Document talk:Jewarchy
A different POV
You say: "A word coined to denote the corruption that is so widespread in the Jewish community". Corruption is widespread everywhere. Probabely most people killed on this earth were killed by people who labeled themselves "Christians". The label itself has no meaning. Is that clear?
The point is not to switch from hating all Jews or Christians or Muslims to a part of what you label as such - but to eliminate hate itself.
Do you see my point? Did you come here to promote your personal page? Or to do some sort of propaganda? --Urban (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2016 (GMT)
- We can do without ad-hominems of the sort demonstrated in the last sentence above please. There is indeed widespread corruption everywhere, and what Urban says about people calling themselves Christians is arguable, but I don't agree that labels are meaningless or unhelpful; neither do I see Wikibear as promoting hate - that is a historically VERY Jewish 'gotcha' response to pretty well any and every criticism that the guardians of Judaic orthodoxy don't like - just as an 'antisemite' in its current usage is more accurately defined as a person feared/disliked by Jews, rather than a person who hates Jews. The plain fact is that, other than to affirm the alleged 'eternal suffering' of Jews at the hands of Gentiles, the 'J' word has become absolute taboo in the west. Those who argue differently in Europe wrt to WWII earn themselves a prison sentence; elsewhere (especially the UK/US) they will be disqualified from political and academic life. Those facts alone should tell you that Judaism, its 'Jewish identity politics' (per Gilad Atzmon) and the effects of specifically Jewish interests on the history of the past 150 years in particular, are in dire need of some serious scrutiny. But a better framework for such scrutiny and analysis is - IMO to adopt Judaism's OWN categories of Jew and Gentile; it makes matters much simpler too. --Peter P (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2016 (GMT)
- Peter, sure there is a strategy to use power over others by guilt induction. I am not suggesting we fall for that strategy by avoiding the topic. In contrary, let's be very clear about it! But suggesting to hate those using violent strategies just adds more violence on top. I hope we consent that there is enough violence on the planet and we do not want to add to it? This verbatim quote is scary for me: "Blomstrom finally settled on anti-Jewarchism as an appropriate term for people who have nothing against ordinary Jews but hate or are opposed to the full spectrum of Jewish corruption, including but not limited to Zionism. It's similar to a person hating the Sicilian Mafia without directing hate at all Italians." I don't see a way to peaceful conflict resolution or a deeper understanding of the control and guilt mechanism at work. Quite the opposite. Is there anybody who "deserves" that hate is directed against him or her? Is there such a thing as "righteous anger"? --Urban (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2016 (GMT)
Urban wrote, "You say: 'A word coined to denote the corruption that is so widespread in the Jewish community'. Corruption is widespread everywhere. Probabely most people killed on this earth were killed by people who labeled themselves 'Christians'. The label itself has no meaning. Is that clear?"
Yes - clear as mud.
Seriously, that comment makes absolutely no sense. OF COURSE, there's corruption everywhere, and there are different names for that corruption: The Sicilian Mafia, the Russian Mafia, the Spanish Inquisition.
Today, many people are concerned about ZIONISM. Many others are concerned about what are loosely called JEWISH BANKERS. I was surprised to discover only recently that there is (or was) a Jewish Mafia that worked with the Italian Mafia; in fact, the top gangster in Cuban was Meyer Lansky (a Jew).
Yes, there are plenty of corrupt Christians. I've written lots of material condemning Christians. I've also taken some potshots at whites in general, and I'm sometimes forced to look in a mirror - as everyone should.
This particular article is about corruption in the Jewish community. And, pound for pound, you have to admit the Jewish community packs a powerful punch.
URBAN: "The point is not to switch from hating all Jews or Christians or Muslims to a part of what you label as such - but to eliminate hate itself."
On that I disagree. Hate is a natural emotion that evolved for a purpose, similar to love. It needs to be controlled and properly channeled. But eliminated? You should visit Seattle and observe the legions of apathetic stooges who look the other way while children are screwed in our privatized schools. If no one gets angry over the destruction of the rainforest and the sea, then we're lost.
URBAN: "Did you come here to promote your personal page? Or to do some sort of propaganda?"
Actually, you're the one who appears to be dishing out the propaganda. Are you Jewish?
I launched my Jewarchy campaign several months ago. As referenced in the article, I'm being blacklisted by Google. In fact, only the Russian and Chinese search engines Yandex and Baidu indexed www.jewarchy.com until very recently.
I thought publishing an article here would give the idea more exposure and help direct traffic to www.jewarchy.com at the same time. That's called LOGIC.
I also want to solicit more ideas from the community. But, to be brutally blunt, I was hoping for something of higher caliber than you've offered.
Here's another example. You wrote, "This verbatim quote is scary for me: 'Blomstrom finally settled on anti-Jewarchism as an appropriate term for people who have nothing against ordinary Jews but hate or are opposed to the full spectrum of Jewish corruption, including but not limited to Zionism. It's similar to a person hating the Sicilian Mafia without directing hate at all Italians.'
"I don't see a way to peaceful conflict resolution or a deeper understanding of the control and guilt mechanism at work. [What does THAT mean???] Quite the opposite. Is there anybody who 'deserves' that hate is directed against him or her? [YES!] Is there such a thing as 'righteous anger'? [YES!]"
Anger and even name-calling are forms of ACCOUNTABILITY. When a person robs a bank or murders someone, we don't give him a box of chocolates. Friends and relatives of the victims get ANGRY. They may HATE him. Even worse, he'll probably spend time in prison. Locking a person up in a cage for a year - or a couple decades - is one of the most extreme forms of hate imaginable.
Yet some form of punishment is needed to deter people from committing crimes. One of the reasons our government is out of control is the fact that there's almost zero accountability. Corrupt politicians can steal trillions of dollars and torture and murder people by the thousands without fear of being punished. It's even getting harder to criticize them or call them names, because an army of propagandists bungle the criticism while an army of civility freaks cry foul over the name calling.
If you follow current events, you should know the Jewarchists aren't getting more powerful by playing nice. They call names, they incite hatred and torture and murder. The word "antisemitism" is central to their propaganda campaign. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think countering it with "antijewarchism" is a stroke of genius.
But one size doesn't fit all. The anti-Jewarchism campaign won't succeed until the word is used and supported by large numbers of people. I would expect some of these people to be perfectly polite and "professional." But I would also expect Muslims whose lives have been shattered and who are thirsting for revenge to latch on to Jewarchy as a weapon they can use to strike back.
- I agree there should be no place for hatred of a person, a people, or a group of people, however defined or identified (ie race, religion, nationality etc). To that extent I also share your unease about the the piece you quote and think it should be modified. I also agree that violence can NEVER be a solution to any problem - which does not mean that I would not defend myself with violence if immanently threatened with it. However, I have no problem with hatred of a concept, or a philosophy or tenet of religion or any other abstract construction. As for the substantive subject - Jewish Power - ANY discussion of it has become absolute taboo in the West and thus, by definition, ought to be covered here on Wikispooks. I have suggested that the current Jewarchy page be changed to an author-ascribed document and frankly I would also like to see some changes per the things discussed here in it too. I will move it to the Document namespace and create a new page that simply explains the concept and which will list the document in the SMWDocs section. --Peter P (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2016 (GMT)
Let's say there are three broad ways we can treat corporate pedophiles (i.e. corporate power brokers who exploit children, whether or not they are literally pedophiles): 1) We can love them; 2) We can hate them; 3) We can look at them without bias.
Sorry, but there's no way I'm going to embrace a person like Obama or Bill Gates. Could I compromise and look at them without emotion?
Well, suppose you're walking down a sidewalk when you encounter three guys kicking a puppy to death. Can you look me in the eye and tell me you'd just keep on walking, devoid of emotion?
My biggest heroes include Gaddafi, Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez and Malcolm X. They all hated passionately. Che Guevara, in particular, held evil people accountable. That's one of the reasons I rever them. At the same time, they knew how to channel their hatred. They weren't deranged sadists; they simply stood up to evil people, calling a spade a spade. After the Cuban Revolution, Che Guevara executed people. But it wasn't like the Spanish Inquisition or Stalinist Russia. He did a job that needed to be done, then moved on.
- Thank you, David for answering my questions. Seems you feel a lot of anger and rage. But what makes you so angry? --Urban (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2016 (GMT)
- I haven't time to format the above epistle properly so I've bounded it and Urban's reply with horizontal lines to make things more understandable. This reply addresses its content.
- Ad-hominems will not be tolerated on Wikispooks. Attack the argument-logic-content NOT the person. If Wikibear really does hate people, rather than what they do, say and/or apparently believe, then his presence here will become more problematical than it already is.
- Wikibear tells of his 2015 awakening to the realities of Jewish power. That is assuredly a welcome start. However, there are people here who have studied the subject full-time and near single-mindedly for over 10 years; there are thousands of others who have made it their lifetime work and served prison terms for nothing more than non-violent efforts to inform others of their findings; and still others who have had their careers destroyed for the same reason. So, I suggest that Wikibear takes control of his understandable anger at what he has discovered to date and do a bit more learning before sounding off at others who could likely teach him a thing or two about Deep Politics and the role of Judaism within it.
- Wikibear's relative naivity on the subject of Jewish power is well illustrated by his use of the phrase neo-nazi web site in his article. Where does he think that term originates and who does he think it benefits from such useage? I suggest it is as misleading and no less insidious in its effects as antisemitic web-site for example. The rabbit hole he peeked down in 1915 is deep and labyrinthine in its complexities; from the evidence here to date, he has has a lot more exploring ahead of him.
- Thoughtful considered contributions on the topic of Judaic power are both needed and wecome on Wikispooks. Unmediated anger in masses of disputatious verbiage is not.
- --Peter P (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2016 (GMT)
- * * * *
Peter wrote, "If Wikibear really does hate people, rather than what they do, say and/or apparently believe, then his presence here will become more problematical than it already is."
That's a nonsensical statement. I hate people BECAUSE of what they do. Take Obama or Bill Gates, for example. If you don't hate them, you aren't with the program. You'd fit in with the people here in "liberal Seattle," where everyone is dumbed down and beaten down. The puppeteers themselves endlessly preach the gospel of civility - for a reason.
"Wikibear tells of his 2015 awakening to the realities of Jewish power. That is assuredly a welcome start. However, there are people here who have studied the subject full-time and near single-mindedly for over 10 years; there are thousands of others who have made it their lifetime work and served prison terms for nothing more than non-violent efforts to inform others of their findings; and still others who have had their careers destroyed for the same reason."
Actually, my career was destroyed, too. I was also physically assaulted and nearly killed one night. I don't need a lecture on sacrifices.
"So, I suggest that Wikibear takes control of his understandable anger at what he has discovered to date and do a bit more learning before sounding off at others who could likely teach him a thing or two about Deep Politics and the role of Judaism within it."
Again, watch the arrogance. I've been deeply involved in politics for a long time, and I live in what Che Guevara called the heart of the beast. I'm not naive.
"Thoughtful considered contributions on the topic of Judaic power are both needed and wecome on Wikispooks. Unmediated anger in masses of disputatious verbiage is not."
"Unmediated anger"??? Dude, I have perfect control over my anger. I worry about people who are so detached they feel no anger at all. That isn't normal; it isn't healthy.
It looks to me like this isn't really a serious political site at all. To be brutally blunt, it looks like another example of what's commonly known as "controlled opposition." I really have no interest in making further contributions to this site beyond the article Jewarchy if you're going to play these kinds of games.
Huh?
When I signed up as an editor, I was warned to NOT use anything other than the Document tag, because people would hack my articles, Wikipedia style. So I created an article about Jewarchy with a Document tag. Then you moved it to a more confusing URL (wiki/Document:Jewarchy) and created a new article about Jewarchy with a different tag that can be edited by anyone. Since the original article linked to a page with my name, I figured I should write something about myself. So I did - again, using the Document tag. Then you changed it to a Person tag, allowing anyone to edit it. You did all these things without asking or notifying me.
When I checked just now, I just discovered that BOTH of my Jewarchy articles have been deleted, again without any notification or explanation.
I want the David Blomstrom page (wiki/David_Blomstrom) page deleted, too. I don't want a personal biography that can be edited and hacked by anyone. In fact, I don't want anything relating to me or my projects on your website at all. This site has so many problems, I don't even know where to begin. I want nothing to do with you. Delete the page at wiki/David_Blomstrom.
- I have neither the time nor inclination to enter into extended disputation with you. You clearly did not read much if any of the site guidlines on editing, style, behaviour what does/does not constitute a 'Document' on Wikispooks and you have misunderstood what I took time to tell you about those things - especially the 'document' matter. Both articles were problematic in most of those areas and your anger made it impossible to reason with you. The upshot is that you are unlikely to be welcome as an editor here. On the 'David Bromstrom' page: you are a public figure active in politics and seeking personal publicity through your own web sites. Try telling Wikipedia, or any other publication to delete factual information that they may choose to publish about you and see how far you get. Same applies here but, since the page is hardly of major importance in the scheme of things, I'll propose it for deletion anyway. Best of luck with your campaigning btw. --Peter P (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2016 (GMT)
Suggested edits
Can I suggest that WikiBear (The author) take note of the above criticisms and consider the suggested changes. Also, whilst it is OK to use html tags for text formatting, it is much preferred that wikitext tags be used instead, because they are much simpler and make text editing much easier to sort out visually. See Help:Formatting. You might also find it easier to use the 'edit with form' option when creating/editing documents.
Important: Now that this is a regular document page, it needs to be edited to use first rather than third person grammar - Other changes may also be appropriate during that process --Peter P (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2016 (GMT)
- Where can I find a list of wikitext tags? (David Blomstrom, January 11, 2016)
- I provided you with a link above. Here it is again See Help:Formatting --Peter P (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2016 (GMT)
