Wednesday, July 04, 2012

The Sufi soul of Timbuktu

English dictionaries cite Timbuktu as a metaphor for any mystical, faraway place. It is an old Saharan trading route, which flourished in the 16th century as an Islamic seat of learning, home to priests, scribes and jurists. It is presently enduring religio-cultural vandalism on a scale not seen since the puritanical Taleban blew up the two giant Buddhas of Bamiyan in 2001.

The Islamist group Ansar Dine (which means ‘defenders of the faith’, with members reportedly drawn from as far afield as Egypt, Libya, Algeria and Nigeria) is presently imposing their version of Sharia throughout northern Mali, which involves the banning of alcohol, the mandatory veiling of women, the zealous stoning of adulterers, and the punitive mutilation of thieves. Timbuktu's Christians started leaving the city when these militants began wielding pickaxes and reducing 15th and 16th-century Sufi shrines to rubble.

It is a complex, fraught region, with turbaned separatist groups and bearded religious factions all vying for supremacy. They’ve been at it for centuries. But this offensive cultural cleansing is on a scale not previously seen: it is like hordes of Muslims suddenly descending on Westminster Abbey and systematically destroying its ancient royal tombs and sacred shrines. Imagine how the Sufis feel having the graves of their spiritual saints desecrated, and the soul ripped out of their city.

To the Islamist Salafis, the local Sufi version of Islam is deemed idolatrous. But this is nothing new. The action appears to have been precipitated by the decision of Unesco’s World Heritage Committee to place Timbuktu on its list of endangered heritage sites. This appears to have given 16 Sufi shrines some sort of official religio-political status of global importance, which irked the Salafis, to whom all shrines and statues are blasphemous, detracting from the glory due to Allah alone.

The militants have ignored all requests to desist: “We are subject to religion and not to international opinion,” said an Ansar Dine spokesman Oumar Ould Hamaha. “Building on graves is contrary to Islam.” And the eradication of un-Islamic superstition, they insist, justifies the smashing down of an ancient wooden door, the opening of which Sufis believe portends the end of the world.

And so the outrageous sacking of Timbuktu continues to cries of ‘Allahu akbar!’. Mosques and mausoleums which have stood for centuries reduced to dust in 40 minutes. The tolerant, broad-minded, mystical Sufi strain of Islam is being wiped out and replaced by the aggressive, extremist, malignant Sunni-Salafi strain. Whatever does not accord with their view of Islam must be eradicated.

And all the people of Timbuktu can do is weep. And all the UN can do is sit and watch. And all we can do wonder how long it will be before the inoperable cancer spreads.


Blogger Christopher Gillibrand said...

Sufis are the only form of Islam to practice conventual shared life, believing it is possible to have a mystical experience of the divine- the absolute transcendence of God in mainstream Islam rendering this latter impossible. I hosted a dinner once attended by a Catholic Bishop who was challenged what was good in Islam. He struggled but eventually came up with the Sufis- but they sadly are the tiniest of tiniest minorities. They are the ones that turn up to ecumenical meetings.

4 July 2012 at 10:48  
Blogger David B said...

It's a tragedy.

I read quite a lot of the Sufi Idries Shah back in my mystical days, and still retain some affection for the wisdom in the Sufi parables and tales in his books.

This sort of thing leaves one feeling very powerless.

All I can do is to provide vocal, and within my limited means a little financial support, for the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, an organisation does campaign against political Islam.

David B

4 July 2012 at 11:00  
Blogger Neil Addison said...

I hate to point this out but what is happening to the Shrines in Timbuktu and other parts of the Muslim World is exactly what happened to Catholic Shrines in England under Archbishop Cranmer

4 July 2012 at 12:11  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

And all the UN can do is sit and watch.

Oh, no. The UN can also pontificate. And engage in hours of pointless disputation. And issue meaningless resolutions. It's also very good at pounding a metaphorical shoe on a metaphorical table. Plus it does a good job imagining itself some sort of sovereign over the nations.

But more than anything else, the UN spends money. It is very good at spending money. Why, there cannot be a more pleasant or profitable sinecure for remaindered bureaucrats, or important gov't lackeys or unemployed relatives of President-for-Life Whosit than the UN.


4 July 2012 at 13:17  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Worldviews seek to displace each other. They don't co-exist. The Islamists who destroying these tombs seek after that agenda. They wish to impose their worldview, and they wish the imposition to be publicly seen. Now it occurs to me that if these same Islamists had come into a city and burned six buildings being used as a Christian churches, the world and the ICC would have hardly taken notice. We would still have the public imposition of worldview. But the chattering classes so exercised about the vandalism in Timbuktu would have hardly looked up from their game of Whist to take notice. Why is that?

It's not the suppression of religion that is at the root of this reaction. The chattering classes are quite content to see religion suppressed ... uh ... privatized. Or perhaps 'castrated' is the proper word. Every act of removing Christian symbolism and influence from the public square is in type if not in kind identical in motivation to that of the Taliban in Timbuktu. It imposes a worldview. It publicly establishes certain presuppositions by removing others. But it's simply not done with crowbars at the point of a gun. It's done with legal writs and judicial power.

So we must look elsewhere to find the source of the offense. And you will find it in the common patrimony of man. This destruction assaults the record of man's footprint on Earth. It mars his glory and history. We have lost a source of common information about ourselves, and it can never be replaced. People may come and go, but the records of man's achievements are irreplaceable once lost. This is what offends the chattering classes. They fear they have lost something of themselves; they have lost something of that which allows them to tell their own story - which to self-important man is of course the most important story ever told.

A mere slaughter in Timbuktu wouldn't have raised a cloud of dust in the West. But destroying ancient architecture? Well, now. That's important. Man's inverted priorities never cease to amaze me.


4 July 2012 at 13:51  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

@Neil Addison
"I hate to point this out but what is happening to the Shrines in Timbuktu and other parts of the Muslim World is exactly what happened to Catholic Shrines in England under Archbishop Cranmer"

Neil, you dog, I was going to post something very similar but since I'd already stretched Cranmer's belief in free speech to its breaking point by ably supporting the Palestinians, I thought I'd better keep it buttoned. But do feel free to develop the theme yourself.

4 July 2012 at 13:56  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

A good point, Carl, about the ongoing attacks on Christians by Muslims being ignored by the media and the UN. However, don't forget the general indifference of Christians and the silence of the various Churches on the issue, with their unchallenged policy of abject appeasement of the Islam, supposedly for the good of the slaughtered Christans. No General Assembly motions, no accusations of apartheid, no "freedom flottilas," no calls for a boycotts...nothing but mewling and waffling. What gives?

PS, note how our pretend-"palestiniainst," Corrigan, imagines himself as their "able" defendant. The Arabs deserve him. I wonder if he noticed how some in Ireland are beginning to protest their government's official, a la Mary Brown antisemitism poorly cloaked as "criticism of Israel." A fellow congregant who married a charming Irish convert recently returned from a trip to Dublin emailed me and tells me that many, especially younger folks, are quietly beginning to express support for Israel. Others have been more adventurous and some pubs have bravely flown the Israeli flag as an in-your-face protest against the years of imposed "palestinianism" by the authorities, mobsters and the media. The old school, the indistinguishable socialist/fascist types, are having kittens over this development, but unlike before, cannot monopolize the message with media control and brass knuckles and are reduced to screeching and crazier and crazier claims in the attempt to get attention.

Interesting stuff, all that; the Internet and the uncontrollable social media have proved to be the most successful slayers of all sorts of scams and the once-unaissailable left and right-wing fascism in history.

4 July 2012 at 14:31  
Blogger David B said...

It is not only Christians who are persecuted by political militant Islam.

It is other Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics, feminists, and perhaps most particularly apostates.

Secularism and an end to blasphemy laws worldwide is the key, along with HG's bottom line.

Freedom of religion, not as an absolute, is a desideratum.

As I said in a previous thread, not freedom of religion to the point where a child will die because of lack of a blood transfusion, the freedom of religion of Jehovah's Witnesses notwithstanding.

Freedom from religion is also a desideratum.

David B

4 July 2012 at 14:51  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Today I shall be celebrating my nation's collective rebellion against lawful authority. I don't like considering the idea that I might have been a Tory in 1776. Maybe that's why the American Revolution is the one area of American history that I have assiduously avoided.

Anyway, take THAT, King George. There. I feel better now.


4 July 2012 at 14:55  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Happy 4th of July, Carl. An odd greeting by any Canadian, as we were once at war over your separation, but the subsequent cultural and political Anglo-American unity is, to the dismay of large parts of the world, much stronger than historic differences. Anyway, you could drive yourself crazy about whether you'd have been a revolutionary or a Loyalist back then. It seems to me that most people then split on the basis of individual experience and local events and neither side can claim moral superioty in that fratricidal conflict.

4 July 2012 at 15:04  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

This reminds me of the Protestant "reformation" in Scotland in which my father and other self righteous fanatics destroyed my country's art, music and architecture.

4 July 2012 at 15:28  
Blogger Darren said...

Doesn't Islam itself sort of rotate around a pilgrimage to a shrine built on a grave to a man Muhammed?

Shouldn't they go and trash that one too?

4 July 2012 at 16:22  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

Ask yourself, is it possible that the real powers behind the UN are attempting to organize or stage manage a much larger conflict between militant Islam and the western world?

There is of course many examples of this subtle tactic being employed in earlier by The League of Nations, and later by The UN.

The most notable of which include in reverse order The 2nd Gulf War, 1st Gulf War, Balkan War, Vietnam War, Korean War, and, last but of course by no means least, both theaters of The 2nd World War. Not forgetting all of those many smaller wars in between.

These two establishment designed, sponsored and constituted bodies were charged mainly with the task of stopping or avoiding armed conflict around the entire planet; yet there has never been such a short period of time where so many wars have resulted in so many dying as of a consequence of them.

Have ordinary people suddenly lost their senses, for no logical reason?

Has mankind become more violent or murderously insane for no logical reason?

Has warfare become more PROFITABLE for those who always make a profit from them, and are these people the exact same people who set up, and still largely finance/bribe, and therefore effectively control the UN, EU, NATO, and closely associated bodies such as Unesco?

Do these people have close covert associations with people like The King of Saudi-Arabia and The Muslim Brotherhood?




Yes, and yes.


I hope I have gone a long way in explaining why wars happen in general, and why this particular problem is happening in particular.

4 July 2012 at 16:53  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...



I do not think you have at all grasped what Roger Haynes is trying to achieve.

As you claim to be a true conservative, you should be wishing him good luck, not covering yourself in ignorance of what is really going on here.

For clarification please read the following. Perhaps you could try reading His Graces posts more fully in the future. For you may be a fool, but His Grace is not.

it transpires that he has been withholding his council tax on account of the fact that ‘a proportion of the tax revenue gathered is being sent to the European Union, used to fund unlawful wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, and promote terrorism right around the world’. He believes that ‘to pay tax under these circumstances is, at the very least, unlawful under Section 15(3) of the Terrorism Act 2000’.

Now do you get it?

4 July 2012 at 17:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hmmm. Reminds one of the ‘good’ NAZIs, who tolerated Jews, somehow being better than the usual bad version. Same beast underneath it all. No sympathy at all. Let them devour each other…

4 July 2012 at 17:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Atlas.I hope I have gone a long way in explaining why wars happen in general, and why this particular problem is happening in particular.

Yes, we all thought you might...

4 July 2012 at 17:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


I am many things, but I am no part a fool.

In fact, I understood quite clearly Mr Hayes political motivations. I simply reject them as legitimate. As does most of the readership here. It was not lost on me that the thread about Roger Hayes' arrest immediately collapsed into embarrassed silence once the facts were revealed. He doesn't have the authority to refuse to pay taxes. If he wants to break the law to make a political point, then he can suffer the legal consequences for breaking the law. He is not being oppressed. He is not being persecuted. He is being afforded equal treatment under the law. What he seemingly demands is unequal treatment based upon his political views. Too bad for him.

Anytime I hear dark stories about a professional police force being used for political ends, I immediately doubt the story. You have a professional police force in the UK. You should be grateful for that. It won't allow itself to be used as a political tool. You should worry when large numbers of policemen are replaced by political functionaries immediately after they take power. That's what the Nazis did. There was a reason they did it.


4 July 2012 at 17:57  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

btw, I have never heard anyone suggest that WWII was actually a stage-managed conflict brought to fruition by a nefarious League of Nations conspiracy. The idea that League was even competent to successfully undertake such a conspiracy is too fantastic to be seriously entertained. Unless you want to call weakness, vacillation, and cowardice the elements of a conspiracy.


4 July 2012 at 18:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Article: "The militants have ignored all requests to desist: “We are subject to religion and not to international opinion,” said an Ansar Dine spokesman Oumar Ould Hamaha."

And who are we to say otherwise when god and his agents decide something is right or wrong according to absolute standards, universally applicable?

This has royally chossed me off. I was rather hoping to go to Timbuktu at some point, not least to be able to say "I've been to Timbuktu and back" but also for the artefacts.

In the normal world, artefacts like those tombs and the Buddha statues belong to humanity and people are just custodians of them for future generations. Bastards.

4 July 2012 at 18:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One remembers when the Buddhist statues were blown up, and recalls sleep that night not being anything but sound and restful. Anyone else suffer a similar lack of inner concern ?

4 July 2012 at 19:07  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

DanJO, very poetic, this "artefacts like those tombs and the Buddha statues belong to humanity and people are just custodians of them for future generations." I'm unhappy about the barbarism and the destruction of history, but pragmatically and in a world of sovereign nations and peoples, artifacts belong to the people who currently possess them, who can defend their ownership and offer or manage to muster-up legitimacy for their claim and protection for their cultural or individual property. It is not a perfect system and injustice occurs often, but moving "beyond" it involves setting up unelected, dictatorial authorities which is never a good thing.

4 July 2012 at 19:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi, don’t worry he’ll get over it. He’s only interested in issues that directly affect him. Bless the little beggar...

4 July 2012 at 19:50  
Blogger Sam Vega said...

"It is a complex, fraught region, with turbaned separatist groups and bearded religious factions"

Oh, no, not beards and turbans! They really do make it worse, somehow, don't they?

4 July 2012 at 20:01  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 July 2012 at 20:10  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

But it is directly effecting him, Inspector, even if in a vague way; DanJO hoped "to be able to say 'I've been to Timbuktu and back'" and is now reportedly "chossed off" enough over the disruptions to his tentative plans to darkly muse about some kind of a World governance regime in charge of the "Property of Humanity" stamps.

4 July 2012 at 20:13  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Another post from Cranmer about Muslims naturally brings an accompanying post from our resident Zionist explaining once again why we in the west desperately need to prop up his ramshackle country because, we need hardly state, we couldn't possibly stand up the the threat of militant Islam without Avi and the boys and girls.

I am a little taken aback, however, to find my own dear nation has apparantly turned into a Zionist hotbed while I wasn't watching. I am, of course, loath to contradict Avi about anything (since that would make me a viscious anti-Semite and worse than Hitler), and when his souce is an anonymous internet contact then his position seems unassailable; however, wild colonial boy that I am, I will reckessly posit the theory that his converted friend was yanking his chain. Possibly, chagrined by the love-bombing acceptance which converts to Judaism have tradionally received, he felt he had to exaggerate the support his new, planter nation had in Ireland. Or perhaps he was just taking a specimen. Either way, if you want to know about Ireland, see me, not Avi.

4 July 2012 at 20:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi. He doesn’t know what ‘chossed off’ means. Chossed off means looking in disgust while sacred marriage is corrupted to suit 1.5% of the population who are, well, compromised when it comes to the boy girl stuff. Not that the inspector wishes to divert the thread, but you get the idea...

4 July 2012 at 21:09  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Corrigan wrote:

explaining once again why we in the west desperately need to prop up his ramshackle country because, we need hardly state, we couldn't possibly stand up the the threat of militant Islam without Avi and the boys and girls.

Of course, if you bother to look, you will actually find the ramshackle Israelis standing in the line. As opposed to hiding in the basement.


4 July 2012 at 21:18  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Right, Corrigan, ecxept that we’ve heard all that armchair Provo piffle before. But as the blog’s resident Sinn Fein muppet imagining himself to be the sole legitimate representative of the Irish people, why are you so blushingly shy of revealing the actual source of your fake “palestinianism”?

I say fake, because anyone who genuinely cares about those Arabs who have been labeled as “Palestinians” would, at least now and again, mention the suffering they are experiencing between the pincers of the goons of the PA kleptocracy and the fanatical Hamas, not to mention their lack of rights in and brutal exploitation by Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

As for the source of your, uh, "passions," why not admit to it being the rabid and systemic Sinn Fein antisemitism which predates Israel and continues unabated? And that hatred isn’t just a loonie-fringe phenomenon in Irish ultra-nationalism, a man-bites-dog anomaly, but one of its core features evident by the open adulation of Jew-hating fascist dirt-bags like Arthur Griffith (Sinn Fein’s founder), the Unionist hero Fr Creagh (organized an anti-Jewish boycott in 1904 and a savage pogrom which ethnically cleansed Jews out of Limerick), good old boys like Sean Russell and Francis Stewart (who both actively assisted the Nazis, with Russell being commemorated by a statue erected to him in 2004). O, and let's not forget the infamous “Lord Haw Haw” whose stinking carcass was recently repatriated to Ireland with honours. This is why, you see, I believe your hatred stems from principled “palestinianism” as much as I believe the old Fr Creagh’s lies about not hating Jews, but only imaginary “money-lenders.”

On the bright side, and not wishing to slander or offend decent Irish patriots at home and abroad, I must emphasize that in spite of disagreements over facts and policies, the Republic of Ireland maintains formal and friendly relations with Israel. Its critiques of Israel are very pro forma, to satisfy the UN, EU and domestic elements, while the government routinely honours the tiny Jewish community and Israeli diplomats there. Recent and tentative manifestations of support for Jews and Israel should also be noted as possibly being a tip of an iceberg and as a possible game-changer. Too early to tell at this point, but the rabid anger over such manifestations by Irish fascists/socialists may reflect real concern on their part over losing control over “the message.” May it be so.

4 July 2012 at 21:21  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

O, goodness, Inspector, you, our guardian and master of protocol diverting the thread? Perish the thought! ;)

4 July 2012 at 21:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Not that the inspector wishes to divert the thread, but you get the idea..."

I see he's onto his favourite subject yet again even though the thread is nothing about it. Jeez.

4 July 2012 at 21:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi. There are some fascinating posts tonight on this thread. Arthur Griffith was imprisoned in Gloucester gaol, about a mile from where the Inspector posts from. He wrote that he was as glad to leave Gloucester, as was Gloucester to get rid of him. Lord Haw Haw, William Joyce, is buried in the ‘new’ cemetery in Galway, having been repatriated there sometime in the 1980s from the London prison where he was hanged, Wandsworth. He was forty at the time. This time last year, the Inspector whilst in Galway, was astonished to find that the road the cemetery is in was parallel to his hotel. Alas, not until his penultimate night though. Was unable to find Joyce’s plot in the time available to him. It was getting dark, and why walk around a cemetery in the dark when you could be in an Irish bar.

Carry on...

4 July 2012 at 21:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Twas the Inspector merely joshing you and you bit ! Sweet, as the young people here say today...

4 July 2012 at 21:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You haven't mentioned your beard for a little while, Inspector. Are these episodes related to that by any chance, or is it just a matter of whiskey and boredom?

4 July 2012 at 22:12  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Thanks for the "coordinates," Inspector; gave me a chance to "walk around" your neighbourhoods on Google Maps. What an absolutely stunning bit of the world you live in. The river, the greenery, the tidy housesand the charming architecture. Quite a few inns in your neighbourhood and a Chinese take-away to stumble home from, I note, and to clear one's head, if early enough in the day, you can walk right out into the gorgeous countryside. A batchelor's paradise. Jealousy is my name.

4 July 2012 at 22:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Indeed Avi, we have one of the top ten cathedrals in England here too. And the quite marvellous Forest of Dean a half hour down the road. We even have a gay bar in Westgate Street now DanJ0, where you can meet new chums...

4 July 2012 at 22:27  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Really scraping the side of the barrel with this one, aren't you Avi? If you think what happened in Limerick in 1904 was a 'savage pogrom', then you really do have no shame. I mean, don't people actually get killed in pogroms? Or at least seriously beaten up? You know, like Palestinians being run off their land? Do Jews accpet dispossessed Palestinians into their homes and help set them up again, as happened after the Limerick "pogrom"? If they do, then maybe I've been all turned around on the Israeli problem, but I have my doubts.

As for Sean Russell, I don't think he did anything which the Stern Gang didn't try to do when they went to the German embassy in Turkey in 1941 and offered to set up a state in Palestine "on National Socialist lines" in exchange for guns to kill British soldiers (by the way, are you still paying those guys "war pensions"?) That they should do such a thing should not come as a surprise in a movement whose youth wing had actively modelled itself on the Hitler Youth during the 1930s.

I'll give you Arthur Griffith. Since he was Irish, I guess that proves I must indeed be a vicious anti-Semite.

Carl might be interested to hear that in the same year the US nixed a Turkins plan to bring 300,000 Rumanian Jews out, presumably because there was a risk of them ending up in America. Perhaps that was why you guys toughened up your immigration laws the same year, making it nearly impossible for Jews to immigrate into the US, eh Carl? Still, don't let that stop you peeing your piety all over the board.

4 July 2012 at 22:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "We even have a gay bar in Westgate Street now DanJ0, where you can meet new chums..."

Avi was right, it's a bachelor's paradise down your way. An eternal bachelor's paradise. How many times have you walked past it, looking a bit furtive, before going back to your bottle for dutch courage?

4 July 2012 at 22:33  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Carl Jacobs for POTUS anyone?

4 July 2012 at 22:34  
Blogger anna anglican said...


Outstanding as usual!

I have to say the flat's a complete mess now, after a day of partying for Canada day and another for Indepedence day (that's the joy of London- so many nationalities!). But I do enjoy cooking.

I hope Mr Jacobs enjoyed his turkey and Chanti...

4 July 2012 at 22:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi said ...

" ... not wishing to slander or offend decent Irish patriots at home and abroad"

And ... then you rewrite Ireland's struggle for freedom, turning its founders into antisemitic fascists.

It's leaders:

" ... rabid and systemic Sinn Fein antisemitism which predates Israel and continues unabated ... "

"Jew-hating fascist dirt-bags like Arthur Griffith (Sinn Fein’s founder), the Unionist hero Fr Creagh (organized an anti-Jewish boycott in 1904 and a savage pogrom which ethnically cleansed Jews out of Limerick), good old boys like Sean Russell and Francis Stewart (who both actively assisted the Nazis, with Russell being commemorated by a statue erected to him in 2004). O, and let's not forget the infamous “Lord Haw Haw” whose stinking carcass was recently repatriated to Ireland with honours."

So much exaggeration and twisting of 'fact' in the above account it beggars belief.

You've misrepresented Arthur Griffith; overstated events in Limerick, triggered by Fr Creagh's preaching; besmirched the memory of Sean Russell one of Ireland's heroes; and associated William Joyce, an American born, with a movement he betrayed and then put a spin on his reburial.

Griffith and Creagh both held and expressed views about the evils of world wide Judaism. These were based on their faith. Were they not entitled to do so? There is no evidence at all they supported the Holocaust.

Many of their comments remind me of the ravings against the Catholic Church made by some Christian sects. They also have a similar tone to the currently expressed concerns about Islam.

Russell and Stewart supported the German State, not the Nazi Party's policies, because they placed Ireland's independence above Britain's war. Again, no evidence this was related in any way to the Holocaust.

'Lord Haw Haw' spoke for himself, no one else. He was not a citizen of Ireland, but America. He was not buried with honours but moved from an unmarked grave in Wandsworth and buried in a Protestant cemetry, with a Catholic Mass said for him.

Here's one son of Ireland, in the spirit of my mother and the members of her family who died for Ireland, who feels slandered and offended.

4 July 2012 at 22:52  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ah, Miss Anna, honouring both Canada and Independence days! Since you ejoy cooking as I do, I'll tell you a secret; the favourite food of both Yanks and Canucks is hamburger. Big, juicy one grilled on a barbecue (I only use charcoal), with lots of trimmings, including a sweet relish and beer. Well, we drink beer, Carl and his ilk drink a watery substance mis-labelled as such.

4 July 2012 at 23:00  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Hi Dodo,

There have been many an Irish patriot who has stuck up for Jews.

As Wikipedia says :

"At the insistence of Irish leader Daniel O'Connell, in 1846, the British law "De Judaismo", which prescribed a special dress for Jews, was repealed. Due to the lack of anti-Jewish violence in Britain in the 19th century, it acquired a reputation for religious tolerance and attracted significant immigration from Eastern Europe."

4 July 2012 at 23:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

There was a disdain for Jews in Dublin decades ago because they were money lenders. The problem was, Paddy liked a drink, and Moses wanted his money back at sometime...

4 July 2012 at 23:05  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Also, the comparison between what Henry 8th did and what has happened here, is a flawed one. Henry 8th lived in the 16th century. This happened in the 21st. A FIVE hundred year gap in time frame. A pity, when we have The Higgs boson news today. Sad really.

4 July 2012 at 23:07  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Carl and his ilk drink a watery substance mis-labelled as such.

Hey! It's beer. Sorta. Well, we have micro-breweries now, and that helps. OK, if you are talking about MGD, then you are right, I guess. Or Budweiser. Or anything with 'Light' on the label. Or Coors. But there is good beer brewed in the US. There is ... well ... there just is, that's all.

Canadians! (mutter, mutter) Who says they are so polite?


Brats and hamburgers and fries. Baked beans. Potato salad. That's the traditional Fourth of July meal. Turkey is for Thanksgiving, and Christmas.


4 July 2012 at 23:13  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

carl jacobs said...
btw, I have never heard anyone suggest that WWII was actually a stage-managed conflict brought to fruition by a nefarious League of Nations conspiracy. The idea that League was even competent to successfully undertake such a conspiracy is too fantastic to be seriously entertained. Unless you want to call weakness, vacillation, and cowardice the elements of a conspiracy.


4 July 2012 18:07

Unless you want to call weakness, vacillation, and cowardice the elements of a conspiracy.

And why not.

If conspiracies were obvious, subjected to the full scrutiny of a free press, and observed by an properly educated and interested public, THEY WOULD NOT WORK.

Having said that.

Have you ever heard the history of the 2nd world war from a German or Japanese perspective?

Obviously not.

History my dear child, is written by the winners, and so believed by the foolish.

4 July 2012 at 23:13  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Corrigan you're quite pathetic when on the defensive. And you miss the point; I zeroed-in on the naughty source of your fake "palestinianism" and you have no defence other than spluttering unconvincing tu quoque fallacies.

Dodo, your rationalisations are even more pathetic: Griffith and Creagh both held and expressed views about the evils of world wide Judaism. These were based on their faith. Were they not entitled to do so?"

Ha ha ha ha! Sure, ok, they were entitled, Dodo. And I'm entitled by my own identity and faith to trash the memory of their arses. Makes our world more interesting, doesn't it?

Goodness, you "Israel critics" love to dish it and when someone takes a froendly little swipe at you, then you turn into weepy little girls.

4 July 2012 at 23:18  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Hi Avi (&Carl),

Why is it called a 'hamburger' is it really made of ham? I did BEEF burgers ( I can't cook a whole Turkey with my oven- and I'm glad I didn't now!) i.e minced beef patted together with ground pepper and breadcrumbs, cooked in a grill pan and then put into a cob (with some relish on the side and chips- not fries!).

I wasn't sure about the beer, so they all got some 'Abbott ale' (an English beer, btw).

I did go to Canada a couple of years ago (in the summer- cripes,it was hot, even by 9 in the morning!) and I tried this really sweet ice wine at Niagra on the Lakes (a bit like a sherry), Labbatts and the other beers was European -Leffe. There was this bar just outside of Ottawa which apparently sold almost every beer in the world- Bar Italy I think it was called. Also had the joy of being able to save a few pounds by FX trading on my US Dollars and Canadian Dollars, but I've still kept one of my loonies.

4 July 2012 at 23:32  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


presumably because there was a risk of them ending up in America.

Right, because that was the only possible motivation.

But even what you implied was true, what difference would that make to me? I am not bound to defend every action of the US gov't. I am not going to say it has a sterling history regarding race relations including the Jews. The US has absorbed and assimilated many different peoples in its history. Races once considered problematic are no longer an issue. Once it was the Germans and the Irish who were 'the problem.' Then it was Italians and people from other southern European countries. Then the Jews and Asians and Hispanics. Always there is the issue of African Americans. But we move forward. Things are different now than they were 100 years ago. We are a mongrel nation and we are proud of it.


4 July 2012 at 23:34  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Also, Carl,

What food is a brat? And secondly you mentioned in another post about the chattering classes playing Whist. I agree, they shouldn't be doing so- instead they should play cricket, rugby, polo, tennis and fencing, like everyone else!

4 July 2012 at 23:35  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Whist is a (quite enjoyable) card game that I associate with the indolent rich - which was the deliberate image I was trying to create with the reference. Dostoevsky's characters are always playing Whist.


4 July 2012 at 23:48  
Blogger Ian Hills said...

No chance of the BBC running a documentary on this, I suppose - it might be a bit "islamophobic".

5 July 2012 at 00:00  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Oh, they are sausages!

@Mr Atlas,

I've tried to research the global conspiracy,as you've said and I'm still stuck, so need some help. I'm looking into the machinations of our global masters and I keep coming up with the word illuminati-new world order- is this important or have I come across a potential red herring?

5 July 2012 at 00:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


If conspiracies were obvious, subjected to the full scrutiny of a free press, and observed by an properly educated and interested public, THEY WOULD NOT WORK.

Ah, yes. The old 'Absence of evidence is proof of conspiracy' trick. I must admit I would be interested to hear how the League of Nations conspired to produce WWII. In much the same that I almost bought that book in Roswell NM - the one about the technology of anti-gravity drives.

Have you ever heard the history of the 2nd world war from a German or Japanese perspective?

Yes. In fact, the last time I heard the Japanese perspective on the war, I was in Japan listening to a Japanese presentation.

Obviously not.

Obviously you are mistaken in your conclusions. There is a reason I post with such confidence and completeness on WWII.

History my dear child ...

Could you be more patronizing? Could you be more patronizing devoid of cause? Patronization does not cover up a flawed argument.

... is written by the winners, and so believed by the foolish.

So then how do you know the truth of history if it is only written by the winners? As for the rest, I shall let others judge if I am a fool in this matter.


5 July 2012 at 00:05  
Blogger anna anglican said...


Good stuff. The chattering classes (re the liberal/left part of the elite) read the Guardian. Playing cards, polo, cricket, rugby- along with hunting, shooting and fencing is far too right wing!

5 July 2012 at 00:08  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Oh I'm no weepy little girl, let me assure. We are expected to swallow your " ... froendly little swipe"? I think not.

You've brought no evidence against any of the Irish men (Haw Haw wasn't) you call "Jew-hating fascist dirt-bags." None of them were fascists; none of them hated Jews; none of them supported the Nazi regime or its crimes against the Jewish people.

I quess you are entitled by your own " ... identity and faith to trash the memory of their arses.". Just don't present it as fact.

Your religion forbids you to discuss your theology and beliefs. Christianity has no such prohibition. As I said, were they not entitled to speak their minds; just as you are yours?

5 July 2012 at 00:19  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

BTW Carl

If you have not read this or any other of my theories before, then all it shows is that you don't read very much, or that what you do read is highly limited in scope.

There are alternative theories to counter all others, many of which are very well researched by highly respected historians, theologians, or scientists.

However the important thing to remember is that there exists such a thing as AUTHORIZED history which is IMO as close to the opposite of the truth as it is possible to get away with.

Please do not get me wrong, the dates, places, times, names and other facts of general irrelevance are rarely questioned, or contradicted.

The problem is that we do not collectively know what we are not collectively allowed to know.

Therefore, joining up the dots is the only method by which we can fill in the gaps of our ignorance.

This planet has a cause. Because we do not, indeed cannot know for sure what this cause was, we imagine that a supreme intellect or mind somehow created it. We often call this entity God. The existence of a God may be just a theory, but it does not mean that God does not exist.

By a similarly logical deductive process we hope to find other causations for events that otherwise escape our reason.

Like for example


This very much because the people who actually fight them have nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so. Both of my grandparents fort in a war that they apparently won, yet to my knowledge never received a share of the profits, indeed existed in a state of austerity for many years afterwards. I am sure that the apparent losers had a very similar experience.

This is NOT rocket science, indeed working our why wars happen is relative child's play. ( Working out the true nature of God, on the other hand does has a tendency to be rather more tricky, to say the very least. )

All one has to do is some degree of simple research into who actually sits at or near the top of the pyramid of power.

Then find to your astonishment that the very people who are charged with protecting their flock, control all of the foxes as well as the keys to the entire Animal Farm.

In other words.

War is extremely profitable big business, and is run, co-ordinated, supplied, stage managed, umpired, and instigated through bodies such as The UN, which are controlled by the owners, main depositors and share holders of the central banks, which is where most of the war profits, eventually end up.

Now you may have good reason to trust big banksters, not to sell the lives of millions of ordinary people for as many millions of $, and god like power of the destiny of mankind.

Myself on the other hand don't trust even relatively tiny ones like Bod Diamond to be alone with my children for more then a nanosecond.

These people may drive a reasonably hard bargain for the lives of their own children, but would sell yours or mine for less then a cup of tea, and not lose a single wink of sleep having done so.

5 July 2012 at 00:20  
Blogger wallygreeninker said...

No major Sufi figure has ever aught other than hat it is the duty of Muslims to subjugate infidels and subject ham o Islamic law. Sufis have often proved to be the most fanatical jihadis in Muslim history and n Ottoman culture they had military branches. One particular brand of Sufis influential in (and does nothing o improve) Islamic dumps Pakistan and Afghanistan (Sufism tradition of secret societies, passing information from person to person down generations was useful in the jihad to regain India from the Raj for over 100 years. Sufism is influential in Chechnya: the lovelies who brought us Beslan, the Moscow theatre siege etc etc came from a Sufi background. Sufism enjoys a wonderful press in he west by he good old Muslim practice of not happening to mention any of this.

5 July 2012 at 00:44  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


The problem is that we do not collectively know what we are not collectively allowed to know.

Therefore, joining up the dots is the only method by which we can fill in the gaps of our ignorance.

I once had a conversation with a man that went something like this:

He: "Have you ever heard of the pre-Adamic flood?"

I: "The what?"

He: "The pre-Adamic flood. It's the flood that occurs between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2."

I: [blink, blink]

You can connect any dots you want in any manner you desire. There is an infinite number of paths between any two points. Once you have chosen an arbitrary path between dots, how do you know that arbitrary path represents truth? You have precluded any answer to this question by your presupposition that you cannot know what you do not know. Your connections are thus nothing but vain imagination.


5 July 2012 at 01:00  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...


Not at all these connections are not only logical, they are not even my own, indeed far from it.

These are connections and therefore conclusion made by many over a very long time. I thought I made this clear.

I do not say that you can not know, what you do not know, indeed the exact opposite. I indicated the we cannot collectively believe we know something, until our mass media or education system announce it to be so. In other words it becomes AUTHORIZED most usually by Oxbridge and or Cambridge universities or The BBC.

We supposedly exist in a democracy therefore until something important becomes collectively known, it may as well not have happened at all.

Do you always require conclusive material proof before you believe something to be true or not?

If so then you most surely could not possibly be an Atheist or a Theist.

Please do not believe anything I tell you, please do your own research. There are many hundreds of books and webb sites dealing with these issues. Therefore please feel free to educate yourself if you wish to do so.

I cannot make horses drink, at best I can only lead them to the water.

5 July 2012 at 01:26  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

A few more things Carl.

It has taken me 30 odd years of patient study to know what little I know, however it is clearly far more then you do.

Come on, smart arse put you mind where your rudely condescending mouth is and do some work by yourself for a change.

If you do not know how to use Google or You Tube, take some advice on the matter from your teenage son or daughter. Failing that, you could try visiting your local library, if you know where it is.

Maybe you have not quite mastered the basic skills of reading or comprehension. In which case perhaps you should contact your local authority for assistant.

They have some excellent adult reading classes available, I am told, and at a minimal cost to people with profound special needs like yourself.

5 July 2012 at 01:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Come on, smart arse put you mind where your rudely condescending mouth is and do some work by yourself for a change.

You do yourself no credit by making transparently false accusations. You are the one who called me a fool. Twice. You are the one who called me a child. I am neither fool nor child. Which is why I respond to such charges by ignoring them. Others will judge the truth of your charges, and I am confident of their judgment.



5 July 2012 at 02:15  
Blogger John Magee said...

AVI, Today is July 4th. America's day of Independence. The United States of America was intended by it's creators as an experiment in freedom. It's that simple and also that complex as the history of the USA has shown us for the past 226 years. The first ten amendments of the USA Constitution, The Bill of Rights, are brilliant and worth reading for freedom loving people everywhere for all time. The modern EU Constitution ignores almost all the basic human rights guaranteed 226 years years ago today by those few brilliant American rebels like Thomas Jefferson who signed their "Declaration of Independence" in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, King George III's American Colony and 2nd largest city in the British Empire at that time. The same city were their Constitution ratified in the late 1780's. Yet the American Founding Fathers were realistic and predicted the end of their Republic and experiment in freedom when it's people were willing to exchange their freedoms for guaranteed government security. This process to undermineby the essential meaning of the USA Republic by creating a welfare state began over 100 years ago by radicals introducing 19th century foreign concepts such as Socialism and Marxism into American political thought and has be growing at a catastrophic pace since President FDR's era. Today Canada is part of the British Commonwealth and when the Queen visits Canada she becomes Queen of Canada. When the Queen visits Britian's once former colony, what is now the the USA, she visits as a very welcome head of state. Canada and the USA may resemble each other on the surface (are Ohio or Oregon really that different from Ontario or British Columbia?)and they share the same superficial pop culture. But historically they arelargely very different different countries culturally and politically. To their credit they have shared one of the longest borders in the world for 200 hundred years without a shot being fired and that is a good thing. Love the USA or hate it what will the world be like if it ceases to exist and breaks apart? This concept is a very real possibilty in this century. Hispanic groups like "La Raza" (The Race)openly demand that the entire Southwest USA be "returned" to Mexico. If the USA collpases or breaks apart who will take over as the world's new super power? A Chinese military and economic super power? a nationalist Russia lusting for it's former "colonies" in Eastern Europe and control of Western Europe with the USA no longer a member of NATO? A vast Islamic Caliphate armed with nukes? Take your pick.

5 July 2012 at 04:25  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Posts I missed….

Yes to Carl as POTUS, Miss Anna; I’ve always been of the opinion that national leaders should have been through a stint in the military. Not necessarily to have been generals, but at least commissioned officers with responsibilities for lives and materiel. Anyone keeping up and keeping his cool with Atlas can be trusted with ICBM release codes. As for Daniel O’Connell, "the Liberator," I didn't know that about him; but it makes sense. I once made oil-on-canvas copy of his well-known portrait for a client and got cought up in his biography. All I recall is that he was a brilliant, cool-headed and honourable giant of a man, one of the true heroes and a thinker way ahead of his times. I was most touched by the story of how he killed a skilled opponent in a duel, regretted it his whole life and even financially supported one of his children. Wish we had more like him, especially today. O, and the hamburger in its sandwich form is said to have originated at the Chicago fair in the Hamburg pavillion.

Inspector, you are a too harsh on both of our histories. Jewish money lending was not a very common activity in the times we are speaking of, so it couldn't be the cause of the animus at the time and the Irish poor didn’t get into debts because of drink as much as by trying to stay alive and to keep a roof over their heads in the face of rapidly rising prices and locked-down wages. All displaced and rapidly industrializing societies saw explosions of alcoholism, abetted by mass production of cheap liquor and distribution to the poor, and being among the last to industrialize and urbanize in Western Europe, the Irish got stuck with the bad rep we all should have. Especially you and I, judging by the way we go on about our love for the single malt.

Dodo (5 July 2012 00:19), ok, never mind; if you think I made all of it up just to pish-off Corrigan or something, I cannot imagine being able to have a sensible conversation about this or perhaps any topic with you. Your last paragraph, btw, with your poorly executed Jesuit-esque reversal of the argument suggests that you’ve lost all ability to reason. I hope it’s temporary.

5 July 2012 at 04:44  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Mr Magee,

Greetings, a happy Independence Day and thank you for the historical outline. No really, no sarcasm; I easily forget salient facts and enjoy summaries.

It seems, though, that you may think that I have a dislike of the US or Americans...hopefully not because I razzed Carl Jacobs over American beer. We get into that sort of an act now and then. Let me assure you that that while it is not uncommon for Canadians, especially those on the left to feel contempt for the US, that is not the case with me. Like anyone with a brain, I realize too that this world's prosperity and safety depend on the stability of my neighbour to the South and the much-maligned pax Americana without which the barbarians would be pounding at our gates.

5 July 2012 at 05:00  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

O, Atlas, you said, "In other words it becomes AUTHORIZED most usually by Oxbridge and or Cambridge universities or The BBC."

Just one pedantic little thing, if I may. It's Oxford and Cambridge. Oxbridge is the unofficial moniker for a peculiar British accent spoken by academics. My father in law, a former East Londoner and later a Cambridge man, speaks it. It's quite charming most of the time, except when he puts me down for saying something idiotic, in which case it can make one feel as if being sliced like a salami and tossed on the floor.

5 July 2012 at 05:52  
Blogger non mouse said...

Ah... Avi. That explains a lot :).

5 July 2012 at 07:08  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

It's religion in action.
Yhis is what religion does best.

5 July 2012 at 07:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is becoming increasingly apparent that God is lifting His Hand of restraint on destructive and violent forces is the natural and the spiritual World.
What we are seeing is a 'shaking of all things'.

Corruption, hypocrisy,and greed is being uncovered in our Political, financial,and even our religious institutions at an alarming rate.All things which have been hidden are being uncovered and brought out into the Light.
The true intentions of Islam the'religion of peace'are also being revealed,Islam is the very antithesis of all that God intended for mankind.
God loves 'the World 'and revealed that love through Jesus Christ and God`s plan for redeeming the World was revealed through Jesus Christ.

Islam offers no such hope only repression, fear ,and a denial of God`s plan for salvation for all humanity.Secularism offers no solutions for the problems assaulting Humanity.The UN is powerless,' Human Rights' are ignored by those pursuing their own agendas, the weak suffer while the strong take from them without pity or remorse.

How much 'shaking ' does it take to awaken those sleepwalking through this life?.


5 July 2012 at 07:32  
Blogger Dr Evil said...

This cancer, as you so aptly describe it is already here. Once it is correctly diagnosed it will have to be cut out.

5 July 2012 at 08:24  
Blogger Ivan said...

Sufi goofy theologians were among the worst instigators of violence against the Hindus when the Muslims were lording it India.

If some Irish patriots in Limerick throwing out usurers and pedlars count as a pogrom, then surely the Palestinians have every right to regard Jenin as Stalingrad and Hiroshima combined

5 July 2012 at 08:46  
Blogger Roy said...

Neil Addison said...

I hate to point this out but what is happening to the Shrines in Timbuktu and other parts of the Muslim World is exactly what happened to Catholic Shrines in England under Archbishop Cranmer

Are you sure about that? Many Roman Catholic shrines were destroyed during the Reformation but did Cranmer have anything to do with that? I could be wrong but I was under the impression that the destruction of shrines occurred later.

5 July 2012 at 10:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi said ...
" ... ok, never mind; if you think I made all of it up just to pish-off Corrigan or something, I cannot imagine being able to have a sensible conversation about this or perhaps any topic with you. Your last paragraph, btw, with your poorly executed Jesuit-esque reversal of the argument suggests that you’ve lost all ability to reason. I hope it’s temporary."

I don't think you "made it up" or did it to deliberately provoke Corrigan. You stated your opinions and exaggerted the evidence; and I challenged you.

Not sure what this means:

"Your religion forbids you to discuss your theology and beliefs. Christianity has no such prohibition. As I said, were they not entitled to speak their minds; just as you are yours?"

Perhaps you'd care to clarify why this statement is unreasonable and Jesuit-esque?:

Afterall the views of the men who helped form the Irish Free State were, whether right or wrong interpretations based on their Catholic faith. It was you who recently described yourself as: " ... being subject to a very old and wise prohibition of engaging in theological disputations with members of other religions."

You are unable to freely discuss your faith's interpretation of Holy Scripture and how it sees the Jewish people in relation to other nations and individuals.

Christians have no such prohibition in place. Indeed, in the minds of some protestant sects Catholics have now replaced the Jews as the group behind all the evil in the world. Many prominent leaders of your own faith believe certain 'offensive' passages of the New Testament are antisemitic and should no longer be used in Catholic services. Feminists make charges the Bible is 'sexist'; homosexuals that it is 'homophobic'; environmentalists that it supports global warming.

As unpalatable as it is, in a world of competing Truth, we are entitled to share our views. Those who disagree with them are also entitled to say so.

5 July 2012 at 11:58  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

It is 1536 in Mali. Those loudest in praising the Reformation are in no position to bemoan the despoilment of Timbuktu.

5 July 2012 at 13:22  
Blogger Neil Addison said...

Roy The destruction of the Shrines and Monasteries of England definately occured under Cranmer.

Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterbury 1533 - 1555. The Monasteries were suppressed and destroyed by the First Suppression Act of 1536 and the Second Suppression Act of 1539.

Walsingham Shrine was destroyed and the statue of our lady burnt in 1538 the same year in which the shrine of Thomas Becket was destroyed in Canterbury. All was done with Cranmers enthusiastic support.

Whatever ones views on what has happened to Muslim Shrines in Timbuktu and elsewhere the fact remains that exactly the same iconoclastic destruction occured in England under Cranmer which is why I found this particular blog by his Grace somewhat amusing

5 July 2012 at 13:41  
Blogger Neil Addison said...

Apologies I should have said

Our Lady not our lady

The Mother of God deserves capitals

5 July 2012 at 13:42  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

Weep, weep, O Walsingham
whose days are nights,
blessings turned to blasphemies,
Holy deeds to despites.
Sin is where Our Lady sat,
Heaven turned is to hell,
Satan sits where Our Lord did sway,
Walsingham, oh farewell!

5 July 2012 at 16:31  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...


Deconstructing your twisted logic can be a tedious labour for which I should be able to bill someone. You dug out my exchange with Mr Ernst Bloefeld where I declined a debate in matters of belief or to take sides in the ongoing Catholic-Protestant dispute between you and Len. You pretzelled that somehow into a prohibition to criticise antisemites on the grounds of freedom of religious belief. For shame, Dodo.

The probition on entering into theological disputations and discussions about doctrine has two rationales. The first is the ban on proselytizing non-Jews, for which Jews would have faced death or destruction of their community, or subjecting oneself to missionaries of other faiths who could get nasty when rejected. The second rationale was to get Jews out of Medieval public disputations organized by the Church, which invariably ended badly for the Jews whether they "lost" or "won" the dispute. Again, "badly" meant quite drastic penalties. You somehow twisted this prohibition to mean that no critique or objection can be made by Jews even about antisemitic utterigs. No doubt you think you're exceedingly clever, but you are merely doing a hack job with the kind of an illegitimate pedantic legalism of which Christianity accuses my saintly Pharisee ancestors of sacred memory. Ooops! There, see, I disagreed with a fundamental Church view carved into your Gospels and if you can guess by what rationale I did so, you get a cookie mailed to you...a kosher one, of course. But you only get one guess.

So, I'm curious about your twisty-turny logic. Are you arguing that antisemitism is an essential core feature of Christianity and specifically, Catholicism? Your own head of the Church might object to that, I dare I suggest. And there is your honourable Daniel O'Connell, of blessed memory, the Liberator of Ireland and a friend to the Jews at time when it wasn't "in" to be one. I revisited his biography since Anna mentioned him, and he apparently proclaimed that antisemitism in Catholic Ireland was unknown until his day and that in removing restrictions on Jews, he was freeing them from burdens imposed by English Church and State laws. Why was he not an antisemite, and in fact anti-anything? No Irish Catholic authority in his time jumped up to correct him either. Isn't it odd, that the Irish and their isolated Church may have been the only people in Christendom who were free of the ancient hatred? Why do we find in the Church histories honourable and kind-hearted people, clerics and secular rulers, who defended the Jews? Why is His Grace here, for that matter, a friend to the Jews? Are all these people heretics in your mind? And do you think that I'm guilty of some gross violation of Jewish Law by concluding that regardless of what rationales are concocted, antisemitism is not a doctrinal feature, but a miserable failing of character, an evil inclination?

So, don't worry about my adherence to my own laws, Dodo. I'm allowed to bless our friends and to ask G-d to scatter, frustrate and impede our enemies, and if this somehow winds up in a grey area and conflicts with a particular interpretation of late Rabbinic interpretive prohibition intended for other matters, I'll take on the guilt and donate to charity in restitution.

5 July 2012 at 17:01  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

It's religion in action. AGAIN. (T)his is what religion does best.
G. Tingey, 5 July 2012 07:15

Now, now, Mr Tingey. The recent demolition derbies by the Islamists don't comapre to the wholesale destruction of religious property by the Soviet, Chinese or Cambodian communists on the grounds of wiping out all "superstition", i.e., religion. Not to mention the fact that erasing someone else's marks and replacing them with one's own is a mammal sort of thing to do.

5 July 2012 at 17:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

All this business of the ‘popularity’ of the Sufi is very similar to that of the Kurds. Who here remembers, and it must be twenty years ago now, when the Kurds were the darlings of the BBC, though only for a short time. It happened that way after it became public knowledge that Saddam had gassed thousands of them. A hard done by people with no state to call their own. So, little girl like, the BBC went to their rescue and highlighted their plight.

It soon became known, that far from the innocents they appeared to be, they were no better than any of the other peoples who live in Iraq. In fact, they were worse, as in their hoped for quest for their own muslim state, they were well known agitators. And that is why Saddam had them gassed in the first place…

We must not forget that today’s lost hound in need of assistance, the Sufi, are apparently ‘good’ Muslims. They have to be otherwise they would surely have been wiped out by their equally noxious cousins a long time ago…

5 July 2012 at 17:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One for Corrigan here. William Joyce was beaten up when he lived in Galway as the family were Unionist.

The following is an example of British justice, carried out at Galway railway station, 1919, while Joyce was living there...

“When a Black and Tan named Krumm was shot dead during an altercation at the railway station, Sean Broderick was arrested by the Tans. “They pulled me down the stairs in my shirt and trousers, without boots, and brought me towards the station, poking me with their rifles and revolvers and accompanied by choice language. I saw several patrols of military on our way and when we got to the station, I shouted to a British Army officer that, as an officer of the IRA, I demanded a fair trial.

The reply from several was ‘You bloody b.....s did not give much trial to the policeman last night.’ I was brought further up and put against a wooden railway door and a party of about seven or eight RIC and Tans took up a position as a firing party some short distance away. I heard the words of command: ‘Present’, ‘Fire’, closed my eyes and prayed to the Blessed Virgin, who undoubtedly saved my life. I felt a sharp sensation on the top of my head and fell to the ground”.

In fact he had only been grazed by the bullet but there was a lot of blood and he feigned death. When the Tans moved away, he got up and ‘The wall opened up for him so as to make his way across Mahon’s Field to the back door of Mrs Browne’s house at Number 1, Magdalen Terrace’. He sent word to his home in Prospect Hill which was raided by the Tans the following day.”

5 July 2012 at 17:36  
Blogger wallygreeninker said...

Most of the iconoclasm in England occurred in spasmodic phases at the time of the dissolution of he monasteries, during the reign of Edward VI and during he Civil War / Commonwealth.In the Islamic world, destruction of religious art as been going on for 1400 ears and continues,even in Europe (Kosovo and Northern Cyprus) at the moment - and that's without including Turkey in any definition of Europe.

5 July 2012 at 17:47  
Blogger IanCad said...

Haven't had time to read all the posts but let's not forget Robert Briscoe, the colorful Lord Mayor of Dublin. He was the first Jewish holder of that office. His son was the second.
There is a wonderful chapter devoted to him in the book "Gowing Up Jewish."
One of the great bedside books.

5 July 2012 at 17:49  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


"Pretzel" is not a verb. Is this some horrible Canadianization of the English Language?

Also, Mr Tingey considers Communism to be a religion. As a general rule, you can assume that any worldview that does something bad is a religion in G Tingey's understanding. I am sure however that he will tell you this himself. He has a stock post which he makes anytime someone says what you just said.



5 July 2012 at 18:21  
Blogger wallygreeninker said...

The Open University, back in the eighties, produced a series of booklets for students on each of the major world religions. They included Communism in the one on 'secular religions.'

5 July 2012 at 18:43  
Blogger John Magee said...

AVI. American (or should I say "United Statesian) beer and pasty white bread or AWFUL. However, to make up for those shortcomings, the rebellious children of King George III in his American Colonies gave the world in 1776 their wonderful Declaration of Independence and later their brilliant Constitution. Those documents should be read by and treasured by Europeans today in order to refresh their minds as to the origins of their own civilization which they have gleefully trashed and pursued a path of cultural self destruction since WW II. The Deist writer of the American Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, wrote in the 2nd paragraph of the "Declaration of Independence" that "all men are created by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness..." Even an unbeliever in the God (g-d)of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob like Jefferson knew our CREATOR gave us our rights and freedoms. God has no part in the EU does He? As odd as it may sound Europe might have to rediscover it's past enlightenment and wisdom as well as spiritual roots in the child European civilization gave birth to across the Atlantic... Those loud, vulgar, and enthusiatic Americans and their wonderful Constitution. As a Jew you should appreciate the fact that the children of Abraham have probably enjoyed the longest period of freedom and safety from persecution since the time Rome destroyed Jerusalem almost 2,000 years ago in the United States. Before the USA existed Jews enjoyed freedom in some of the English Colonies there. One example is the former colony and now state of Rhode Island. Jews have enjoyed total religious freedom in Rhode Island since 1636. The oldest surviving synagogue in the USA, built in 1776, is at Touro, RI.

5 July 2012 at 19:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Just a moment chaps, before you sing the highest praises of the American constitution, remember said article allowed prohibition to be made law. Absolute madness, what....

Chars !


5 July 2012 at 19:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Neil Addison ,(5 July 2012 13:42)
God has no mother!. Jesus Christ pre existed Mary so Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ. The argument used by Roman Catholics on this point goes like this:
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God
Therefore Mary is mother of God.
This type of argument might work with an ordinary human because an ordinary human comes into existence at conception. Jesus was fully God and fully man. Mary was the woman through whom God entered the world manifest in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16). Mary was the thus the mother of Jesus in the flesh, but not the mother of God. Further, God is a trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For Mary to be mother of God, she would have to have conceived and given birth to the trinity. Instead, what happened is that one person of the trinity, Jesus came to earth manifest in the flesh in order that He might die on the cross for our sins. Mary could not have conceived the trinity because the trinity pre-existed Mary. Indeed, a question to ask those who believe that Mary is the mother of God is to ask where Mary was was when Jesus was creating the universe. If they say that Mary was not there she could not be the mother of God. If they say that she was there, then they are claiming that Mary was not a created being, and thus as giving Mary the attribute of pre-existence.

Mary was the mother of Jesus in the flesh. This is not to say that there was any change in Jesus because He never changes.

(Sorry if this seems pedantic but the 'Mary' of Catholicism detracts from the sole author of salvation who is God Himself, Mary was a very important figure but she should not be elevated into the Godhead)

5 July 2012 at 19:34  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...


"Enjoy"? After you arbitrarily ripped away my inalianable right to create a new verb ..."pretzelled"... a neologism from a transliterated Germanic noun which has been welcomed into the English? English is a living language, Sir, and if a former Alaskan governor could make sport with it, so can I!

Really? Mr Tingey classifies communism as a religion? How curious. And convenient too, as you've noted. He is right in a limited way, of course, but then he runs into the problem of all the other supposedly secular beliefs, morals and ethical precepts which are either empirically unfounded convictions or emerge from Judeo-Cristian beliefs. Let's see if he can justify himself in a sentence or two, which appears to be all he is allowed to post.

5 July 2012 at 19:50  
Blogger Neil Addison said...

Len Actually the belief in Mary as the Mother of God is not an exclusively Roman Catholic doctrine in fact it is an Orthodox Doctrine (Google Theotokos) and is also the belief of the Anglican and Luteran Churches.

The point of view you are espousing is what is known is History as The Nestorian Heresy which was condemned in the 3rd Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431 and whose decisions are accepted by Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian, Anglican and Lutheran Churches. You are of course free to hold your view but do not assume that it only contradicts Roman Catholicism

Anyway interesting though this type of discussion is I unfortunately will not be able to continue it because I am traveling down to London

5 July 2012 at 19:58  
Blogger Neil Addison said...

Len A PS

When you say
"Mary was a very important figure but she should not be elevated into the Godhead"
you are of course correct and Roman Catholicism and indeed the Orthodox etc do not elevate Mary to the Godhead. Mary is Venerated by Catholics (Mariology) but she is not worshiped (Mariolatry)

5 July 2012 at 20:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len.Neil Addison is correct. We ask Mary to intercede on behalf of humanity. As fully human herself, she knows what we go through...

5 July 2012 at 20:05  
Blogger IanCad said...

Mary is dead and in the grave. To believe otherwise is an invitation to Spiritualism.

5 July 2012 at 20:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


I understand my own logic. Just stop looking for Jesuit trickery. There is none.

No, I'm not saying that antisemitism is a core attribute of Christianity generally or Catholicism specifically. And neither am I saying that people who have helped the Jews are heretics.

What I am saying is that because members of Ireland's early liberation movement expressed unacceptable opinions about the Jews and their place in salvation history, does not automatically make them Jew haters or intent on murdering them.

And of course antisemitism is not doctrinally determined. Violent hatred is indeed an evil inclination, a sin.

I am acknowledging that in the wrong hands and used for evil purposes, the teachings of the Church concerning the Jews can be a cover for malice. Improperly understood, the New Testament can provoke a background antisemiticism.

My original reason for posting was to object to the slur on the memories of Irish men who fought for freedom of their country. You called them:

"Jew-hating fascist dirt-bags"

Inaccurate, unjust hyperbole and a gross insult. I could post random quotes from the heroes of Israel about Arabs and also Rabbis on Christians. It'll get us nowhere.

5 July 2012 at 20:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


remember said article allowed prohibition to be made law.

You see, it wasn't the fault of the Constitution. This is just what happens when you let women meddle in politics.



5 July 2012 at 20:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say Carl, a fellow can’t fault you on that, what !

5 July 2012 at 20:30  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

John Magee, I'm flattered to be the addressed recipient of your interesting summaries, but remain curious as to why me. To rest your mind, I'm fairly familiar with American history and the history of the Jews there. The situation, I assure you was similar in Canada and in the UK as well, but you are right, the US had the fewest restrictions. I have been to the Touro Synagogue, btw. Architecture with brick, stone and mortar, as limiting as it may seem is somehow so much more creative than the "we can do anything now" kind with formed, reinfored and poured concrete, steel cantilevered beams and tempered glass.

Inspector, I share your horror of that legislative travesty, the Prohibition. A nightmare, I imagine. I wonder if sales of pickled herring were effected, but I digress. The affair brought the development of "soft drinks," chiefly to hide the moonshine in the mix, but was it really worth it?

Canada never totally banned alcohol during the Prohibition, but the busy-bodies here still managed to twist the laws and limit alcohol severely to the point where things were sometimes hardly better than South of us. The faint echoes of those Years of Horror continue to resound. We still buy our beer only in provincially-owned beer stores and our wine in liquor stores and when I arrived in Canada in the 70s, we still had laws about having to order food with alcohol in the bars (pickled eggs were favoured by the Irish and English, herring by the Scots, Germans and Jews), there were strict Sunday laws allowing food to be served but not liquor and a requirement that curtains be drawn in restaurants serving alcohol lest a busybody or, Heavens forbid, a minor sees someone sipping a beer and swoons. Also, some areas, including the one I live in, were until about two decades ago "dry districts," where liquor was not allowed to be sold or served. Churches and synagogues were, fortunately, exempt. I cannot imagine our post-service midday snack at our synagogue consisting only of honey cake and coffee, as some shell-shocked old timers recall in cold sweat. Btw, so much for my warning about us talking about booze all the time. We messed-up again and people will talk.

5 July 2012 at 20:57  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Inspector, thanks for the info about lord haw haw, but I already knew he wasn't really Irish. Avi was just slinging dirt, as is the Zionist want when challanged by the lesser races. It's necessary when you haven't a moral leg to stand on.

5 July 2012 at 21:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi. It was the puritanical northern Christian Protestants who unleashed that disaster upon us all. They are still around, and wish to deny the Inspector his tobacco. They argument being that the vast taxes we pay in duty go nowhere near paying for our modest NHS costs at the end of our lives. As if to say that if we didn’t smoke, we would live and work forever and not be a drain on the public purse that the ‘healthy’ types are. Yet, when these peoples daughters or daughters-in-law deliver unto the world a child with a dicky heart or whatever, then cost doesn’t come into it, what !

Apparently babies whom nature has decreed unfit to survive have priority over hard hardworking Inspectors who like a smoke at the end of the day.

Damn protestants !

5 July 2012 at 21:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah, there you are Corrigan. For anybody who is interested in our earlier goodly Black and Tan, Krumm, so terribly murdered at Galway railway station, read on...

On September 8th, 1920, we were in Louis O'Dea's house to meet a priest from Ironton, Ohio who wanted to tell everyone about the great work he was doing for Ireland. The evening papers used to come in on the train arriving at 11.30 pm. Tommy went out to get one and we heard the train and then several loud shots and a lot of shouting and noise. When Tommy came back he told us what happened.

A Black-and-Tan lorry driver named Krumm had spent the evening drinking. In one pub he boasted about his aim and insisted on setting up a row of bottles as targets to show his skill. Tom Hynes, the IRA Intelligence Officer heard of this and sent his brother Michael to warn any Volunteers that an armed man seemed to be preparing to create trouble. The Volunteers were in the habit of going to the station every night to meet the train, watch the troop movement, collect despatches and meet Volunteers from other districts, and this night they were also going to collect arms from the Longford area. Krumm and a companion went on to the platform by the gate on the arrivals side. The Volunteers warned the men arriving with the Longford guns, and the train stopped for a moment outside the station while they went out by the signal box with the guns. The train came into the station and as the passengers started to go out the gate Krumm drew his gun and made as if to shoot into the crowd. Sean Turke jumped on his back, pulled him to the ground and tried to get his gun from him. Sean Mulvoy went to help him and Krumm managed to fire all the rounds in his gun in the struggle, killing Mulvoy and wounding another man. Another Volunteer shot Krumm just as Tom Fahy and Michael Hynes came to help and they took the gun away. Krumm's companion was still with him but seems to have taken no part in the business. Tommy and the others carried Mulvoy to his lodgings but he was dead on arrival.

A quarter of an hour after we got home (to College Road) we heard several armoured cars go tearing down the road from Renmore and we knew the trouble had started... It was a wonderful still warm night and I could hear every sound in the town from where we were on the shore of Lough Athalia. The lorries full of armed men tore down the road from Renmore and the shooting began. The first shots sounded like machine gun fire followed by dreadful screaming. This was when Sergeant Fox shot young Seamus Quirke. Quirke was taken from his lodgings in the New Dock and shot through the stomach eleven times. He crawled on his hands and knees from the lamppost on the quay where he was shot to the door of his house. The screaming was the background to all the horrors of the next five hours until the poor boy died at dawn. Fr. Griffin was sent for and stayed with him until he died.".

Some extracts there from a new book entitled "All in the Blood" published by A.A.Farmar. It is a memoir written by Geraldine Plunkett Dillon who was a sister of Joseph Mary Plunkett, one of the signatories of the Proclamation. She was married to Tom Dillon, Professor of Chemistry UCG (the Tommy mentioned above). The book is a remarkable first hand account of events leading up to the Rising. It then details the Dillons move to Galway and describes many of the terrible events of the Black-and-Tan period here. It has been edited by Geraldine's granddaughter Honor O'Brolchain, and is very highly recommended.

5 July 2012 at 21:33  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

But Dodo, why the double standard? You frequently trash founders of Israel and play loose with accusations of real and mostly imagined Israeli misdeeds. I shrug such stuff off without getting unduly upset, because I would not expect you to respect some of them, like the Betar and Stern boys and others who fought the British in the Palestine Mandate. There are bitter folks both in the UK and in Israel who have lost fathers and grandfathers in that unfortunate conflict between two peoples who I think are natural friends and allies. Nor do I expect the Arabs to accept our day of national liberation as anything but a disaster for them. And as I said, not all Irish nationalists were antisemitic and I went to great pains to explain for the benefit of any passerby here that the very founder of Irish Catholic emancipation rejected antisemitism as a foreign blight.

In any event, my salvo was directed at Corrigan, who delights in slandering Israel with every post of his. I identified his "intellectual" sources as the stock Sinn Fein-IRA mishmash of fascist/socialist Jew-hatred which began under the guise of objecting to alleged problems of Jewish usury and moved onto the pretense of giving a hoot for Palestinians. Were some of the heroes and admirable men in other ways? Were they brave and did they suffer for their cause? No doubt, (just read the Inspector's account of one of them and his encounter with the "Tans"), otherwise they wouldn't have become popular leaders. But I personally don't have to accept those mitigating circumstances as you don't have to accept those of my imperfect heroes. You make distinctions between hostilities to Jews which I don't have to. For me, anyone who stokes up or exploits hatred against my people deserves, at the very least, words His Grace wouldn't be pleased to see on his blog. And you, as a member of a Catholic minority, who feels maligned and targetted by serious and historically dangerous accusations and slanders should be the one to know and understand.

5 July 2012 at 21:48  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Inspector, the blame for our woes is not with the Protestants but goes to the UN, Maurice Strong the "UN man," revenue-hungry governments and pharmaceutical companies which would not have been able to sell ineffective nicotine replacement drugs without creeping prohibitions and rising dues.

Here, in Ontario, it is possible to take an hour and drive up to one of the Native reserves which sell their own quasi-legal brands at tenth of the price in plastic bags of 200. I would have imagined your Turkish guest workers would be flooding the black market in the UK. We move on from booze to cigarettes; I see progress.

5 July 2012 at 22:05  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Definitive proof as to why you shouldn't eat those little fish things. Herrings/sardines/anchovies/whatever. All the same fish really.

No Anchovies, Please!

You have been warned.


5 July 2012 at 22:16  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 July 2012 at 22:21  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Corrigan, you whined, "Avi was just slinging dirt, as is the Zionist want when challanged by the lesser races."

I misunderstood you. You suffer under poor self-esteem believing yourself to be a "lesser race," hence a graceless Goy, wait, here's a worse one, a sheygetz, the Judaic equivalent of a crude wog? My sympathies, but no, it's just you, Corry, you specifically who are a lesser being in my mortal eyes. And I may wish to push you onto the tracks but for the stern "eyes" of our mutual G-d who is wise and all-merciful, and who sees us all as brothers from one mother and loves you as much as He loves me or any Jew and any human of any colour or creed. As the Yanks say, "dang!"

5 July 2012 at 22:22  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

In fact, it is only slander if it is untrue. The sources of my slander are exclusively Jewish writers. I don't pay any attention to Arab sources because, by and large, they actually ARE anti-Semitic. Those sources include Noam Chomsky (The Fateful Triange), Avi Shlaim (The Iron Wall) and particularly Arabs and Israel for Beginners by Ron David. David's book is particularly accessible and I particularly recommend it to those unfamiliar with the conflict. I haven't actually used a quarter of the material he provides in it, but here's one of my favourite, and most shocking, sections:

"After World War II, American soldiers in Germany presided over camps full of 'displaced persons' (DPs) waiting for the chance to resettle in America, Europe, or the Middle East. The organization that officially helped DPs emigrate was the Jewish Agency but, after a certain point, the Irgun (the terrorist group led by Menachem Begin)and the Stern Gang (the terrorist group led by Yitzhak Shamir) began "recruiting" in the DP camps.

From the official report of the Office of Military Government for Germany, dated January 10 1948:
Tensions and clashes in the Jewish DP camps are now on the increase. They are spreading to various parts of the US zone and gaining momentum. In the back of it all is an attempt and determination of the Irgun Zevai Leumi to gain control of the camp administrations and institutions.
They find it hard, however, to take over committees that are democratically elected and are working under an army charter and subject to public control and scrutiny. Irgun, therefore, seems to concentrate on the DP police force. This is an old technique in Eastern Europe and in all police states. By controlling the police, a small, unscrupulous, group of determined people can impose its will on a peaceful and inarticulate majority; it is done by threats, intimidation, by violence and if need be by bloodshed...they have embarked upon a course of violence within the camps.

Zionist Jews threatened, terrorized, and brutalized the Jews who'd just survived the Holocaust to 'persuade' them to go to Israel. The thought of it angers me more than anything I know. If you can stand to read more, by all means, pick up the book Taking Sides by Stephen Green."

Ron David, Israel and Arabs for Beginners, P.112

I don't make this stuff up. I don't get it off Stormfront and I don't state it just to wind up people like Avi Barzel - that's just a bonus. The only way this stuff can be squared with the idea that Israel is some kind of model democracy is if you only believe in democracy for those races worthy of it, in this case, the Jews. It's good old fashioned, nineteenth century racial supremacy and that's all it is, and people need to cut through all the claptrap about the Holocaust - the Zionists did NOTHING for their co-religionists during the Holocaust, and I mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. They couldn't care less because they knew those Jews fleeing the Nazis were heading for Britain and America, NOT Palestine, and that was no use for their plans to dispossess the indigenous population. When the Holocaust survivors finally did start to arrive in Israel in the 1950s, they were treated like garbage because they didn't fit the image of the heroic Jewish warrior. Frankly, the Zionists were ashamed of them. That is, until they realized that so many of them had managed to stash some dosh in Switzerland before the Nazis had nailed them. THAT'S when Israel suddenly became the moral heir of the Holocaust victims, and that's what sickens me when I have to listen to the like of Avi Barzel screaming "savage pogrom" over the 1904 Limerick boycott and then lecturing me about Arthur Griffith when I have the Wikipedia page he clearly cogged from open in front of me.

Utterly, utterly shameless.

5 July 2012 at 22:36  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl, that is truly the most insane You Tube video I've seen. And I've seen a few. You didn't make it yourself, did you?

5 July 2012 at 22:40  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Corrigan, may I gently point out that the selection of sources you are using are made-up, shite by discretided pseudo-scholars? Don't be fooled by Chomsky; he may have been a brilliant linguist, but is an awful and unprincipled pseudo-historian. This is why you can find that drivel so easily; Stormfront and the usual assembly of Holocaust-revisionist, neo-Nazi sites provide a free and easy selection of such nuggets. Wake me up when you have something of substance.

5 July 2012 at 22:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Why is it so hard to accept that political Zionism used underhanded methods in creating the State of Israel - from the Balfour Declaration through to the Declaration of Independence? Some might wish to defend this approach.

There's plenty of historical evidence from many sources to support this. The Arabs were never going to agree to a Jewish State and were lied to and conned; the Jews were promised something beyond the words of the Balfour Declaration.

Just how critical this is in resolving the present Palestinian and Israeli situation is disputable. I suppose propaganda is important to both sides. Brave and noble Israel, standing alone, facing the murdering, conniving Islamist Arab.

And as for this last outburst, just when I thought we were about to agree too,:

" ... the stock Sinn Fein-IRA mishmash of fascist/socialist Jew-hatred which began under the guise of objecting to alleged problems of Jewish usury and moved onto the pretense of giving a hoot for Palestinians."

Why use the expression "alleged problems of Jewish usury"? The problems were real enough as most commentators agree. The arrival of 'payment by installments' for goods you could not afford at high interest rates, was new to Ireland. Families were on the breadline and husbands away in the Boar War.

There was a sermon, a non-violent demonstration, an economic boycott against Jewish traders considered exploitative, and a small stone thrown by a youth.

6 July 2012 at 00:02  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Promises about the formation of a Jewish state made in the Balfour Declaration had nothing to do with the formation of the Israeli state. Some things may have been promised at times past. The British gov't had no intention of following through. In fact, it was doing everything in its power in 1947-48 to prevent the state of Israel from coming into existence. That's how the problem got to the UN in the first place. The British Foreign Ministry was convinced the UN would fail and return the problem to Britain. In the wake of such failure, the British would be given a free hand to solve the problem as it saw fit, and the Americans would stop complaining about Jews in Displaced Person Camps. Remember that the favored European solution to the problem of displaced Jews was to send them back to the countries they came from. Send them back to nothing with nothing to live among the peoples who had just tried to exterminate them. This was called "Not letting Hitler win."

The state of Israel was essentially the creature of the political will of Harry S Truman. It was Truman who overcame the institutional resistance of both the State Dept and the war Dept. It was Truman who defeated the expectations of the British in the UN. If FDR had not died, there would have been no state of Israel. So don't complain about subterfuge in decades past. The relevant dates are 1947/1948. Everything else was already water under the bridge.


6 July 2012 at 00:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo who own the Land of Israel?.

God calls Israel My Land.

If any' underhand treatment' was used it was by us the British who reneged on the promises given to Israel.

Since we let down the Jews the British Empire has collapsed(this is no accident)and has continued collapsing.America will get the same result if it demands that Israel gives up more Territory.

God continues to send warning after warning that those insist that Israel give up land that God promised to Abraham, then to Isaac, then to Jacob and to his descendents. The responsibility of such action rests on our own shoulders because God has warned in His Word, in Joel 3:2, for the nations to keep their hands off of His covenant land and has demonstrated in history that He is serious about that warning.

6 July 2012 at 00:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


That's something of an over simplification and somewhat USA centred! The Jews had been resettling in Israel long before 1947/48. The British were working hard for a settlement - the Arabs refused to counternance a Jewish State.

The State of Israel was "essentially the creature of the political will of Harry Truman." Really? And there's me thinking the Israelis unilaterally declared themselves a nation the day before the British Mandate expired and against the odds resisted the Arabs.

6 July 2012 at 02:06  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo, more stuff. Do you have a team of little dodos slaving away on this stuff?

Why is it so hard to accept that political Zionism used underhanded methods in creating the State of Israel... Gee, why is it so hard to accept that it barely manged to partially counter-check Britain's practical abrogation of the only legitimate and still-standing agreements from the San Remo conference. Google time.

Brave and noble Israel,standing alone, facing the murdering, conniving Islamist Arab. Actually, yeah, something like that. So, did Israel have any help against the combined armies and irregular units of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan and the Sudan? If so, from whom?

Why use the expression "alleged problems of Jewish usury"? The problems were real enough as most commentators agree. The arrival of 'payment by installments' for goods you could not afford at high interest rates, was new to Ireland. Why alleged, because your mysterious "commentators" simply made up a problem by hiding the bigger reality. Are you saying that a handful of Jews in more that 400 to be exact, most of whom subsisted from shop-keeping and rag-picking, with a few petty shysters making out small loans magically out-Jewed the entire kleptocratic Irish establishment which savagely squeezed its own people from the physicians and pharmacists who overcharged the sick and dying, the bakers who cheated, the landlords who threw out entire families, the factory owners who worked their workers to death, the pedophiles who ran the orphanages, the distillers who poisoned the people, the noble nationalists who ran the mobster rackets and the Church authorities who watched the living skeletons lying on the sidewalks and in the county road ditches whilst collecting their due? Please don't sound off like an economic historian with your piddly "payment by installments" hypothesis you googled. Not when you've missed the big elephant in the room.

There was a sermon, a non-violent demonstration, an economic boycott against Jewish traders considered exploitative, and a small stone thrown by a youth.

Me got Google too, Dodo. There was an antisemitic rant by a priest and an enraged mob. The "yoot" must have been a Palestinian with a pebble, right? See an article by Edward T O'Donnell, "98 Years Ago: The Limerick Pogrom" in The Irish Echo Online which confirms my ridiculous charge that antisemitism, especially of your hero, the Sinn Fein founder Griffith: Again, I ask you, why would a better person who witnessed the events, one Michael Davitt of the Land League, denounce the Limerick hate-fest? Was he a Zionist?

SSDD, Dodo: Same Sh*t Different Day. The same tales rehashed from the rantings of the Dominicans, the pitchfork crowds and the ravings of the raggedy medieval friars, the "scourges of the Jews," isn't it Dodo? Now that's progress brought to us fresh right into the 21st century, delivered by the magic of the Internet. The supernaturally powerful eternal Jew stealing land from the simple indigenous dears, sucking the lifeblood of the good and honest Goyish dolts, sometimes figuratively, other times literally; whatever the market will bear. Again I say: For shame, Dodo.

6 July 2012 at 06:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


It was you who described events in Limerick as a "savage pogrom". It was nothing of the sort. It was an economic boycott against exploitation.

And these men whom you describe as "subsisted from shop-keeping and rag-picking, with a few petty shysters making out small loans" were actually doing well at the time.

Apart from a minor headwound to one Jew, for which the 15 year old throwing it received 21 days imprisonment, no one was injured. The synagogue and other religious items were left untouched. And many of the families who left were received by people in Cork.

Hardly a "savage pogrom"!

On the back of this evidence of antisemiticism you rewrite Ireland's struggle for freedom, turning its founders into antisemitic fascists:

" ... rabid and systemic Sinn Fein antisemitism which predates Israel and continues unabated ... "

And its founders as:

"Jew-hating fascist dirt-bags.

6 July 2012 at 16:34  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

You're repeating yourself, Dodo, just to avoid the obvious, namely that you are trying to defend a rabble-rousing Catholic priest who in a nation savaged by landlords, factory owners, the Church and political mobsters, fired-up the riff-raff and initiated a pogrom against a few defenseless shop-keepers.

That this pogrom didn't end up in the usual way, in looting, rapes and a massacre, is because the people of Ireland had not absorbed either the old anti-Jewish Church propaganda, nor the emerging secular and nationalist antisemitism. The Irish were not stupid, as you apparently want them to appear; the people knew very well who their exploiters were and they were not the tiny community of 400 Irish Jews as you are accusing. In trying to defend a priest and a bunch of goons, you are ready to slander the Jews with medieval usury accusations and the entire Irish people as well, who are probably the only European Christians who never succumbed to antisemitism and never persecuted or murdered Jews.

New record for you, Dodo; congrats on getting to this benchmark. This is about the lowest I've seen you slide; trasjing the reputation of two peoples just to defend a failed Church-inspired and mob-executed pogrom. As you continue sliding down this trajectory, when can we expect the blood libels, the mocking of the Host charges, and the old horns, tails and hooves bit?

6 July 2012 at 18:25  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Oh climb off your high horse please! I was objecting to your use of hyperbole.

At least you've now acknowledged this "pogrom didn't end up in the usual way, in looting, rapes and a massacre." Ah, but wait, it was " ... a failed Church-inspired and mob-executed pogrom ..." Church inspired, was it? One Priest, who was later chatised by his superiors, preached two sermons. This is the Church?

And at last, the Irish are " ... the only European Christians who never succumbed to antisemitism and never persecuted or murdered Jews."

Praise be!

Am I accusing the Jews of usury? Were they lending money and charging interest? Were they selling goods on credit to families who could not afford the repayments.

No, I’m not buying into the whole stereotype of the wicked, nasty, money lending Jew. The history of "usury", in its usual sense of charging interest, is a complex subject and in Europe the practice undoubted generated religious and economic division.

The moral argument against credit with interest is that it creates profit and gain without "labour" which is deemed "work" in the Biblical context. Profits come from avarice and greed. It creates a divide between people due to an obsession with monetary gain. Most importantly, usury is seen as the derivation of profit from biological time, which is linked to life, considered sacred, God-given and Divine. This leads to worrying about money instead of God, thus subjugating a God-given sanctity of life to man-made artificial notions of material wealth.

The Hebrew Bible says:

"Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest."
(Deuteronomy, 23:20-21)

6 July 2012 at 21:44  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Hey, Dodo, is our resident Zionist still feeling sorry for himself? Presumably, that's why he feels entitled to write off Chomsky, Shlaim and David as "discredited", notwithstanding that he's probably never even heard of the latter two. No doubt that's the reason he also feels entitled to declare the 1904 boycott a "savage pogrom", despite having to trawl wikipedia to find out if ANYTHING vaguely anti-Semitic ever happened in Ireland, entitled to assume I'm a socialist/fascist or whatever, and entitled to...oh hell, he's a Zionist; he's just entitled, full stop.

6 July 2012 at 22:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


I write off Noam Chomsky because I have listened to him. He is the kind of "historian" who appears regularly on things like Pacifica radio. That's in fact the first place I heard him speak. I realize you have never heard of Pacifica Radio. It's the radio home of true unregenerate Socialism/Marxism in the US. These are the people who called the LA riots in 1992 a 'rebellion.' These are the people who were devastated when the Sandinistas lost the election in Nicaragua. (Always pronounced in the politically-correct "Knee-car-rrrag-gwa" fashion.) Chomsky is an ideologue with an agenda. As soon as I saw his name, I wrote off your arguments. You might as well defend the Great Terror by quoting Yezhov.

And btw, Avi does know the other two gentlemen you mentioned. He addressed their qualifications months ago the first time you mentioned their names.


6 July 2012 at 23:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Our brother Avi is an Orthodox Jew and, of course, he's a Zionist. And why not?

There are differences in Zionism. One is the long held wish to return to Zion, when called by God, to live under His Law and await His Messiah. Another is a political commitment to a national State, achieved and protected by man and run on secular lines. Between these two there are numerous others.

Whatever the justice or injustices of the past, or how the State of Israel came into being, his country is effectively at war with Islamists within and without its borders. No wonder he's passionate and his recent trip to Jerusalem appears to have radicalised him.

Catholics commenting on Jewish European history or criticising Israeli politics, have to tread carefully!

6 July 2012 at 23:19  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Dodo, you'll turn yourself into a communist or biblical literalist rather than admit the obvious that yes, you bought the wicked money-lending-Jew thingie and used it to excuse a pogrom by a rabble-rousing priest, an official representative of your Church.

All I can do is to repeat the main point in the hope that they'll perhaps percolate through your cerebrum. So, again, all businesses in Ireland, as everywhere else in the world by Jews, Gentiles and any space aliens who may have been around, aimed to turn a profit. Purchases on credit are not a Jewish invention and were ubiquitous in most transactions because most societies were short on cash and depended on harvests and other seasonal forms of income. Most credit was what we would call "usurious" because high risk and shortage of capital drives up interest.

And again, you continue to ignore the same proverbial elephant in the room, namely that: The Irish population suffered from difficult circumstances and was also heavily squeezed and savagely exploited by its own leadership; the landed gentry, the government, the new industrialists and traders, the emerging professionals like the lawyers and physicians, the new political mobsters and the revenue-hungry Church. A brief perusal of the broadsheets and historical accounts of the contemporaneous issues will clarify that. Missing from the catalogue of woes is a reference to Jews as a blight, except from two sources: A few traditional Church accusations and conspiracy theories about Masons, pirates and Jews from emerging modern nationalist antisemites. Even had the Jews been the personification of greed and evil itself, the 400 Jewish men, women and children of Ireland could not have been the primary cause of the suffering of the poor.

The other fluff, where you try to educate me on the laws of lending in the Torah, your jejune economic theories and pointing out the obvious that the priest you defend failed because this was Ireland and not Ukraine or Poland make no difference to any case you imagine you have.

7 July 2012 at 00:34  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...


I once saw on a talk show where one of the numpties rolled his r's and accented the second "a" perfectly for "Nicaragua" and then blow his sophistication by pronouncing "junta" not as "hoonta," but as "dzhunta." Which was ok, because clearly never having heard of Don Quixote, the interviewer later pronounced quixotic as "quick-sotic." Leftards can be quite a hoot when they try hard.


You are partially redeeming yourself minutes before my Sabbath, but two points: Israel did not radicalize me, it actually mellowed and focussed me. Meeting a number of decent, fair-minded Arabs and sharing good times and discussions about mutual business plans with them helped. Had you and I met back in my truly radical Zionist student days, you would have run the other way. And Catholics indeed have to watch their accusations when debating someone who specialized in mediaeval Jewish history. The blunderbuss shots I can blast would make Len and Ernie's commentary seem like gentle love-bites. But I prefer courtesy, amity and a focus on the future, don't you?

Top o'the Sabbath, all.

7 July 2012 at 00:56  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Did I actually say the Jews were the primary cause of economic hardship to the Irish?

As for the rest, I have a passing knowledge of the rise of commerce and capitalism in Europe and whatever one thinks of it, Jewish entrepreneurs played a significant role. Is this good or bad? Who knows? However, we are facing the consequences of unrestrained lending by banks.

The Hebrew Bible says:

"Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest."
(Deuteronomy, 23:20-21)

The Talmud makes it clear that it is acceptable to charge interest on loans to non-Jews. What intrigues me is the lengths the Mishna goes to getting around this prohibition. There's a whole range of methods of evading the anti-usury laws. The one I like most is the loophole in the Biblical permission to charge interest on loans to non-Jews. Thus a Jew could charge interest on a loan to another Jew by making the loan through a third party who was not a Jew; interest could be charged on the loan to the non-Jew, who could then loan the money to the other Jew at a similar rate of interest. Ingenious.

The early Christian Church declared that any usury was against Divine law. As Canon law had no authority over Jews, Christian monarchs looked to the Jews to supply capital to them. The Jewish usurers therefore had no competition in medieval Christian lands and could charge very high interest; the legal limitations imposed were particularly generous and ranged from 10% to 86%.

As the Jews were ostracised from most professions they were pushed into marginal occupations considered socially inferior, such as tax and rent collecting and money lending. Naturally tensions between creditors and debtors were going to rise and added to social, political, religious, and economic strains.

Question: Is it morally acceptable to lend and charge interest to non-Jews but morally unacceptable to do so to Jews?

7 July 2012 at 01:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


I have a passing knowledge of the rise of commerce and capitalism in Europe and whatever one thinks of it, Jewish entrepreneurs played a significant role. Is this good or bad? Who knows? However, we are facing the consequences of unrestrained lending by banks.

You should re-read that paragraph extract in the light of day. It's hard not to get the inference that unrestrained lending by banks is a direct result of Jewish influence in the development of capitalism. I'm not sure what you meant, but I am pretty sure that you didn't mean to leave that inference. Anyways, it would be a good idea to re-state your meaning. At best, it's a huge non-sequitor as it stands. At worst it's a huge non-sequitor with anti-Semitic undertones that I don't think you intended.

We all write things that are perfectly clear to us when we write it, but somehow get lost in the translation when others read it. I certainly have.


7 July 2012 at 04:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Thank you and of course I was not suggesting Jewish influence in the development of capitalism is responsible for today's unrestrained lending by banks.

Modern capitalism, with its high risk lending and stock market gambling on loans, is responsible.

What I meant was that without usery in its proper sense, i.e lending and charging interest, being acceptable we would not have our modern economic system. However, it should be the subject of moral as well as legal control. In particular, exploitation of misfortune, real or imagined, under the pretext of rendering service to the borrower, is reprehensible. Similarly, creating a sense of need and offering money to satisfy this, is shameful.

As for the rise of capitalism and the abuses of lending and interest rates, that's a whole other subject.

7 July 2012 at 11:36  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Okay, I'm a proud bird, so this pains me.

I've gleaned what I can from the texts of Father John Creagh's two sermons and, assuming they're accurate, I accept they were antisemitic. Linking, as they did, the economic ills of the people and traders of Limerick with the Jews having killed Christ and accusing them of being a despised people who were conspiring with Freemasons, was bigoted and unChristian.

As a young Catholic I was taught Christianity with an undercurrent of fear and suspicion of the Jews. Fortunately, as my father had been an Orthodox Jew, I was, to some extent, innoculated against this. Thankfully, the Church teaches a clear respect today for Jews as God's Chosen People who have yet to play a role in salvation history, notwithstanding its doctrinal position on salvation and the Covenant with Moses.

Father Creagh, a young and passionate priest at the time, suffered a breakdown two years after events in Limerick, having been dispatched to the other side of the world. He went on to make a significant contribution to the lives of others and, hopefully, he regretted his hateful sermons. His comments were disowned by his superiors who said: " ... religious persecution had no place in Ireland."

As for Arthur Griffiths, he too evidenced antisemitism. He stated about Limerick:

"... the Jew in Limerick has not been boycotted because he is a Jew, but because he is a usurer. And we deny that we offend against ethics by most heartily advocating the boycott of usurers, whether they be Jew, Pagan or Christian."

That said, Griffith, according to his biographer, had a "wildly exaggerated notion of the extent of Jewish involvement in money-lending and devious business practices" and his language was dangerously provocative.
Griffith's anti-semitic beliefs were tempered after 1910. At that period he became a close friend and associate of the Jewish solicitor Michael Noyk who defended many IRA members in courts martial during the Irish War of Independence and served as an official in the First Dáil Department of Finance and as a Dáil Court judge during the war. Among his friends was Dr Bethel Solomons, who contributed to the purchase of a house for Griffith when he married.

All I'm asking is that you don't define the struggle for liberty in Ireland, or the men who led it, by this one failure at this time. Take into account what they became too.

I am no supporter of Sein Fein and it has undoubtedly 'dealt with devil' in trading with Nazism and Palestinian terror organisations. They are amoral at best over this. However, they're not the first group or nation to abandon principle in pursuit of their objective.

7 July 2012 at 22:08  
Blogger John Magee said...

Levi. As a self proclaimed and brilliant Medieval scholar with your impressive historical knowledge and ability to sniff out Christendom's hypocrisy and self righteouness everywhere in European history up to and including the present day I wonder what your opinion is of the former Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem and Talmudic Scholar, Ovadia Josef? He made these and other hate filled remarks in a headline article two years ago in the Jerusalem Post:

In an October 2010 sermon, Ovadia Yosef stated that "The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews". He said that Gentiles served a divine purpose: "Why are Gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why Gentiles were created." In the same article on the Jerusalem Post, according to the journalist who interviewed him, Yosef compared Gentiles to donkeys whose life has the sole purpose to serve the master: “In Israel, death has no dominion over them... With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant... That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew."

"Gentiles were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel."

I realize his views don't represent all Jews, only the Ultra Orthodox, but he is a friend of many Israeli Jewish leaders including PM Benjamin Netanyahu who all refuse to condemn his remarks. Liberal Jewish groups in the UK and USA did condemn him but among the Ulta-Orthodox he is "respected". Do you condemn Josef and others like the Chabad-Lubavicthers and other Hasidic Orthodox who share his bigoted views?

Give me Medieval Christendom anyday with it's great cathedrals, art, literature, early European universities, monastic libraries, and spirit of adventure to explore the world. Medieval Christian Europe, especially in Rome, laid the foundation for the Italian Renaissance and later our modern world.

7 July 2012 at 22:23  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ah, Dodo, it should never pain you to do the right thing for scholarship, which relies on a scholar's integrity and ability to challenge his own convictions and to correct his own work. It shouldn't hurt your pride, it should fill you with pride. Thank you for this information and no, I didn't draw conclusions about the Irish or the entire nationalist movement, but as I indicated before, understood it to be an anomaly in what I'm sure is the only European country which did not persecute Jews and where it appears not one Jew was killed for being a Jew. The ending to our tale you provided reminds me to temper my judgment, as G-d is the ultimate judge and His ways are indeed...filled with surprises.

You asked in your previous post: "Is it morally acceptable to lend and charge interest to non-Jews but morally unacceptable to do so to Jews?" Your question provided me with the subject for my afternoon study this Sabbath. I was unable to, of course, take notes being the Sabbath... and had to rely on little slips of scrap paper to mark places in the sources.

The first part of my answer is yes, absolutely; an unambiguous command from G-d is, by definition, morally acceptable. Such commands can be troubling, even if we intellectually aknowledge that G-d is infinite and sees existence in its totality and that His reasons are not always explained or comprehinsible to us.

But in this case, at least, the rationale behind the commandment is knowable. The Torah repeats the prohibition against usury in three places; Exodus 22:24, Leviticus 25:35-37 and Deuteronomy 23:20-21. Our Sages treated the subject in detail in Bava Metsiah, the 5th chapter in the Mishnah. There, the prohibition is actually stiffenned with legal "fences" around the law, by expanding the usury prohibition into business deald not directly involving money. The last significant authoritative interpretation was introduced in the Middle Ages to make it possible for Jews to borrow from other Jews and to pay interest without violating the commandment, through a binding document called a shtar iska. The Gemara defines this device as a "semi-loan" or a "semi-trust" and applies to commercial loans for investment purposes.

Cont'd in Part 2

8 July 2012 at 07:09  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

(Part 2)

There are several things which stick out. First, the Torah says that a Jew may charge interest to the non-Jew, thus allowing discretion and does not prohibit the Jew from obtaining a loan from and paying interest on it to a non-Jew. These are significant points. Jews in the period in question were settled agrarians amidst trading nations and as such were far more likely to borrow than to lend. The neighbouring peoples all exacted interest rates within their own "nations" as well as to outsiders, so the arrangement was reciprocal and fair.

But you asked my view on this. So, I started with my own experience. Several years ago I took out a business loan at the halakhically proscribed zero interest and at very easy repayment terms from an informal Jewish loan association. I repaid the principal eventually, but since the day I took the loan I have been voluntarily donating small sums of tzedakah/charity to the organization and occasionally helping new borrowers by designing their brands and ads and offering marketing advice. I'm not obligated to do so, of course, and many just repay (or not) and are never heard from again, but the Orthodox world is a small one and personal pride and kavod (honour/respect) come into play. If I were to put a price to my purely voluntary contributions, I would guess that so far, I've "paid" an "interest" of at least two or three hundred percent...something which would be totally "usurious" in a formal and binding loan agreement. But then, such calculations went out the window when one of these borrowers I helped pro bono succeeded, remembered me and now hires me for occasional design jobs and referred me to a collegue for truck transport work.

I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. A stranger, a non-Jew, would typically not have been a member of the Jews' social and economic network of informal obligations and customs of reciprocity. But just like my association at times lends to non-Jews who are friends or business partners of reputable Jews, the biblical era counterparts would have acted on their discretion in similar ways if those non-Jews could be counted on to participate in reciprocity arrangements. G-d, I think, is the greatest of anthropologists and as such would not destroy economically and socially healthy networks of informal reciprocity, nor would He prevent a stranger from obtaining a simple loan with a clear and a final fee and tie him up instead in a life-long series of confusing obligations with another people. This is why, perhaps, the law on loans is one of the few exceptions to a strict requirement to treat non-Jews under the same business ethics rules as Jews.

Now, lest you think I engaged in a theological discussion, note that I only provided scriptural and textual references which you are free to inspect and judge on your own, while the explanation on the ethics is based on my personal opinion, experience and purely secular, cultural-materialistic speculations.

8 July 2012 at 07:10  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

John Magee,

I assume by "Levi" you mean me, since I'm the "self proclaimed and brilliant Medieval scholar."

Bad breakfast today or are we just a rude little brick waiting for a chance to take a little jab? No answer necessary. It would amuse me to think that you might spend the rest of your weird life composing little summaries whilst thinking of yourself as a grovelling Gentile beast, a donkey, alive only to serve me as I grow fat from the dainties you provide, but others whose opinions I care more about might be curious as to why Rabbi Ovadia would blurt out such things and on what grounds.

The answer is, I haven't the foggiest. Assuming you cited real, unedited quotes, my guess would be that from the rambling and off-the-wall nature of the diatribe, the elderly Rabbi Ovadia was, well, not really himself. You should hear my old Dad when he talk about me. But judging by your posts here, I would have thought you might be able to identify and offer a better clinical explanation from personal experience. Otherwise, there is no basis in Jewish law, custom, opinion, ethics, beliefs or practices for such utterings about Gentiles and no "ultra-Orthodox" community I know of would accept such views as valid.

Now, it looks like some Jewish groups have gone on the record to apologize for the old dear, while other ones resorted to embarrassed silence. I won't laugh at or get exercised at an accomplished and once-brilliant rabbi who has clearly succumbed to the side effects of advanced age, and I hope that when I get that old and start saying things I would have never thought of with full faculties, no one will shove a mike to my face.

Other than that, enjoy your cathedrals and your Renaissance and bugger off.

8 July 2012 at 07:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Thank you for the explanation of the Jewish laws concerning usury.

Your account suggests God was placing laws in place to strengthen the identity and social bonds of a people He had called and set apart.

It's a great pity the Christian Church, instead of permitting loans exclusively from Jewish traders, did not apply these principles across Europe between all nations and all peoples. Relationships between Christians and Jews may have turned out different and we've have a very different economic system today.

Imagine an economic system based on the concept of assistance and mutual aid rather than competition. Would it have worked? God alone knows.

Just a few more questions, if I may. How do these Judaic laws play out in modern Israel? Do banks and institutions there lend at zero rates of interest? Are mortgages, for example, available at these rates, or is this where the 'loophole' of a third party applies? And how are these third parties chosen?

8 July 2012 at 13:53  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Perhaps, Avi, as a scholar of Judaism, could you tell me if Jewish law decrees that the murder of a Gentile by a Jew is a "crime against heaven" and therefore requires no recompense in this life, whereas the killing of a Jew by a Gentile must be avenged (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, 'Laws on Murderers' 2, 11; Talmudic Encyclopedia); or that the indirect killing of a gentile by a Jew is no crime at all and requires no recompense in Heaven or on Earth (R. Yo'el Sirkis, Bayit Hadash, commentary on Beyt Josef, 'Yoreh De'ah' 158)

Both of the above injunctions are quoted in Chapter Five (The Laws Against Non-Jews) of Professor Israel Shahak's book, The Weight Of Three Thousand Years

I ask this question not because I believe that Jews in general feel themselves entitled to kill Gentiles (most don't), but because Zionism as a political creed has, from the day of its inception, always been led, justified and validated by the most extreme elements of Judaism, the Judaic equivilent of "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition". As it has progressed (by which read, become ever more successful in its theft and averice) it has slowly poisoned Judaism in general because more and more it has needed to invoke these extreme rabbis to justify it.

8 July 2012 at 14:19  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...


Ha! Careful, there, I'm speculating about or at most presenting a sloppy hypothesis, not suggesting G-d's reasons for this or any other law. I was taught that even where a reason for a law is given in Scripture, the default assumption should always be that it's an incomplete reason, one provided to smart, but limited beings such as we are by an eternal, all-knowing and unlimited God. At most, I'm suggesting a corelation, a phenomenon where either a law introduces and supports a social behaviour, or it creates or reinforces one.

With that approach I can challenge your suggestion that Church law or European customs were somehow deficient and resulted in a dysfunctional situation which could have been improved with a few "smart" policies. Look at it from another angle: The religious and secular authorities in Europe discovered an efficient device, the Jew, to address their acute shortage of cash and capital needed for economic development. European rulers and Church authorities at one time or another enticed this readily available device, the Jews --who had by then developed sophisticated trade and banking methods and networks in Muslim Spain and the Caliphates-- to their districts with favourable laws, secure habitations and status. A former professor of mine, Dr Joseph Schatzmiller, discovered documentary and physical evidence of fortified castles and synagogues built for Jews in Spain and other parts of Europe. Others have pointed to our custom of the skull-cap and black clothing on men as remnants of the Church granting Jews the status and the visual symbols of clergy in a society subdivided into formal Orders, or to the origin of the early ghetto not as a communal prison it turned into, but as a protected walled and guarded community built to attract Jews in unsafe times. We also know that individual churches and cathedrals often acted as banks by securely storing loan and other financial records and even providing seed capital, whereas the Jews acted as their unofficial agents. The Church was not entirely outside of the economy, but even led in the early stages with its pioneer technologists like the Cistersian monks, legions of lawyers and clerks and thousands of brilliant churchmen who acted as builders and developers of new towns and settlements throughout Europe. Much of this, I'll argue, took place during the great and beneficial Medieval Warming period which caught Europe unaware and found the Church as the only institution in Europe which could take on such a complex task. But what we also see is that with the contraction of the economies, the relationship with the Jew as a financial instrument would break down again and again, resulting in confiscations and expulsions and attempts by various Christian groups to take over the money trade.

8 July 2012 at 16:48  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Part Two

Applying unaltered biblical, talmudic or early Church models to the situation in Europe would have been difficult. Europe's situation was course vastly different from the one in ancient Israel, Babylonia or Anatolia and I suspect that capitalism developed only when climatic, technological and demographic circumstances allowed it to do so. Europe enjoyed the advantage of rich, deep soils, favourable climates and plentiful water availability for agriculture, even a brief industrial revolution in the Middle Ages, with wind and water-powered machinery, but since the fall of Rome and the breakdown of the open, safe and efficient network of roads, was bedeviled by poor communication and lack of transport infrastructures.

Yes, I can "imagine an economic system based on the concept of assistance and mutual aid rather than competition," but I don't have to. Such were introduced and even made to work in Christendom by monasteries, cathedrals, brotherhoods, guilds and societies and among Jews by the communal kehilla organization, a system of charity and aid distribution and free loan societies. In the end, though, all of these proved to be too small or fragile to function amidst the ginormous commercial and industrial revolutions of Europe and the Americas. But on a micro-level, in communities of manageable size, such approaches do work, even today and they can actually increase social cohesion and solidarity among religious communities. Size matters, and I suspect that Christianity is in a transition period in which decentralization and growth of communal activity, with mutual physical and spiritual assistance might be the only means to weather the assaults of modernity and globalization. Just a guess.

8 July 2012 at 16:49  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Corrigan, you are not asking questions, you are professing conclusions. I’m not in the mood to answer questions by antisemitic cranks citing slanders and questionable quotes by other antisemitic cranks. Maybe another time. Like when I’m stuck for hours at border customs, watching my diesel burn away and need to take it out on someone inconsequential.

8 July 2012 at 16:58  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

So that would be "no, I have no answer for you, Corrigan.". But that's ok, Avi. I can see how a former Israeli soldier and survivor of Belsen and the Warsaw ghetto would qualify as an "anti-Semitic crank" from the Zionist point of view; presumably, he had issues from when he finally made it to Palestine and got turned down by a kibbutz as being "too weedy". I mean, what was he thinking, wasting his time dossing around death camps when he should have been building up his strength for the real fight, eh? Have these people no sense of priority. I'll let you get back to your studies now.

8 July 2012 at 17:58  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

And again, Corrigan, what an amazing coincidence that you once again found someone who is a star on all the neo-Nazi sites! How is it that all your sources always come from their reading lists? Not that you have to read the books, with all the convenient passages nicely quoted by your drooling, shaven-headed comrades.

You're a living example, a scarecrow to be taken around schools to terrify lazy students, an illustration on how a lack of education can turn one into a dull cretin who stumbles over basic logic and information assessment; practically half of the post-war generation in Israel came through the Camps, btw...didn't you accuse Zionists of raiding survivors and taking them away from the delights of Europe and the DP camps? And, before you go off in your fake admiration of Israeli soldiers, almost every man and many women served in Israel's citizen army. None of this unfortunately renders everyone immune from anger, sheer idiocy, lack of ethics or cracking up (viz. Peres, Rabin, Barak, Olmert and even Sharon with his lethal give-away of Gaza). Back to my studies, now and you to your Stormfront, there's a good fellow.

8 July 2012 at 18:43  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Once again, lots of abuse, but still no answers. I am your worst nightmare, Avi - a lippy Goy who absolutely will not be screamed down by roars of "hater!!!" and "anti-Semite!!!". I realize this is terrifying to your ego-integrity, something that goes completely against everything you were ever taught about the Goyim, but maybe it's time you started realizing that everything you were ever taught is wrong - you are NOT racially superior, you have NO right to behave towards us in a way you would not behave towards another Jew, and your humanity is absolutely NOT purer than mine. Or, for that matter, than a Palestinian's.

8 July 2012 at 18:52  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

And before we move off the point again, is the murder of a Gentile by a Jew merely a "crime against Heaven" or is it not? There are, after all, only two possible answers.

8 July 2012 at 18:56  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Alright, Corrigan, you got me. Somehow you resisted years of subliminal Zionist messaging, curriculae by the Elders of Zion Institute of Studies in Education, the effects of chem-trails, low frequency waves....and Hollywood. It was bound to happen sooner or later. Welcome, brother, you're one of us. First we'll take, er, a little "snip" from you, though, before sharing our secrets and assigning your friend, John Magee, as your Goy-slave, a symbiotic relationship that one, as that seems to be his little fantasy.

Dude, you've got some heavy issues. Didn't all that self-esteem, "everyone is special" crap they feed at kindergarten help?

O, right nearly forgot; there is a possible third answer, but your racially impure and inferior Goy-brain appears to have let you down again: Sometimes there are no answers to pressing and urgent questions about imaginary problems apart from asking a physician to prescribe a bottle of happy pills.

8 July 2012 at 19:28  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

In Ireland, right up until my generation, it was standard practice to take a little "snip" from newborn baby boys, Catholics included, but only among the middle-classes; through circumstance, I myself (gutter-born and proud of it) ended up in a middle-class school where I was the only cavalier among 500 roundheads. If I didn't "go along to get along" back then, I don't think you've got what it takes to reduce my parliamentary majority. They do say old toys are much more valuable if you retain the original packaging.

8 July 2012 at 19:49  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Corrigan 1,

Couldn't you take your foul views somewhere else (perhaps the gutter from where you admit you came from would be a good start? ). OR Stormfront is the next best thing for you...

8 July 2012 at 20:17  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

I must say, Corrigan that neither you or I could compare, having been one way or another since we can remember. Best to ask the ladies with friends from both sides of the House. No one has been able to explain to me why circumcision was a universal middle class practice here too...until they removed government health coverage for the procedure and peopler discovered "children's rights."

"Gutter-born"? An odd and harsh expression from the class-obsessed times. I thought you Euros were over that sort of thing.

8 July 2012 at 20:31  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Hi Anna, just saw your post. Not to worry, Corrigan and I we just like a little rumble now then. Seems to be a testosterone-rich environment here at Archie's Place. But thanks for wading long you watch for bottles, chair and shoes flying. Shoes? Naah, no Muslims here for a while.

8 July 2012 at 20:35  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Sorry, Anna, could you please list these "foul" views of mine? In so doing, please bear in mind that criticism is Israel is not actually inherently "foul". I know, I know, it should, of course, be a hanging offence, and anybody who does it is, we need hardly say, worse than Hitler, but for some reason the various legislatures and parliaments of the western democracies have not yet got around to outlawing it.

Try also to remember that in this thread I have only quoted from Jewish writers (or "self-hating Jews" as you would term them), not from Stormfront, Mein Kampff or even the Babylonian Talmud ("The best of the Gentiles, kill him; the best of the serpents, crush his head").

It is simply that being gutter-born, I'm used to wealthier Christians holding me to a higher standard of behaviour than they reserve for themselves, and consequently the behaviour of Zionists rings a somewhat Pavlovian bell within me. If I don't swallow crap from my co-religionists, I'm certainly not going to take it from Zionists.

So I will repeat for the umpteenth million time, what have you got besides abuse?

8 July 2012 at 20:39  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Corrigan, this site is hardly the best place for psycho-social therapy. We all have our chips on our shoulders, really we do, but sometimes we're way off with our targets. Incidentally, the snootiness you may detect from me is probably the result from an attitude gained by driving a Volvo 780 front-engine tractor, with twenty tons strapped to its arse. Humanity for me is becoming a mass of annoying midgets, scurrying about and cutting me off in their little four-wheelers or "roller skates" forcing me to hit the engine brake, draining my airbrake tanks and making me flip the gear selector, double-clutch and down-gear as I try to blog with my right hand.

As for the Zionism bit, you may disagree with the principle of religion or ethnicity-based nationalism without picking only one group and relying on sources exclusively from hostiles, as you're doing. You are cherry-picking information to enforce your predetermined opinion, a common condition we must all guard against...and one we all fail at to some degree. What you don't get, is that there was a movement of hyper-critical anti or post-Zionists who moved way beyond criticism and adopted the language and ideas of their persecutors. Some did it out of fear and self-contempt, others to ape the American youth of the 60s, some because they are Leftists first, others to be read by a prejudiced sector of the public or hired by European and American universities, whose liberals were eager to have a stamp of approval by a Jew, or better still, an Israeli. Of course, the antisemites in the swere works love this sort of thing, rename themselves humanitarians and manager to confuse and sully everyone. It would be like hiring a group of Belfast Protestants to lecture on Irish history....or Provo types, to be fair and equitable with my analogy, and then saying, "whaaaat? They're Irish, arent't they?"

As for your Talmud quotes, know that the books under that name are essentially records of debates and opinions and they cannot give you an indicaton of what is doctrinal or even accepted. These discussions are retained, just as we retain court records. Most opinions have never been accepted as authoritative, as there are further sources which codify and interpret these discussions and arrive at a sort of a consensus. It would be like me trying to define Christianity not by its totality of literature or its past and present positions, but by a selection of ramblings by with-hunters, Inquisitors, heretics and crazed mystics. Same with Zionism, ninety percent of Jewry considers itself Zionist, and of course thee will always be people on the margins who get the attention.

So to answer your questions which are all really one question: No. Judaism does not have contempt for non-Jews or wishes to rule the world. There never has been any doctrine or instruction in Jewish scriptures or texts which has caused the broader community to accept a devaluation of human life, Gentile or Jewish. As is the case with all thinkers, even the great ones make errors and at time utter stupidities or evil words, which is why there must be a living, active community of people to rule against such things. Apply these points to people, societies and ideas and see how easy it is to create monsters out of ordinary human interactions and foibles.

8 July 2012 at 21:35  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Corrigan 1,

Your posts are littered with casual anti-Semitism; you probably can't even see it yourself. Your quotes are doubtless used to fit the facts you believe in, although you casting yourself as the champion of the Arabs and the even handed intellectual is like asking the Pope to be put in charge of contraception .

8 July 2012 at 22:03  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Well, finally, an admission from Avi that Gentile life is not less than Jewish life. Of course, he couldn't have just said that; no, it was necessary to hedge it about with a lot of off-handed abuse of those Jews who don't support Zionism (and I'm not at all convinced that that's only 10%), but it's a start. Now, with that admission finally wrung from him, can we then get back to the question of what entitles Zionists to steal, if it is NOT racial superiority.

As for Ms Anglican, it should be no suprise that she is a member of the church which essentially validates anything you say, think or do; that, after all, is what Angicanism is there for, and it probably never occurs to her that some of us are not put off by the fact that we might upset others and be seen as nasty. There are actually far worse sins than that, Anna, as you would know were you a Catholic - Zionism, for instance.

8 July 2012 at 22:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


To be fair, Israel Shahak's writing cannot just be dismissed as antisemetic because they are used, misused, by far right white supremists.

From what I know, he offers a considered analysis of Israel's Judaic traditions and their impact on the country today. That his writings are critical shouldn't be taken to conclude he is antisemitic.

8 July 2012 at 23:25  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Do the Jews consider themselves racially and spiritually superior to others?

It would be surprising if they did not regard their faith as spiritually superior. To follow any religion faithfully means believing that you are in possession of an absolute truth. Otherwise you have no reason to adhere to it with all your mind and soul. Christians and especially Catholics believe so too.

As for racial superiority, this is a whole other ball-game.

Judaism is as divided as Christianity, maybe more so. It is also a faith grounded in study and learning and a maze of literature.

There is a tradition that non-Jews are a different and lesser type of human being than Jews. The Chasidic classic, the Tanya, itself controversial within Judaism, gives expression to this.

"The souls of the nations of idol-worshippers are from the other, the impure ‘shells' which contain no good at all." is stated in Etz Chaim 49:3.

The Talmud states [Baba Bathra 10b] "All the good that the nations of idol-worshippers do is done for their own sake." and is based on "The kindness of the nations is sin" [Proverbs 14:34], ie "that all the charity and kindness performed by the nations of idol-worshippers is done for the sake of self-glorification."

To clarify matters, elsewhere the author of the Tanya makes it quite clear that the "pious of the nations" (gentiles who follow the moral dictates of the Noachide Code) are excluded from the definition of idol-worshippers.

The tricky bit is that the Kaballah concept that Jews possess an additional "special soul" which distinguishes them from non-Jews. Is this racist? The Jews are a Chosen People, The Torah itself states this explicitly in Leviticus 20:24 and 26, "I have separated you from the nations to be Mine." Are they inherently different?

Are Jews infused with an additional soul because they need this special endowment to enable them to observe the Torah with its 613 commandments and to carry out their mission to be a Divine beacon to the nations? Does this require intensified "energy" for this purpose. Racist? Or is it similar, not the same, to the Christian belief that the Holy Spirit has a special relationship with members of the Church?

It is anachronistic to accuse any work before the 19th century of "racism" and we have to approach texts carefully. We cannot condemn Shakespeare for Shylock. Works must be understood and appreciated in their context and a grounding in classical Jewish sources is required first.

I actually believe there should be an open debate about these issues. However, given the divisions within both Christianity, Judaism and, yes, Islam, such a debate whilst urgent is unlikely.

9 July 2012 at 00:10  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I have found this thread very interesting in regard to the discussion of Judaism. Avi the Rabbinical scholar states that to his knowledge there is no discrimination against gentiles in the Judaic writings,yet you Dodo quote examples of it.

To my knowledge there is no discrimination against anyone in the New Testament .Christians and non Christians are equal before God.Christians are taught that they must respect and not discriminate against anyone.The fact that some Christians do not honour the Gospels does not impinge on the rudimentary elements of the faith.It is an individual's decision not to follow the teachings.

It is quite a different matter when the underlying edicts of the belief system have these discrimnatory tracts incorporated.

I should imagine non orthodox Jews conscious of social justice issues would be intolerant of these iniquitous teachings if they
did indeed exist. Is the Jewish religion flexible or does one size fit all like Catholicism? Do orthodox Jews regard themselves as
the only true authority on Judaism and those who do not follow all the beliefs as merely cultural Jews.

Are there nuances that cater for decisions acted out on individual conscience etc.?

Thanks again to Avi ,Corrigan and Dodo for an interesting thread.

9 July 2012 at 08:31  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...


Read back through the thread and you will see that I don't consider the Jews racially superior, nor do I claim that the Jews as a collective consider themselves so either. What I am saying is that ZIONISTS believe themselves so.

In the context of what has been said on theis thread, you are falling into a classic Zionist trap when you ask me, "Do the Jews consider themselves racially and spiritually superior to others?" The thread was never about the Jews per se, it was always about Zionists, but by throwing the switch and making it about the Jews, Zionists thereby conflate "Jew" and "Zionist". This has two effects: one, it makes any criticism of Israeli actions "anti-Semitic" and two, it makes any Jew out to be some kind of race traitor who does not support the Zionists.

Now, of course there is a large overlap between Jew and Zionist, but they are absolutely NOT the same thing; the two words are NOT interchangable. However, as you have pointed out, there IS a thread of racial superiority which runs through Jewish history, and Zionists have always quite cynically drawn upon it to bolster their case. I say "cynically" because, of course, most of the founders of Zionism were atheists.

What it comes down to is this - you cannot just turn up in somebody else's (very densely populated) country and throw them out to make room for yourself based on some imagined occupation of two thousand years previously. That is, unless you are racially motivated, and the only way you can justify that racial motivation is by drawing on that thread which you have alluded to in your post.

Of course, when you get called on it, then (if you've put the groundwork in place) you can turn it back on the accuser by calling HIM the racist - that's where conflating Jew and Zionist comes in handy. And that's all the Zionists do. Nobody would tolerate thousands of Yorkshire people going to Sweden and occupying lands, farms and houses because that's where their ancestors had come from, but that's exactly what the Zionists are doing in Palestine, and that's ALL they're doing. The rest is smoke and mirrors. It's a straight-out, old-fashioned stick-up, and the only way it can be justified is on grounds of racial superiority. Too bad we don't accept racial superiority any more.

9 July 2012 at 12:28  
Blogger John Magee said...

AVI. Did i hit a raw nerve? My post made by former Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem Ovadia Josef (Yosef) is directly from an October 18,2010 Jerusalem Post headline article. Look it up on his Wikipedia biography or simply type this in your search: Ovadia Yosef claims Gentiles were made to serve Jews. Then read for yourself what I posted was accurate and only part of the hateful, evil, and nasty stuff this prominent rabbi said about us, in his bigoted opinion, unclean Gentiles. Why the need to close your post with by insulting me personally? I guess you don't like the idea that someone might have the temerity to point out Jewish hypocrisy and hatred. of course I realize we Christians have tons of our own historic dirty laundry from the past to be ashamed of. For the record,we have tried to make amends in every way we can for our hypocrisy and bend over backwards to beg forgiveness. You and your ilk love to wash and hang out the negative aspects of Christianity's past and delight in reminding us about it at every opportunity you can. Thank you and have a wondeful day.

9 July 2012 at 13:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


There are different types of 'Zionism'. You cannot be a religious Jew unless you believe Zion (Israel) is the Promised Land, given by God to His Chosen People. I don't have a problem with this. You're talking about late 19th century political Zionism. A different ball-game altogether.

9 July 2012 at 13:50  
Blogger John Magee said...

AVI. By the way, please don't tell me to "bugger off" as you did the end of your post. Where are your manners? As a Christian I think I have as much right to comment here as you do. Once again. Have a wonderful day.

9 July 2012 at 13:54  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Hi, Cressida, glad you find this instructive, although we reached the Doldrums at about the time of your arrival. As I call it , Corrigan is stuck on his cookie-cutter Pravda/Stormfront line of Zionism = Racism. He believes that it is acceptable to slander the majority of Jews with the most odious term of the day, consigning them to an untermensch status, while fluttering and swooning for being identified as an antisemite. O, the humanity! Dodo meanwhile accepts religious Zionism in principle as long as real, living Jews don't actually do anything about it which might upset anyone, a position consistent with traditional Catholic views and funnilly enough, with a handful of non-Zionist ultra-Orthodox ones. Me, I'm a religious Zionist who believes in the redemption of Israel as a national and spiritual homeland for the Jewish people on practical, moral and religious grounds. I'm intolerant of antisemites and do not feel obligated to show them courtesy. Today's antisemites pretend to have dropped the religious and racial rationales and get their rocks off by singling out Israel as illegitimate, extraordinaril evil, accuse its supporters as racists, forge and lie about the historical record and pretend to defend a group of Arabs they don't actually care about one bit.

Btw, I'm not a Talmudic scholar in anything more than a very general sense, as all observant Orthodox men and increasingly, women, are scholars in that they study the Laws on a scheduled basis, usually in informal groups assisted by a rabbi or knowledgable people.

I also didn't claim there is no discrimination in Judaic doctrine. The Torah and Talmud distinguish between Jew and non-Jew, the pious and impious, observant and non-observant, sages and ignorami, saints and sinners. Regarding non-Jews, distinctions are made between idol-worshippers and righteous Gentiles, friends of the Jews and their enemies.

I'm of the rationalist stream and I don't have an opinion on souls and much less on how many souls Jews versus non-Jews have and what they are composed of. Dodo appears troubled by the possibility that some groups believe that Jews have special or additional souls he might lack. Why? There are people I count as friends here who believe that non-Christians live in error and are headed for eternal damnation. Harsh and "discriminatory"? Sure, but that's a theological and personal prerogative and as long as efforts are not made to speed me along to my assumed fate, I have no issue with that position other than to believe otherwise.

As for your question about the Orthodox, orthodoxy does not identify itself as a denomination the way Conservative, Reform or Reconstructionists do, but by a greater level of traditional observance and adherence to doctrine. We do indeed regard ourselves as the "true authority" on Jewish Law since we respect and retain it in its entirety, study it in greater detail and strive to observe all of its commandments more than other groups. But we Orthodox do differ amongst ourselves, in terms of involvement with the world, adherence to one school of interpretations versus another, emphasis on mysticism or rationalism, and practical Zionism, versus the eschatological kind. Hope this answered some of your questions.

John Magee, you're right, my apypolylogies; telling you to bugger off for being a snarky ass was a bit over the top for a Medieval historian and a Talmudic scholar. But not for a truck driver, my actual occupation. Still, would "piss off" be more acceptable? As you well know, but pretend not to, this pertains to your communications with me, not your presence on this blog, which is at His Grace discretion. Are you sure you're not Corrigan, btw? Your grade school-level "cleverness" and "logic" are identical.

9 July 2012 at 21:23  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Just in case you're wondering, Cressida, ANYBODY who criticizes Israel for ANY reason under ANY circumstances is a "slanderer" and "stuck on his cookie-cutter Pravda/Stormfront line of Zionism = Racism". Reading back over the liabelous filth Avi Barzel has hurled at me on this thread for quoting JEWISH writers - and his absolute sense of utter entitlment to do so - you may wonder where he gets the stones to call anybody else a slanderer, but hey, welcome to the magical world of Zionism

9 July 2012 at 22:21  
Blogger John Magee said...

AVI. GOSH! You are impressed with yourself. Of course I am not in your league. Everything negative thing you said about me is true. You are a genius. I salute you!Lorry drivers such as yourself who can claim to be Talmudic scholar and Medieval History geniuses are rare birds indeed. I may be a simpleton by your educational standards but at least I understand that former Saphardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, Ovadia Yosef, wasn't a rambling old man suffering from Altzheimers's disease when he man those hate filled remarks in the Jerusalem Post in October 2010 about gentiles created by god to serve Jews like you. Reading his past writings it seems he has held those evil opinions his entire miserable life and shared them with a lot of his bigoted Orthodox rabbinic scholar fans and others of that ilk which surprises me that you, a great self proclaimed Talmudic scholar, never read his nasty rants. He is not an anomaly. Ovadia Yosef is the norm among Hassidic Jews. I have some juicy quotes from the Chabad Lubavitchers about gentiles being subhumans that make what Ovadia Yosef said sound like the Gettysburg Address. Please answer this question. Why is it against the law in Israel for a Jew to marry a gentile? Didn't the Nazi's forbid Aryans from marrying Jews when they introduced their Nuremberg laws in 1935? Isn't it odd that the Nazi's and Zionist Jews have similar blood and soil fantasies and beliefs?

9 July 2012 at 22:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Thanks for that; an informative and interesting read and it helps me understand you better.

A couple of quick corrections. I'm not troubled by the Kaballah concept that Jews have an additional soul and that somehow they are inherently racially superior. I made no comment on it, positive or negative. Why would I? I believe I have the Holy Spirit indwelling in my one soul.

My point is that alongside some of the Talmud, this could and has been misunderstood and misused. Talk of gentiles having been made from the waste after creation is notgoing to go down too well!

And to clarify, I accept religious Zionism and also accept real living Jews are needed to give effect to God's Will. You know my understanding of Catholicism is that the Jews still have a future role to play in salvation history. You are God's Chosen People.

My criticisms of the modern State of Israel and its origins are about motives and methods, not about "upsetting" anyone. I believe God has a plan for humanity, and it will be fulfilled. God's will is in some mysterious way in all occurrences - good and evil - and who can fully understand His plan?

Throughout your posts you suggest that antisemitism is a permanent human evil always there ready to emerge. Am I right in thinking this and, if so, is it part of Judaic teaching? I ask because in an earlier post you referred to prophecies indicating Jews would continualy suffer.

9 July 2012 at 23:01  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo, I'm not a kabbalist, but those who are into it never told me about Gentiles being racially inferior. You would think the rascals would have warned me before I married a convert. Instead they danced and hollered, drank my whisky, plied us with gifts, blessed us and carried us on chairs through the synagogue like a queen and king. Caveat emptor, Dodo: There is no such thing as an authoritative body of kabballah; it's a collection of teachings, writings, utterings and opinions which is still growing. So, people can and do make a lot of stuff up and call it kabballah.

Gentiles created from the waste of Creation? Cool. Hallelluyah, G-d recycles. Blue or green bin? What do you want me to say? Where do you get all this stuff from, Dodo? You can gather a few people here and open up a Jewish studies college focussing on the naughty and weird things Jews have or supposed to have done...but shucks, it's been done before long time ago.

As for your criticism of Israel's "motives and methods," when I add them up, what comes out is that the creation of Israel was a travesty and that to repair it, it must do everything posible to weaken itself and participate in its own extinction. I beg to disagree if and decline to join in.

As for antisemitism, as I've said before, some of my coreligionists assign it a supernatural and fatalistic role, whereas I don't. It was, unfortunately, largely a Christian phenomenon which morphed into racial antisemitism and then, with Israel's appearance, into a supposedly political one. Fortunately, modern Christianity, specifically the Protestant sector, has fought a valiant battles lately against all mutations of that mania. Everyone talks about legitimate criticism of Israel and although there's plenty to make, I have yet to see someone with clean hands, and unbiased approach and good intentions make such.

10 July 2012 at 00:21  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


"Everyone talks about legitimate criticism of Israel and although there's plenty to make, I have yet to see someone with clean hands, and unbiased approach and good intentions make such."

Astonishing statement which means any post suggesting any criticism of Israel or modern Judaism is antisemitic!

Say no more ....

As for the Kabbalah surely you've heard of Isaac Luria, the father of contemporary Kabbalah? And his disciple Joseph Vital?

"The souls of the nations of idol-worshippers are from the other, the impure ‘shells' which contain no good at all"
(Etz Chaim 49:3)

Pretty stark: the souls of the nations of the world other than Jews, derive from kelipot - the negative aspects of creation.

Your wife would have been seen as one of the "pious of the nations", gentiles who follow the moral dictates of the Noachide Code, and excluded from this definition of idol-worshippers.

As for the "Protestant sector"
fighting against a reemergence of of antisemiticism, and supporting Israel politically. Well, I'm not too sure that's entirely accurate given the position of the EAPPI of the World Council of Churchs - a worldwide protestant body.

10 July 2012 at 01:12  
Blogger John Magee said...

AVI. How's this as an outstanding example of Orthodox Jewish "tolerance" and "love" of us goys from the April 26, 1996 Jewish Week publication in the USA?

"As for the goyim…Zalman’s attitude (was): “Gentile souls are of a completely different and inferior order. They are totally evil, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.” …If every simple cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, is a part of God, then every strand of DNA is a part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish DNA. …

If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by to save him? The Torah would probably permit that. Jewish life has an infinite value,” he explained. “There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewish life". – Chabad Lubavitch Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh in Jewish Week, the largest Jewish publication in the United States

Don't ya just love those cute,cuddly, bearded guys in their black hats and beards those Chabad Lubavitchers and what they have to say about those subhuman non Jews?

10 July 2012 at 03:29  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...


We covered this before too. No, not everyone critical of Israel is an antisemite. In fact relatively few are. Most people, though, adopt arguments and "narratives" that are antisemitic in origin. The UN alone has spent several billion dollars on creating propaganda and feeding hundreds of NGOs focussing primarily on Israel, blowing up incidents and inventing most. Up until recently, the media was nearly united on the bad-Israel narrative, not to mention academia and the entire Left field. But this inormation monopoly has broken down and people now have fewer excuses in accepting the bias and the prejudice, which is contracting to the extreme Left and Right.

Yes, I've heard of Luria. How fortuitous of you to find just the passages you need. Didn't know you were a kabballa scholar. You could have mentioned the teensy detail that he referred to idol-worshippers...not to just any non-Jew, like Mrs Robertson down the street or Mr Chen, for example. This is why I hate commenting on quotations from you selective Judaica experts; it's often from dubious sources or translations and sometimes its entirely made up. You do realize by idol-worshippers the rabbis usually meant the tribes and nations in conflict with Israel, those guilty of some horrible nasty practices such as human sacrifice, cannibalism, etc. Regarding my wife, an Edinburgh-born lass, I met her after her conversion; hers was based on conviction, not marriage. She is a full and proper Jew in all respects...with a brand-spanking new Jewish soul, I guess, since you're concerned about souls...while I became, through our marriage, a jolly and loyal member of the Clan Anderson, with the bairns of ours such by bloodline at that. I may get nasty over Israel, but G-d help the silly fool who dares to slight the Anderson name to my face. "Stand sure" is our motto, and "watch my left hook" is mine!

Regarding the "Protestant sector," perhaps I was being imprecise; Evangelical Christians, if that's the proper term, are the ones I have in mind. The ones mockingly called Born Agains, Bible-Thumpers, Fundamentalists and such. The ones who kept coming to the isolated and besieged pariah nation of mine in large groups...with their sing their funny hymns while braving terrorists and spending their hard-earned money in the near-empty restaurants and hotels in the middle of the orchestrated suicide bombing campaigns and the savage Arab riots, when liberal Jews chickened out and decided to wait things out. The Len, Ernie, etc types you see here who spoke loudly in Israel's defense to their congregations, who voted and hollered at their governments when no one else would. I mean those kind of Protestants, not the Arab-cowed pansies in the WCC.

10 July 2012 at 04:45  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Evangelical Christians, if that's the proper term, are the ones I have in mind. The ones mockingly called Born Agains, Bible-Thumpers, Fundamentalists and such.

The proper categorization is Pre-Millenial Dispensationalists. This is a school of eschatology that sees the re-establishment of the nation of Israel as necessary to the fulfillment of end-time prophesy. It employs a more literal reading of the Book of Revelation, and stems from the writings of John Darby at the end of the 19th century. It is widely accepted in the congregationalist churches in the US. The more natural reading of Revelation was tarred as "liberal" because it was associated with the increasingly liberal mainline Protestant denominations. It has thus become something of a touchstone of orthodox biblical hermaneutics in some circles.


10 July 2012 at 05:51  
Blogger anna anglican said...

John Magee,

Anyone can pluck quotes from the internet to be used as a basis for smearing a whole group of people, but is, say, a right wing TV American Evangelist the whole representation of the Christian faith or the American people, anymore than an Anglican Archbishop,left wing liberal from the east coast?

10 July 2012 at 11:42  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Hi Avi,

Oh yes, I think that there will be a few bottles being smashed around.

10 July 2012 at 12:17  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Thank you Avi for addressing my questions.

I believe that as God chose the Jewish race to embody Jesus then Jews must have special qualities..
and these qualities must be good ones . Maybe it is the strength to endure all the suffering throughout history and still manage to survive and prosper particularly since there was a concerted effort to obliterate the race from the face of the earth not so long ago. So having suffered all of this what kind of a person begrudges Jews an autonomous Jewish State when they were never made welcome anywhere else much.

It does not make sense for Christians to be anti semitic .To be truly anti semitic one should be anti Christian as well.Many forget Jesus was a Jew and right up until his death observed the rituals of Judaism. Christianity is the progressive enlightened off shoot of Judaism.

The Catholic Church which embodies the original precepts of Christianity is closer to Jews than say the Protestant Churches who probably imagine themselves to be the the more progressive enlightened offshoot of the original Christian Church. They are of course quite misguided in this regard,proof being the Archbishop of Canterbury teetering on the edge and consenting to the defilement of marriage ssm by yielding to political pressure.

10 July 2012 at 12:57  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Also, on the issue of gentile marriages, I cannot see the issue here- it is no different to one converting to the Roman Catholic Church in order to marry your partner.

10 July 2012 at 13:10  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Cressida, repeatedly the issue of what you call "an autonomous Jewish State" is presented as though it were the most reasonable thing anyone could imagine, as you have just done; and repeatedly, its establishment is separated from the indigineous population upon whose back - and land - it is built. No Christian can simply ignore such a massive injustice. When you've figured out how the massive theft of Palestinian land and the outrageous dispossession of Palestinian people can be squared with the founder of the Catholic Church, then please let me know.

10 July 2012 at 13:30  
Blogger anna anglican said...


What is wrong with a Jewish state, then and what is your 'peace-plan' (as a follower of the prince of peace) for the Arab-Israeli conflict?

10 July 2012 at 14:03  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl and Anna, it seems like there are more Christian factions in the US than here in Canada. "Evangelical Christians" may very well be a misnomer, but that's the term used by the media here. Off-hand I can think of the Baptists, Pentecostals and the Christian College here which have been supporters of Israel. Not all "right wing" denominations are supportive and there are some surprises on the Left as well. The United Church, here in Canada, which emerged from some of the traditional formerly Scottish Protestant groups has had a reputation for being aggressively anti-Israel, but at a recent attempt by its leadership to institute a boycott of Israel goods, the membership, many of whom now claim that the leadership has hijacked their Church and does not represent them, has rebelled and caled for new board elections. I must admit that when I first chanced upon His Grace's blog, I expected an anti-Israel stance, as the Anglican Church here is known for its left-wing, hostile politics. Recently, as we pass a charming Anglican stone church on our way to our synagogue, I've seen billboard announcements on sermons and lectures on antisemtism and friendship with Israel. The times, they're weird.

This support from the conservative Christian sector was unexpected by most...probably because no one had noticed their stand until the battle heated-up. The more secular Jewish left is livid at this situation, warning that such support is hypocritical, that the only reason such groups support Israel is because they want to convert us or because they think Jews will miraculously conver once they are herded into Israel to fulfill eschatological, or End of Days prophesies. I say, whatever; we can agree to disagree, sort out our opinions amongst ourselves and see who will sway or convert whom, but friendship and support in dire times are ...priceless. Those who remember the times when Israel was under a PLO and UN-organized campaign of world-wide political attacks, with those seemingly endless gory suicide bombings and a corrupt mainstream media predicting the hopelessness and "unsustainability" of the Jewish state, will always remember the tens of thousands of "Evangelicals" from the US, Canada and even Europe suddenly flooded into Israel, waving Israeli flags and flashing white smiles to offer incredible moral support and to spend millions on the flagging tourism sector. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

Regarding Magee, Anna, I don't think he is mainstream right-wing and addressing him will only give him a chance to post more nonsequiturs he's got lined-up, but don't let me dissuade you; target practice sessions or garage punching bags gave their uses. If you trace his posts, you'll see how he built up his arguments in the typical fashion and with the stock selection of material you find on neo-Nazi sites. They begin with stuff most people can agree on, try to sound reasonable, sane and mainstream and wave the flag, and then either gradually or out of nowhere begin playing silly-buggers by dropping mini-shockers and "questions" which increase in volume and frequency. The factoid drips become an endless stream which is impossible to respond to, as part of their attempt to overwhelm their opponents and attract sympathisers. It doesn't work with most people, who soon sense something is awry, but it works on the less educated ones and those who are already predisposed to dislike Jews or Israel and need only need extra fodder.

10 July 2012 at 14:08  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Special circumstances Corrigan.
All the colonies were land grabs,injustice extraordinaire and not for altruistic motives either.How can this be squared with Jesus?There was nowhere for Jews to go. No one wanted them.
Corrigan there are far worse things
that we Catholics have done ourselves that cannot be squared up. The measure of truth is seeing fault in ourselves as well.

Convenience conversions for marriage are contemptible and
to the credit of Jews are disapproved of.Jews also place a high priority on allegiance and loyalty to Judaism and naturally enough considering their continual history of suffering and persecution ostracise turn coats.
It besmirches the memory of the gas chambers.

10 July 2012 at 14:27  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

This post lives on.

Thank you for your reply, Cressida. To cut to the chase, although as I told Dodo, I can rattle off an endless stream of accusations against the Catholic Church, point to past and current problems and can demonstrate a greater support by Protestants in recent times, I'm also well aware of the pro-Jewish, pro-Israel sector in your Church. I first encountered it as a visiting student on a research stint in Poland, where to my amazement I found myself in a Jewish Studies department of the Warsaw University which was entirely funded by the Vatican and where the small faculty and student body was, to a man and woman, composed entirely of young Catholics some of whom had learned Yiddish and Hebrew and whose knowledge in many areas far exceeded mine. When I celebrated my first the Sabbath there with the remnant of Warsaw's Jews, I was informed that the kosher food and wine we were enjoying were flown in every week from Israel as a gift by the Church as well. These radical changes, I believe, were brought about by Pope John Paul II, a giant of a man. We do live in complicated times.

Regarding your views on the absurdity of antisemitism in Christianity, "from your lips to G-d's ears" as the Yiddish saying goes. We may quibble over whether Christianity is an improvement on Judaism which will draw Jews, or a post-Temple offshoot which will find its way back to its elder brother one day, but you have accurately zeroed-in on the Issue that as it goes with Israel, so goes it with the existential state of world Jewry...and as the conflict's sources from radical Islam shows, perhaps with Christianity as well. The antisemites of the left and right are acutely aware of this, knowing that the "health" of the Jews physically, religiously or culturally are tied to Israel's well-being. It is no wonder that a confident and even aggressive Israel gains the world's respect and improves the safety of Jews in the Diaspora.

I see you have disappointed Corrigan who is left with a collapsed "narative" of lies about
a fictional "indigineous population" which was in fact largely made up of Syrian Arab migrants exploiting, Ottoman and Jewish economic activity, a fictional "massive injustice," an imagined "theft of Palestinian land," most of which was largely purchased at inflated prices from Turkish and absentee Syrian landowners, and an "outrageous dispossession" of an imaginary "Palestinian people" who saw themselves as Syrian Arabs and Jordanian subjects and weren't even invented as a people until 1967.

One thing Corrigan gets is that this is an information war. He probably doesn't know its history of how it has been funded by a motley colletion of unsavoury and outright evil players; colonialists, Fascists, Nazis Communists, religious antisemites, the New Left, the radical Right, Islamists and a EU and a UN under the sway and with the baksheesh of all of these players. But this information war has turned, as Islam descends into regional fratricidal conflicts, as the power of the petrodollar wanes and as the EU and UN face bigger issues than a trumped-up anti-Jewish campaign by a once-united Muslim block. Finally too, Christians and to some extent Hindus and Buddhists are beginning to notice the historic and ongoing horrific persecution, dispossessions, slaughters and genocides of their coreligionists in the Muslim world and in places where Islam and other religions interface. As this travesty, until recently obscured by the UN and a complicit media as "inter-communal conflicts," moves into the limelightm and as the new massive oil and gas discoveries in Europe and even Israel deflate the already weakend OPEC, the distraction of a fictional "Palestinian people" and their concocted "plight" will recede further and further, with only a few old geezers repeating out-dated "narratives," like our Corrigan, shouting and hand-waving in the background.

10 July 2012 at 15:21  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Cressida, you said, "Convenience conversions for marriage are contemptible and
to the credit of Jews are disapproved of."

That used to be the case a while back and the liberal sectors like the Reform and Conservative have made conversion for marriage an easy formality, which is the main reason why the Orthodox do not accept their conversions.

But Orthodox conversions which began as a desire for two people in love to marry are possible and not infrequent, just that the process has been made very difficult and lengthy to weed-out insincere parties. I was fortunate to have met my wife who was already an Orthodox convert for religious reasons several years before we met, otherwise not only her life would have ben turned upside down, but mine as well by requirements to take on strict observances I wasn't ready for yet. But as it turned out, my wife's initial easy-going attitude and kindly tolerance for a lackadaisical husband was a clever ruse, a psy-op of sorts, for not long after our wedding, as I basked in gentle bliss lulled to stupidity by cockaleaky soups and veal shoulders with neeps and tatties, she gradually whipped me into shape religiously and educated me. There is no greater terror in this world of ours than an exacting, knowledgable, smart and bellicose Scots-woman of the Highland Andersons who will neverrr, everrr give up until her man's sole words to her are reduced to "yes Dear, right away, Dear." (I break out in cold sweat and peek over my quivering shoulder.)

10 July 2012 at 15:49  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

You are an extremely fortunate man in your choice of an excellent and integral wife who understands the art of keeping her man well dined and in line. Of course you realise the Scots learnt this from the French. Both countries have historically enjoyed a close relationship, the French passing on their little secrets to the clans:)

I wish the Catholic Church would follow the Jewish lead in weeding out insincere converts by making conversion arduous.I am disgusted with recent converts to Catholicism in the political arena publicly supporting ssm.
I am travelling at the moment so must go..nice chatting..ta ta

10 July 2012 at 16:44  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ta-ta, Cressida, and a safe, profitable and pleasant journey.

10 July 2012 at 17:30  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Dear oh dear, Cressida - it appears I'm making up the "indigineous population" of Palestine (a phrase that seems to enrage our Avi every time I use it). Of course, there was nobody there before the Zionists arrived, was there? Then all those lazy Arabs just descended en masse to take advantage of the newly greened desert. There were no Palestinians, it was a "land without a people for a people without a land", to quote the old WZO slogan.

Too bad the cultural Zionist Asher Ginsberg reported exactly the contrary as far back as 1891, and said so in no uncertain terms to anyone who would listen. Even before that, Max Nordau, Theodor Herzl's right hand man said exactly the same thing, and here I quote, "I never realized this (that Palestine was full of people) - WE ARE COMMITTING AN INJUSTICE".

But Hell, why let a little thing like that get in your way. When it comes down to it, we can always just make up a load of false figures to cover up what we've done. It's just sad that those numbers were comprehensively trashed by Edward Said in his essay Conspiracy of Praise and by Norman Finkelstein in his essay Disinformation and the Palestine Question: The not-so-strange Case of Joan Peters From Time Immemorial. Both essays can be found in Christopher Hitchens book Blaming the Victims

But cynic that I am, Cressida, I'm guessing that you already knew all this. Call me a suspicious sod, but I can't get past the wicked notion that you are actually a sockpuppet for Avi. Perhaps it was your strange idea that the dispossession of the Palestinians can be ignored in this one instance on the grounds of "special circumstances". Or, to put it another way, special rules for special people. Now, who do we know who takes that stance?

But perhaps I malign you, and if so, please accept my most grovelling apology. You just seem like a very strange kind of Catholic to me, that's all. Rome isn't Canterbury, and still less is it Judaism. The magisterium speaks with one voice, and under Benedict, that voice is reasserting itself. Speed the day....

Anna Anglican, on the other hand, is just what we expect from the Church of England - whatever you say, don't say anything which might make people think you're nasty. Guess that's why I'll die a popehead. In response to her question, my answer is a one state solution. Of course, that would mean Israel could no longer be "The Jewish state", but actually the state of its people - just like every other country in the world. Think Avi could live with that?

10 July 2012 at 20:04  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

For someone who is "enraging me," Corrigan, you certainly expend a lot of pixels and reach deep into the sludge of the barrel bottoms of pseudo-history and the "intellectual" neo-Nazi sites. The Jewish state, btw, already is the state of its people; the Jewish people of all colours and backgrounds. The Muslims have crapped-up their vast territories, started slaughtering each other again and are about to head back into daufault obscurity or the old "Oriental indolence." Much too late for Holocaust v.2; you lose.

10 July 2012 at 21:16  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

And there you have it straight from the mouth of the man himself: that 20% of Arab "citizens" don't matter a damn, do they? Just on a matter of personal interest, Avi, do you actually understand the concept of shame? I'm not asking if you actually have any (I think that ship has well and truly sailed), I just want to know if - considering you'll wave those Arab "citizens" of yours like a flag next time you're giving it the old "region's only democracy" crap - you simply understand what the word means.

11 July 2012 at 00:00  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Are you drunk, Corrigan? You're making less sense than usual. Most people can handle posting when under the influence, but not you, evidently. Drink a couple of glasses of water, sleep it off and tell me about your troubles in the morning.

11 July 2012 at 03:01  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Corrigan, the most alarming thing
about your comment is that you think I cannot possibly be a Catholic but am Avi's Jewish sock puppet because
1. I despise hypocrites
2. I am not anti semitic
3. I do not treat homosexuals like scum
4. I place a high value on truth
5. I do not refer to His Holiness as popehead
Your behaviour and understanding of Catholicism is not compatible with my experience and for this I am eternally grateful.

11 July 2012 at 05:18  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

WOT? Yikes! My sloppy skimming of your increasingly unhinged drivel caused me to miss how you finally nabbed me, Corrigan: "Call me a suspicious sod, but I can't get past the wicked notion that you [that'd be "Cressida de Nova"] are actually a sockpuppet for Avi."

Alright, it's a fair cop. I'm truly busted. Full disclosure and a confession: I am "Cressida de Nova," the sole legitimate representative of Avi Barzel, a commissioned officer in the Judean Peoples Liberation Front.

I disappeared for months to study in a Trappist monastery in the Appenines, or maybe the foothills of the Alps near Verona (tough to tell from the tiny window in the well-appointed wine cellar) and with the assistance of the ubiquitous Mosad, painstakingly did build a faux online Catholic persona with the intended purpose of bamboozling you, specifically you, in this crucial battle right here over the State of the Perfidious Zionist Entity. I underestimated you, you suspicious sod, you.

11 July 2012 at 07:05  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Cressida, how did homosexuals get involved in this? And Avi, you've already called me a drunk (among many, many other things). Yes, I know as a Zionist, you are entitled by right of birth to scream abuse at anyone at any time for any reason, but surely you'd at least try to come up with some original insults. Failing that, how about actually addressing my point - how, if Israel is the state of the Jews worldwide, is it the state of it's citizens?

11 July 2012 at 07:31  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

New Israel thread at the top of the blog, Avi. Ready to go again?

11 July 2012 at 10:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Now, now. cressida de nova comes across as much too intelligent and articualte to be Avi! Unless, that is, he is just pretending to let passion get in the way of reason and his "right or wrong I support Israel" is a just a front.

Ummm .... a very cunning plan that I will have to give some further consideration to.

11 July 2012 at 19:47  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Hmmm Dodo...a cunning backhanded defence of Cressida whose passion clouds her reason according to your unsubtle dig.
As I am supposed to be the alter ego of both you and Avi,that would suggest the three of us have something in common unless the accusers len Oswin and Corrigan have something even greater in common all being( I am just trying to think of the polite phrase for copulation past tense in the head)ah got it.. social misfits.

12 July 2012 at 02:08  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


No, it was a genuine compliment. You have much to offer this blog.

I'm 'turning over a new leaf' and have decided not to be so rude to fellow and fellowess bloggers. Not so 'Dodoesque. It sets a poor example. It also really hurts some people and causes others to leave.

This will be difficult at times and impossible at others. I am an uncultured man who learned how to hold his own in a boxing ring not a debating chamber.

12 July 2012 at 23:55  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Being a cultured man would be a positive hindrance in this company Dodo. There are better boxers than you here in the Cranmer ring. At least your contributions are more theologically interesting than say Carl's convoluted inverted attempts and Anna Anglican's excruciating effusions of the details of her most recent pizza topping or religion du jour.

13 July 2012 at 06:52  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Cressida,

Poor old you for not liking my "excruciating effusions" of Pizza toppings or religion du jour. I don't actually recall talking about Pizza or du jour, but there you go. Do the words "tough" mean anything to you?

Have a nice day!


13 July 2012 at 15:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

cressida said ...

"There are better boxers than you here in the Cranmer ring."

Yes clever s_ds some of them are too. How I'd love into climb in a real ring with one or two of them! All terribly gentlemanly, it would be too.

13 July 2012 at 17:18  
Blogger Anna Albion said...


You should try fencing or sword fighting instead- a duel is, apparently, a much better way for a gentleman to gain satisfaction than boxing!

13 July 2012 at 18:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


That's the point - I don't pretend to be a gentleman. I prefer the passion and rawness of boxing. Much more personal.

13 July 2012 at 21:29  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older