts
and is right dead on the money to say that the Holocaust was nothing
but a "pretext" for some alleged invasion of imperialist European
colonialism.
1. It is FALSE to label Jews in flight from European snot-nose
discrimination and persecution as being motivated by anything other
than the will to separate and disassociate themselves from all that
shit. And what is that shit? That shit is a Euro-Imperial quest to
shoulder the demands of the "White Man's burden," that's what that
shit is; to impose Gentile values and culture upon the rest of the
world. IT was precisely that shit which had made Jews so perennially
unwelcome in Europe.Jews were never permitted to become European, so
they were not European, and nothing could be a worse insult to Jewish
culture than to label it with the name of the very thing that opposed
and rejected and persecuted it. Jews immigrated to "Palestine" to get
away from Europe and every arrogant, conceited, lily-white goddam
Gentile imperial attitude it represented. They were not streaming back
to the land that had persisted so fervently and tearfully in their
prayers for nearly two millennia to extend European influence and
culture, but to leave that shit behind.
2. Was the Holocaust a "pretext" in any sense of the word? The Madman
of Iran says it was invented to cloak the imperialist ends of Zionist
colonialism, and that Zionism is nothing but a Trojan Horse set upon
the coast at Haifa with the whole sum and substance of Gentile
Crusader Euro-Imperial greed to come shitting out at its ass to defile
the holy Al Quds--their shitty name for the City of Zion, for
Jerusalem.
Was the Holocaust a "pretext" for Polish and Russian Jews in flight
from a murderous regime of pogroms around the turn of the 19th
Century. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Aliyah . . .
"The First Aliyah (also The Farmers' Aliyah) was the first modern
widespread wave of Zionist aliyah. Jews who migrated to Palestine in
this wave came mostly from Eastern Europe and from Yemen. This wave of
aliyah began in 1881–82 and lasted until 1903.[1][2] An estimated
25,000[3]–35,000[4] Jews immigrated to Ottoman Syria during the First
Aliyah."
And this "pretext" of the Holocaust--did it apply to the Second
Aliyah? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Aliyah . . .
"The Second Aliyah was the most important and influential aliyah. It
took place between 1904 and 1914, during which approximately 40,000
Jews immigrated into Ottoman Palestine, mostly from Russia and Poland
[1], some from Yemen. The prime cause for the aliyah was mounting
antisemitism in Russia and pogroms in the Pale of Settlement, notably
the Kishinev Pogrom and the Pogroms that attended the 1905 Russian
Revolution."
And while Jews were going up in smoke from Hitler's ovens, where was
the "pretext" then, what with immigration quotas all over the Euro-
American world making it impossible for Jews to emigrate to anywhere
but to Palestine in contravention of Imperial British Law? What were
the pretexts used in Washington, Ottawa, Havana, and London to keep
Jews out, leaving nowhere for them to go but up in smoke or into the
laps of the Arabs of Palestine?
What is the shitty awful "pretext" we are really talking about here?
What say we get this discussion back on the subject!
--
JM http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
Robert McClelland
> All this is straying from the question which has nothing to do with
> "European imperialism"--unless you think ahMADdineNUTJOB is not nuts
> and is right dead on the money to say that the Holocaust was nothing
> but a "pretext" for some alleged invasion of imperialist European
> colonialism.
>
Why do you care so much what Ahmadinejad has to say if you think he's
nuts?
Just Me
wrote:
I don't even know where to start with a question like that. How absurd
that anyone should suppose this has to do with "caring". It has to do
with . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCAjmuA1HDk&feature=related
Where is the team of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS needed to sign up for the
job?
Applications being scrutinized and scrupulously considered here.
JM
--
http://whosenose.blogspot.com/2008/06/by-force-of-historical-necessity.html
Robert McClelland
Ahmadinejad is nothing more than the puppet of an impotent theocracy
that's slowly but steadily losing its grip on power.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
>
> "The First Aliyah (also The Farmers' Aliyah) was the first modern
> widespread wave of Zionist aliyah. Jews who migrated to Palestine in
> this wave came mostly from Eastern Europe and from Yemen. This wave of
> aliyah began in 1881–82 and lasted until 1903.[1][2] An estimated
> 25,000[3]–35,000[4] Jews immigrated to Ottoman Syria during the First
> Aliyah."
>
> And this "pretext" of the Holocaust--did it apply to the Second
>
> "The Second Aliyah was the most important and influential aliyah. It
> took place between 1904 and 1914, during which approximately 40,000
> Jews immigrated into Ottoman Palestine, mostly from Russia and Poland
> [1], some from Yemen. The prime cause for the aliyah was mounting
> antisemitism in Russia and pogroms in the Pale of Settlement, notably
> the Kishinev Pogrom and the Pogroms that attended the 1905 Russian
> Revolution."
>
> And while Jews were going up in smoke from Hitler's ovens, where was
> the "pretext" then, what with immigration quotas all over the Euro-
> American world making it impossible for Jews to emigrate to anywhere
> but to Palestine in contravention of Imperial British Law? What were
> the pretexts used in Washington, Ottawa, Havana, and London to keep
> Jews out, leaving nowhere for them to go but up in smoke or into the
> laps of the Arabs of Palestine?
>
> What is the shitty awful "pretext" we are really talking about here?
> What say we get this discussion back on the subject!
> --
> JMhttp://whosenose.blogspot.comhttp://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
look at it from the other side.
Just Me
"Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> look at it from the other side.
There is no other side to holocaust, but the fire.
NO god damned "other side".
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
I think it is interesting that anytime anyone starts to look at what
might be the Arab point of view on the events post WW2, someone shouts
"Holocaust" in the room and all discussions of history outside the
western/european version must stop at that point, because that word
has been spoken.
As I was not talking about the holocaust, rather, the peception of the
Arabs on the method and creation of the state and asked you to simply
look at the events from the other side, you've jumped in with the
word.
I don't think there is any point discussing things with you. You are
stuck in this psudo nationalistic rutt, and cannot walk the mile in
another's shoes.
Don Phillipson
> 1. It is FALSE to label Jews in flight from European snot-nose
> discrimination and persecution as being motivated by anything other
> than the will to separate and disassociate themselves from all that
> shit. . . . Jews were never permitted to become European, so
> they were not European, and nothing could be a worse insult to Jewish
> culture than to label it with the name of the very thing that opposed
> and rejected and persecuted it. Jews immigrated to "Palestine" to get
> away from Europe and every arrogant, conceited, lily-white goddam
> Gentile imperial attitude it represented.
This ignores the practical difference that in some countries (Germany,
Britain, France) Jews were highly assimilated (cf. Disraeli etc.) while
in eastern Europe (Russian and Austrian empires) they were
assimilated only in large cities and elsewhere not at all. Most
migrants to Palestine up to 1939 came from eastern Europe:
families from Britain or the USA became prominent because
they spoke English, but were statistically very few.
A practical difference is that the French and German states
were before 1950 "imperialist" in that they wanted to maintain
or enlarge their overseas territories. But this has nothing to
do with the status of Jews in the homeland (cf. Rufus Isaacs
as Chief Justice.)
> They were not streaming back
> to the land that had persisted so fervently and tearfully in their
> prayers for nearly two millennia to extend European influence and
> culture, but to leave that shit behind.
It may have been a matter of covenience if Palestinians thought
all non-Muslim, non-Ottoman cultures "European," but they
seemed to think mainly on antisemitic or anti-immigrant lines
rather than either religious or cultural ones. Street violence
was from 1920 directed mainly against Jews (e.g. not against
the many Christian foundations active in Jerusalem since the
late Ottoman period) and seldom against the structures of
British rule (e.g. police and railways.) Those structures
were systematically attacked only from 1935 onward,
mostly after 1945.
> And while Jews were going up in smoke from Hitler's ovens, where was
> the "pretext" then, what with immigration quotas all over the Euro-
> American world making it impossible for Jews to emigrate to anywhere
> but to Palestine in contravention of Imperial British Law? What were
> the pretexts used in Washington, Ottawa, Havana, and London to keep
> Jews out, leaving nowhere for them to go but up in smoke or into the
> laps of the Arabs of Palestine?
There was no "emigration" when belligerent governments
(UK and USA) directly controlled transatlantic passenger
traffic. No "pretexts" were needed "to keep Jews out" when
cross-border traffic was prohibited to everyone not on
official business. So far as continental Europe was
concerned, the only exit gates were those to Switzerland,
Sweden and Turkey, also controlled by belligerent powers
just as the UK and USA controlled transatlantic traffic.
We can indeed find footnotes where some Australian
or Canadian official said in 1938 or perhaps 1946 "Polish
Jews do not fit in here. We do not want them." But we
may not cite these as the reason preventing someone
moving in wartime from Berlin to (say) Canada.
This discussion suggests personal feelings were irrelevant.
This was also the Nazis' conclusion (documented at Wannsee.)
Such records as Stefan Zweig's autobiography and suicide
suggest otherwise.
Just Me
"Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > look at it from the other side.
>
> > There is no other side to holocaust, but the fire.
>
> > NO god damned "other side".
>
> I think it is interesting that anytime anyone starts to look at what
> might be the Arab point of view on the events post WW2, someone shouts
> "Holocaust" in the room and all discussions of history outside the
> western/european version must stop at that point, because that word
> has been spoken.
So there you are in concurrence with the "Holocaust as pretext" view
of the worst nut-job tyrant and bad actor on the world scene; your
only point of contention being that you do not deny the Holocaust,
which only makes your position all the more incomprehensible.
In order for AhMADineNUTJOB to deny that the Holocaust was (and is) a
deciding factor making necessary a displacement of Arabs by Jews in
"Palestine" he can only argue that such a deciding factor never
existed in the first place. Even AhMADineNUTJOB cannot, in his own
mind, get around the Holocaust as such a necessary and sufficient
cause for establishment of the Jewish state.
But you? Most incredibly, you can look at a thing like the Holocaust,
knowing it did indeed occur and despite that, deny it in the worst way
it can be denied which is to say that there was nothing in it to be
taken into account respecting the establishment of a Jewish state.
Holy shit! Even in view of the Holocaust you can deny that it amounts
to anything more than a hill of shit, that anything should come of
it . . .
> As I was not talking about the holocaust, rather, the peception of the
> Arabs on the method and creation of the state and asked you to simply
> look at the events from the other side, you've jumped in with the
> word.
What 'word'? Hill of Shit? If it makes it any the easier for you,
shall we use that term of art instead--call the Holocaust "Hill of
Shit" so that your sensibilities don't have to be so seriously
insulted every time you hear "the word"?
>
> I don't think there is any point discussing things with you. You are
> stuck in this psudo nationalistic rutt, and cannot walk the mile in
> another's shoes.
Walk that mile through a Hill of Shit in wooden Auschwitz shoes? Yes,
that is precisely the thing you cannot do and that is the whole point;
the very thing that stands to amaze anyone of conscience about a
person like you. While Jews are burning you think there is a God damn
"Arab point of view"? While ANY man is burning there is no other point
of view--and every man must cede his point of view, step back, and
give that burning man room to get out of the fire.
No. Don't try to hand me someone else's "point of view" while this
person is burning. Don't even begin to try that. The eyes of
conscience see right through it. No. there is only ONE point of view
from the direction of that burning Hill of Shit, baby, and that is to
get out of it, back into the frying pan of the Judaean desert--even
there, if need be, when all other directions are blocked.
It is YOU who cannot step into the burning wooden shoes of that Jew--
and that is what's so aggravating about people who talk like you. You,
who are the sort of Hill of Shit denier who says, "Oh, there was a
Hill of Shit alright, but it just didn't really amount to a hill of
shit--that it should be so capitalized with such a big 'H' and
everything, and so forgettable, as you do insist, as to be by no means
accountable in a reckoning of world affairs "post WWII".
Can you really be so totally and despicably goy as that? I really had
hoped not to think so. Try to get in touch with the inner burning Jew
in you, Jack, for once in your pathetically banal, unhip existence.
Video here . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Tiz6INF7I
--
JM
http://whosenose.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_archive.html
http://whosenose.blogspot.com/2008/06/by-force-of-historical-necessity.html
Just Me
> On Sep 19, 8:30 pm, Just Me <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 1. It is FALSE to label Jews in flight from European snot-nose
> > discrimination and persecution as being motivated by anything other
> > than the will to separate and disassociate themselves from all that
> > shit. . . . Jews were never permitted to become European, so
> > they were not European, and nothing could be a worse insult to Jewish
> > culture than to label it with the name of the very thing that opposed
> > and rejected and persecuted it. Jews immigrated to "Palestine" to get
> > away from Europe and every arrogant, conceited, lily-white goddam
> > Gentile imperial attitude it represented.
>
> This ignores the practical difference that in some countries (Germany,
And Dreyfus? Don't ignore Dreyfus and about how highly assimilated he
got and all, out there on Devil's Island.
> while
> in eastern Europe (Russian and Austrian empires) they were
> assimilated only in large cities and elsewhere not at all. Most
> migrants to Palestine up to 1939 came from eastern Europe:
> families from Britain or the USA became prominent because
> they spoke English, but were statistically very few.
Unfortunately, the question of Jewish assimilation into European
society is, yes, all too easy to ignore in view of how it was so soon
shown for the sham it was with the coming of Hitler's Reich. So, you
are right. I do ignore it. I ignore it just as Germany ignored it,
when their greatly beloved star of the Berlin cabaret, of German film
and stage, Kurt Gerron was hied off the set of the Threepenny Opera to
Theresienstadt, and thence to Auschwitz where he got real good and
assimilated, into smoke and ash.
Unfortunately, there has never been nor is there even yet any sort of
Jewish assimilation that is not highly ignorable (if not ignoble), or
at the very least, arguable. Living right on the Mason-Dixon line as
I do, how many of my fellow townsmen and neighbors do you suppose know
of me that my father was Jewish? What, with the national headquarters
of the KKK only about 90 miles from here, southeast as the carrion
crow flies?
Yet just about ten years ago before we moved a little north of the
line, when I was new in the country and still as yet full of piss and
vinegar enough to tell the sonsofbitches anything they might care to
know, well then so I did. That was not the right way to "assimilate" I
come to find out. Nope. That was totally not the way to go about it;
not the way it's done.
Instead, what you do is you keep your big mouth shut, and you don't do
as I did, when I told the guy who was coming to work in his black KKK
tee shirt, "Hey pal! Tell 'em down there in Harrison that you've got
this Jew-boy over here that wants to join the Klub." As you can see, I
was really going whole hog back in those days trying to 'assimilate'.
Lucky for me the guy never took my request seriously. Unluckily, after
that, I never heard the end of it from those hayseed rednecks on the
job who did want to make something of it. And though I'm not even
officially "Jewish", inglourious basterd that I am, I've all too often
been made to deal with it in a way that leaves me permanently pissed,
though I know I should take a tip from Kinky Friedman and just keep
dishing it in their faces, laughing my ass off all the way through
Hell to Texas.
More later . . .
Marko Amnell
The Daily Telegraph reports that it has been
revealed that Mahmud Ahmadinejad has
Jewish roots. He was born Jewish and his
family converted to Islam and changed
their name after he was born.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed to have Jewish past
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's vitriolic attacks on the Jewish world
hide an astonishing secret, evidence uncovered by
The Daily Telegraph shows.
By Damien McElroy and Ahmad Vahdat
The Daily Telegraph
Published: 7:30AM BST 03 Oct 2009
A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card
during elections in March 2008 clearly shows his family
has Jewish roots.
A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as
Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver.
The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed its
name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace
Islam after his birth.
The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad's
birthplace, and the name derives from "weaver of the
Sabour", the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is
even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews
compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior.
Experts last night suggested Mr Ahmadinejad's track record for hate-
filled attacks on Jews could be an overcompensation to
hide his past.
Ali Nourizadeh, of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies, said:
"This aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's background explains a
lot about him.
"Every family that converts into a different religion takes a new
identity by condemning their old faith.
"By making anti-Israeli statements he is trying to shed any suspicions
about his Jewish connections. He feels vulnerable in
a radical Shia society."
A London-based expert on Iranian Jewry said that "jian" ending to the
name specifically showed the family had been
practising Jews.
"He has changed his name for religious reasons, or at least his
parents had," said the Iranian-born Jew living in
London. "Sabourjian is well known Jewish name in Iran."
A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in London said it would not be
drawn on Mr Ahmadinejad's background. "It's not
something we'd talk about," said Ron Gidor, a spokesman.
The Iranian leader has not denied his name was changed when his family
moved to Tehran in the 1950s. But he has never
revealed what it was change from or directly addressed the reason for
the switch.
Relatives have previously said a mixture of religious reasons and
economic pressures forced his blacksmith father Ahmad
to change when Mr Ahmadinejad was aged four.
The Iranian president grew up to be a qualified engineer with a
doctorate in traffic management. He served in the
Revolutionary Guards militia before going on to make his name in
hardline politics in the capital.
During this year's presidential debate on television he was goaded to
admit that his name had changed but he ignored the
jibe.
However Mehdi Khazali, an internet blogger, who called for an
investigation of Mr Ahmadinejad's roots was arrested this
summer.
Mr Ahmadinejad has regularly levelled bitter criticism at Israel,
questioned its right to exist and denied the Holocaust. British
diplomats walked out of a UN meeting last month after the Iranian
president denounced Israel's 'genocide, barbarism and racism.'
Benjamin Netanyahu made an impassioned denunciation of the Iranian
leader at the same UN summit. "Yesterday, the man who calls the
Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium," he said. "A mere six decades
after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies the
murder of six million Jews while promising to wipe out the State of
Israel, the State of the Jews. What a disgrace. What a mockery of the
charter of the United Nations."
Mr Ahmadinejad has been consistently outspoken about the Nazi attempt
to wipe out the Jewish race. "They have created a myth today that they
call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God,
religions and the prophets," he declared at a conference on the
holocaust staged in Tehran in 2006.