[Suska]

This decisive encounter with Persian religion gave birth to Jewish monotheism.

you can hardly say worse than what Nietzsche said

The Jews are the most remarkable people in the history of the world, for when they were confronted with the question, to be or not to be, they chose, with perfectly unearthly deliberation, to be _at any price_: this price involved a radical _falsification_ of all nature, of all naturalness, of all reality, of the whole inner world, as well as of the outer. They put themselves _against_ all those conditions under which, hitherto, a people had been able to live, or had even been _permitted_ to live; out of themselves they evolved an idea which stood in direct opposition to _natural_ conditions--one by one they distorted religion, civilization, morality, history and psychology until each became a _contradiction_ of its _natural significance_. We meet with the same phenomenon later on, in an incalculably exaggerated form, but only as a copy: the Christian church, put beside the "people of God," shows a complete lack of any claim to originality. Precisely for this reason the Jews are the most _fateful_ people in the history of the world: their influence has so falsified the reasoning of mankind in this matter that today the Christian can cherish anti-Semitism without realizing that it is no more than the _final consequence of Judaism_.

This is not a realm of discourse one should enter into casually.

[QatzelOk]

This is the same text as the cowboys-and-indians one that wiped out hundreds of nations in the Americas.

I didn't really enter into it "casually."

And anyway, what is wrong with being "casual?"

Is it as bad as being "natural?"

[Suska]

lol

this sort of scientificish polemic against Judaism is weaksauce compared to Nietzsche's analysis in The Antichrist among other works. I'd say you're treating it causally complaining they can't support the suppositions of their history is a bit trite compare to suggesting that Judaism worships a dead god and backs it up with scarily reasonable arguments.

'Natural' on the other hand, well that's what Nietzsche was arguing for.

[Batko]

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=91190

[QatzelOk]

Thanks for posting that reminder of the importance of presentation, Batko.

The article was just recently uploaded to Znet, which is where I got it a day after it was put there.

scientificish polemic against Judaism

This isn't against Judaism. It refutes any claim that its history is accurate, or real. The historian is simply telling us that most Jewish "History" is actually just inspirational mythology. Which is fine, as long as it is treated as such. Which has not been the case.

If someone wanted to write a polemic against Judaism, it would have to deal with the content and message. Here, the criticism is about how it has been used throughout Real History.

These are very different things: the text itself... versus... the way it has been used.

The ideology of Zionism is what surfaces for me, for having been based on blasphemy -- intentionally inaccurate interpretations of sacred texts which have been perverted by an elite with the aim of manipulating the ignorant.

Not a very nice way to promote a religion, is it. Using it to get your less literate to kill people so your elite can have more power and stuff.

[Suska]

The historian is simply telling us that most Jewish "History" is actually just inspirational mythology.

scientificish

the criticism is about how it has been used throughout Real History

polemic

based on blasphemy -- intentionally inaccurate interpretations of sacred texts which have been perverted by an elite with the aim of manipulating the ignorant.

against

Not a very nice way to promote a religion

Judaism

the author just doesn't understand the nature of history or mythology, which is why I direct your attention to Nietzsche, who does, taking it for granted you know how contraversial his texts are... maybe I shouldn't have taken it for granted, by the way you respond, its evident you think I'm arguing for or against a particular interpretation - my argument is generally; a scientific analysis of historical/cultural/mythological elements is kind of silly, it isn't lies - its what people choose to believe. If you want to know why they choose these things you need to understand their full import. It is the wrong method for learning these things to examine them in terms of fact/lie.

[QatzelOk]

its what people choose to believe.

But if they're lied to, and told that these events actually really happened, then they really don't have any choice, do they.

Choosing to believe something can only be possible if you are presented with alternate scenarios. In the case of Fake Jewish History, the lack of permitted contradictions of what you can deny happened means that the general public is FORCED to believe something, with the fear of social scorn (or worse in the case where an alternate text is illegal or restricted via force).

It's important to notice the superstitions upon which Western tyranny has been built.

[babilonian]

Its always muslims telling the world about jewish history and jews telling the world about muslim history. Anyone interested in history as a subject, could study the history of nations and religions from its sources. Thats what makes sence.
There is no need for a muslim to run with an article like that, simply it stands against his/her beliefs. Its written in the Quran, that the jews were ill treated on the hands of the egyptians and that God ordered Moses to take his people,"God's chosen people" out of egypt. Yes, it doesn't say in the Quran where to take them to. But anyone who believes in the Quran, Bible, and the Torah, knows that the Hebrew's are God's Chosen people. Atleast all could agree to the fact that from Ibraham's time to Jesus time, they were God's chosen people.
As for the idea that jews are bad and muslims are good...did you my friend read any muslim history?? Or did the muslim historians keep the truth away from muslims at the mercy of their sultan's. Muslims claim that the Hebrews kill all their prophets, didn't the muslim slay the decendants of their prophet?? Didn't bani omaya kill both grand sons of the prophet Mohammed? And yet so many muslims have no idea about that and have never even read about it. But for some reason, they know jewish history better than everyone else
Its so sad to see people claiming to worship the One God of Ibraham, cut each other's throats like that.

[Ideational Ontarian]

Qatz sounds a lot like the bigots who argue that the Koran is what causes and supports Islamic terrorism. Have you taken a page from the book of your enemy?

It would be odd if you did because IIRC, you would always go off on people for making such assertions.

The fake history of persecution, right up to Ayn Rand's victimhood texts, all ask Jews NOT to empathize (or even trust) non-Jews. They do this in en encoded way, but the subtext is always, "Jews can't trust others."

So it has nothing to do with their well documented persecution throughout history in Europe? It's all about the stories of the Bible? The fact that the Jews have always been culturally different and never really assimilated into western society? Really? Strange.

These issues are far more complex than "OMG the Torah is evil it's what makes Jews kill Palestinians!" or "OMG the Koran is from the Devil it makes people Terrorists!" So spare everyone your simplistic thesis.

[QatzelOk]

So it has nothing to do with their well documented persecution throughout history in Europe?

For most of "their history" in Europe, Jews were the rich tax-collectors for corrupt monarchs. If they were persecuted, it is because they did so much persecuting themselves.

Hannah Arendt clearly documents the role of eurojews in her work.

And when you talk about well-documented history, remember, the upper middle classes get to do the documenting, so if there's a lot of it, it just means that Jewish people had the money and free time to sit around documenting persecution.

And in the OP, notice that the Historian is talking about the Old Testament which is also a document. And it is not true. It offers a fake history which serves as agit-prop to get Jewish people to NOT EMPATHIZE with the people they persecute.

And the proselitizing of Jewry makes it - like Christianity - a type of AMWAY religion where the more converts you get, the more power you receive from head office.

[babilonian]

Perhaps our friend Qatz can tell us what Islamic history says about the persecution of the jews. Does any arab/muslim historian have something to say about any, ANY injustace done towards the jews while they lived under muslim rule??? Or were they all treated very well. Better than muslims living under those sultan's iron fists.
All muslims tought in schools about religion, and all of them know the story of King Solomon and Shiba. But they were never tought where was this kingdom of Solomon exists. Did it excist in Rome? or New York?

[QatzelOk]

Perhaps our friend Qatz can tell us what Islamic history...

See, that's just it. There is no "Islamic History."

It's the same history as everyone else's history.

There simply haven't been enough politically active Moslem text-writers to invent an alternative history just for Moslems.

You can't pick up a history book in France, and read about how persecuted Moslems were, how they were ethnic-cleansed out of Spain and Portugal by savage, hateful Jews and Christians, or about how they continue to be marginalized and treated as sub-humans in Christian and Jewish coalition wars for control of the world.

It just doesn't exist, this FAKE ISLAMIC HISTORY. And this is because the Islamic world isn't as advanced as the Jewish-Protestant world. It still hasn't mastered propaganda or Modern warfare - which, let's face it - are two sides of the same Modern coin.

[babilonian]

You have not answered any of my questions. I asked only two simple questions. Are there any muslim/arab historians the mension any miss treatment of jews in their land? And where was the kingdom of Solomon acording to Arabs and muslims?
Nothing more. If you are a muslim, you would be able to atleast answer one of them. If you are an arab muslim, you would be able to answer both.

[QatzelOk]

Are there any muslim/arab historians the mension any miss treatment of jews in their land?

Rather than setting up a question like this (which is impossible to answer negatively -- there is bound to be one Moslem scholar who mentions one Jewish person having a hard time somewhere...), perhaps you can find a text that relates to the OP on your own.

Since the subject of this thread is FAKE JEWISH HISTORY, perhaps you can start another thread that deconstructs some of the lies and half-truths that the many Islamic Historians have spread throughout the world over the last 10 centuries.

In the meantime, answer these questions: If lying about history is a legitimate thing for religious people to do (to empower their followers), how much of history is fake? Did any of it happen, or was it all written with an agenda? Is the purpose of history to make money for its writers?

Because that's what this article seems to be implying. That is the subtext of this article.

[babilonian]

My appologies if I thought that this link was questioning jewish history. I thought that my question regarding Solomon's kingdom was to do with jewish history!
But its so easy to see that muslims have been programmed to never question or even let their minds wounder that far. I have never had a muslim answer that question and thought that you might shed some light on that.

[Ideational Ontarian]

Do you know anything about the Middle Ages? Just because the Jews were used to get around Church doctrine, doesn't mean they weren't persecuted. They were. No amount of revisionist bullshit will change the fact that they were. You even mention the Spanish inquisition and blame it on "savage, hateful Jews and Christians." Are you seriously that ignorant? Hundreds of thousands of Jews were persecuted and exiled from Spain during that period.

Your mind is seriously warped man. You can't accept that the world is more complex than good vs. evil. It's scary how much you are like the anti-Muslim far-right. Islam was not some great innocent movement that spread one hug at a time nor was Judaism the originator of "selfishness, narcissm, nationalism, and warfare." The topic of the big three religions and history in general may be far too complex for you to handle Qatz.

[Smilin' Dave]

Its always muslims telling the world about jewish history and jews telling the world about muslim history.

Considering the original article was written by an Israeli Jew, and found by Qatz on ZNet (which I didn't think was run by Muslims), I'm puzzled by your point.

[QatzelOk]

Do you know anything about the Middle Ages?

Before you ran with that question, you should have double-checked my responses to the OP. The question this article poses include "Do we know anything about the Middle Ages?"

That is the problem with fake History, IO. It means that details have already been revised before you even had a glance at your first reading assignment in elementary school. With Fake History being added for reasons of elite agenda, all the potential lessons of History are lost...

This is a very serious problem with the texts of our civilization. And because our civilization is very much text-based, this translates into very serious problems with our civilization. "Oh what a tangled web we weave..." All of humankind is being lead down a hole constructed with lies-of-convenience, if our History has been altered by the writers and publishers of it.

[Suska]

I can see where youre coming from Qatz, the text and all. But there are at least the two sorts of text; one is poetic and metaphysical iconography, the other is a matter subject to verification and inquiry. My point is that when a scientist (a promethean if you will) analyses a poetic text it is bound to find it full of indiscrete associations and allusions. Of course when the poet analyses the factual texts he may find them boring and pedantic. Where is the spirit of truth in these so-called factual texts when life goes on opposed to boredom and firm conclusion.

That said, the history of Judaism marks out the territory of the Father-Heaven model of rulership over the Mother-Nature model, it is an iconography of the change from relying on chance to determining one's fate. As such it is increasingly a contrived set. At first a history in the modern sense, later a matter of propaganda, and lately just another document in a sea of secular texts which address the matter more directly with merely academic interest in how it came to be, and very active interest in how it ought to be handled.

[QatzelOk]

My point is that when a scientist (a promethean if you will) analyses a poetic text...

What I am suggesting (and Barthes develops this in his texts) is that ALL texts are poetic, in the sense that they are all written in a certain style. Even science texts - unless they are just tables of numbers and graphs - are written in a certain dry style.

So none of them are really science. They all contain subjective styles which often supplant their content in "proving" that there suppositions or conclusions are valid ones.

And the way that the "holy" books are interpreted is practically mandated by certain institutions. "Holocaust Denial" laws are an example of how certain texts prove something just with their style. In the case of recent History, World War Two is described almost like a Biblical Historic event. And this style is very important in "proving" that the way it is described is believed, and therefore "true."

This is, of course, a problem with all History. But as long as the writing of History is confined to certain "legitimate" authors (who are actually a privileged elite), then it will always be more propaganda than simple data.

And to learn from History, you need simple data and unbiased accounts of events. Good luck finding any particular class of people who can provide text neutrality. And when it comes to lack of bias, the rich international elites are no better than the most ignorant football fan.