The we/they idea divides people into we, the good guys, and they, the bad guys.

Some we/they ideas are missionary religion, nationalism, racism and Marxism. These are potent ideas which have resulted in great misery and great joy. Evangelical Christianity and radical Islam want to make them like us. When they want to stay as they are EC & RI may feel justified in murdering the infidel. The Holocaust was partially a consequence of hundreds of years of Christian resentment at Jews wanting to continue to be Jews. Nationalism accepts that under certain circumstances it is a noble deed to kill those who belong to another nation. Racism has resulted in the domination or extermination of the inferior race. Marxism has a slightly different approach. The working class are the good guys. Eventually there will be no classes at all. On the road to that great goal the corpses of millions of class enemies have piled up.

All of the above are nasty ideas, but those nasty ideas instil within those who apply those ideas a great sense of self-righteousness and even holiness. Missionary religion often makes one feel holy while hating. The we/they ideas are not separate. Evangelical Christians and radical Islamists can feel holy and righteous while oppressing and even murdering homosexuals. The we/they ideas often claim a noble goal but usually promote hate of the other. Unfortunately people may defend against a we/they idea by creating another we/they idea. A common response for those characterised as bad guys is to claim they really are good guys and their denigrators are really the bad guys.

I would like to get rid of all the above nasty ideas, and get rid of all other we/they ideas that divide humanity. I know that I can’t. I do not want to deny differences, eliminate them or not recognise them. I just would like differences accepted.

Can we recognise the problems that we all have as humans, recognise our common humanity and work together to solve those problems?

Some interesting ideas there.

As an English teacher, when I define a term, there are five steps:
1) Definition
2) Characteristics
3) Examples
4) Exemplar
5) Non-examples

I think we do the same when we define our place as humans. For example, we identify ourselves as Australians. We have a built-in definition of what it is to be Australian (definition). We can run off a list of characteristics that, in combination, make us Australian (characteristics). We can list examples of prominent Australians (examples) and, depending on the flavour of the month, can probably identify the most archetypal Australian (Paul Hogan, Steve Irwin, etc). It's the last one that's divisive. We identify groups within or outside of our nation who don't qualify as being 'Australian' (non-examples). Over time, they've been the Chinese, the Lebanese, the Indians and so on. The same can apply to any group (Catholics, city/country folk, workers, etc).

At the end of the day, I'm reminded of the recurring theme in my nationalism class at uni: a nation is defined as much by who IS NOT a member as it is defined by who IS a member. That, coupled with Benedict Anderson's notion that a nation is an 'imagined community' (and the same could really apply to a whole range of distinct 'groups'), leads me to wonder if we could be a whole lot happier if we stopped imagining ourselves to be part of a community. I don't know.

Unfortunately

Humans identify themselves

Against "the Other"

Historically

And show few signs of moving

Beyond tribalism

Two fascinating and thought-provoking posts above. I very much doubt we will ever get away from the we/they notion that pervades the human psyche.

Surely this sort of reasoning is ingrained in the human brain as a sort of survival behaviour? If we identify ourselves as a group of some sort, then there is safety in numbers if we perceive that there is a threat.

Groups or not, it is surely human nature to band together with like-minded people... whether that be people of the same country of birth, same language, same religion, same 'class', same neighbourhood, or whatever?

What I am wondering is, as the people in our world become more and more mobile and emigrate to all the corners of the earth, so that there are 'mixtures' of cultures in all countries of the world, will we all lose our unique sense of belonging to these groups?

What groups will we then belong to?

Will it simply be the 'we' of the country we reside in at present, and the 'they' of all the others living in other countries?

Will the groups of religions, other cultures, other skin colours, etc not be a problem any more eventually, because the people of the world are all 'mixed together' so to speak?

Gee, this is all too deep for me now. :)

Us/them ? Holocaust? Why not do some original research?

http://www.h-net.org/~german/gtext/kaiserreich/hitler1.html

What, we might ask, could cause Hitler to move from the following:

//I still saw only the religion of the Jews and for reasons of human tolerance held aloof from attacks on this religion, as any other. Consequently, the tone struck by the antisemitic press of Vienna appeared to me as unworthy of the cultural heritage of a great nation.//

To this: "Gradually 'I' came to hate them"

FACTORS which shaped Hitlers growing hatred for all Jews were

a) Marxism
b) Jewish leadership of Social Democrats
c) Social Democrat/Union thuggery against him personally on building sites..causing him to equate "Jew" with "Social Democrat/Marxist" in his mind
d) The behavior of the largely Jewish controlled 'mainstream' media.
e) The involvment of Jews in the 'adult' industry.
f) The anti nationalist attitude of the Social Democrats, particularly toward Germans. (remember? "Universal world socialism"

For today.. to see exactly what this might be like.. I recommend the following original sources.

"How Jewish is hollywood" written by Joel Stein.. a proud Jew
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,4676183.column

"Triple Exthnics" By Dr Nathan Abrams, professor of Media at a Welsh University.
http://www.jewishquarterly.org/issuearchive/articled325.html?articleid=38

//Jewish involvement in the X-rated industry can be seen as a proverbial two fingers to the entire WASP establishment in America. Some porn stars viewed themselves as frontline fighters in the spiritual battle between Christian America and secular humanism. According to Ford, Jewish X-rated actors often brag about their ‘joy in being anarchic, sexual gadflies to the puritanical beast’. Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion.//

"Abolish the white Race" Noel Ignatiev.. yep.. a strong US/THEM theme there.

Now..when someone makes a public stand and openly admits they are trying to DESTROY my society...

Then.. they have IMMEDIATELY created a 'they' toward our 'US'.

But amazingly.. some of 'them' just don't see it.

Just one tiny but important bit more.

//When they want to stay as they are EC & RI may feel justified in murdering the infidel.// David F.

David.. suggesting 'Evangelical Christians' are likely to feel justified in MURDERING those who refuse to believe in Christ is... to put it mildly.. incitement to hatred. The RRT2001 calls this SERIOUS....

Secondly, it is not founded on any text which is of the nature "Kill those who do not believe" as you well know Islam DOES have:

Quran 9.29 "Fight those who do NOT believe" etc.

If you wish to apologise to Evangelical Christians, publicly, here..... I will accept it.

Suz.. very frank and eyeopening admissions there. I offer my future posts for counselling/therapy purposes :)

David f.,

Can we recognise the problems that we have as human beings? I hope so.
Our survival on this planet depends on it. Many of us tends to be less tolerant of others than we know in our hearts that we should be. A healthy, civilized society can absorb some dysfunction, as a healthy immune system can absorb some disease. But a massive buildup of mean-spiritedness bombarding our social system day in and day out in millions upon millions of individual doses overwhelms our social defenses. Medicine does little good in the absence of a healthy immune system. In our society today, there is a widespread malignant thought form that "other people are the problem." Conservatives tend to blame the current government, the media blames almost everyone, and almost everyone blames immigrants. Some people are convinced that homosexuals are the problem, while others think that the Christian Right and Churches are the problem, far too many people think that that their way is the right way and that people who disagree with them are "bad." Malice and intolerance stalk our society, staking claim to our minds, and not one corner of our social order is unaffected. Within each of us lies the disease, and within each of us lies the physician. The choice is ours to make. Shall we continue with dangerous scapegoating, small-minded intolerance for the views of others? At what point do we wake up enough to know that without treatment this will destroy us? We need to take a fearless moral inventory, do the work on ourselves that needs to be done - remove from our hearts the illusion that we are separate - and realize that
our ultimate choice should be to enhance the life on this lovely planet of ours not only for ourselves - but for all of humanity.

cont'd...

The last sentence of my post should read: "... not only for ourselves, but for all of humanity, and all of the other species with which we share our earth."

DavidF,
the we/they ideas are born of tangibles and intangibles, of inequality and ideology. I despise the latter as those who think their ideology superior. But I also despise the former as those in the favourable dispensation that allows them to be philosophical and "tolerant". Tolerance is a luxury of material, ergo ideological, superiority. The poor and outcast are not in a position to "tolerate" the wealthy and the wise (which go incongruously together).

Lexi,
these are inspirational thoughts: <We need to take a fearless moral inventory>
Agreed, but we also need to take a fearless "material" inventory.
As my old father in law used to say, "talk's cheap".

Squeers:

The only things we can be one hundred percent responsible for is our own minds.

cont'd...

I appreciate your father's comment, "Talk is cheap."

However, my father would have added this to that comment,
"Anybody who thinks talk is cheap should get some legal advice." ;-)

oooops, I meant your father-in-law's comment.

Dear davidf,

Good to see you still rattling the cage.

Taking a slightly less pessimistic view of modern times might allow us to reflect on what should be regarded as a great era of cooperation. The EU is a case in point. Though not without continuing problems to me it is incredible that peoples and nations who were at each others throats half a century ago are now working together in ways that Europe has never seen before.

The UN and even its predecessor the League of Nations are relatively recent inventions in the history of nation states, one that seems to be enduring.

Are these not evidence of curbed ideology, religion and racism? Although in the case of the EU the admission or not of Turkey will be instructive.

Dear AGIR,

I really hope you don’t hijack what promises to be a good thread with your pontifications and I also hope what I am about to say doesn’t contribute to them however I need to ask, don’t you even read your own links?

The answer to your question about how Hitler’s attitude was changed was right in front of you. He was exposed to the views of a leading anti-semetic Dr Lueger, the Major of Vienna. He is the one who formed the CHRISTIAN Social Party, coined the phrase ‘The Jewish Question’, and moved in high ‘clerical circles’, That is how the infection spread to give Hitler his ‘most significant transformation’.

To quote;

“In any case, I slowly came to know from these causes about the man and the movement which determined Vienna's destiny at that time: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party.

When I came to Vienna, I stood opposed to both.

The man and his movement seemed "reactionary" in my eyes.

My common sense of justice, however, moderated this judgment in proportion to the opportunity I received to get to know the man and his work. Slowly, my just judgment grew into unabashed admiration. Today I see the man, even more than before, as the greatest German mayor of all times.

How much of my basic outlook was changed by this altered position toward the Christian-Social movement!

If by this experience my views with regard to antisemitism also fell to the passage of time, then this was surely the most significant transformation of all for me.

How much of my basic outlook was changed by this altered position toward the Christian-Social movement!”

I beg davidf’s forgiveness for the digression but it does go to the us/them question, okay possibly more a me/him one.

Apologies.

It always fascinates me that the millions of unborn murdered babies are never mentioned in these sorts of one sided rants. I suppose it is very convenient as this secular dogma is the major course.The dishonesty in this rant is also blatant. No bible believing Christian would ever kill a homosexual. They obviously hate the fruit of such perversion but would not consider killing someone for their sin as we all deserve death. If Evangelical Christians are such great haters why is it the left who commit the most violence and often in the name of peace? I think Davidf is stuck in his dogma as much as any militant Islamic.

Dear CSTEELE.. you are not off topic as there has never been a greater example of 'us/them' than the one of which we speak.

Yes..I DO read the links.. in fact I've read the whole thing from his childhood up to the end of volume one.

My purpose was to discover what changed the man from the original to the final extreme I showed to you.

But what you fail to see is the reality of what Hitler faced.. being true of our own time. I provided clear and unmistakable links to the same things.. I'm sure Dr Luger would have been pointing such things out to his young protege. It is clear from the unfolding of the book, that he did not jump into things on the spur of the moment..and who (apart from very diligent research) are you to claim his change in outlook was unfounded ?

Was the Social democratic movement dominated by Jews ? a resounding yes.
Was the mainstream media also dominated by them ? a resounding yes.
Was the 'adult' sleaze industry domimated by them ? a resounding yes.

Can we be sure it was softer in motive and tone than the clear links I provided from Jewish writers of today?... only research would answer that.

But at least you can step out of ideology for a moment and try to honestly answer one simple question.. please.

Given the tone and motive behind the Pornographers.... at the Management/marketing end...and the star end... as Abrams outlines..
i.e. to 'subvert' based on an 'atavistic hate' of Christian authority....

QUESTION
Do you not see how a person could easily develop a strong feeling of hatred toward such people ? (I'm not talking of a whole race, but of those people in that business)

In my view.. Hitler went wrong when he extrapolated his hatred of these individuals or segments..to the whole group on racial lines.
I have no problem with 'removing' the likes of which Abrams speaks for say "Life with no parole"

Did YOU read "How Jewish is hollywood?" ?

Dear ALGOREisRICH,

You wrote some interesting posts. You mentioned Hitler’s reasons for hating the Jews and apparently found them understandable and reasonable. Many Christians have agreed with you.

You wanted me to apologise for writing: “The Holocaust was partially a consequence of hundreds of years of Christian resentment at Jews wanting to continue to be Jews.” You called it “incitement.” That is a fact of history that Christians who have opened their eyes to the Christian past freely admit.

Two Christians who have done so are Anglican Bishop Spong and Lutheran Basilea Schlink. They want to confront the Christian past, admit it, make amends and promote a Christianity of generosity and goodwill.

The Bible was written by men, and some of its passages express the retrograde feelings of its time. To take the whole Bible literally is to assume that those who wrote it are faultless. Bishop Spong rejects that assumption and points to sources of intolerance and bigotry in Scripture.

http://johnshelbyspong.com/sample-essays/the-terrible-texts/

RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY:

“No one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6)

This text has helped to create a world where adherents of one religion feel compelled to kill adherents of another. A veritable renaissance of religious terror now confronts us and is making against us the claims we have long made against religious traditions different from our own.

ANTI-SEMITISM:

And the people answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children’” (Matt. 27:25)

No other verse of Holy Scripture has been responsible for so much violence and so much bloodshed. People convinced that these words conferred legitimacy and even holiness on their hostility have killed millions of Jewish people over history. Far more than Christians today seem to understand, to call the Bible “Word of God” in any sense is to legitimize this hatred reflected in its pages.

Basilea Schlink was a German who wished to atone both for the deeds of her countrymen in WW2 and her Lutheran coreligionists. She founded the Evangelical Sisters of St Mary.

From their website you may see an admission of Christian history and a determination to atone:

(continued)

(continued)

http://www.kanaan.org/international/israel/israel4.htm

… I belong to the generation of Germans who grew up during the Third Reich. Because of the crimes of our nation, God's judgment came upon Germany.

It was, however, from the ashes of World War II that our community, the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary, emerged in Darmstadt 50 years ago as a movement of repentance. When the full facts of Nazi terror became publicly known after the war, our eyes were opened to see the enormity of the crimes committed by our people against the Jewish people. From the depths of our hearts an anguished cry arose, a cry inspired by the Spirit of God:
….
And so today, as we look back on the last 40 years, we are deeply moved by the forgiveness we have experienced from Jewish people and by the bonds of friendship uniting us. Despite all this, however, there remains a heavy burden on my heart. This burden has to do with our history as the Christian Church in the last 2000 years.

Paul writes in Romans 11 that the Jewish people are loved for the sake of their forefathers. Yet love has not been characteristic of Christianity's attitude to the Jews these past 2000 years.

After the age of the apostles, the theory arose that God was through with the Jews, that the Church was the New Israel and that the Jews were being punished for the crime of killing God. Later, when Christianity became the state religion, this theology was used as the basis for anti-Jewish policies … In time, the Jews were blamed for every calamity. A case in point is the Black Death, said to have been caused by the Jews poisoning the wells. In the name of Jesus unimaginable atrocities were committed: Jews were humiliated, deprived of their rights, baptised by force, burnt at the stake -- thousands upon thousands of them. Christian festivals, such as Easter, were sometimes chosen as a time to attack Jews. While burning the Jewish population in the synagogue in Jerusalem, the Crusaders sang 'Christ, We Adore Thee'

Continued

From the Evangelical Sisterhood of St Mary

Whether it was the Crusades, or, more recently, the pogroms, or, most horrific of all, the Holocaust -- Christian anti-Semitism paved the way for these atrocities. Is it any wonder that the name of Jesus is not loved by Jews -- and that the cross is, for them, a symbol of persecution?

Looking at the above possibly ALGOREisRICH should ask Bishop Spong and the Evangelical Sisterhood of St Mary to apologise for telling the truth.

Runner: There is a reason unborn babies haven’t been mentioned. There are no unborn babies. A baby has to be born to be a baby.

However, I wish ALGOREisRICH and runner well and hope that the light of reason will descend upon them.

Lexi:
<The only things we can be one hundred percent responsible for is our own minds.>

Are you serious?
How much of our thinking is our own? Don't you think we're culturally programmed?

Dear davidf,

Although not as rabidly as your goodself I do acknowledge and condemn the historical anti- semiticism of the church.

That being said I get the sense the Christian church, through it's evangelizing, may have done more than it's fair share of combatting racism. For instant the first black bishops of both the Catholic and Anglican faiths were ordained in the late 1800's in America. This was well before the civil rights movement had very much traction.

AGIR, anyone who can see the 'reason' behind anything Hitler and the Nazi's did to the Jews, needs to have a long, hard look at their bible again and read the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" again!

Runner "No bible believing Christian would ever kill a homosexual. They obviously hate the fruit of such perversion but would not consider killing someone for their sin as we all deserve death."

Are you joking Runner, or simply naive? I am sure there are many 'bible believing' Christians who have murdered others, for varying reasons.

How about all the pro-life Christian loonies who have murdered medical staff from abortion clinics?

How about the many Christian German Nazi's? I read how some Nazi's supervised the gas chambers at the concentration camps on a Saturday, and went to church with an apparently clear conscience on the Sunday.

Evil is not exclusive to non-Christians

Dear Otonoko,

I think one of the ways to transcend divisive identities is not to worry about them. When I became a citizen of Australia Michael Lavarch spoke and said that, "Australia is the best country on earth." I found that offensive. I am willing to obey the laws of Australia and participate in its democratic processes. Why do I need to put down other countries?

Dear suzeonline,

I would to see all countries no more than convenient administrative units. - no armies & no jingoism.

Dear lexi,

Let's be kind and question authority. Dostoyevsky valued a society by the way it treated those at the bottom.

Dear csteele,

I don't want to hammer at all Christianity or all Christians. Missionary religion is only one divisive force of many. Christians have done much good. I cited two of those who are trying to rid their religion of its bias and bigotry. All Christians do not have the narrow, intolerant attitudes of runner and AGIR.

In fact Bishop Spong is open to the recognition of the worth of not only his coreligionists but those of good will of all beliefs.

He posted on July 9, 2010:

I walk the Christ path faithfully because I know that it leads me beyond all human limits, even the limits of Christianity, into the experience of the divine. That has also been the experience of those who walk the Jewish path, the Islamic path, the Hindu path and the Buddhist path.

Dear Squeers,

Of course we are culturally conditioned, but I think we can develop ways to examine and override our cultural conditioning. This is difficult to implement since much of our education is indoctrination. Some people can override their cultural conditioning and promote desirable societal change. Some people can't and are programmed to repeat the follies of the past.

You know, I've been sitting here late at night trying to imagine all the people of the world triumphing over their cultural conditioning and embracing a feeling of universal cooperation......sorry, try as I might, I can't sustain the image.
Humankind is far too self-obsessed and disconnected. It's as if the species has to experience some form of resistance to maintain its vitality.
It's difficult to see humankind overcoming these attributes. We do occasionally have our standouts - those who are capable of rallying the collective imagination....look at Jesus....but then, look what they done to his song.

Dear David F... no, I was not asking you to apologise for "Jews wanting to be Jews".. I was asking you to apologise for THIS.

//Evangelical Christianity and radical Islam want to make them like us. When they want to stay as they are EC & RI may feel justified in murdering the infidel.//

*THAT* is what I request a retraction and apology for.

You did the same thing the 2 Dannies were accused of and which Justice Higgins pointed out ..i.e..you lumped ALL 'evangelicals' into the same "may feel justified in murdering".. you did not say "SOME"..

I will completely reject the idea that an EVANGELICAL Christian (in the true meaning of the term) could even contemplate 'murdering' someone who rejected the faith. It's patently ridiculous and is DEFinitely "incitement to hatred" as it suggests that to be 'Evangelical' (which I am) is to feel justified in MURDERING.

You could have escaped my rebuke had you used the term 'nominal' or.. 'cultural' or "people with a historic Christian tradition" but no.. you said "Evangelical" Christians can MURDER..on the grounds that people do not accept the Gospel.

*That* is going too far.

The WORST the New Testament prescribes for unbelievers who reject the Gospel is this "Shake the dust off your feet at them as you leave their village"

Oh shock...horror.. can you even believe the atrocity ? "Shaking dust off your feet"

Now..the DIFFerence (just in case your contextual and grammatical skills have wained) is that YOU are making a wild and unjustified implication from "No man comes to the Father but by me" and I have given you THE clear cut, unambiguous, plain language 'stipulation'.

For a bloke who has the science background you have... a dabble in the humanities might be in order..

SUS.. you are acting like a little schoolgirl in failing to have the maturity in recognizing the forces which contributed to Hitlers mental outlook, and also..my own statement that he went 'wrong' in his applying that reaction to 'all' Jews. Did you even read my post?

CONTINUED...

Sus... if you actually read my post, you would have seen where I described hitler going 'WRONG' in his decisions to apply his feelings to the whole Jewish race. I am only providing information which shows what shaped his thinking. And..I have also shown how such things are happening right now.. from Jewish (note that ? "JEWISH") sources.

What I did NOT include in both of the examples from the Porn industry and the hollywood story is the lack of shame on the part of the authors.

Stein says "I don't care if they think we run hollywood, wall st etc.. as long as WE KEEP RUNNING THEM" (did you read that bit in the article ?)

Abrams says "What do we have to be ashamed of?"... did you read that ?

Take it or leave it.

CSTEELE..I have to commend you on this occasion, for rightly pointing out what you did. (credit where credit is due)

To all.. we must avoid like the plague being intimidated by wild and baseless stereotypical accusations of 'anti semitisim' when justified criticism or factual information is presented.

No one to this point has refuted the information provided about how the "Triple Exthnics" and "Hollywood" and "ABOLISH whites" articles contributed to US/THEM. They all come from original Jewish sources.
Ignatiev is also a Marxist.

DISMANTLING "us/them" structures involves the parties involved in creating them.. ceasing doing those things which create, construct and reinforce them. Calling for the abolishing of a 'skin color', undermining a whole society and claiming power over the economy/media is not.. (let me say that again) NOT the way to remove 'us/them' constructs.

Those who think that exposing 'Nazi' thinking before it happens is just 'inciting hatred' are to be blunt..deluded. The same applies to saying exposing 'abolishing'.. 'undermining'..and 'controlling' is to incite hatred etc.

Can anyone..demonstrate how such things help remove 'us/them' situations ?

Evangelicals

Have blood on their hands for the

Death of David Kato

http://tiny.cc/jmctk

Strange way to negate

Difference: by attacking

Jews and gay people

Dear AGIR,

The record is that evangelical Christians can and do murder. Their murderousness is often inspired by the bigotry that Bishop Spong pointed out is endemic in their religion. You deny it. You sit in your little box of hate and self-righteousness.

However, there are signs that even you can be brought out of your box. You recognise the humanity of Hitler when you write of his being influenced to do what he did. Hitler suffered. He was an abused child. His worth was disregarded. He was refusd admission to the school of art in Vienna. Had he been treated with generosity and compassion he might not have looked for a scapegoat to blame his own and other people's problems on.

Recognising that Hitler was human can be a step to freeing yourself from your box of bigotry.

Maybe you can get to the point where you recognise that Muslims, Jews, non-fundamentalist Christians, homesexuals and everybody else are human, too. Maybe you can even get to the point where you look at yourself. I've looked at myself and don't like some of what I see. Some things I can't change, but some I can.

Squeers,

The point I was trying to make was that - as the body's defense against cancer centers around a healthy immune system, our chief defense against intolerance et cetera is our own individual efforts to cleanse our minds of malignant thinking - only we can get rid of the widespread, malignant thoughts that 'other people are the problem." That our way is the right way and that people who disagree with us are "bad." As I stated previously, within each of us lies the disease, and within each of us lies the physician. Many of the things that most of us were brought up to think "could never happen here," have already begun to happen - dangerous scapegoating, violent hate crimes, small-minded intolerance for the views of others. As David f, has pointed out - some things we cannot change, but some we can, beginning with ourselves.

David f.,

My father taught me to question everything. Of course, I don't have the answers to the big questions in life. I'm still on my own road to discovery. But everything is relative; everything has its story; and everyone has obstacles to overcome. They are our greatest teachers.
Each of us goes through transitions and transformations. The important thing is that we acknowledge them and learn from them. Humans are the most extraordinary creatures, and a big part of me still wants to reach an even greater understanding a about who we are.
Not because I need to know more, necessarily, but because I am drawn to the process of discovery.

AGIR, if I am 'acting like a little schoolgirl' in my reaction to your' thinly veiled attack on Jews, then several other posters on this thread go to the same school as I do!

No one on this site, with the possible exception of Runner and Proxy, demonstrates the negative aspects of 'we/they ideas' more than you do.

davidf:

<Of course we are culturally conditioned, but I think we can develop ways to examine and override our cultural conditioning>

Highly doubtful.

<I've looked at myself and don't like some of what I see>

I know what you mean. Ditto.

Lexi,

intolerance is a survival instinct, not a malignancy, probably a compound of instinct and acculturation.
Our culture has reached a degree of sophistication (actually sophistry) wherein we stylishly embrace intangibles like tolerance. This is a luxury born of security, complacency and sheer hubris, and would be dropped the moment our material prosperity and superiority was threatened, Actually, it is only observed in the breach as it is.

This is a gloomy view of course and I'd like to think we were capable of holding to our principles in extremis. But we are incapable of observing them even when we're on top, as we are or have been. We are not going to solve human antagonism by taking thought, unless we can think outside ourselves and our context, and act materially.

You should read Rorty, Rawls, Fish, anti-foundationalism generally. All the evidence suggests there is no essential self. The self is merely an introjection of cultural discourses, manifested uniquely in each one of us, like a snowflake. As Freud despaired, and Lacan corroborated, the only self that abides beneath is a primitive and unreasoning thing.
All our philosophy and religion and reasoning are vanity, as Solomon says.

I don't say this as an absolute--many do--but I think it is a sobering draft and purgative that we all should imbibe. It's the kernal of Buddhism, Hegel, Krishnamurti and even modern science.

Anyway

Squeers,

Relationships are our primary teacher. They are the context in which we either grow or deny ourselves and others the opportunity to do so.
There are simple keys to happy relationships, which is not to say that these keys are always easy to use. One key is this - we experience peace and harmony to the extent to which we love, forgive, and focus on the good in others and in ourselves. None of this means that we lack the capacity to set boundaries, say a healthy, "no" or stand up for ourselves when we need to. Relationships are the central issue in a peaceful, powerful life. Anyway... I found an old article
reprinted from The Age, 11/2/1980 by Jenny Tabakoff of the Sydney
Morning Herald entitled - "Them and us, or is it me?" In it she states: "As everyone knows, the world is divided into two categories: Other People and Us. Other people snore. Other people have garlic breath. Other people publicly take the straw out of their milkshakes to suck the ice-cream blob off the end. We do it only when no-one is looking. Other people get drunk and put lamp shades on their heads, we are the life and soul of the party. Other people are rude when they don't stand up on buses and trains; we're dead tired so no one can expect us to. Life could be defined as a long process of putting up with Other People's irritating habits. Yet I am constantly amazed at how tolerant even the most intolerant people are of their own foibles... Sound hypocritical? Let's face it. Life is only tolerable when we can look down on someone else."

Sorry Lexi,
but that sounds like some half-pissed broad writing for a tabloid (even being a broadsheet is no guarantee of respectability these days).
In the real world the only two categories that counts are the haves and the have-nots!

Squeers,

Lighten up - The Age article was done tongue-in-cheek.

You state that -
In the real world the two categories that count are the haves and the have nots? I would put it another way - it's what we do about it - that really counts. That should be cause for optimism - especially if we were to chose a society that was maximally fair.

Squeers wrote:

In the real world the only two categories that counts are the haves and the have-nots!

Dear Squeers,

That is reductionism to a we/they idea. The Marxists decided who was a have and who was a have not. The result of that decision was mounds of corpses. In Cambodia a criterion for being a have was being a university graduate so they killed them.

Your real world is not a real world but a world defined by ideology.

Oh dear, David F., You appear to have draped the stage with your usual props.

Found this by Krishnamurti from "Truth is a pathless land".

Man cannot come to it through any organisation, through any creed, dogma, priest or ritual; nor through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation. Man has built himself images as a sense of security - religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols,ideas, beliefs. The burden of these dominates man's thinking, relationships and his daily life. These are the causes which divide man from man in every relationship.

davidf:

<That is reductionism to a we/they idea. The Marxists decided who was a have and who was a have not. The result of that decision was mounds of corpses. In Cambodia a criterion for being a have was being a university graduate so they killed them.

Your real world is not a real world but a world defined by ideology>

davidf,
"that" is a reductionism (ad absurdum) of what I said in the context of previous threads.

You know nothing of my real world, but are like a worn out stylus stuck in a groove.

ideology is a perennial theme of mine, is it not?

But this is your thread, please feel free to dictate the ideology..

Dear Poirot,

Yes, my usual props. I am appalled by mass murder. Marxists would rather not discuss the mass murders but talk about ideology. That's understandable. I see the murders as a direct result of the ideology. I see Lenin and Hitler as the two evil geniuses of the twentieth century. I see Marx as a Jew hating bigot who used class identification as bigotry.

That was an interesting quote from Krishnamurti, and I thank you for it. We are divided by the images we build up.

Dear Squeers,

This thread will go where it will. I don't own it. I only started it. Upon reflection I see little point in discussing anything with AGIR and runner. Nevertheless I do. There may be no more point in discussing things with you, but we can continue also.

However, the statement: "In the real world the only two categories that counts are _________________" is a we/they statement whatever the two categories are. I would rather not divide people into two categories but recognise we have many sources of identity and power. I would also try to recognise the common humanity between people regardless of what categories are used to divide them up. Whether ideology is a perennial theme of yours is moot but dividing humanity into only two meaningful categories is a statement of ideology.

Implicitly I have employed Russell's paradox. I oppose all we/they ideas. In doing so I have implicitly divided humanity into two groups - those who espouse we/they ideas and those who don't. That in itself can be characterised as a we/they idea. That paradox is resolved by making my statement a metastatement on a different abstraction level. Nevertherless I see Marxism as a we/they idea and oppose it along with other we/they ideas.

Ummmmmm Shintaro... "evangelicals" ?

Police said today his sexual orientation had nothing to do with the killing and that one "robber" had been arrested.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/world/gay-activist-bludgeoned-to-death/story-e6frfkzr-1225995862463#ixzz1CUrvEWKs

DEFINITION. "Evangelical"

Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian movement which began in Great Britain in the 1730s.[1] Its key commitments are:
* The need for personal conversion (or being "born again")
* Actively expressing and sharing the gospel
* A high regard for biblical authority, especially biblical inerrancy
* An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus.

And I would agree with those points of definition.

Given that there is NOTHING within them even remotely suggesting the propensity to murder..as David has clearly suggested we ARE capable of... I remain adamant that David has committed religious vilification and incitement to hatred toward evangelicals Christians.

Evangelical "Euangellion" Mark 1:1 "The beginning of the 'EUANGELLION' of Jesus Christ, Son of God"

From Mark 1.1 to Mark 16:8
From Matthew 1.1 to Matthew 28:20
From Luke 1.1 to Luke 24.53
From John 1.1 to John 21.25

You will not find a syllable of Jesus advocating or commanding his followers to commit the slightest act of violence against unbelievers.
Rather, he commissioned his followers to proclaim and then if rejected, move on.

You WILL however find ample evidence of hatred from unbelievers toward Christians.

and for those thinking about it Matt 10:34.. read the WHOLE passage.
and for those thinking about Luke 19:11ff sorry.. context context context.

correction, in my last post I meant to say "in the context of previous 'posts'", not "threads" (although other threads will bear me out).

Lexi,
I'm bound to say that for such an intelligent person I' occasionally gobsmacked at what you come out with.

davidf,

I was arguing against all the intellectualisng and moralising that goes on among the haves in the place of material considerations. The have nots do not have the luxury of pontificating over their lot.
You seem to find it crass or offensive (or potentially murderous!) in some highly sophisticated sense that escapes me. But I am merely trying to see above the mountain of bullsh!t we've constructed to obscure the simple fact of gross disparities. These disparities are not based on merit and are not unfortunate irreconsiliables, but comprise the one inseparable paradigm--in the context of our "enlightened" values. We occupy the one planet and are the one species, what's more there is a history of unequal, neigh exploitative, congress between the deep-thinking gluttons and the intellectually-challenged ne'er-do-wells. I only ask that we give up professing our "humanity" and admit we are a vicious, self-serving race of ideologues exploiting geographical and historical good-fortune.

You may demonise my comments all you like.

AGIR wrote:

"You WILL however find ample evidence of hatred from unbelievers toward Christians."

There is a lot of evidence of hatred by Christians toward others. You are defined by what you do. As the Evangelical Sisterhood of St Mary pointed out the Christian record of hatred is a sorry one. You ignore the centuries of Christian hatred.

From their website:

http://www.kanaan.org/international/israel/israel4.htm

... our eyes were opened to see the enormity of the crimes committed by our people against the Jewish people. From the depths of our hearts an anguished cry arose, a cry inspired by the Spirit of God:
..
Despite all this, however, there remains a heavy burden on my heart. This burden has to do with our history as the Christian Church in the last 2000 years.

... Yet love has not been characteristic of Christianity's attitude to the Jews these past 2000 years.

After the age of the apostles, the theory arose that God was through with the Jews, that the Church was the New Israel and that the Jews were being punished for the crime of killing God. Later, when Christianity became the state religion, this theology was used as the basis for anti-Jewish policies. In time, the Jews were blamed for every calamity. A case in point is the Black Death, said to have been caused by the Jews poisoning the wells. In the name of Jesus unimaginable atrocities were committed: Jews were humiliated, deprived of their rights, baptised by force, burnt at the stake -- thousands upon thousands of them. Christian festivals, such as Easter, were sometimes chosen as a time to attack Jews. While burning the Jewish population in the synagogue in Jerusalem, the Crusaders sang 'Christ, We Adore Thee'

You keep ignoring the evidence. Is the Sisterhood lying?

You are also using the term unbeliever wrongly. Non-Christians in general are not unbelievers. They merely believe something different.

Dear Squeers,

We are where we are. We can try to do something about the inequities of the world and/or we can revel in guilt. As individuals we can do little to remedy the inequities. As groups we can do more. Of course we can always revel in guilt.

The fundies wail, "We are all sinners."

You wrote: "I only ask that we give up professing our "humanity" and admit we are a vicious, self-serving race of ideologues exploiting geographical and historical good-fortune."

That's an unreasonable ask. That's not too different from the fundy wailing. You can admit to being part of a vicious, self-serving race of ideologues. I admit no such thing.

I have the good fortune to be where I am. Life is a matter of chance to a great extent. That makes me neither vicious nor self-serving. My good fortune can quickly disappear as it did with many of my relatives who were killed by the Nazis.

I don't see much difference between the Nazi or Marxist murder machines. The ideologies that promoted both murdered people by a we/they criterion. Class hatred is as ugly as race hatred.

Enjoy your guilt.

Correction:
Instead of "self-serving race of ideologues exploiting geographical and historical good-fortune", I should have said "buffoons".

Davidf,
guilt is just another facet of hubris, I have no time for it.
Think what you like.

I do hope you pay homage to the Soviets, btw, our allies who won the war and saved succeeding generations from global fascism.

I see no point discussing the matter further with you.

Dear Squeers,

I am quite happy to pay homage to the Soviets for saving the world from global fascism. I also pay homage to the US in winning the Cold War and saving the world from global Marxism.

"Evangelical"

Yanks preach hate in Uganda

Gay leader killed

As ye sow ye reap

They have bloody hands in

The murder of this man

http://tiny.cc/rj7e6

@davidf:

There's two kinds of folk

Those who think there's two kinds of

Folk and those who don't

Shintaro,

"There's two kinds of folk
Those who think there's two kinds of
Folk and those who don't"

Brilliant!
David f., please take note of the above.

Dear Poirot,

There are 10 kinds of folk. Those who think in binary and those who don't.

Actually, there's three kinds of folk.

Those who can count and those who can't.

Merci, dear Poirot

Evidently david f

Is one of us "don'ts"

I think I'm actually witnessing 'Christphobia' in real time.

"After the age of the apostles, the theory arose that God was through with the Jews,"

Do you see how it works ? "the theory arose".. nice. That was the point in David's phobia where he ventured out into the deep unknown of 'the theory'.

Who's "theory" ? Why? how does this 'theory' connect with the inspired Word of God? if such a 'theory' is in flagrant disagreement with the Word of God...of what value is the 'theory' ? It might as well be something I personally make up right now!

But.. "the theory" can serve a purpose.. it can be magnified, exaggerated, repeated... to the point where it becomes "established fact".

Just like in Pakistan right NOW... there is a christian woman up on 'Blasphemy' charges based on rumor. Just like the raging mob of some 25,000 Muslims who hysterically burned, raped, and murdered Christians because of 'the theory'/rumor that they had desecrated the Quran.

Some "Theories" are very dangerous. Even more dangerous when people use them as a replacement for fact and foundation.

The Biblical record is adamant and clear

(Rom 11 Pauls words)

//1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.//

So..any THEORY which goes against the primary proponent of Gentile Christianity, is not worth a crumpet other than to demonstrate 'Christphobia' in this forum.

David Judges 'Christianity' by the actions of a few.
Should others Judge 'Jews' by the insideous actions of a few porn merchants?
If David was consistent, he would equally Judge all Muslims by the actions of those who wish to blow us up. In the absence of such consistency..I have to suggest there is another 'emotion' at work.

Dear AGIR,

I have not judged Christianity by the acts of a few. The Inquisition, the Wars of the Reformation, the Christians who participated in the Holocaust were the acts of many Christians.

I have acknowleged the Christians of goodwill such as Bishop Spong, the Evangelical Sisterhood of St Mary who have acknowledged and tried to make amends for the bloody Christian past. There are other Christians who have tried to atone for their past such as Pope John XXIII who changed the liturgy.

There are many Christians of goodwill.

You are not one of them. You merely accuse a person who brings up the bloody Christian record as an enemy.

Not only that but you ignore the fact that massacres of Jews and other non-Christians often followed their rejection of Christian missionaries. In spite you continue your unwanted missionising.

I think most Christians in Australia at this time accept multicuralism and want to live with people of different beliefs and ideas. They are decent people who are what they are and are willing to let other people be what they are.

David f.,

Thank You for this thread. I've been reading everyone's comments with great interest. Tor Hundloe has this to say, in his book, "From Buddha to Bono: Seeking sustainability," : "While I can empathise with any living thing, it is my thoughts, my feelings, not its thoughts and feelings, which I am forced to bring to bear on what I do. I cannot escape being anthropocentric..."

And George Soros tells us:

"The Enlightenment constituted a giant step forward... Allowing reason to decide what is true and false, what is right and wrong, was a tremendous innovation. It marked the beginning of modernity... The philosophers of the Enlightenment are no longer read...indeed, we may find them unreadable - but their ideas have become ingrained in our way of thinking. The rule of reason, the supremacy of science, the universal brotherhood of man...The political, social and moral values of the Enlightenment were admirably stated in the US Declaration of Independence, and that document continues to be an inspiration for people throughout the world...Instead of accepting tradition as the ultimate authority, the Enlightenment subjected tradition to critical examination. The results were exhilarating. The creative energies of human intellect were unleashed."
(George Soros, 1998).

The dichotomous nature of most public debate lends itself too easily to explanations that allow for simplistic oppositions to be defined. The print and electronic media cannot deal with complexity - hence its need to reduce complexity to sound bites and easily understood analysis for their audiences. The consumers of these media products grow up understanding the world around them through these reductive re-productions of reality. This does not mean complexity cannot be presented, indeed it can be.

But unfortunately this complexity of knowledge has become commodified and is organised hiearchically in most western societies. So it is often the elite who endowed with knowledge of the complexity but then they too commodify it for profit.

This is a crisis in the redistibution of knowledge for all and this usually underpins the us/they social and cultural and religious conflicts.

In societies that are organised around exploiting the labour of many (industrialistion) this knowledge by dint of its distributional rationale will naturally create a up ward pyramid.

In societies where civil society is the organising objective, you will find a greater number of people understanding complexity as a normative condition of their citizenry and thus less conflict over simple us/them conditions. This civil society is occuring online.

Hence the reason why so much is being researched on the collapse of community, the im-plosion of social capital etcetera.

Civil society, however, is for a large portion of younger generations an online and global phenomenon with online resources to maintain online social capital, trust and engagement.

It is time to thoroughly define and empirically grasp today’s forms
of civil society made by contemporary people with contemporary means,
in a contemporary world. For massively going online may well be the
21st-century expression of community, civic involvement, connectivity
and identity.

Dear lexi,

The ideas of the Enlightenment permeate our society. In general the opponents of the Enlightenment follow the we/they idea. Enlightened Christians, Jews and Muslims have incorporated Enlightenment ideas and seek to apply reason to their societies. Others reject modernity and seek refuge in biblical literalism and other uncritical acceptance of myth. I think Soros is wrong in regard to the unreadability of the Enlightenment philosophers. I have found Voltaire, Rousseau and Montesquieu quite readable. 'Candide' by Voltaire has even been made into a Broadway musical. Montesquieu's 'Persian Letters' satirised the society of his time through the observations of two fictional Persian travelers in Europe.

Reaction to the Enlightenment was not only in religion but also in philosophy. Hegel was a German philosopher who opposed the Enlightenment. He wrote "For it is in the nature of humanity to press onward to agreement with others; human nature only really exists in an achieved community of minds."

I see the above as a recipe for tyranny. Hegel's freedom was humanity working together as an organic whole in agreement on its eventual goal. The dissenter is an outcast. There is no room for the person who disagrees with or does not belong to the dominant paradigm. The gulag, the concentration camp, the graveyard and the crematorium are the destination for those who are not regarded as belonging to the volk or the vanguard class.

Hegel was influenced by Joachim of Fiore who saw society in three stages the stage of the father: Edenic peace, the stage of the son: human conflict, and the stage of the Holy Ghost: the millennium. Hegel also saw society in stages reaching an apotheosis. His apotheosis was the Prussian state.

Hegelians divided into right Hegelians who were predominantly German nationalists and left Hegelians the most prominent being Marx. Marx's three stages were primitive communism in an economy of scarcity, class struggle and the apotheosis of advanced communism or the classless society in an economy of plenty.

Marxism and German nationalism are two we/they ideas.

Yes, it's obvious that the Enlightenment has permeated the sensibilities of the heirs of modernity. The social, political and moral values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence have translated into a fair world order where equality and cooperation reign. There is no disconnection from the world around us. Our creative instincts are not tethered to profitable and unsustainable destruction.

The intellectual West deceives itself and cloaks its brutality in the garb of so-called civility - that is, until its appetites are opposed. Then it proceeds with all the barbarity inherent in man to impose its will.

David f., you appear to be quite adept at dividing various schools of thought into we/they dynamics....but you consider yourself to be on the righteous side of the divide. Your commentary immediately sets in stone a we/they attitude. How do you propose to move beyond this impasse?

Excellent question Poirot!

David IS good at attacking those who differ...but not so hot on reconciling.

The only kind of 'Christian' acceptable to David seem to be the brutal kind (which maintains his self understanding of victimhood) and those with the spiritual spine of a jellyfish (Spong)

In neither case an and would an evangelical Christian call them 'Christians'...which leads me back to David's original hate attack

"Evangelical Christians may feel justified in MURDERing those who reject their preaching"

I've already provided definitions of 'Evangelical' but seems not to have had any redeeming impact on David.

When people doggedly resist being enlightened by fact.. there is a word for it.. starts with "b"

For the Evangelical Christian, reconciliation between 'them/us' is based on one thing alone.. "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek,slave nor free, male nor female" Gal 3:28

For a person to be 'in Christ' they do 2 things.

1/ Repent of sin
2/ Believe in Christ

Neither of which can be enforced by law or brutality because 'belief' can never be forced.

Hence.. any mention of murder, brutality, cruelty in connection with EVANGELICAL Christians must be spurious, and based on ulterior Christphobic motives...which I've already pointed out.

Dear Al,

The ideals attributed to Christ are not necessarily those practiced by his adherents - after all, we're only human. There's plenty of evidence of brutal words and acts committed by Christians resting on the bedrock of a we/they construct.

David f. likes to drag out his mounds of corpses as a device for shutting down opposing argument.
I've noticed that the imperial West is just as adept at producing mounds of corpses when it suits the agenda - it's also handy at turning a blind eye when its junior partners proceed in the same vein.

The we/they dynamic is a psychological construct inherent in the species.

It is "man" who produces the mounds of corpses.

AGIR:

Richard Dawkins points out in his book, "The God Delusion," "as recently as 1922 in Britain, John William Gott was sentenced to nine months' hard labour for blasphemy: he compared Jesus to a clown. Almost unbelievably, the crime of blasphemy is still on the statute book in Britain, and in 2005 a Christian group tried to bring a private prosecution for blasphemy against the BBC for broadcasting "Jerry Springer, the Opera." Dawkins tells us that, "In the US of recen years the phrase, "American Taliban" was being coined... their web pages were a rich source of obnoxiously barmy quotations, beginning with a prize one from somebody called Ann Coulter,..."We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity..."
Other gems include Congressman Bob Dornan's "Don't use the word "gay" unless it's an acronym for "Got Aids Yet?" and General William G. Boykin's "George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the US, he was appointed by God!" As Dawkins points out - all the ingredients are there: slavish adherence to a misunderstood old text; hatred of women, modernity, rival religions, science and pleasure; love of punishment, bullying, narrow-minded, bossy interference in every aspect of life. The Afghan Taliban and the American Taliban are both good examples of what happens when people take their scriptures literally and seriously. They provide a horrifying modern enactment of what life might have been like under the theocracy of the Old Testament. Kimberly Blaker's, "The Fundamentals of Extremism: The Christian Right in America," is a book-length expose of the menace of the Christian Taliban (not under that name)."

We are willing to label Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Idi Amin just to name a few, as sub-human zealots - why not those who preach religious hatred against others who won't accept the fanatics' views? Humanity cannot afford to have fundamentalists with their fingers on the nuclear war-button. There is no greater reason for living the good life, which requires seeking the good life for one's fellows and accepting that this one is the only one we have.

Dear Poirot,

You wrote, "The we/they dynamic is a psychological construct inherent in the species."

That may be quite true, and maybe we can't get beyond it. Then we’ll have to do the best we can with it.

At the moment it's hard for me to get excited about anything.

AGIR can keep on with his silly mumbojumbo. Maybe nobody else will pay attention to it. Maybe they will. Whatever. There are real problems of cruelty, conflict & destruction & he worries about what people are doing sexually. How absolutely silly!

Since my last post I’ve been overcome by a sense of well-being.

Saturday we went with the Queensland Mycological Society looking for fungi & found some. Yesterday I talked to my son in Virginia on the phone & I never had heard him sound happier. He’s preparing his courses in anthropology for the next term, is writing book reviews and consulting to the National Science Foundation. It made me feel good that he was so happy.

His younger daughter is skiing with his wife. His older daughter is in Pittsburgh enjoying her life as artist, writer and waitress. My granddaughter in Wilmington, Delaware sent me a couple of emails about her liking for Doctor Who. Her Dad told me about his musical gig at the Fresh Time Café with the Owl Taker Trio. My other five descendents are all well as far as I know.

Just uprooted some lomandra longifolia (dilly) bushes that were growing where we didn’t want them. Our plants are really flourishing due to the rains – delicious pineapple. Talking about what to do with the bromeliads that are crowding out the macrozamia.

My wife and I are both reading “The Brothers Karamazov”. We read the same things sometimes and talk about it. Will read some more today.
I wish you all well, and as Cleopatra said to Antony, “I’m not prone to argue.”

Maybe tomorrow I’ll feel like discussing or arguing.

Evangelicals

Do murder, as I have shown

Al ignores the facts

Dear davidf,

You wrote;

“Can we recognise the problems that we all have as humans, recognise our common humanity and work together to solve those problems?”

Then...

“Hegel's freedom was humanity working together as an organic whole in agreement on its eventual goal.” which you saw as a recipe for tyranny.

Are you not starting to argue with yourself?

You wrote; “Hegel was influenced by Joachim of Fiore who saw society in three stages the stage of the father: Edenic peace, the stage of the son: human conflict, and the stage of the Holy Ghost: the millennium.”

And it had me thinking of Nietzsche's quote from 'Beyond Good and Evil', “FOR CHRISTANITY IS PLATONISM FOR THE “PEOPLE””, (his capitals).

You appear to deem Christianity such a dangerous idea that only the likes of Spong and Schlink, because they have managed to rise above their 'bigotry and bias', can be entrusted to embrace it. However in running this line are you not showing a degree of 'bigotry and bias' yourself? It is like saying only the Zionists can be trusted with the dangerous ideas espoused by Marx since they utilized them in the Kibbutz without the need to employ a Gulag.

You say “Holocaust was partially a consequence of hundreds of years of Christian resentment at Jews wanting to continue to be Jews.”

Surely one of the greatest proponents of the us/them idea are the Jewish people. It has meant their survival through the millennia but also it attracted the superstition, bigotry and resentment of those communities in which they gathered.

Although from my understanding this morning prayer is no longer said by most Jewish people nowadays even by the orthodox (although still be the Heridi), it once was.

"Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a Gentile."
"Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a slave."
“Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a woman."

Very we/they.

Dostoyevsky picks at the scabs on my soul.

Dear csteele,

I consider the Chosen People idea one of the nastiest ideas around. The idea that God has chosen a particular people is to me nonsense. The idea that God is a real estate dealer who also has assigned a particular piece of land to a particular people is also ugly nonsense.

I wrote in my initial post: "Unfortunately people may defend against a we/they idea by creating another we/they idea. A common response for those characterised as bad guys is to claim they really are good guys and their denigrators are really the bad guys."

Persecuted groups can adopt the attitudes of their persecutors and turn them around to fit themselves. Some Christians think that God has now chosen them, and the old covenant no longer exists. Some of the nasty ideas in Christianity come from Judaism.

The Chosen People idea is an idea common to all or most tribes people. Their word for themselves generally means ‘the people.’ That implies others are non-people. Religion preserves the ideas of the past and gives archaic nonsense holiness.

Thanks for reading my writings and contrasting my statement with Hegel’s statement.

Hegel’s ideal was the Prussian state, and his idea of people working together was that they should accept the dictates of the state and do their best to carry it out without question.

My ideal is the democratic state where people can dissent from the purposes of the state.

Democratic states allow conscientious objection. Even though the country is at war individuals may decide they don’t want to participate. There are provisions so they don’t have to.

I talked to an Iraqi who was studying at the University of Queensland. He could not believe me when I told him the British, Australian and US armies were made of volunteers. In his view you only go in the army if the government forces you to, and then you have no option.

We can work for common goals and still allow democratic freedoms.

Marxism is only one brand of socialism. I am writing an essay on that subject.

Dear David F

You said:

a) AGIR can keep on with his silly mumbojumbo.

b) Maybe nobody else will pay attention to it. Maybe they will.

and that dear David..is the essense of it all. "mayby yes..maybe no"

In a free society this is a wonderful freedom to have. ( to speak and to choose)
I find the suggestion that I (by implication and association) 'may murder' those who reject the message of repentance and faith to be irresponsible, nasty and Christphobic.

But (Lexi and Poirot and Shintaro) I certainly recognize the difference between the ideal and the practical. But let's keep 'exceptions' in that arena and not speak of them as if they were approaching a norm.

I'm not denying that some whacky individuals have done awful things while claiming to be evangelical.

What I'm taking strong exception to is David's suggestion that there is a link between evangelical Christianity and the propensity to MURDER those who don't accept the message. He linked it to our faith.
The faith is totally contrary to such ideas, but David simply does not recognize or want to recognize this.

Imagine for a moment that the young bloke or woman I spoke to about Christ this week had read David's post on OLO the night before.... *think*.. suddenly here is this big old stranger telling them about 'Christ'.......Sometimes David's passions get the better of him I'm afraid.

But there is hope :) He is reading a great evangelical book called "The Brothers Karamazov"..but let's not share that secret..I'd rather he read it than hurling it in a corner.

AGIR,

Just to set the record straight. Your criticism for picking on American extremists rather than respectable mainstreamers (like archbishops) sounds like a fair criticism - except that in early 21st century America, what "seems" extreme to the outside world is actually mainstream. Richard Dawkins in the television documentary,"Root of All Evil," interviewed among others Pastor Ted Haggard of Colorado Springs. He was the one who most appalled the British television audience. Far from being extreme in George Bush's America, "Pastor Ted," was President of the thirty-million strong National Association of Evangelicals, and he claimed to be favoured with a telephone consultation with then President Bush every Monday.
Another of Dawkins television interviewees was Pastor Keenan Roberts, from the same state of Colorado as Pastor Ted. Pastor Roberts particular brand of nuttiness took the form of what he called "Hell Houses." A "Hell House," was a place where children were brought, by their parents or their Christian schools, to be scared witless over what might happen to them after they die. As Dawkins said, "This shocked me somewhat, and I asked him whether it would worry him if a twelve-year old child had nightmares after one of his performances..."
He replied, "I would rather for them to understand that Hell is a place that they absolutely do not want to go..."

As Dawkins says, "We cannot write-off Pastor Roberts as an extremist wingnut. Like Ted Haggard, he is mainstream in today's America."

Like Beck is mainstream

These people are hate preachers

Who excuse murder

Dear davidf,

Perhaps it is not the idea you are railing against but more it's application, or more accurately those who apply it.

I get the sense that for you Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Marxism etc would all have expressions somewhere in the world, or at some time in history, that you could applaud.

I offer this as a debate point, and I am not in any way trying to offensive, but I am going to accuse you of being a touch elitist.

If Christianity can be considered worthy in those who have thought deeply and acknowledged its failings or Marxism in the Kibbutz or a sense of the 'commonwealth' in democracies then perhaps these ideas are not innately 'evil'.

But isn't expecting those outside those groups to not sup from the same fount exhibiting the same us/them mentality you have condemned?

Add these ideas to insular societies without the corrective influences of a broader community or allow an organisation like the Catholic Church to take ownership of Christianity, or the Bolsheviks to do the same with communism and we can expect nothing less than a distortion of the idea, often unrecognisable to the original proponents. (How much different would our view of Christianity be if the ideas of the Cathars had prevailed over the Catholic Church?)

But banning ideas or trying to reserve them for the few is not what we want to be seeing. We need to accept that their propagation in communities that do not enjoy a 'world view' is sometimes going to incur abhorrent leanings but perhaps we need to be combating the ignorance rather than the idea.

CSTEELE.... your comments are becoming.... wiser by the moment.

From the Newsmedia:

Re Brendan O'connor

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/brendon-lee-oconnell-sentenced-to-three-years-jail-for-racial-hatred/story-e6frg143-1225997622331

THE Jewish victim of a verbal racial attack says a three-year prison term given to the man who called him a "racist, homicidal maniac" outside a Perth supermarket is not enough.

"You have a religion of racism, hate, homicide and ethnic cleansing," he said in the video. (said O'connor)

David F here.

//Evangelical Christianity and radical Islam want to make them like us. When they want to stay as they are EC & RI may feel justified in murdering the infidel.//

Let's repeat that last bit for effect "MURDERING THE INFIDEL".....

If O'connor gets 3 yrs for insulting Jewish religion... claiming it is a 'religion of homicide'... and David here is claiming Evangelical Christianity may lead to "murdering the infidel".....

Can anyone spot the difference ?

Is it not just one of degree? How bad is 'too' bad ?

For me.. the moment "murdering the infidel' is connected with my own tradition.. it's wayyyy tooooo far!

David...I'm still waiting for a much better worded version of that insulting phrase, and an apology.

I'm waiting for an apology too, but I don't hold out much hope of getting one.
Davidf is certainly a master of the us them mentality.

david say sorry?

Once Al admits murder by

Evangelicals

"Exclusive Brethren"

Would require a "We" and "They"

Relationship, no?

Dear csteele,

Why be afraid that I am elitist? Elitism is defined as government by a group of superior people. I don't think direct democracy is possible for a group much larger that 7 or 8 people. Any government larger than that must be a subset of the group. Any government has a bureaucracy, legislature, party or other apparatus. These constitute an oligarchy. It seems reasonable that this oligarchy be composed of superior people. There should be some criteria to define superiority and some mechanism to select those who fit the criteria for superiority. I favour that, and therefore am an elitist.

Well you're in good company, davidf.
GB Shaw said, before he became a Fabian, around the 1890's:
"Capitalist mankind in the lump is detestable, …Both rich and poor are really detestable in themselves. For my part I hate the poor and look forward eagerly to their extermination. I pity the rich a little, but am equally bent on their extermination. The working classes, the business classes, the professional classes, the propertied classes, the ruling classes, are each more odious than the other: they have no right to live: I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, … And yet I am not in the least a misanthrope".

This was mere hyperbole of course since he had no Holocaust to lament. Later, in the 1930's, for the Fabians he said that democracy, or "government by the people through votes for everybody, has never been a complete reality; and to the very limited extent to which it has been a reality it has not been a success. The extravagant hopes which have been attached to every extension of it have been disapointed. ... If there were any disenfranchised class left for our democrats to pin their repeatedly disappointed hopes on, no doubt they would still clamour for a fresh set of votes to jump the last ditch into their Utopia; and the vogue of democracy might last a while yet. Possibly there may be here and there lunatics looking forward to votes for children, or for animals, to complete the democratic structure. But the majority shows signs of having had enough of it".
Now Shaw was a great and wise man, and an oligarchist..

As Orwell said, all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
I believe in the utopia of an inclusive democracy, but that's not possible under the current dispensation.

Dear csteele,

You wrote: "I get the sense that for you Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Marxism etc would all have expressions somewhere in the world, or at some time in history, that you could applaud."

I would modify the statement somewhat. "Christians, Jews, Muslims, Marxists etc all behave somewhere in the world, or at some time in history in ways that I applaud. I would include in the etc. Nazis and fascists also. I think humans can have an innate decency that shines through all the religious and ideological crap they are subjected to.

I think all religions are based on delusions, and I have no preference between Marxism and fascism. However, I would place no restrictions on expression of ideas.

You also wrote: "Add these ideas to insular societies without the corrective influences of a broader community or allow an organisation like the Catholic Church to take ownership of Christianity, or the Bolsheviks to do the same with communism and we can expect nothing less than a distortion of the idea, often unrecognisable to the original proponents."

I don't think ideas get distorted. Ideas are shaped by the reality of human interaction. The original proponents may have wanted something else, but the reality is how it is put into practice and that to a great extent is shaped by the world in which it is to be put into practice. Bolsheviks didn't distort communism. They made it a reality. Marxism and Christianity become meaningful entities and change as their proponents practice them. Marx and the inventors of Christianity could not possibly predict the future world in which their ideas would be played out.

Technological developments, the use of resources and human interaction are predictable to a very limited degree.

Dear Squeers,

I don't think an inclusive democracy is possible under any dispensation.

David f.,

It seems to me that an elitist stance automatically invokes a we/they dynamic.
Where is the notion of "common humanity" brought into play in elevating the status of a minority based on a definition of superiority?
I'm interested as to whether you have any thoughts as to which qualities would define superiority, who would define them and what kind of mechanism would be required to select those who made the grade.

Dear davidf,

I do recall in the past it took me a little while to tune into your sense of humour and as I'm not sure how much your post on elitism was a joke I will let it slide.

I will admit to a rather romantic notion that both Monotheism/Christianity and Marxism/socialism/communism are social experiments done to the rest of us by Jewish intellectuals. I don't mind as I see them drawing from a heightened sense of justice which can be a millstone around even the strongest of necks.

Would we like them to stop? My vote would be no as I feel even in their failures our understanding of ourselves is advanced immeasurably, and life is certainly richer, though the body count is hard to ignore.

Is a sense of elitism desirable for the experimenters? I would say it is probably indispensable. However there is a deeper sense of a search for happiness and peace that is made difficult to acquire purely because of whom they are. They know what it is but it remains out of reach because to achieve it they must become one of us.

The price is considered too high.

Dear Poirot,

Elitism is a we/they idea. However, I see no way to ensure that superior people govern. As a practical matter since we can't assure that superior people will govern we must resort to other means to select our governments. Democracy might be good, but in much of what is thought of as the democratic world it means rule by money.

Dear csteele,

I disagree with your statement that socialism/communism and Christianity is the world of Jewish intellectuals.

Marx had Jewish ancestry but was not a Jew. He had a Lutheran education and was a Jew hater. You can find "On the Jewish Question" on the net. Go to your local university library and and get "Jewish Self-Hatred" by Sander Gilman. It deals in part with Marx. Whether or not a Jew is religious to be a Jew he should identify with the Jewish people and they should accept him as one of them. Marx was almost completely ignorant of Jewish history, tradition and culture. His knowledge of things Jewish was almost completely derived from his antisemitic German background.

The founders of the movement were in general non-Jewish. Many were anti-Jewish. Blanqui, Bakhunin, Proudhon, Fourier, Saint-Simon and most of the founders of the movement were not Jewish. Of the foregoing the only one who was not a Jew hater was Saint-Simon.
Some Bolsheviks including my uncle were Jewish, but the CPSU became less Jewish as time went on. My uncle left the USSR in 1921 cured of Bolshevism.

Jesus (if he existed) was Jewish, but Christianity was founded after his death. Paul was Jewish, but the failure of the Jewish revolt in 70 CE wiped out most of the early Christians who were Jews. None of the early church fathers were Jews. The Apostolic Fathers were Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. The Greek Fathers were Irenaus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom and the Cappadocian Fathers. The Latin fathers were Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Ambrose of Milan, Jerome of Stridonium, Augustine of Hippo and Gregory the Great

With all your talk of oligarchy and "superior" people, you sound like a rabid fascist, davidf. No wonder you hate Marx (without the faintest grasp of his ideas). I btw haven't mentioned Marx on this thread till now. The way you dictate on matters about which you know just enough to validate your own obsessive ideology, and propagate your authoritarian ignorance, makes one glad you don't wield power yourself. If you did I'm sure you'd know how to deal with miscreants like myself!
I think this thread was a textual Freudian slip, for it reveals precisely the binary non-thinking to which you are prey!

It amazes me that so many people still think they are "governed" (whatever the form), that we have any say, or even a clear idea, on how we develop, nationally, as a race, or as individuals. Governance has long since been ceded to economic determinism and the planet consigned to the foundry. No wonder people are driven to God!
This from Ernest Mandel's "Late Capitalism" (no doubt you're an expert on him too, davidf):

"The captive individual, whose entire life is subbordinated to the laws of the market--not only (as in the 19th century) in the sphere of production, but also in the sphere of consumption, recreation, culture, art, education and personal relations, it appears impossible to break out of the social prison".

And this was written in the '70s, things have grown mind-bogglingly worse since!

*smile*... as they say..give a bloke enough rope and he will hang himself.

Poor David F... if this was a game of 'hangman' you would have constructed about TEN sets of gallows for yourself at the moment.

DAVID F.. reminder.. rephrase.. and/or apologise "Evangelicals may MURDER" is incitement to hatred.

DAVID F said (almost)
Elitism is a we/they idea. However, I see no way to ensure that superior (Germanic/Aryan) people govern. As a practical matter since we can't assure that superior (Germanic/Aryan) people will govern we must resort to other means to select our governments.

Only a tiny word change..and the true nature of David's post is highlighted.

For a worrisome moment, I thought I was reading in Volume II of Mein Kampf, "Race and People"but no... it really was David's post

By the way.. David's thoughts follow virtually analoguously with those of Edward Bernays about the 'stupid masses'. *interesting*

DEAR SHINTARO... time for your therapy :)

WE/THEY can be a negative or a positive thing.

If "WE" regard 'THEY' as God's creation, equal, and deserving of compassion, love and care..... is this a bad thing?

If "THEY" regard "we" as an easy political/military prize for conquest...is this a good thing?

There are many dimensions to 'we/they' But best summarized by the Gospel "For God so loved the world...that He gave His only Son,that whoever believes in Him, might not perish but have everlasting life"

Yes..there is a 'WE'..(the saved) and a 'THEY'..(the Unsaved)
Can we saved hate the unsaved when God saved us through his love?
I think not.

Exclusive Brethren

Love those they exclude so much

They won't eat with them

At least they do not

Incite murder of gays like

Evangelicals

Dear Squeers,

I have never heard of Ernest Mandel. I know there is a monumental pile of Marxist theory. I know with all the theory they have had an opportunity since 1917 to produce a decent society. All they have produced are dictatorships which are not too different from the fascist dictatorships and a lot of corpses. Some Marxists call names. When a person sees the crap for what it is he can be said to sound like a rabid fascist. When I started this string I thought there might be nonsense from you and AGIR.

There is hope. Some people see the fundy crap and the Marxist crap for what it is.

davidf:

<I know there is a monumental pile of Marxist theory. I know with all the theory they have had an opportunity since 1917 to produce a decent society>

The fact that you can say this shows that you are both one-eyed and don't know what you're talking about. And btw, I read and think well beyond Marx. I'm no kind of "fundy"!

<When I started this string I thought there might be nonsense from you and AGIR>

You are the one who was offensive first. Since no retraction or compromise in your tone has been forthcoming, I have responded in kind.

I responded to your thread with thoroughly considered, and in my view important, observations that I was prepared to elaborate and defend (which were actually in answer to Lexi), but you rudely closed me down with this:

<Your real world is not a real world but a world defined by ideology>

<There is hope. Some people see the fundy crap and the Marxist crap for what it is>

There is some hope people see through your crap as well. Certainly you don't!

Tor Hundloe asks some interesting questions in his book, "From Buddha to Bono: Seeking Sustainability." I thought they might be relevant to this discussion. He tells us that there is much relevance that we must take from Aristotle. For Aristotle, humans were social animals needing to live together, and hence the need to find "the mean" between extremes, otherwise they would live in continual dispsute, or even worse, warfare. Hundloe tells us that," ... in most industrialised democracies "wedge" politics" deliberately creates a division between sectoral interests - that's the name of the game.
Hence interest group self-interest and antagonism between citizens permeates policy-making. The much-touted notion of liberal democracies that governments govern for all, is not believed by significant numbers of voters. It's all too obvious that governments actually don't do this. This destroys social capital, that is, trust, togetherness and the tender feelings of a caring society. There is "them" and "us", rather than simply "us," and much effort is employed in partisan politics which could be much better utilised in positive pursuits."

The concept of "the mean" (the middle ground) is common to Buddhists, Aristotle, Confucius, and according to Hundloe - modern Scandinavians. Hundloe tells us that consensus-building of the Buddhists (Thailand is probably a good example of a country where the principle, if not the practice, is to seek consensus) and the Scandinavian countries are the best examples yet of attempts to put Aristotle's consensus-building concept into practice. The question needs to be asked - how much patience does one have to have to function in a world managed by consensus? A lot, would be my educated answer. And it is worth it. The Scandinavian people apparently think so. It works in practice there. There is hope, as David f., says.

david f.,

You wrote in your introductory post to this thread:
"Can we recognise the problems that we have as humans, recognise our common humanity and work together to solve these problem?"

You have demonstrated precisely the failings that you claimed you were attempting to address. Your closed-mindedness and narrow viewpoint is well and truly welded into a uncompromising position.
Anyone aiming to move beyond a we/they attitude must first remove the mind forg'd manacles of their own entrenched antipathies.

Dear Mark & AGIR,

Crap is an anger provoking word, and I am sorry that I called your opinions crap.

I disagree deeply with both of you, but I shall try to do so politely.

Dear Poirot,

You are right. I have the failings I would like us to get rid of.

I have roughly the same feelings toward Marxism, fascism and fundamentalist religion. Whatever my feelings I can recognise those holding those views as human beings. We can possibly engage on some level and bypass the differences in belief. How do we bypass differences in belief when those holding those beliefs want to express them? That includes myself.

Well thank you, David. I have to watch my tone at times too.

David f.,

Sorry was a while getting back - first day of homeschooling for the year, and we planted a herb garden.
Your last question was a good one - one that I struggle to answer. so instead I offer some words from the Tao Te Ching:

Simplicity, Patience and Compassion
These three are your greatest treasures.
Simple in actions and in thought,
You return to the source of being.
Patience with both friends and enemies
You accord with the way things are.
Compassionate toward yourself,
You reconcile all beings in the world.

David f.,

This might also help:

"I've learned that people will forget what you said,
people will forget what you did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel."
(Maya Angelou).

Dear David

I'm not worried about you calling my beliefs or opinions 'crap' or the such like... I've said it many times already... what I take exception to..(serious exception) is this

//Evangelical Christianity and radical Islam want to make them like us. When they want to stay as they are EC & RI may feel justified in murdering the infidel.//

MURDERING!.....

This is wrong on 2 counts

1/ It mentions EC without any proviso "some" or.."some loony" or. "some with extreme and false views" etc.

2/ It equates Christianity with Islam..

"Jews want to extend porn into every household" Isn't that an inciting statement ?

"Some.....Jews.. namely.. a, b & c wish to etc... and to subvert Western society and destroy it"....is an accurate statement.

And I can name them.

@ ALL But for the sake of discussion.. TRY THIS :) for 'we/us'

I'll be the speaker. ( I am the governor of an American state, speaking at a Church)

"If you are saved, and have the Holy spirit,....you are my brother..
-Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters,"

Woooooooooo! :) feisty stuff!

But I add...

"So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."

Have a google moment with that :)

You won't believe WHO jumped up and down 50 times a second about 'that'...... *hint*..David's group.

See what they SAY..and see if it actually fits the statement by the Governor.

AlGore,

Despite your philosophising about "us" and "them", there are few in these pages who demonstrate the concept as much as you do.
In the end I suppose it's only practicing what you preach eh?

Dear Rache
I am absolutely, unapologetically, forever + 1, an advocate of "us/them"

The "us" is...those who have received Christ as their Lord and Savior, and have repented of sin....they are called "Christians"

"They" are those who have yet to receive Christ as Savior.

The important issue for consideration is..the actual disposition in terms of feeling and attitude between 'we'...and 'they'.

Using the Bible as our reference..and Jesus as our example... we find.

God so 'loved' the world.... etc. John 3:16

We find Jesus used Parables such as the lost coin, the lost sheep..and the prodigal son.

The whole of Jesus ministry was about 'us/them'....Saved/lost...redeemed/not yet redeeemed, repentant/unrepentant, forgiven/unforgiven.

So...yes...I am guilty as charged.. I am a very strong advocate of the idea the Christ died for our sin...and that when people turn from sin, and embrace Him as Lord...they are forgiven, and move from 'unsaved' to 'saved'....and join a community of the redeemed.

I know this means that there will be those like the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus day who, like the Anti Defamation League today in the USA.. will say things like

"Your comments are outrageous and offensive" welcome to my world.

Dear Poirot,

Simplicity, Patience and Compassion sound like good things.

Since usually our only contact with each other are these email messages we can try to make our statements as clear and simple as possible.

We can exercise patience by not rushing to post the instant we get a message that rouses us. We can reflect on it and decide whether it is worth answering. If we decide it is worth answering then answer it with regard for the other person. If we decide it is not worth answering just don't answer, and make no comment on it.

Compassion is harder. I do not feel pity or sympathy for everyone who posts to this string. I question whether I should try.

However, off the list it's a different story. Simplicity can mean letting go of non-essentials. There is only one essential that we cannot avoid. That’s death. Today, I saw Puccini’s “The Girl of the Golden West”. It was delightful but non-essential. Non-essentials make life worthwhile. Diogenes lived in a tub and begged. It was a very simple life. Einstein said, “Things should be made as simple as possible but not too simple.”

A good mixture of patience and impatience seems better than patience. Excess patience can become procrastination.

I have compassion for anyone suffering from great pain, grieving or any of the other ills common to all humanity. However, should one have compassion for one who has committed an atrocious act? It can depend on circumstances.

Since I get only part of the picture of a person from these posts I fill in the rest. It is obvious from your post that my picture is false. I pictured you as one who would be opposed to home schooling. I would appreciate knowing why you decided on it.

We grow oregano and seven spice which goes into vegetarian spaghetti sauce. What do you grow in your herb garden?

To minimise my we/they behaviour I can discuss non-we/they topics. We may come back to we/they topics later with a greater appreciation of each other.

Dear David f.,

There were various reasons for choosing home education.
I have an adult daughter and a nine year-old son, so I was coming to the whole "education" thing again. This made me examine things a little more closely than I had the first time around.
The more I looked at institutionalised schooling, the more dubious I became.
I wondered what it would be like if my son had the opportunity to learn in the wider community and at home by following his own interests - with some guidance from me. It seems a much more authentic learning environment as he isn't disconnected from the real world.
So we have freedom in a sense. It's my job to help him make the most of his passions.
He recently became interested in cooking - hence, the herb garden. Each interest offers a wide range of opportunities to work at the various disciplines.
We planted seeds of coriander, thyme, chilli pepper and chives. We also have rosemary sage and various mints.

Western society has only been doing institutionalised learning for around 200 years. It came hot on the heels of the British Industrial Revolution. When you stop and give it some thought, whenever in history have we segregated children away from the rest of society with age peers for so many of their waking hours - seems a strange thing to do.

David f.,

Some "non-essentials" can often make life more interesting.
Afterall -"Life is not measured
by the number of breaths we take
but by the moments that take our breaths away."
(I can't remember who said that but it strikes a chord with me).

If any of you are in doubt about just how vitriolic "we/they' can get.. try this for size. (former OLO progressives venting their spleens)

http://www.ambitgambit.com/2010/12/12/human-rights-awards-chris-sidoti-pauline-hanson-and-on-line-opinion/

David... ignoring will not make the problem go away.. 'action' please.

Well folks, I recommend a reading of Emerson's "Self Reliance" http://www.emersoncentral.com/selfreliance.htm
a great American classic, though I don't know how the ladies put up with men making such a fuss. He talks to "us and them" too in the early stages--but none of it's PC.

I find it hard to see the world as it is as anything but us and them, materially. I don't see how we can rationalise the discrepency between rich and poor. There's no excuse for obscene wealth in a world of obscene poverty, and vice versa.

AGIR,
I have to say, I don't see how your set can rationalise that and keep a straight face.

AGIR:

You really don't see the irony in your last post do you?

Squeers,

Thanks for the Emerson link - I read it with pleasure.

When I was first summoning up the courage to begin homeschooling (for it is something that is easy to do, but not so easy to start in a psychological sense), I came upon a small plaque by Emerson that I found inspiring. It reads:
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."

Dear Poirot,

I wish you success in your home schooling and admire you for taking it on. Does your decision to do that with your son have anything to do with your daughter's experiences?

I tried to help my oldest with trigonometry and had the impression that I did a good job. Years later he corrected that impression.

Dear AGIR,

I note that you addressed me in your last post. I do not enjoy interacting with you & prefer not to do so in the future.

Once again, Boaz highlights for us all the dangers inherent in the we/they, us/them problem.

>>Dear Rache I am absolutely, unapologetically, forever + 1, an advocate of "us/them" The "us" is...those who have received Christ as their Lord and Savior, and have repented of sin....they are called "Christians" "They" are those who have yet to receive Christ as Savior.<<

What is so appalling about this - or ironic, as Lexi points out - is that he has pinpointed with amazing clarity the danger to us all of the religious zealot.

Even ignoring the fact that his subtext is Christians vs Muslims, the exact same attitude has been behind the hundreds of years of intra-faith wars in Northern Ireland. I'm Catholic, and you're a proddy dog, so I'll just shoot you in the kneecap. I'm a Protestant, and you're a filthy Mick, so I'll just shoot you in the kneecap.

We/they. Us/them. The most destructive force in the human brain.

I suspect that we/they was once part of our survival mechanism, tens of thousands of years ago. It's about time we grew out of it.

Possibly the we/they gestalt is promoted by sexual selection. Decisiveness is generally regarded as a positive quality. In general the we/they person doesn't have as many caveats in making a decision. They can put ideas in or out of their yes box easier. The more reflective and inherently wiser person may be less compelling as a mating choice. I think the more decisive and authoritarian person is more attractive as a mate if there is a free choice and more likely to spread his genes if he has power. I have heard that Genghis Khan was tremendously effective at spreading his genes in the area where he had control. A large percentage of Europeans and Asians supposedly carry on his genes.

Perhaps it is an encouraging sign that the neurotic personna of Woody Allen can be a romantic lead.

Dear David f,.

My daughter (who turns 29 this year) seemed to pass through her school years reasonably smoothly, although she didn't particularly enjoy them and was perpetually uninspired by the system.
She often says to me these days that she feels that most of the areas in which she excels and feels passionate about were those pursued in her own time outside of school hours. She was, and still is, an avid reader and writer - so I'm inclined to agree with her.

Dear Poirot,

I was fortunate enough to go to school in the United States in the 1930s during the depression. Well qualified knowledgeable people in many areas could not get jobs so they turned to teaching. I remember Doc Poland, our chemistry teaching, inspiring us by explaining valences and chemical bonds by dancing figures wearing different coloured clothes. With a few exceptions our teachers expected a lot from us, and we got a lot from them.

I have the impression that the current crop of teachers do not have the combination of knowledge and enthusiasm that those 1930s US teachers had.

In my opinion primary and secondary education in Australia is a miserable failure. The time my kids spend there is almost 100% wasted. Fortunately for me my kids are bright, and avid readers; the three R's are still the fundamental skills, and my kids probably get more of that at home than at school. Nearly all the other stuff they do at school is imo "compliance training". Thinking critically seems to be actively discouraged. My oldest child has only just started grade nine and I'm hoping here's where they begin to ramp up the science and other intellectual skills. Hitherto I fail to see any benefit from their education, and it's been a full-time job disabusing them of all the religious and sundry twaddle they're exposed to.

I would love to home school my kids. I reckon we could cover the content they do in school in a week in a day or so. Then we could go on excursions and field trips, grow veges, keep chickens (including learning to kill and clean them), go bush-walking, dancing, museums etc etc.

A nice fantasy..

Good on you for dropping out, Poirot!

There is one thing about the public school system. When it is inclusive, the chaplains can be eliminated and the teacher staff is competent and loving it is a force for bringing together children of diverse backgrounds in an atmosphere of community. It can limit we/they attitudes in our society.

This is not to criticise Poirot. If I had children of school age I might make the decision he did.

I favour improving the public school system, promoting multiculturalism and separating religion and state to lessen the effect of the we/they gestalt.

But it's an artificially contrived community. It's first purpose is to serve consumer society. I know it's difficult for most of us to question being "taught" in a classroom - it's all we know.
As Squeers said, for most children it robs them of the ability to think critically and to seek out learning independently. It is almost totally disconnected from the work-a-day world beyond the schools grounds.

We do about an hour's formal lessons a day. Of course, that isn't when his learning stops - he's then free to chase up other things.

One thing I've noticed when we get together at homeschool gatherings is the way that all the children don't separate themselves into age groups. Those of a common age do tend to converse, but the older children are more than happy to include the younger ones in any games and also to watch out for them.

Dear Poirot,

Any community is artificial in the sense that it is a human construction. We are brought together by family, by place of living, by arrangement as in school or by other means. Communities may be worhwhile or not, but they all are artificial.

The artificial/natural dichotomy is usually irrelevent. In medicine a medication derived from a plant is considered natural while a medication with the identical chemical composition generated in a laboratory can have exactly the same effect. Yet "produced by natural means" is a selling point. It is more reasonable to consider the effects in making a value judgement rather than judging on the basis that something is artificial or natural.

I agree, davidf; value judgements, discretion, discrimination are dodgy concepts these days. One thing I agree with liberals on is our society is far too ordered. And education is definitely designed to produce conformism and good consumers, rather than allowing individuals to hone their strengths. Teenagers of course have a natural propensity to conform (although I never did) with the in thing. Much as state run education was a necessary step after the bad old days of Dickensian education, but now it oversteps the mark and tries to be all things for all seasons, while signally failing to be any of them. Education today is predicated as much on personal development and psychology as much as anything else. and an Eye to turn out reliable products. What are actually turned out, in droves, are dysfunctional and "fake" individuals; the ego is filled with air at the expense of the intellectual faculties. It's so nice to meet unselfconscious eccentrics--how I imagine davidf to be.

Religion! I'm far from done with idealism and spirit as a hobby, but materialism is the business of life. Organised religion is as pre-packaged as organised education and I despise the dumbed down product that's pedalled on street corners and in school grounds. All such soliciting should be banned from State Schools. In my kids' primary school (I'm friends with the deputy principle) the whole bloody lot of them are rabid Christians. I'm against chaplains in schools, but in our case it makes no difference as the chaplain is lost among the other zealots!
All things considered, there are healthy examples of us and them. We have to maintain a healthy opposition!

Dear Squeers,

I doubt that anyone who divides the world into us and them thinks that his division is unhealthy. That is one of the problems with the we/they gestalt.

I agree that organised education is designed to produce conformity. The process of socialisation by which a child is trained to enter the adult world is in general designed to produce conformity. Organised education is only one example. It is not confined to humans but a part of the training process of any social animal. This lends stability to human and non-human social groupings.

I appreciate your characterisation of me.

I believe I was an unusual teenager. I wanted to conform. I encountered those wonderful human beings with curvy bodies, long eyelashes, delightful protuberances and heavenly aromas, and I wanted them to like me. Occasionally one of those delightful creatures would spend some time with me. I was transported. Then my eyes would start to swell up and water. My nasal passages would clog. Was I allergic to them? It took a while, but I found out the problem. I was not allergic to them but allergic to orris root which was a common ingredient in cosmetics

O....k....hate to be a wet blanket on all the warm fuzzy 'inclusivemess'
(no..not a typo)

But the 100 youths beating the hell out of each other at Westfield Mt Druit were both of "Pacific Islander" background.

This most likely translates into Samoan's Vs Maories or Tongans or some kind of mix like that, though..it could just be the same group which identies locally... Mt Druit and Granville.

Plenty of we/THEM there....... but both the we/them are not us. huh ?

Errr.... hang on a moment there, Boaz.

>>But the 100 youths beating the hell out of each other at Westfield Mt Druit were both of "Pacific Islander" background. This most likely translates into Samoan's Vs Maories or Tongans or some kind of mix like that, though..it could just be the same group which identies locally... Mt Druit and Granville. Plenty of we/THEM there...<<

Aren't you the guy who thinks that us/them is what makes the world go round?

>>I am absolutely, unapologetically, forever + 1, an advocate of "us/them"<<

I would have thought that Samoans vs Maories "or some kind of mix like that" would be right up your street, up there with vibrant Bogside and the dynamic Shankill Road.

But then, consistency - even from one post to the next - is never one of your strong points, is it.

"Artificial" means

Created by people, as

Are all these comments

Shintaro

Your talent for haiku is laudable. You are one of the posters, when spied in my email, I always read; both for the precision as much for your discernment. I love to learn. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of AGIR who not only remains impervious to the views of others, but actually boasts of his prejudice - Jesus must be rolling in his grave with his hypocrisy:

>> The "us" is...those who have received Christ as their Lord and Savior, and have repented of sin....they are called "Christians"

"They" are those who have yet to receive Christ as Savior. <<

AGIR forgets his Saviour's teaching:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
"Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
"Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."
(Matthew 5.3-12 ESV)

Dear PerryMason..... you can't see where I'm coming from because of the absense of faith in your life (I mean faith in Christ).

When I say I'm an advocate of 'us/them'..I explained that very clearly.

"we" the saved.... "they" the unsaved. etc. I also outlined the disposition between 'we' (saved) and 'they' (unsaved)..and it is one of reaching out as ambassadors to achieve reconciliation between 'they' and God.

This is in stark contrast to such ideas as 'fight them..until they are subjected' That's a different form of 'us/them'...

The point about the Mt Druit brawl was simply underlining that 'us/them' is a reality which will never be overcome outside of the unity found in Christ. Even then..our humanity can sometimes overide our spiritual wisdom.. and you can see this is in Churches which are dominated by particular families or individuals. (and if you look at their history you will usually see a recent 'split')

J PARKER... on the contrary, how could I forget such teaching?

The very first words Jesus uttered in his ministry were:

14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1)

If was AFTER that message.. that he spoke on the mount. His teaching was primarily 'repent/believe' (Kingdom of God) and then.. his further teaching on the nature of the kingdom "blessed are"..etc.

May I ask.. are you among those who have repented ? If not, the opportunity is right there now. You don't need me.. a priest.. anyone...it's all between you and the Lord. If you do make that decision though, I recommend finding a supportive fellowship where you can grow.

AGIR

My religion is none of your business. How you treat others is of concern.

I would wager that more Christians disagree than agree with your inflexible and opaque understanding of Christ.

With apologies to Shintaro and Shakespeare;

AlGoreisRich will,
by any other name, remain
Odoriferous.

Dear J Parker,

IMHO AGIR seeks to derail any discussion into his area of concern. You have aided him in doing so.

Back onto 'we/they'...

The British Prime Minister.. Cameron, has finally conceded "State sponsored multiculturalism is...DEAD"

Considering it was a barely alive deformed monstrosity from the beginning.. it is little wonder that it has finally been issued with a death certificiate.

http://www.channel4.com/news/far-right-edl-and-anti-fascists-in-luton-stand-off

//The demonstration took place on the day prime Minister David Cameron told a security conference in Munich that multiculturalism had failed in the UK. The Prime Minister called for a "muscular liberalism" to challenge Islamist extremism.//

The "Demonstration" referred to was the English Defense League 'back to where it all began' rally at Luton yesterday.

I love Cameron's euphemism "Muscular" Liberalism..... code for ?

So... looks like we/they is alive and well in the UK.. and societies where odious "Multi" culturalism has been forced on them by the despised Jackboot of the forces of cultural relativism, spiritual desolation and social bankruptcy, will increasingly react against it.

If these atrociously uninformed pseudo scholars and debauched academics who drive a depraved social agenda and insidious curriculum formation don't stop trying to re-engineer our societies, and peddling their 'smut in the guise of ethics' they might find themselves given the red card of "unwelcome here" to match their red hearts.

DavidF says : “I would like to get rid of all the above nasty ideas, and get rid of all other we/they ideas that divide humanity. I know that I can’t. I do not want to deny differences, eliminate them or not recognise them. I just would like differences accepted.

Can we recognise the problems that we all have as humans, recognise our common humanity and work together to solve those problems?”

A lot hinges on what is meant by “accepted” .
If your “difference” results in you being destitute .
Does my “acceptance” entail me ( while leaving you to live as you like) continually bailing you out?

Phrases like “work together to solve the problems” have all the polish of politian-speak , but usually hide (unpleasant) ground –level truths that ‘”working together” usually entails, me bailing you out of bankruptcy but not impinging on core lifestyle choices that lead to your going bankrupt in the first place.

Dear SPQR,

Thank you. A discussion of we/they involves agreeing on the problems. Some are destitute. Every person does not have a minimum standard of living. Without an equitable distribution of resources and control of our numbers we cannot achieve a minimum standard of living for all.

I see the we/they as one of the obstacles in getting to that point.

Dear Al,

You hold up British Prime Minister, David Cameron as if he is the ultimate arbiter on cultural morality - he isn't.

In fact, he leads a government that has just decided that it's a jolly good idea to privatise Britain's forests and woodlands....now there's a we/they idea if I've ever heard one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12257835

That was so delightfully patronizing, Boaz.

>>Dear PerryMason..... you can't see where I'm coming from because of the absense of faith in your life (I mean faith in Christ)<<

Apparently, in order to understand your lack of logic or intellectual rigour, and your tendency to invent stuff on the spur of the moment, I need to have "faith in Christ".

That makes me very glad that I don't.

>>When I say I'm an advocate of 'us/them'..I explained that very clearly.<<

I certainly thought so. It went like this:

>>I am absolutely, unapologetically, forever + 1, an advocate of "us/them"<<

Now you are trying to tell us that this approach only applies in a strictly religious context. And, moreover, only in the context of your own personal interpretation of religion.

>>"we" the saved.... "they" the unsaved. etc. I also outlined the disposition between 'we' (saved) and 'they' (unsaved)..and it is one of reaching out as ambassadors to achieve reconciliation between 'they' and God.<<

I am reasonably certain - even from the limited feedback on this forum - that you do not speak for other Christians. While this is probably very good news for Christianity itself, it does rather reduce the authority of your pronouncements-from-upon-high to the status of "Boaz says".

>>The point about the Mt Druit brawl was simply underlining that 'us/them' is a reality which will never be overcome outside of the unity found in Christ.<<

The Mt. Druitt brawl was, as you say, an "us vs. them" incident. As I read about it, it occurred to me that it was highly reminiscent of a scene in "West Side Story", with two ethnic gangs fighting over "territory".

Also, I'm afraid, highly reminiscent of scenes in Belfast, where deliberate confrontations between the two religions were engineered in order to establish "territory".

Which faction - Prods or Micks - were "outside of the unity found in Christ", I wonder? More importantly, from an us/them perspective, on whose side was God?

Given that only someone belonging to "the saved" is able to unravel this mystery, perhaps you could volunteer for the task?

An excerpt from the latest NLR, below, that talks to the us and them I think is important and raise early in the thread. Of course we’re blessed with abstractions like national borders, which allow us to rationalise and us and them that just happens to be overwhelmingly in our favour.

"under capitalism, the only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited. Since the beginnings of the wage-labour economy, wageless life has been a calamity for those dispossessed of land, tools and means of subsistence. Expelled from work, the wageless also became invisible to science: politi¬cal economy, as Marx noted in the earliest formulations of his critique of the discipline, ‘does not recognize the unemployed worker’: ‘The rascal, swindler, beggar, the unemployed, the starving, wretched and criminal workingman—these are figures who do not exist for political economy but only for other eyes, those of the doctor, the judge, the gravedigger, and bum-bailiff, etc; such figures are spectres outside its domain.’1 These days, Marxism—more often seen as an example of political economy than as its critique—and other labour-based analyses face the same objection. Understandings built upon wage labour cannot, we are told, account for the reality lived by the most numerous and wretched of the world’s popu¬lation: those without wages, those indeed without even the hope of wages. Bare life, wasted life, disposable life, precarious life, superfluous life: these are among the terms used to describe the inhabitants of a planet of slums. It is not the child in the sweatshop that is our most characteristic figure, but the child in the streets, alternately predator and prey".

it seems that full stomaches ..make for dull concience's
we are all*.. equity shareholders ..in EARTH inc.

we are each
...enjoined mortal heirs ..of the immortal father ..[god/good]

the haves ...'have that they got'
by fishing the seas empty of fish
by forresting the for-rest.. into desert plains
by digging up minerals
and poluting our joint owner eaerth/waters airs

in short some think they own it all
thus they.. it must be ..who pay for the rest of it

there are those who got educated..[many for free]
who now must pay the rent

there are those who get rich off others illness
how do they sleep at night?

how much more do they expect to get
for simply colluding ..to take it all

they get govt subsides slaves
they lock up dissedent
silence freespeach

have made they comforts
while the rest of us bail them out

its time ..to either make the rich pay their own way
and return at least half of what they took by deciets and cleveness

or eat the rich

either way

its time for those who think to own it all
to return ..some ..of what they colluded to take away

Dear Poirot...

//You hold up British Prime Minister, David Cameron as if he is the ultimate arbiter on cultural morality - he isn't.//

Oh good heavens NOOOOOO! not a chance.. Cameron has simply picked the day before a massive English Defense League march in Luton to 'get up to speed' with what must be their focus group polling.

He is as much of a weasel as you could ever wish you didn't know.

All I'm pointing is that he is making the right NOISES..even if it is blatant political opportunism.

Periscope.. you're welcome. But faith in Christ has a rather unfogging effect on the brain.. truly. Your reference to the progressive understanding of "miracles" in another thread shows how much unfogging your brain needs. But.. it's a work in progress and we march on....blessings.

David.. I'm still waiting for that apology..... I don't care if you don't wish to interact.. no problem.. but you made a ghastly assertion and now I'm going to continue to remind you ... 4eva.(till you act)

Dear Agir,

I don't apologize for the truth. The Evangelical Sisterhood of St Mary, Bishop Spong and others have faced it, but you want an apology for it.

To repeat:

Evangelical Christianity and radical Islam want to make them like us. When they want to stay as they are EC & RI may feel justified in murdering the infidel. The Holocaust was partially a consequence of hundreds of years of Christian resentment at Jews wanting to continue to be Jews.

That above happens to be true.

"Unfogging", Boaz?

>>Periscope.. you're welcome. But faith in Christ has a rather unfogging effect on the brain.. truly.<<

Then perhaps you will be so kind as to unfog this for me.

"...Belfast, where deliberate confrontations between the two religions were engineered in order to establish 'territory'. Which faction - Prods or Micks - were 'outside of the unity found in Christ', I wonder? More importantly, from an us/them perspective, on whose side was God?"

Both sides professed to a "faith in Christ" - as indeed do you yourself - so one has to assume that their brains were unfogged as they beat the living daylights out of each other.

What was it that they saw, with such unfogged clarity, as they watched their on-the-wrong-team Christian brother's kneecaps dissolve in a mass of bone and gristle?

Dear AGIR,

I suggest you go to the site of the Evangelical Sisterhood of St Mary.

http://www.kanaan.org/international/israel/israel1.htm

The Guilt of Christianity Towards the Jewish People

After the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed, the question was raised: How could it have happened? The shocking truth is that the Holocaust was the culmination of centuries of hatred and violent persecution, often inspired by Christian theology.

<SKIP>

A Call to Repentance

The Catholic priest and historian Edward Flannery, reflecting on Christian anti-Semitism, observes:

'It is a tragedy in which Jesus participates, crucified again in the person of His people at the hand of many baptized in His name. The sin of anti-Semitism contains many sins, but in the end it is a denial of Christian faith, a failure of Christian hope, and a malady of Christian love. And was not this Christianity's supreme defection: that the Christian people to whom persecution was promised by its Master (John 16:2-4) was not the most persecuted people in Christendom, but rather was it the people from whom He came? And the ultimate scandal: that in carrying the burden of God in history the Jewish people did not find in the Christian churches an ally and defender but one of their most zealous detractors and oppressors? It is a story that calls for repentance.'

In the same spirit Mother Basilea writes:

'Today let us take our place at Jesus' side and look upon His people with His eyes, full of love and mercy. Then our hearts would ache to see this chosen people of God wandering through the centuries, wretched, despised, shunned, ostracized and afflicted with pain like the suffering Servant of God in Isaiah 53. Then, looking on them, we would be reminded of Him.'

Go to the site. Read what I have skipped. The truth is shocking.

I don't suppose you will ever be enlightened to your evil. I do not use the word, evil, lightly as it is not a word to be used lightly. I have used it because it is the most appropriate word I have to describe you.

Well I don't know you from a bar of soap, AGIR, but I don't you're any more "evil" than the next person (I don't think any of us are anything so grandiose), you just have a common human failing: conviction.
Isn't it more humble and less potentially dangerous to just admit that ultimately you "know" nothing?
Works for me :-)

yes david your so correct
you have proved your case

please nuke the vatican
and any nunneries ..you lot wish to take down

you were right all along
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/turkey-israel-must-apologize-for-flotilla-raid-regardless-of-un-findings-1.343606
jesus isnt the messiah

you lot are quite correct in taking any land that you want
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/haaretz-probe-idf-base-to-be-built-in-east-jerusalem-1.343540
god gave it to you..we have your word on that..
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1619436.php/First-solve-Iranian-threat-Israeli-Foreign-Minister-demands

and your word is god

you have led the world to the new way
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/06/israel-us-nuclear-non-proliferation
who needs peace ..or peacemakers..
setle it any way the settlers want to

let's serve the god of war
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115650.html
lets make the globe ..like the walled city of israel
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/02/16/0250202/On-Retirement-Israeli-General-Takes-Credit-for-Stuxnet-Attacks

the banking cartel has no links to zionists
http://www.clickondetroit.com/money/26881130/detail.html
and even so
http://dailybail.com/home/madoff-banks-knew-i-was-a-crook-nyt-interview.html

the holocaust justifies anything ..you chose to do ..now
http://uruknet.com/?p=m75024&hd=&size=1&l=e
go ahead use ya nukes

its time the goys learnt who runs this realm
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/this-blog-is-now-illegal-enter-at-your-own-risk/

learnt just who owns this world
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/offtowarwithiran.php
..learns who owns the mediterainian
or learns just who controls the us nukes too
http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/02/flashback-us-nuclear-weapons-being.html

or ..who can travel through ..the suez sewer

fly wherever you like..
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=60
what makes the lowly jordians
or them lowly palistinians..think they own their own airspace

lets forget who the first terrorsists were
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsDJ3YivBSA
http://www.defimedia.info/blogs/1253/1979-Sadat-Israel-War-Treaty-against-Palestinians-and-Muslims-not-binding-on-Egyptians.html

i couldnt find the directive to bloggers
to blog israel in a good light

anyhow good night
you serve your masters well