Canaan the Promised Land: Israel’s Second Genocide

In the Book of Numbers, the fourth book of the Jewish Pentateuch (what children are taught in most ‘good’ schools too in Christianity – ‘the Old Testament’) is so-called because God ‘numbered’ those caveman-like Israelites who could bear arms – 603,550. Those included were charged with the task of marching through the wilderness of the desert and, on reaching Canann (the ‘promised land’) to destroy the inhabitants and all religious symbols. En route, the Amorites are annihilated and then God instructed the wandering death squad’s wrath toward the Midianites. The genocidal, deluded, neanderthal desert-peasants slaughtered all the adult males, but the women and children were kept captive. When Moses learnt that some lives had been mercifully spared, he angrily reacted: “Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves”(C.31:1-55). And with that infanticidal command – a generation was extirpated and over 32,000 virgins were raped. A ‘race’ was eradicated.

Later on in Numbers, King David led the barbarous expedition further through the desert and eventually encountered the Amalekites (the descendants of Esau – the virtuous brother. Jews are descended from Jacob the villian and liar)As the Jewish Encyclopedia put it, “David waged a sacred war of extermination against the Amalekites,” – This is an admission to a genocide. After the Holocaust was perpetrated against the Jews, they demanded a country – citing the nauseating idea of moral capital. No such compensation for their own equally shameful chapter.

Which brings me to another point. Even though archaeology has completely disproved any of the truth-claims of the book of Exodus (there was no bondage – no slavery. nothing), Moses et al supposedly spent 40 years wandering the desert. The distance between Cairo and Tel Aviv is 250 miles. How does it take 40 years? Thats .017 miles a day – what the hell was going on? why did it take so long?

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 stipulated that:

“His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

Now the British government had made some foreign-policy howlers in their time, but the idea of being able to facilitate this was and is outrageous and laughable. With hindsight, we can see this idea was flawed from the beginning. Here we have probably the second most powerful country in the world (actually 3rd I’d say) dictating what was going to happen to a foreign country – Palestine had no say in this. I would equate this atrocity to the plantation on Ulster. Afterall, the reason for the declaration in the long-term was the protection of the British Suez Canal – hardly and ‘idealistic’ reason.

How would you feel if you were displaced by a piece of foreign legislation and forced to resettle elsewhere? The Jews were given unilateral support by the U.N. when they finally invented the state of Israel (which the Jews had lost fair and square in 79 AD and had their sacred temple deservedly destroyed)in 1948 because of the suffering, murder and displacement of millions of Jews during the Holocaust. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I can’t believe people think Israel has a right to exist.

So there’s no point in crying over spilt milk eh? well it’s getting considerably worse:

The occupation of Palestine is a modern-day crusade. In the Dark Ages, Christians tried to conquer Jerusalem and succeeded for a time but then Saladin and the Saracens took it back and since then it has been under Muslim control. They say history is written by the winners, would Ireland be justified by invading the North and forcing Protestants to leave? Well this is precisely what has and is happening. Jewish people are arriving and multiplying in Israel and they all want a piece of land that God promised them 4,000 years ago. Many Jews are Messianic – they don’t believe that the Messiah has arrived just yet but the return of the promised land is supposed to (according to the prophecy) herald the end of the world. And when that day comes, it won’t be you and I getting into heaven. Only Jewish people – this is explicit – you aren’t a descendant of Abraham (unless you are Jewish!).

Ireland suffered a terrible famine in the 19th century. I demand that Ireland gets awarded a country of our choice. I think Australia would do nicely. Yes we too have moral capital; we are owed a country for the famine because it was unjust that grain was exported at the time. Now when this country is created, do you suppose the entire 60 million people comprising the Irish diaspora will flock to Australia? of course not, they have family, friends and careers. So why do so many Jewish people flock from around the globe to something which is not, in fact, their home, or hasn’t been for 2,000 years? Would the Australians be entitled to complain? How dare they!

Israel is one of 9 countries that has nuclear weapons. They are given obscene amounts of money from the US (9 billion in tax payers money – who wants to pay for a criminal crusade when they give their cheques to the IRS?) Palestine is a primitive, third-world desert country with little or no education. Despite the political obfuscation, this is patently unfair. How can Israel bully and invade the Syrians and Lebanese like they did in 1982?

If they could, I’m sure the Israelis would commit a genocide – after all – an eye for an eye, right?

Fires in Theatres: In Defense of Free Speech

In 1919, a famous case was brought against a man, Charles Schenck, in the United States. The case, farcically titled: ‘Schenck V. United States‘, came about as a result of the Defendant’s actions in distributing leaflets (in Yiddish, no less) attacking the draft in the 15,000 documents he printed – to persons either eligible for the draft or – get this – also opposed to the draft.

Anyone worth his salt has at least perused the history of the First World War, the unnecessary slaughter of some 40 million due to some inbred monarchical quibbling (the Kaiser and King George were first cousins – grandsons of Queen Victoria) It may not be said, after all, that there was some kind of nobility of justification for the war. With no Nazis or Holocaust on which to retrospectively rely when the necessity of the war was called into question, it remains an uncharged disgrace – the product of imperialist jingoism. It was unwarranted and thus contemptible. To have forced draft young men (having guilted them with propaganda and Uncle Sam’s accusatory finger in the States) is callous beyond belief. It is a war crime.

Anyway, so Schenck is hauled before the court and charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917. Where Schenck argued that the draft was ostensibly tantamount to slavery, the court countered by alluding (he was not charged with treason) that he was a spy. In his preposterous, unreasoned and unsound judgement, the famous (infamous?) Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes Jnr. speculated that Schenck’s crime had exempted itself from the protection of the First Amendment. Holmes posited that he could not be exculpated using the old ‘freedom of speech’ chestnut because, as he now infamously suggested, it was equivalent ‘to shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre’. Schenck posed a ‘clear and present danger’ (the source of the famous expression) that would precipitate ‘substantive evils’ – he was sentenced to 6 months in prison and found dead shortly thereafter.

In 2005, David Irving, the controversial historian, was apprehended and sentenced to 3 years in solitary confinement for violation of the Austrian Verbotsgesetz law committed 16 years prior, in 1989. The Law’s specifics are ambiguous, it being an over-reactionary Stalinist-era piece of legislation – but essentially denying or diminishing the Holocaust (capital h?) is against the law. This is reminiscent of the German law, Volksverhetzung, where ‘stirring up the populace’ is prohibited. Perhaps something is lost in translation. In 1992, Irving was convicted of this crime also – principally due to his ‘denial’ of the Holocaust.

Now I have just read an excellent book called ‘History, Justice and the David Irving Libel Case’ by D.D. Guttenplan wherein he gives an account of the libel action brought by Irving on an American historian, Deborah Lipstadt – for labelling him a ‘Holocaust denier’ in her book ‘Denying the Holocaust‘. In the case, Irving forced Penguin (the Defendant – against the Claimant – not Plaintiff, a relic of old English law) to essentially prove or establish the literal veracity of the Holocaust (or really parts of it, as it was claimed that Irving had denied the Holocaust in his published works) Now I have not read Irving’s work, but from the transcript of the case, the term ‘Holocaust-denier’ is not one I would attribute to Irving. Anyway, I’m not defending Irving’s very controversial stance on history. The fact is that, for questioning, for example, the numbers involved in the Holocaust (or Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek etc) or questioning eye-witness testimony, or indeed Irving’s attempt to make Himmler, not Hitler as its sole architect – one can be thrown into prison.

Let me illustrate my point: If I were to wander around Grafton Street with a megaphone, and with ‘The Famine Never Happened’ or ‘The Famine Was Grossly Exaggerated’ emblazoned across a cardboard sign I was wearing, I would be heckled, ridiculed (like those religious fellows) or even assaulted. However, I would be allowed to express my revisionist view, despite its insensitivity to a probable majority. Notwithstanding the populace’s understandable objections, I retain the right to express my opinion. I revel in it. Hopefully, unlike the evidently featherweight U.S. constitution, Ireland’s courts will have the balls to stick to their guns should the occasion ask it of them.

Finally, I would just like to express my disgust at what I’m going to call ‘ecclesiatical-correctness’. Once again, as with a plethora of other issues, it is the Muslims who are at fault and are the bullseye in my metaphorical idealistic dartboard once again. When, in 1988, Salman Rushdie published his (from what I hear) literary masterpiece: the Satanic Verses, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran (of whose literacy I am gravely skeptical), who claims to be a ‘Shi’a scholar’, issued a ‘fatwa’: a grotesque, antediluvian death-order. Now before I continue, I have researched the matter and yes, it is rare that the word ‘fatwa’ carries this meaning, but in this instance it most certainly DID. Thus began a murderous campaign that resulted in the death of the Japanese Publisher, Hitoshi Igarashi (stabbed multiple times) and three other foreign-language interpreters or publishers were stabbed repeatedly, but lived – just about. On the whim of a demagogue, a rabble, half-a-billion strong, was roused. If the common-sense view that fanaticism is correlated with lack of education is taken, it follows that the vast, vast majority of these ‘people’ were illiterate and could not possibly have understood/interpreted the book itself. It was based entirely on the supposition that the Ayatollah was the moral dictator (a man whose father lowered the marriage age to 9 years old)

in 2004, Danish cartoonists drew several hilarious strips depicting the prophet Mohammed in various hilarious situations (including the one about heaven running out of virgins) that I’m sure were the subject of hilarity to all those who read them. Except the barbarous cretins (the same is true of all religious people who believe in proselytism) who called for the death of the publishers as well as a kind of Danish Kristallnacht. This sordid behaviour was met with outrageous moral ambivalence. The mainstream media lamented the lack of sensitivity, and indeed, went as far as implying Rushdie was deserving of this Bronze-Age Muslim attack, being a Muslim himself.

An islamic troll/mullah in Pakistan offered $1,000,000 as a reward for the cartoonist’s head. Do you think this incitement to murder will be/was punished? Think again. It is incidents like these that cause the word ‘Muslim’ to be regarded as pejorative. That an obscure Danish magazine – expressing free speech, no less – could cause the muslim community to attack all things Danish with such acharnement beggars belief. It testifies to the Islamic contempt for free speech and deviation from the direct word of an illiterate Arabic merchant.

So, in closing, I believe that freedom of speech is all-to-often taken for granted. Those miscreants who oppose freedom of expression should be extirpated from social discourse, if not shunned from society all together. The allusion should not be wasted on you! Without seeming to state the obvious, remember that in the aforementioned cases, as recently as 2005, legislation exists that forbids free expression. This must stop.