Just to be clear, Hoi, this is what I see happening in the discussion between us. I think it is as an important question of method, not a personal one.
So I express a point of view, and I back it up with facts coming from my research.
You counter my point of view with yours; sometimes you back it up with facts, sometimes you don’t.
When you do back it up with facts, I counter it with other facts that I think are stronger and more convincing.
Then you counter these new facts with… simply reaffirming your point of view.
And when you just counter my point of view with yours, without even trying to back it up with facts at all, I reaffirm it with new facts. But it ends in the same way: you counter the new facts I bring up by simply reaffirming your original, unaltered conviction.
I’ll keep following my method here, by backing up what I just said with the two most recent examples of this kind of interaction.
On page 17 of this thread, you countered my affirmation that the “master plan” for world control and domination has a Jewish signature all over it – which had been backed up until that point by dozens of posts (not only mine) more or less filled with facts and arguments – by directing attention on Masonic secret societies and saying:
Swearing allegiance to Talmud or the Protocols or something like it might be one of the prerequisites for the JPM branch. I just don't see what makes the most evil characteristics of those things a "Jewish" signature as much a secret one. Who is a minion of whom? Who amongst these insane people would allow themselves to be "lesser" to another?
So on the same page of the thread, I counter your argument by answering your question with several written proofs, taken both from Masonic and Judaic texts, not only of the connection between Judaism (and Jewish supremacism) and Freemasonry, but also of the fact that the latter is absolutely subordinated to the former, i.e. that Freemasonry is admittedly a minion of Judaism.
You don’t post anything for a while, and then when you come back, on page 19, you say this:
I personally think the terrorism hoax shows the involvement of a bizarre Gnostic/Masonic/Abrahamic/Pagan cult and other weird connections that sometimes go by contemporary names (perhaps "Jewish" is one of them, since Judaism apparently arose out of a kind of Paganism/Shamanism, or so I hear), and I find the Pope's endorsement of the victim vicsim memorial rather problematic. But I suppose the Pope and the Dalai Lama could be Jewish too. Who knows? Makes me wonder what "Jewish" means, then.
One would think that you have found stronger proofs or arguments to counter the facts with which I had responded to your previous post, but actually no, you just reaffirm your opinion as if nothing happened. You mention just a little hearsay about Judaism “apparently” arising out of a kind of Paganism/Shamanism, without backing it up with anything. Proofs? Sources? No, nothing.
Nevertheless, I try to answer your question (“I wonder what Jewish means”) with a working definition of what “Jewish” means for me.
For me, "Jewish" refers fundamentally to a very strong form of cultural/religious conditioning based on the idea of a "chosen" group of people with a strong "ingroup/outgroup" mentality who, referring to and identifying themselves with "sacred" texts like the Torah and especially the Talmud, consider themself as members of a superior race destined to rule over other races, perceived as inferior and even sub-human. But since this group of people constitutes a minority, and wants to stay that way, they must use indirect, surreptitious means to rule over and exploit the overwhelming majority of other people by undermining them through various forms of deceit and even mind-control.
To me this is a historically provable fact, although not all the evidence can be given at once here, of course. But I think we can get there, bit by bit.
Again, I’m stressing “historically proven facts” here.
You didn’t comment on my post, so let’s proceed to the latest instance of your peculiar method of carrying out what should be a factual discussion.
In my previous post, I respond to your contention that the problems with Judaism are problems with humanity, and that Jews don’t have a monopoly on them by repeating that, while it’s true that pathological forms of behavior aren’t a Jewish monopoly, Judaism (especially through the Talmud) is the only major religion I know of that, instead of acting as a moral deterrent, prescribes such pathological behavior towards people of different races, using race as the only “moral” standard to decide what’s right and what’s wrong. Something is right if a Jew does it, and the same thing is wrong when a goy or Gentile does it.
My post I’m referring to it’s on page 19, so there’s no need to quote it here again, since anybody can read it for themselves.
I’ll just repeat my question in the end.
So, instead of just saying that certain psychopathic traits are not exclusive to the Jews, please tell me, if you can, if there is to your knowledge any other similar group in the world, and especially one that has a comparable influence in our Western hemisphere.
It’s a specific request, so I was kinda hoping you would respond to it, possibly with facts.
Nope. You persist with your “method” by just reaffirming your point of view without accompanying it with any factual proof whatsoever. You prefer to back it up, so to speak, with a kind of reasoning that sounds pretty circular to me:
You are right to point out what evil there is in Judaic fanaticism. I don't think I missed that point. I just think all religious fanaticisms have their particular characteristics; that's why they are considered different world views. To say that one world view is more insidious than another is itself a basic tenant of a world view.
So why don’t you give us some examples of these particular characteristics of other religious fanaticisms that are comparable to the ones of Judaism, since that’s also what I asked?
The problem with saying one is just pointing out what one observes about other world views is that it inherently relies on the world views of the writer. I am skeptical of all world views including my own, but I have faith in my little principle that people see things very differently from one another on this planet, and trying very hard to understand those different world views is productive (unless it reaches the point of exhaustion).
Good luck with that! So while you go around trying to understand everybody’s point of view and at the same time being skeptical about your own (which means that you probably haven’t figured out what you really think yet, but you still want to understand what others think), people who have no doubts about their point of view being right, even when it isn’t according to any kind of moral and rational reasoning, will continue to dominate and loot the planet. I suspect they would applaud your efforts.
If this thread were an actual conversation with lying Masons and Talmudists, I don't think it would belong on CluesForum, though, which is why I encourage you to keep going in trying to convince general readers that Judaism is taking a more evil form than other religions which accomplish far greater populations of hypocrites. So that they can try to investigate it in their own lives, for themselves. So far, you have accomplished some of that, and that should be a good thing from your world view, I suppose.
Here, too, I have difficulties in trying to follow your line of reasoning, but I’m afraid it leads nowhere.
Anyway, I’ll skip the last part of your post (the one about “commandments”), at least for now, since it raises questions that may be considered not directly connected to this topic. Actually I think they are, but I don’t even want to risk straying off topic and see this post, which to me is important, in the “Derailing room”.
So I’ll just quote your last couple of sentences.
I am not convinced Judaism is more evil than other religions (or even more evil than many people who consider to hold some other view entirely) and I think that's a silly principle.
Thank you for reaffirming your impregnable conviction - once again, unfortunately, without accompanying it with anything that goes beyond your abstract reasoning – and for defining “silly” a principle that does not correspond to yours, no matter how much I try to back it up with facts.
The principles that all chronic liars from all walks of life share — now that is interesting to me.
Yes, please explore that perspective in a new thread, by all means. Hopefully you’ll bring also some facts to the table there, as we all know you can do very well when you put your mind to it.