Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Do Craig and Cindy Corrie Want Justice or Media Attention?
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Michael Ejercito
Aug 30, 2012, 6:40:31 AM8/30/12
to
http://www.israpundit.com/archives/48698
Do Craig and Cindy Corrie Want Justice or Media Attention?
by Bill Levinson
“There’s not a lot of money in revenge.”
–Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride
Inigo Montoya had to take odd jobs for questionable characters like
Vizzini because there is indeed very little money in the revenge
business, so Montoya owned little more than his sword and his honor.
Had he been offered expenses-paid trips to exotic locales, appearances
before the era’s media, and so on in exchange for allowing his
father’s murderer to escape justice, he would have preferred his sword
and his honor instead. This puts this fictional character head and
shoulders above Craig and Cindy Corrie, who seem to prefer media
attention over genuine justice for their daughter. The Poles would
call the Corries haniebny: shameless and without honor.
The death of Rachel Corrie has certainly given her parents the
opportunity for worldwide travel to places like Argentina, as well as
to Israel and many American cities where they are the center of media
attention. If they sought genuine justice against those who were most
directly responsible for their daughter’s death, as any person of
honor would do, these travel and media opportunities would dry up
pretty quickly.
The media has little interest in reckless, irresponsible, and
relatively nameless drifters and activists. To put this statement in
perspective, suppose a nameless thug or gang member murders somebody
in a back alley. It is unlikely that newspapers outside the city in
which the crime took place will give the investigation or trial more
than passing coverage. When the suspect’s name is O.J. Simpson or (in
the case of animal abuse) Michael Vick, the case gets national
attention. A drunk driving arrest or conviction similarly gets maybe
one or two paragraphs in the local paper unless the accused is
somebody like Paris Hilton, Mel Gibson, or Lindsay Lohan; then the
whole country if not the entire world knows about it.
The purported “murder” of an American peace activist by an advanced
and civilized democracy* like Israel similarly gets worldwide media
attention, and those who knowingly, willfully, and recklessly put
Rachel Corrie’s life at risk said as much.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/14/MNGBS7L5V71.DTL
“When Palestinians get shot by Israeli soldiers, no one is
interested anymore,” [International Solidarity Movement leader George]
Rishmawi said. “But if some of these foreign volunteers get shot or
even killed, then the international media will sit up and take
notice.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20030417080621/http://www.freepalestinecampaign.org/Stranger+article.htm
Joseph Smith, who was present when Rachel Corrie died and whose
highest priority seemed to be to take pictures instead of, for
example, trying to get her out of the bulldozer’s path, said, “The
spirit that she died for is worth a life. This idea of resistance,
this spirit of resisting this brutal occupying force, is worth
anything. And many, many, many Palestinians give their lives for it
all the time. So the life of one international, I feel, is more than
worth the spirit of resisting oppression.”
Rachel Corrie’s life, of course, not Joseph Smith’s life. We know a
pair of six-letter words for a “man,” and we use “man” very loosely,
who allows or encourages a woman to take a physical risk he will not
take himself: YELLOW and COWARD. One of the Palestinians whom Rachel
was there to help meanwhile lamented only that he had no video camera
with which to make a snuff film of her death.
“Making of a Martyr” by Sandra Jordan
“‘If only they’d had a video camera,’ one Palestinian journalist
lamented. ‘A film of the Israelis killing an American in cold blood
would have ended the intifada.’”
He is not sorry that Rachel Corrie died, he is sorry that his friends
did not have the opportunity to make a snuff film for propaganda
purposes.
The problem with Craig and Cindy Corrie going after the International
Solidarity Movement in the court of public opinion if not a court of
law is that the ISM consists of a bunch of losers, drifters, and
nobodies like George Rishmawi, Joseph Smith, Adam Shapiro, Huwaida
Arraf, and so on. The media is not interested in these lowlifes, and
the ISM’s complicity in causing Rachel Corrie’s death would not be
very interesting. “Man bites dog” is always more of a story than “Dog
bits man” and that, or else a total hoodwinking by the ISM, is why the
Corries are going after Israel and Caterpillar instead.
If Craig and Cindy Corrie read this, here are some hard facts for you:
(1) As proven above, and not from pro-Israel sources, the
International Solidarity Movement and the Palestinians expressed
motives for wanting your daughter dead. Among those who expressed such
a motive was an individual who was present when she died. To this we
add a Hamas terrorist who said openly that Rachel was more useful to
his cause dead than alive.
(2) As shown below, Rachel’s “friends” in the International Solidarity
Movement knowingly, willfully, and recklessly endangered her life. Her
death did not come out of the blue, with a bulldozer driver suddenly
deciding to run over her. The ISM’s own testimony shows at least two
close calls with bulldozers earlier in the day, although the drivers’
actions came quickly enough to avoid a tragedy. Rachel’s “friend”
Joseph Smith said openly that the ISM knew there was a risk of death
or serious injury, and the fact that the ISM went ahead and did it
anyway meets the definition of recklessness. Maybe the ISM cannot be
held criminally or civilly accountable because Rachel consented to the
risk, but the bottom line is that your daughter’s so-called friends
encouraged her to engage in a dangerous activity that cost her life.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml
“Picture taken between 3:00-4:00PM, 16 March 2003, Rafah, Occupied
Gaza. Rachel Corrie (L) and Nick (R) oppose the potential destruction
of this home (to the west of the Doctor’s home where Rachel was
killed). In the instance pictured, the bulldozer did not stop and
Rachel was pinned between the scooped earth and the fence behind her.
On this occasion, the driver stopped before seriously injuring her.”
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/3-22-2003-37821.asp (“Making of a
Martyr” by Sandra Jordan
” Joe Smith, 21, who went to college with Corrie, said that,
although they acknowledged the danger, they saw death as a ‘small,
unlikely, potential risk’.”
‘We knew there was a risk,’ Smith said, ‘but we also knew it never
happened in the two years that we (the ISM) have been working here. I
knew we take lots of precautions so that it doesn’t happen, that if it
did happen it would have to be an intentional act by a soldier, in
which case it would bring a lot of publicity and significance to the
cause.’
Right; Joseph Smith said it was “unlikely” that something bad would
happen but that, if it did, it would be great for his activist cause.
In other words, his own words express the ISM’s motive for wanting
your daughter dead in a confrontation with Israel. Furthermore, the
fact that another driver managed to stop barely in time to avoid
killing Rachel earlier in the day showed just how likely a tragedy was
if the ISM continued to engage in this form of protest.
We cannot give legal advice but here is how the law defines
recklessness.
Recklessness usually arises when an accused is actually aware of
the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, but has
gone ahead anyway, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim
to the risk of suffering the foreseen harm but not actually desiring
that the victim be hurt. The accused is a social danger because they
gamble with the safety of others, and the fact they might acted to try
to avoid the injury from occurring is relevant only to mitigate the
sentence.
The ISM’s own testimony shows that it was “actually aware of the
potentially adverse consequences” (getting run over by a heavy piece
of construction equipment) “but went ahead anyway,” thus recklessly
endangering your daughter’s life and the lives of everybody else who
participated. Maybe this isn’t legally actionable because Rachel was a
consenting party to the reckless activity but the ISM can damned well
be held accountable in the court of public opinion. Somebody who eggs
somebody on and encourages him or her to take a reckless chance is at
least morally responsible for the consequences.
Craig and Cindy Corrie, you have our sympathy for the loss of your
daughter and, if we could somehow go back in time to prevent it, we
would. The fact that we did not agree with some of the things she was
doing, like burning an American flag, does not mean she deserved to
die or even suffer serious injury. If every college student suffered
these kind of consequences for one or two acts of poor judgment, few
would survive to graduate. On the other hand, your persistence in
attempting to inflict punishment that should rightfully fall on the
International Solidarity Movement on innocent third parties makes it
our duty to treat you as enemies of a democracy that is friendly to
the United States, and as enablers of the terrorists who attack
Israel’s Rachels. There are many girls and women with that name whom
the International Solidarity Movement’s friends have murdered in cold
blood.
You must now choose between the path of honor and the path of self-
serving media attention. The path of honor consists in making sure
that the International Solidarity Movement will never again place
somebody else’s son or daughter at risk the way it recklessly
endangered yours. The path of honor will make sure that no other
Rachel Corrie is run over by a bulldozer, shot (possibly by a Hamas
sniper) during a confrontation with Israeli security forces, or killed
on a Gaza flotilla ship when terrorists on that ship initiate a
conflict with Israel’s navy. You should in fact join us in warning all
Americans against joining the U.S. Boat to Gaza because it is in
Hamas’ interests to make something bad happen to that ship, and note
also that a large number of people on the Mavi Marmara initiated armed
violence with Israeli security forces. The next Rachel Corrie could
easily end up dead if, for example, an individual on the Audacity of
Hope pointed a weapon, or something that looked like one, at an
Israeli patrol ship or helicopter.
There won’t be nearly as many cameras and microphones on the path of
honor and justice, but we guarantee that the company will smell a lot
better and will stand with you for REAL justice for your daughter.
* By “democracy” we mean any country that is governed with the consent
of those governed, in contrast to a monarchy or dictatorship. Few if
any countries on Freedom House’s list of free countries are actual
democracies like ancient Athens; Israel, Canada, and the United
Kingdom have parliamentary systems while the United States is a
Republic.
Do Craig and Cindy Corrie Want Justice or Media Attention?
by Bill Levinson
“There’s not a lot of money in revenge.”
–Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride
Inigo Montoya had to take odd jobs for questionable characters like
Vizzini because there is indeed very little money in the revenge
business, so Montoya owned little more than his sword and his honor.
Had he been offered expenses-paid trips to exotic locales, appearances
before the era’s media, and so on in exchange for allowing his
father’s murderer to escape justice, he would have preferred his sword
and his honor instead. This puts this fictional character head and
shoulders above Craig and Cindy Corrie, who seem to prefer media
attention over genuine justice for their daughter. The Poles would
call the Corries haniebny: shameless and without honor.
The death of Rachel Corrie has certainly given her parents the
opportunity for worldwide travel to places like Argentina, as well as
to Israel and many American cities where they are the center of media
attention. If they sought genuine justice against those who were most
directly responsible for their daughter’s death, as any person of
honor would do, these travel and media opportunities would dry up
pretty quickly.
The media has little interest in reckless, irresponsible, and
relatively nameless drifters and activists. To put this statement in
perspective, suppose a nameless thug or gang member murders somebody
in a back alley. It is unlikely that newspapers outside the city in
which the crime took place will give the investigation or trial more
than passing coverage. When the suspect’s name is O.J. Simpson or (in
the case of animal abuse) Michael Vick, the case gets national
attention. A drunk driving arrest or conviction similarly gets maybe
one or two paragraphs in the local paper unless the accused is
somebody like Paris Hilton, Mel Gibson, or Lindsay Lohan; then the
whole country if not the entire world knows about it.
The purported “murder” of an American peace activist by an advanced
and civilized democracy* like Israel similarly gets worldwide media
attention, and those who knowingly, willfully, and recklessly put
Rachel Corrie’s life at risk said as much.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/14/MNGBS7L5V71.DTL
“When Palestinians get shot by Israeli soldiers, no one is
interested anymore,” [International Solidarity Movement leader George]
Rishmawi said. “But if some of these foreign volunteers get shot or
even killed, then the international media will sit up and take
notice.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20030417080621/http://www.freepalestinecampaign.org/Stranger+article.htm
Joseph Smith, who was present when Rachel Corrie died and whose
highest priority seemed to be to take pictures instead of, for
example, trying to get her out of the bulldozer’s path, said, “The
spirit that she died for is worth a life. This idea of resistance,
this spirit of resisting this brutal occupying force, is worth
anything. And many, many, many Palestinians give their lives for it
all the time. So the life of one international, I feel, is more than
worth the spirit of resisting oppression.”
Rachel Corrie’s life, of course, not Joseph Smith’s life. We know a
pair of six-letter words for a “man,” and we use “man” very loosely,
who allows or encourages a woman to take a physical risk he will not
take himself: YELLOW and COWARD. One of the Palestinians whom Rachel
was there to help meanwhile lamented only that he had no video camera
with which to make a snuff film of her death.
“Making of a Martyr” by Sandra Jordan
“‘If only they’d had a video camera,’ one Palestinian journalist
lamented. ‘A film of the Israelis killing an American in cold blood
would have ended the intifada.’”
He is not sorry that Rachel Corrie died, he is sorry that his friends
did not have the opportunity to make a snuff film for propaganda
purposes.
The problem with Craig and Cindy Corrie going after the International
Solidarity Movement in the court of public opinion if not a court of
law is that the ISM consists of a bunch of losers, drifters, and
nobodies like George Rishmawi, Joseph Smith, Adam Shapiro, Huwaida
Arraf, and so on. The media is not interested in these lowlifes, and
the ISM’s complicity in causing Rachel Corrie’s death would not be
very interesting. “Man bites dog” is always more of a story than “Dog
bits man” and that, or else a total hoodwinking by the ISM, is why the
Corries are going after Israel and Caterpillar instead.
If Craig and Cindy Corrie read this, here are some hard facts for you:
(1) As proven above, and not from pro-Israel sources, the
International Solidarity Movement and the Palestinians expressed
motives for wanting your daughter dead. Among those who expressed such
a motive was an individual who was present when she died. To this we
add a Hamas terrorist who said openly that Rachel was more useful to
his cause dead than alive.
(2) As shown below, Rachel’s “friends” in the International Solidarity
Movement knowingly, willfully, and recklessly endangered her life. Her
death did not come out of the blue, with a bulldozer driver suddenly
deciding to run over her. The ISM’s own testimony shows at least two
close calls with bulldozers earlier in the day, although the drivers’
actions came quickly enough to avoid a tragedy. Rachel’s “friend”
Joseph Smith said openly that the ISM knew there was a risk of death
or serious injury, and the fact that the ISM went ahead and did it
anyway meets the definition of recklessness. Maybe the ISM cannot be
held criminally or civilly accountable because Rachel consented to the
risk, but the bottom line is that your daughter’s so-called friends
encouraged her to engage in a dangerous activity that cost her life.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml
“Picture taken between 3:00-4:00PM, 16 March 2003, Rafah, Occupied
Gaza. Rachel Corrie (L) and Nick (R) oppose the potential destruction
of this home (to the west of the Doctor’s home where Rachel was
killed). In the instance pictured, the bulldozer did not stop and
Rachel was pinned between the scooped earth and the fence behind her.
On this occasion, the driver stopped before seriously injuring her.”
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/3-22-2003-37821.asp (“Making of a
Martyr” by Sandra Jordan
” Joe Smith, 21, who went to college with Corrie, said that,
although they acknowledged the danger, they saw death as a ‘small,
unlikely, potential risk’.”
‘We knew there was a risk,’ Smith said, ‘but we also knew it never
happened in the two years that we (the ISM) have been working here. I
knew we take lots of precautions so that it doesn’t happen, that if it
did happen it would have to be an intentional act by a soldier, in
which case it would bring a lot of publicity and significance to the
cause.’
Right; Joseph Smith said it was “unlikely” that something bad would
happen but that, if it did, it would be great for his activist cause.
In other words, his own words express the ISM’s motive for wanting
your daughter dead in a confrontation with Israel. Furthermore, the
fact that another driver managed to stop barely in time to avoid
killing Rachel earlier in the day showed just how likely a tragedy was
if the ISM continued to engage in this form of protest.
We cannot give legal advice but here is how the law defines
recklessness.
Recklessness usually arises when an accused is actually aware of
the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, but has
gone ahead anyway, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim
to the risk of suffering the foreseen harm but not actually desiring
that the victim be hurt. The accused is a social danger because they
gamble with the safety of others, and the fact they might acted to try
to avoid the injury from occurring is relevant only to mitigate the
sentence.
The ISM’s own testimony shows that it was “actually aware of the
potentially adverse consequences” (getting run over by a heavy piece
of construction equipment) “but went ahead anyway,” thus recklessly
endangering your daughter’s life and the lives of everybody else who
participated. Maybe this isn’t legally actionable because Rachel was a
consenting party to the reckless activity but the ISM can damned well
be held accountable in the court of public opinion. Somebody who eggs
somebody on and encourages him or her to take a reckless chance is at
least morally responsible for the consequences.
Craig and Cindy Corrie, you have our sympathy for the loss of your
daughter and, if we could somehow go back in time to prevent it, we
would. The fact that we did not agree with some of the things she was
doing, like burning an American flag, does not mean she deserved to
die or even suffer serious injury. If every college student suffered
these kind of consequences for one or two acts of poor judgment, few
would survive to graduate. On the other hand, your persistence in
attempting to inflict punishment that should rightfully fall on the
International Solidarity Movement on innocent third parties makes it
our duty to treat you as enemies of a democracy that is friendly to
the United States, and as enablers of the terrorists who attack
Israel’s Rachels. There are many girls and women with that name whom
the International Solidarity Movement’s friends have murdered in cold
blood.
You must now choose between the path of honor and the path of self-
serving media attention. The path of honor consists in making sure
that the International Solidarity Movement will never again place
somebody else’s son or daughter at risk the way it recklessly
endangered yours. The path of honor will make sure that no other
Rachel Corrie is run over by a bulldozer, shot (possibly by a Hamas
sniper) during a confrontation with Israeli security forces, or killed
on a Gaza flotilla ship when terrorists on that ship initiate a
conflict with Israel’s navy. You should in fact join us in warning all
Americans against joining the U.S. Boat to Gaza because it is in
Hamas’ interests to make something bad happen to that ship, and note
also that a large number of people on the Mavi Marmara initiated armed
violence with Israeli security forces. The next Rachel Corrie could
easily end up dead if, for example, an individual on the Audacity of
Hope pointed a weapon, or something that looked like one, at an
Israeli patrol ship or helicopter.
There won’t be nearly as many cameras and microphones on the path of
honor and justice, but we guarantee that the company will smell a lot
better and will stand with you for REAL justice for your daughter.
* By “democracy” we mean any country that is governed with the consent
of those governed, in contrast to a monarchy or dictatorship. Few if
any countries on Freedom House’s list of free countries are actual
democracies like ancient Athens; Israel, Canada, and the United
Kingdom have parliamentary systems while the United States is a
Republic.
The Revd
Aug 30, 2012, 7:03:04 AM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 03:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.israpundit.com/archives/48698
>
>Do Craig and Cindy Corrie Want Justice or Media Attention?
>
>by Bill Levinson
LOL!
<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.israpundit.com/archives/48698
>
>Do Craig and Cindy Corrie Want Justice or Media Attention?
>
>by Bill Levinson
Keep sucking that fat jew rectum, gook!
The Peeler
Aug 30, 2012, 7:22:28 AM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 04:03:04 -0700, The Rectum, the resident psychopath of
sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, FAKING his time zone again,
farted:
>>
>>by Bill Levinson
>
> LOL!
>
> Keep sucking that fat jew rectum, gook!
WELL farted again, The Rectum! <BG>
--
The top 5 truths about our colostomy bag wearing resident psychopath, aka
"The Rectum":
the desperate psycho can't SLEEP anymore,
he can't get out of the house anymore,
he got NOBODY to talk to anymore,
he can't FUCK anymore,
he got no life outside Usenet AT ALL!
sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, FAKING his time zone again,
farted:
>>
>>by Bill Levinson
>
> LOL!
>
> Keep sucking that fat jew rectum, gook!
--
The top 5 truths about our colostomy bag wearing resident psychopath, aka
"The Rectum":
the desperate psycho can't SLEEP anymore,
he can't get out of the house anymore,
he got NOBODY to talk to anymore,
he can't FUCK anymore,
he got no life outside Usenet AT ALL!
dsharavi
Aug 30, 2012, 12:26:41 PM8/30/12
to
On Aug 30, 3:40 am, Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.israpundit.com/archives/48698
>
> Do Craig and Cindy Corrie Want Justice or Media Attention?
Media attention. It soothes their guilt over their responsibility for
> http://www.israpundit.com/archives/48698
>
> Do Craig and Cindy Corrie Want Justice or Media Attention?
their spoiled, childish, chain-smoking daughter's death.
>
> by Bill Levinson
>
> “There’s not a lot of money in revenge.”
> –Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride
>
> “When Palestinians get shot by Israeli soldiers, no one is
> interested anymore,” [International Solidarity Movement leader George]
> Rishmawi said. “But if some of these foreign volunteers get shot or
> even killed, then the international media will sit up and take
> notice.”
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20030417080621/http://www.freepalestinecam...
> “When Palestinians get shot by Israeli soldiers, no one is
> interested anymore,” [International Solidarity Movement leader George]
> Rishmawi said. “But if some of these foreign volunteers get shot or
> even killed, then the international media will sit up and take
> notice.”
>
>
> Joseph Smith, who was present when Rachel Corrie died and whose
> highest priority seemed to be to take pictures instead of, for
> example, trying to get her out of the bulldozer’s path, said, “The
> spirit that she died for is worth a life. This idea of resistance,
> this spirit of resisting this brutal occupying force, is worth
> anything. And many, many, many Palestinians give their lives for it
> all the time. So the life of one international, I feel, is more than
> worth the spirit of resisting oppression.”
>
> Rachel Corrie’s life, of course, not Joseph Smith’s life. We know a
> pair of six-letter words for a “man,” and we use “man” very loosely,
> who allows or encourages a woman to take a physical risk he will not
> take himself: YELLOW and COWARD. One of the Palestinians whom Rachel
> was there to help meanwhile lamented only that he had no video camera
> with which to make a snuff film of her death.
He couldn't make a film of her death, because she died in a Gaza
> Joseph Smith, who was present when Rachel Corrie died and whose
> highest priority seemed to be to take pictures instead of, for
> example, trying to get her out of the bulldozer’s path, said, “The
> spirit that she died for is worth a life. This idea of resistance,
> this spirit of resisting this brutal occupying force, is worth
> anything. And many, many, many Palestinians give their lives for it
> all the time. So the life of one international, I feel, is more than
> worth the spirit of resisting oppression.”
>
> Rachel Corrie’s life, of course, not Joseph Smith’s life. We know a
> pair of six-letter words for a “man,” and we use “man” very loosely,
> who allows or encourages a woman to take a physical risk he will not
> take himself: YELLOW and COWARD. One of the Palestinians whom Rachel
> was there to help meanwhile lamented only that he had no video camera
> with which to make a snuff film of her death.
hospital.
to read it. Or, if they read it, they won't understand it. If they had
told their daughter they weren't going to shell out any more dough for
her to screw around in college, therefore she to had to get off her
lazy butt and earn a degree, or get a job, she would be alive today.
Apparently, they can't accept that.
Michael Ejercito
Aug 30, 2012, 12:47:11 PM8/30/12
to
On Aug 30, 4:03 am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 03:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 03:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>
> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >http://www.israpundit.com/archives/48698
>
> >Do Craig and Cindy Corrie Want Justice or Media Attention?
>
> >by Bill Levinson
>
> LOL!
There is a certain irony to Rachel Corrie's death.
> >http://www.israpundit.com/archives/48698
>
> >Do Craig and Cindy Corrie Want Justice or Media Attention?
>
> >by Bill Levinson
>
> LOL!
>
> Keep sucking that fat jew rectum, gook!
conduct and choices.
Your use of racial slurs is noted.
You are a Nazi.
As a Nazi, you are, above all else, a craven coward.
You are afraid to compete with others as equals because you know
you can not measure up.
You are afraid of your own inadequacy, so you want to murder your
betters.
You are afraid of the truth, so you want to murder those who would
tell it.
You are afraid of history, so you want to murder the past, to wipe
out the knowledge of the degeneracy, cowardice and failure of
National
Socialism.
Finally, you are afraid of the power of educated, informed adults.
Freedom of choice terrifies you... which is why you choose minor
children as sexual partners. You can not interact with competent
adults in a consensually sexual
way. You need to be able to impose yourself on a helpless victim, be
it a prepubescent
boy, or a patient in a mental hospital.
That is what you are, a Nazi, and there is nothing polite or
honest about it.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
Aug 30, 2012, 12:49:18 PM8/30/12
to
On Aug 30, 9:26 am, dsharavi <dshr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 30, 3:40 am, Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.israpundit.com/archives/48698
>
> > Do Craig and Cindy Corrie Want Justice or Media Attention?
>
> Media attention. It soothes their guilt over their responsibility for
> their spoiled, childish, chain-smoking daughter's death.
She took the same side as Osama bin Laden.
> On Aug 30, 3:40 am, Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.israpundit.com/archives/48698
>
> > Do Craig and Cindy Corrie Want Justice or Media Attention?
>
> Media attention. It soothes their guilt over their responsibility for
> their spoiled, childish, chain-smoking daughter's death.
Michael
dsharavi
Aug 30, 2012, 12:58:35 PM8/30/12
to
out.
The Revd
Aug 30, 2012, 1:25:01 PM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:11 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 30, 4:03�am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 03:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>>
>> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >http://www.israpundit.com/archives/48698
>>
>> >Do Craig and Cindy Corrie Want Justice or Media Attention?
>>
>> >by Bill Levinson
>>
>> LOL!
> There is a certain irony to Rachel Corrie's death.
No, there's no irony at all, gok.
<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 30, 4:03�am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 03:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>>
>> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >http://www.israpundit.com/archives/48698
>>
>> >Do Craig and Cindy Corrie Want Justice or Media Attention?
>>
>> >by Bill Levinson
>>
>> LOL!
> There is a certain irony to Rachel Corrie's death.
>>
>> Keep sucking that fat jew rectum, gook!
> You keep sucking and your life keeps sucking because of your
>conduct and choices.
> Your use of racial slurs is noted.
> You are a Nazi.
You are a craven gook
<yawn>
The Revd
Aug 30, 2012, 1:25:19 PM8/30/12
to
The Peeler
Aug 30, 2012, 1:56:02 PM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:25:01 -0700, The Rectum, the resident psychopath of
>> You keep sucking and your life keeps sucking because of your
>>conduct and choices.
>
> Your entire *life* is devoted to sucking jew rectums.
<BG> Not really, but your entire "life" is devoted to fantasizing about
people's rectums, The Rectum!
>> Your use of racial slurs is noted.
>
> What racial slurs, gook?
Those that depict you as a degenerate and loser! Any other questions?
>> You are a Nazi.
>
> You are a craven gook
He isn't. But you are indeed a sick subnormal degenerate and perverted
psychopathic swine!
> <yawn>
Yep, open your filthy mouth as wide as possible so people can piss in it
more conveniently!
--
Retarded, subnormal and extremely proud of it: our resident psychopath, The
Retard (aka "The Rectum").
sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, FAKING his time zone again,
farted:
farted:
>> There is a certain irony to Rachel Corrie's death.
>
> No, there's no irony at all, gok.
Of course, there is, psycho!
>
> No, there's no irony at all, gok.
>> You keep sucking and your life keeps sucking because of your
>>conduct and choices.
>
> Your entire *life* is devoted to sucking jew rectums.
people's rectums, The Rectum!
>> Your use of racial slurs is noted.
>
> What racial slurs, gook?
>> You are a Nazi.
>
> You are a craven gook
psychopathic swine!
> <yawn>
Yep, open your filthy mouth as wide as possible so people can piss in it
more conveniently!
--
Retarded, subnormal and extremely proud of it: our resident psychopath, The
Retard (aka "The Rectum").
The Peeler
Aug 30, 2012, 1:57:27 PM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:25:19 -0700, The Rectum, the resident psychopath of
sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, FAKING his time zone again,
farted:
farted:
>>> Media attention. It soothes their guilt over their responsibility for
>>> their spoiled, childish, chain-smoking daughter's death.
>> She took the same side as Osama bin Laden.
>
> No, she didn't, gook.
She did!
>>> their spoiled, childish, chain-smoking daughter's death.
>> She took the same side as Osama bin Laden.
>
> No, she didn't, gook.
Michael Ejercito
Aug 30, 2012, 2:21:10 PM8/30/12
to
Michael
Michael Ejercito
Aug 30, 2012, 2:25:39 PM8/30/12
to
On Aug 30, 10:25 am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:11 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:11 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>
> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 30, 4:03 am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 03:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>
> >> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >http://www.israpundit.com/archives/48698
>
> >> >Do Craig and Cindy Corrie Want Justice or Media Attention?
>
> >> >by Bill Levinson
>
> >> LOL!
> > There is a certain irony to Rachel Corrie's death.
>
> No, there's no irony at all, gok.
Yes, there is.
> >On Aug 30, 4:03 am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 03:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>
> >> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >http://www.israpundit.com/archives/48698
>
> >> >Do Craig and Cindy Corrie Want Justice or Media Attention?
>
> >> >by Bill Levinson
>
> >> LOL!
> > There is a certain irony to Rachel Corrie's death.
>
> No, there's no irony at all, gok.
She was killed defending Bin Laden's allies.
>
>
>
> >> Keep sucking that fat jew rectum, gook!
> > You keep sucking and your life keeps sucking because of your
> >conduct and choices.
>
> Your entire *life* is devoted to sucking jew rectums.
I suck no rectums.
>
>
> >> Keep sucking that fat jew rectum, gook!
> > You keep sucking and your life keeps sucking because of your
> >conduct and choices.
>
> Your entire *life* is devoted to sucking jew rectums.
>
> > Your use of racial slurs is noted.
>
> What racial slurs, gook?
>
> > You are a Nazi.
>
> You are a craven gook
You are a nithing- homo sapiens by birth, subhuman BY CHOICE. The
key word is CHOICE. You were born with the same human nature as the
rest of us. Your CHOICES made you a nithing.
Bill explains what nithings are.
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=9446
Define and Dehumanize the Enemy: Jihadists as Nithings or Nidings
by Bill Levinson
It is an ancient principle of magic (which modern people recognize as
stories that reflect a society’s culture and psychology) that
knowledge of a person’s real or True Name delivers power over that
person. What it really means is that, if you know the person’s
psychology, you can gain an advantage over him. It is also well known
that the side that controls the language of an argument controls the
argument. As an example, Hamas terrorists and their enablers refer to
Israel’s military as an “occupation force” and terrorisitic violence
against civilians as “resistance.”
We have long sought a single word that strips the enemy of all
humanity, and reduces him to something less than an animal that is
worthy of nothing less than extermination. As far as we know, the
English language contains no such word, although “dreck” (garbage or
refuse) comes close. “Homo sapiens by BIRTH, subhuman by CHOICE”
describes Islamic supremacists perfectly, but it is a phrase and not a
word. We now propose to refer to Islamic supremacists as nithings or
nidings: a Scandinavian word that strips its object of all humanity.
Webster’s dictionary (1913) defines it as “A coward; a dastard; — a
term of utmost opprobrium.”
We remind readers who object to the dehumanization of Islamic
supremacists that those enemies are already attempting to dehumanize
Jews, and to a lesser degree Christians, with images that could have
come directly from Adolf Hitler. As they have chosen to sow the
dragon’s teeth, our position is that they must now reap their rightful
harvest: the complete hatred and loathing of all civilized human
beings.
nithings
Nithing or niding was more than a common insult, because Scandinavian
culture required its subject to fight a duel with the accuser or
become an outlaw: totally devoid of rights, honor, and even
recognition as a human being. Per the Wikipedia entry,
The actual meaning of the adjective argr or ragr [= Anglo-Saxon
earg] was the nature or appearance of effeminacy, especially by
obscene acts. Argr was the worst, most derogatory swearword of all
known to the Norse language. According to Icelandic law, the accused
was expected to kill the accuser at once. …If the accused did not
retort by violent attack yielding either the accuser to take his words
back or the accuser’s death, he was hence proven to be a weak and
cowardly nithing by not retorting accordingly.
A nithing was devoid of all human rights, and he was considered the
enemy of civilized humanity: a perfect depiction of Islamic
supremacists. The word therefore strips the enemy of all humanity, and
degrades him to the status of a wolf or strangler (per Scandinavian
tradition) or a virulent disease like the Black Plague. Black Plague
is a deadly and contagious disease whose vector consists of plague-
carrying rats, while the Green Plague of militant “Islam” is a deadly
and contagious ideology that is spread by bipedal rats: nidings or
nithings, non-humans that raise violent hands to all of civilized
Humanity.
The immediate consequence of being proven a nithing was
outlawing. The outlawed did not have any rights, he was exlex (Latin
for “outside of the legal system”), in Anglo-Saxon utlah, Middle Low
German uutlagh, Old Norse utlagr. Just as feud yielded enmity among
kinships, outlawry yielded enmity of all humanity.[63] …”Yet that is
but one aspect of outlawry. The outlaw is not only expelled from the
kinship, he is also regarded henceforth as an enemy to mankind.”
The actual definition of a nithing is somewhat more involved and
complex, and it gets into sexual perversions and zoomorphical
transformations (Loki’s transformation of himself into a mare to have
sexual intercourse with a stallion, and thus beget Odin’s horse
Sleipner is probably an example), but the following line is pertinent:
“The nithing used its malicious seid magic to destroy anything owned
and made by man, ultimately the human race and Midgard itself[6], due
to its basically unlimited envy, hate, and malice that were nith.”
“Destruction of everything owned and made by Man” (the Palestinians’
destruction of the greenhouses in Gaza comes to mind immediately) and
“unlimited envy, hate, and malice” describe militant “Islam”
perfectly, and further underscore the application of nithing or niding
to describe it. The propensity for mindless destruction also appears
in Orson Scott Card’s Alvin Maker series, in which a supernatural
enemy is known as the Unmaker: a personification of evil that is the
total antithesis of God the Creator.
The Unmaker is the main antagonist in Orson Scott Card’s
alternate history/fantasy series The Tales of Alvin Maker. Never
directly confronted, it is a supernatural force that breaks apart
matter and aims to destroy and consume everything and everyone. …To
make something is to oppose the Unmaker, but a point often made is
that this is futile. By natural law the Unmaker can tear down faster
than any man can build.
This also is an outstanding definition of militant “Islam” or Islamic
supremacy: an ideology that seeks to destroy everything into which it
comes in contact, and with which no reason, negotiation, or compromise
is possible.
In summary, a nithing or niding is the enemy of Civilization, a
subhuman (through its behavioral choices, and emphatically NOT due to
its racial or ethnic origin) monster with total hatred and malice
toward all human industry and arts, and worthy of nothing but
extermination like any virulent disease. This is the word we will now
apply to Islamic supremacists and their enablers, and we encourage
others to do likewise.
The Revd
Aug 30, 2012, 2:58:32 PM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:25:39 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 30, 10:25�am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:11 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>>
>> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 30, 4:03�am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 03:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>>
>> >> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >http://www.israpundit.com/archives/48698
>>
>> >> >Do Craig and Cindy Corrie Want Justice or Media Attention?
>>
>> >> >by Bill Levinson
>>
>> >> LOL!
>> > � There is a certain irony to Rachel Corrie's death.
>>
>> No, there's no irony at all, gok.
> Yes, there is.
No, there isn't.
<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 30, 10:25�am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:11 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>>
>> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 30, 4:03�am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 03:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>>
>> >> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >http://www.israpundit.com/archives/48698
>>
>> >> >Do Craig and Cindy Corrie Want Justice or Media Attention?
>>
>> >> >by Bill Levinson
>>
>> >> LOL!
>> > � There is a certain irony to Rachel Corrie's death.
>>
>> No, there's no irony at all, gok.
> Yes, there is.
> She was killed defending Bin Laden's allies.
devoted to.
>>
>>
>> >> Keep sucking that fat jew rectum, gook!
>> > � You keep sucking and your life keeps sucking because of your
>> >conduct and choices.
>>
>> Your entire *life* is devoted to sucking jew rectums.
> I suck no rectums.
>>
>> > � Your use of racial slurs is noted.
>>
>> What racial slurs, gook?
> You calling me a gook.
You ARE a gook. Look at your Facebook photo!
>> What racial slurs, gook?
> You calling me a gook.
>>
>> > � You are a Nazi.
>>
>> You are a craven gook
> That would be better than being a Nazi nithing.
How can it be, gook? You're not even WHITE.
>> You are a craven gook
> That would be better than being a Nazi nithing.
> You are a
<yawn>
Greek Bill and greek you, gook.
NoSpamAtAll
Aug 30, 2012, 3:10:10 PM8/30/12
to
In article <lqdv385knjecp6dlj...@4ax.com>,
The Revd <pee...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
[...]
Repetition, shiteating limey bastard.
The Revd <pee...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
[...]
Repetition, shiteating limey bastard.
dsharavi
Aug 30, 2012, 3:48:14 PM8/30/12
to
The Revd
Aug 30, 2012, 4:04:26 PM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:10:10 +0000 (UTC), SmallHernia aka NoSpamAtAll
<spa...@not.home> wrote:
[...]
Repetition, shiteating jew towelhead bastard.
<spa...@not.home> wrote:
[...]
Repetition, shiteating jew towelhead bastard.
NoSpamAtAll
Aug 30, 2012, 4:08:36 PM8/30/12
to
In article <gphv38p8ifovgf595...@4ax.com>,
The Revd <pee...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
[...]
Repetition, cocksucking limey bastard.
[...]
The Peeler
Aug 30, 2012, 4:40:10 PM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:58:32 -0700, The Rectum, the resident psychopath of
>> She was killed defending Bin Laden's allies.
>
> No, she wasn't. She was murdered by the 'Israelis' that you're
> devoted to.
Bullshit! She sat in front of a moving bulldozer!
>>> Your entire *life* is devoted to sucking jew rectums.
>> I suck no rectums.
>
> Yes, you do. As often as you can.
ONLY in your poor psychotic "mind", The Rectum! <BG>
>> You calling me a gook.
>
> You ARE a gook. Look at your Facebook photo!
>> You are a
sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, FAKING his time zone again,
farted:
farted:
>>> No, there's no irony at all, gok.
>> Yes, there is.
>
> No, there isn't.
There certainly is!
>> Yes, there is.
>
> No, there isn't.
>> She was killed defending Bin Laden's allies.
>
> No, she wasn't. She was murdered by the 'Israelis' that you're
> devoted to.
>>> Your entire *life* is devoted to sucking jew rectums.
>> I suck no rectums.
>
> Yes, you do. As often as you can.
>> You calling me a gook.
>
> You ARE a gook. Look at your Facebook photo!
He isn't. But you are indeed a sick subnormal degenerate and perverted
psychopathic swine!
psychopathic swine!
>> That would be better than being a Nazi nithing.
>
> How can it be, gook? You're not even WHITE.
You wouldn't understand. You are too retarded!
>
> How can it be, gook? You're not even WHITE.
>> You are a
>
> <yawn>
Yep, open your filthy mouth as wide as possible so people can piss in it
more conveniently!
> <yawn>
Yep, open your filthy mouth as wide as possible so people can piss in it
more conveniently!
> Greek Bill and greek you, gook.
<BG> Your "life" greeks YOU!
The Peeler
Aug 30, 2012, 4:41:14 PM8/30/12
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:04:26 -0700, The Rectum, the resident psychopath of
sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, FAKING his time zone again,
farted:
farted:
> [...]
>
> Repetition, shiteating jew towelhead bastard.
...says the battered punching bag to the fist that keeps punching him! LOL
>
> Repetition, shiteating jew towelhead bastard.
Michael Ejercito
Aug 31, 2012, 11:56:43 AM8/31/12
to
On Aug 30, 11:58 am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:25:39 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:25:39 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 30, 10:25 am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:11 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>
> >> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > You keep sucking and your life keeps sucking because of your
> >> >conduct and choices.
>
> >> Your entire *life* is devoted to sucking jew rectums.
> > I suck no rectums.
>
> Yes, you do. As often as you can.
No, I do not suck any rectums.
> >On Aug 30, 10:25 am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:11 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>
> >> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > You keep sucking and your life keeps sucking because of your
> >> >conduct and choices.
>
> >> Your entire *life* is devoted to sucking jew rectums.
> > I suck no rectums.
>
> Yes, you do. As often as you can.
>
>
>
> >> > Your use of racial slurs is noted.
>
> >> What racial slurs, gook?
> > You calling me a gook.
>
> You ARE a gook. Look at your Facebook photo!
>
>
>
> >> > You are a Nazi.
>
> >> You are a craven gook
> > That would be better than being a Nazi nithing.
>
> How can it be, gook? You're not even WHITE.
The following link explains them and you.
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/ftp.py?people//m/morton.chris/what-is-a-nazi
Michael
The Revd
Aug 31, 2012, 12:04:41 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:56:43 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 30, 11:58�am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:25:39 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 30, 10:25�am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:11 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>>
>> >> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > � You keep sucking and your life keeps sucking because of your
>> >> >conduct and choices.
>>
>> >> Your entire *life* is devoted to sucking jew rectums.
>> > � I suck no rectums.
>>
>> Yes, you do. �As often as you can.
> No, I do not suck any rectums.
Yes, you DO. Especially Bill Levinstein's.
<meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 30, 11:58�am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:25:39 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 30, 10:25�am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:11 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>>
>> >> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > � You keep sucking and your life keeps sucking because of your
>> >> >conduct and choices.
>>
>> >> Your entire *life* is devoted to sucking jew rectums.
>> > � I suck no rectums.
>>
>> Yes, you do. �As often as you can.
> No, I do not suck any rectums.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > � Your use of racial slurs is noted.
>>
>> >> What racial slurs, gook?
>> > � You calling me a gook.
>>
>> You ARE a gook. �Look at your Facebook photo!
> And what would be wrong with that?
WE aks ALL the questions, gook.
>> >> What racial slurs, gook?
>> > � You calling me a gook.
>>
>> You ARE a gook. �Look at your Facebook photo!
> And what would be wrong with that?
The Peeler
Aug 31, 2012, 12:21:14 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:04:41 -0700, The Rectum, the resident psychopath of
Psychosis in full swing again, you hilarious housebound frustrated cripple?
Of COURSE! LOL!
sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, FAKING his time zone again,
farted:
<snip our resident psychopath's usual hysterical and psychotic garbage>
farted:
Psychosis in full swing again, you hilarious housebound frustrated cripple?
Of COURSE! LOL!
Michael Ejercito
Aug 31, 2012, 10:42:17 PM8/31/12
to
On Aug 31, 9:04 am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:56:43 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:56:43 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 30, 11:58 am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:25:39 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>
> >> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > You calling me a gook.
>
> >> You ARE a gook. Look at your Facebook photo!
> > And what would be wrong with that?
>
> WE aks ALL the questions, gook.
WE also ask the questions, nithing, and WE note YOUR failure to
> >On Aug 30, 11:58 am, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:25:39 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>
> >> <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > You calling me a gook.
>
> >> You ARE a gook. Look at your Facebook photo!
> > And what would be wrong with that?
>
> WE aks ALL the questions, gook.
answer OUR questions.
The following article explains your pathology.
History's oldest hatred
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
March 11, 2009
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/4743/historys-oldest-hatred
ANTI-SEMITISM is an ancient derangement, the oldest of hatreds, so it
is strange that it lacks a more meaningful name. The misnomer "anti-
Semitism" -- a term coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm
Marr, who wanted a scientific-sounding euphemism for Judenhass, or
Jew-
hatred -- is particularly inane, since hostility to Jews has never had
anything to do with Semites or being Semitic. (That is why those who
protest that Arabs cannot be anti-Semitic since "Arabs are Semites
too" speak either from ignorance or disingenuousness.)
Perhaps there is no good name for a virus as mutable and unyielding as
anti-Semitism. "The Jews have been objects of hatred in pagan,
religious, and secular societies," write Joseph Telushkin and Dennis
Prager in Why the Jews?, their classic study of anti-Semitism.
"Fascists have accused them of being Communists, and Communists have
branded them capitalists. Jews who live in non-Jewish societies have
been accused of having dual loyalties, while Jews who live in the
Jewish state have been condemned as 'racists.' Poor Jews are bullied,
and rich Jews are resented. Jews have been branded as both rootless
cosmopolitans and ethnic chauvinists. Jews who assimilate have been
called a 'fifth column,' while those who stay together spark hatred
for remaining separate."
So hardy is anti-Semitism, it can flourish without Jews. Shakespeare's
poisonous depiction of the Jewish moneylender Shylock was written for
audiences that had never seen a Jew, all Jews having been expelled
from England more than 300 years earlier. Anti-Semitic bigotry infests
Saudi Arabia, where Jews have not dwelt in at least five centuries;
its malignance is suggested by the government daily Al-Riyadh, which
published an essay claiming that Jews have a taste for "pastries mixed
with human blood."
Esther Confounding Haman (Engraving by Gustave Doré, 1875)
There was Jew-hatred before there was Christianity or Islam, before
Nazism or Communism, before Zionism or the Middle East conflict. This
week Jews celebrate the festival of Purim, gathering in synagogues to
read the biblical book of Esther. Set in ancient Persia, it tells of
Haman, a powerful royal adviser who is insulted when the Jewish sage
Mordechai refuses to bow down to him. Haman resolves to wipe out the
empire's Jews and makes the case for genocide in an appeal to the
king:
"There is a certain people scattered and dispersed among ... all the
provinces of your kingdom, and their laws are different from those of
other peoples, and the king's laws they do not keep, so it is of no
benefit for the king to tolerate them. If it please the king, let it
be written that they be destroyed." After winning royal assent, Haman
makes plans "to annihilate, to kill and destroy all the Jews, the
young and the elderly, children and women, in one day . . . and to
take their property for plunder."
What drives such bloodlust? Haman's indictment accuses the Jews of
lacking national loyalty, of insinuating themselves throughout the
empire, of flouting the king's law. But the Jews of Persia had done
nothing to justify Haman's murderous anti-Semitism -- just as Jews in
later ages did nothing that justified their persecution under the
Church or Islam, or their expulsion from so many lands in Europe and
the Middle East, or their repression at the hands of Russian czars and
Soviet commissars, or their slaughter by Nazi Germany. When the
president of Iran today calls for the extirpation of the Jewish state,
when a leader of Hamas vows to kill Jewish children around the world,
when firebombs are hurled at synagogues in London and Paris and
Chicago, it is not because Jews deserve to be victimized.
Some Jews are no saints, but the paranoid frenzy that is anti-Semitism
is not explained by what Jews do, but by what they are. The Jewish
people are the object of anti-Semitism, not its cause. That is why the
haters' rationales can be so wildly inconsistent and their agendas so
contradictory. What, after all, do those who vilify Jews as greedy
bankers have in common with those who revile them as seditious
Bolsheviks? Nothing, save an irrational obsession with Jews.
At one point in the book of Esther, Haman lets the mask slip. He
boasts to his friends and family of "the glory of his riches, and the
great number of his sons, and everything in which the king had
promoted him and elevated him." Still, he seethes with rage and
frustration: "Yet all this is worthless to me so long as I see
Mordechai the Jew sitting at the king's gate." That is the
unforgivable offense: "Mordechai the Jew" refuses to blend in, to
abandon his values, to be just like everyone else. He goes on sitting
there -- undigested, unassimilated, and for that reason unbearable.
Of course Haman had his ostensible reasons for targeting Jews. So did
Hitler and Arafat; so does Ahmadinejad. Sometimes the anti-Semite
focuses on the Jew's religion, sometimes on his laws and lifestyle,
sometimes on his national identity or his professional achievements.
Ultimately, however, it is the Jew's Jewishness, and the call to
higher standards that it represents, that the anti-Semite cannot
abide.
With all their flaws and failings, the Jewish people endure, their
role in history not yet finished. So the world's oldest hatred endures
too, as obsessive and indestructible -- and deadly -- as ever.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
0 new messages