If someone truly, earnestly, deeply and profoundly believes in their 'chosenness', would they really be able to fully embrace democracy: a system based on absolute equality for all thru law?
How do jews reconcile their cosmic elitism with the basic principles of equality that democratic law insists on?
Are they utterly repulsed by Jeremy Corbyn's election motto: "For the many, not the few"?
If we are demanding that an 'honest' conversation is had about radical Islam without being called Islamophobic, then by the same measure we must be open to having an 'honest' conversation about radical Christianity/Buddhism/Hindusim and radical Judaism, without being called Christophobic, Buddhaphobic, Hinduphobic or an antisemite.
Equality in scrutiny: it's a sign of a balanced, inquiring society.
Let me be crystal clear: I purposely did not use the term 'zionism' in the article as I now see zionism as a fig leaf that badly behaved Jews hide behind. It is not the ideology the concerns me but the very people who gave birth to it and promote it. I do not wish to debate an abstract, inane fig-leaf but indeed I must confront its living masters - and these masters are Jewish and their so-called zionist ideology is word-for-word taken from the Jewish Talmud - I no longer see a difference between zionism and judaism . Even Gentiles who adhere to zionism are under Jewish instruction, so the Jewish fingerprint completely tents this ideology. Jews are the masters and owners of it, therefore I will reference them, only them and not the 'name' they've given their ideology. I'm also sick of debating the time-wasting spaghetti junction of zionism's many branches (right-wing zionism, liberal zionism, leftie zionism, religious zionism, religious anti-zionism, cultural zionism, anti-anti-zionism etc): all designed to confuse, derail and obscure the real culprit and purpose.
They call themselves 'jews', therefore I'll too call them 'jews'.
My new philosophical conundrum: is truth more important than people?
Tough - so goddam tough to figure this one out.
Any light shed on this question by readers would be greatly appreciated.
It's astonishing how deep the human need for gods, pharaohs, gurus and celebrities - even super rational humans look for crutches:
When Technology Becomes Religion And Science Becomes God:
I do like that story of baby-shoes dipped in brass. Not heard of it before but I have seen on my travels thru antique shops, baby-shoe sculptures made of porcelain. Thought it was just some kind of Victorian upper-class fashionable indulgence.
There is a state of mind where one can discard the paganistic concept of 'sacred' and yet positively remain in utter wonderment and appreciation of the beautiful aspects of life.
Just because the logical mind rejects the concept of 'worship at alter' for its unpleasant enslavement, it does not mean that the logical mind does not heartily and profoundly appreciate the magnificence of a thunderstorm or a dew drop glinting in sunlight.
What is behind the concept of divinity, after all, if not the experience of stunning beauty and breathtaking goodness?
LOL bintbiba - no need to apologize at all. Thank you for your suggestion. I can't spend any more time thinking about pagan eggs - I'm on total overload with egg info right now! But I will sleep on it and see how it all looks tomorrow. One thing's for sure, I'm going to have to do some lying.
It's just a question of what kind of lie I can come up with by tomorrow. Oy vey
Bornajoo, thank you for your great comment.
I am definitely not a Buddhist - especially the branches that have too many rituals - bells, candles, smoky incense, silk robes etc to me all represent pagan ritual. With all due respect to religious practitioners, I have an aversion to religious ritual - I see it as self-deluded theater for toddlers. At best, I see it as a pacifier of unsettling inquiry. Evidently, humanity has not found it possible to reach a true 'god' experience through external stimuli - only one's 'perception' of god is experienced through ritual. Seems to me that internalized, arduous, rational inquiry sans pagan distractions may be of possible value here. And I use the word 'god' for lack of a better word. If we were created as animal in body and crowned with an un-animal, rational brain, then surely somewhere within our vast-scaped mind, not outside of it, lies a direct channel to the creation-creator. Only as internalized individuals can we possibly arrive at the 'god platform'.
One must discard all images and ritual that incite or promise the evocation of god. You cannot 'ritualize' god. You cannot 'concept' god. You cannot put any adjective or man-made mask or punctuation on god. You cannot rely on existing definitions of god. You cannot assume a single glimmer of knowledge of god. This god thing is utterly unwordable, unreachable, unknowable.
The closest school that follows the above is Taoism. Yet they falter when it comes to giving females access to their hierarchy. This confirms that all religious institutions, even the best of them, Eastern and Western alike, have constitutional faults and fault lines, have inhibitors and limiters: to varying degrees they are riddled with prejudice and supremism. Fake supremism, I should add.
My non-attachment to worldly matters may fit the Buddhic template, but it's actually my rational mind that has led me to non-attachment. I mean, knowing that one's life on earth is limited, knowing that one cannot take anything material with them after death, knowing also that no one, not even the most enlightened human has ever returned from death with any sure and consequential revelation - all of this forces my mind to deduce that life is indeed temporary and materialism is of no consequence outside of terra firma - so why then umbilically attach the self to stuff that doesn't last and is of limited value? It just doesn't make sense to do this. It seems to me that to attach is to be handcuffed and blindfolded. To attach is to be illogical. Of course, it's difficult to detach from the people one loves dearly - but it is very possible to profoundly love yet love without attachment. I believe this is repeatedly practiced by animals: they love and attach to their young on a temporary basis, then love and detach when their young are ready to face the jungle alone.
I do not say here that a path of non-attachment guarantees finding 'god'. It is still to be proven that anything in this world guarantees a rendezvous with god. But what choice do I have but to be in logical non-attachment when all religions of man, past and present, have evidently failed at delivering their promise?
Regarding the principle of 'ahimsa' (non violence) towards any living thing, I cannot personally claim alignment with that - I mean, in a general sense yes, but, for instance, only yesterday I had to kill a poisonous snake in my orchard: it had backed up one of my dogs against a wall and I had to, in the sudden heat of the moment, lift a heavy nearby rock over my head with both hands and violently throw it down atop the snake's head - instantly killed it. Yes, for some five seconds, I became a weaponized cavewoman. When the danger had passed and I snapped out of this archaic state of mind, I truly felt a strong grief for the way its life had ended - but I did not feel any guilt for killing it whatsoever. Living in open countryside, you are occasionally put in compromised and life-and-death uncompromising situations. You do what you have to do - there is no place for guilt under these circumstances - grief, yes, but not guilt.
Maybe a Buddhist master may have been able to somehow peacefully lead the snake away from my cornered dog, but I certainly don't know how to do that. Although I am in non-attachment, I am not really that advanced or in full control of myself or my surrounding. This is fine by me - I have no ambition to advance. If it comes, it comes, and if it doesn't, then... well, whatever. I really don't care. I'm not on any mission to save myself or save humanity from anything. Well, except save humanity from zionism... But I'm doing it for a laugh. Something that chuckling, big-bellied Buddha himself would approve of, I'm sure
I was shocked and very disappointed when I first arrived at the idea of 'non-sacredness', but no more.
I honestly don't care and am very happy with that. It doesn't bother me not to care at all. I'm very happy not to care. I feel liberated for it. I seek nothing anymore - I have no more desires and no more ambitions, thank god (if you'll pardon the pun).
All I have right now is my simple and satisfying life in the countryside, and my ISness. I'm traveling light for the rest of the journey, and I love it.
Okay so I didn't feel like telling lies yesterday and today I don't feel like lying either - so I haven't yet resolved the pagan egg drama yet. Needless to say, my home and garden help are still a tad aloof with each other and they tried to open the subject with me again, separately, to put their case forward again, but I just waved it off and said I was still thinking about it.
I know what I have to say - I just have to psych myself into it first. Basically, I have to stoop seriously low and fix it a-la Hillary Clinton (and 99% of politicians): make 2 opposing statements on the same issue.
When the time is right (probably tomorrow), I will lie and tell my gardener that I got inspired to eat the egg this morning so it's in me now and Allah will not be offended - I will also swear him to secrecy (on his children's lives and the holy Quran) not to tell the housekeeper that I ate the egg, but to say that I had decided to keep the egg to myself.
Then, I will proceed to give the egg to my housekeeper - I will make her swear on the bible and her kids not to tell the gardener as this will upset him - that she should avoid a conversation about the egg with him, but that if she was put on the spot, to say that I kept the egg to myself.
This way, both will feel that their knowledge scores one hundred and not the offensive "zero".
And that would be the end of that.
So, today, paganism created a little conflict in my household. Here's what happened:
My gardener is a 29 year old Syrian Muslim. He lives with his wife and three little girls in a cottage by the main gate of my farmhouse compound. Apart from taking care of my lawn, trees, flowers and organic veg garden, he also does some driving for me and takes care of the chickens I keep. He is a wonderful family man, exceptionally polite and accommodating, relaxed, honest, and prays to Allah five times a day.
My housekeeper is a Christian Filipino - she's a 36 year old mother of three (her kids live with their deadbeat dad in the Philippines). She's a very sweet country bumpkin, always smiling, hard-working: cleans, cooks for me and helps me with my 5 rescue dogs. Before she came to live with me, she had never before slept in a bed, never cooked indoors, never opened a fridge door or operated a washing machine - she'd lived a dirt-poor life, sheltered from the progressive world by the slums and poverty of her isolated village - but, her rustic gullibility is positively charming and she is very kind, especially to animals. She lives with me and the dogs in the main farmhouse; she has a very elaborate and colorful alter to Jesus in her bedroom, she prays every night at bedtime and she religiously goes to church every Sunday.
My gardener speaks Arabic with a tad of English he's picked up from me. My housekeeper's mother-tongue is Ilocano and she's picked up a little English from me and a smidgen of Arabic from my gardener. I (of course) speak English and also what in Lebanon they call 'Armenian Arabic' (broken Arabic). The common language often used in my household is therefore Pidgin English. (Being a wordsmith, I often detest having to resort to Pidgin English, but I bite my tongue and use it for the sake of convenience and expedience of communication).
I've had both gardener and housekeeper living and working at the farmhouse for a couple of years now and despite our vast differences, everybody gets along pleasantly and harmoniously.
But today was different.
My gardener brought in some fresh eggs, like he usually does, and among the eggs today was this tiny one: this tiny egg that's a forth of the size of a normal egg. Apparently, it's pornographically called a cock egg, or, the more family-friendly: rooster egg: an egg that's laid by a cockerel, not a hen! Indeed, a very rare phenomenon, my gardener said. Being an urbanite for most of my life, I'd never heard of it till today and I'd certainly never seen anything like it before, but both my gardener and my housekeeper had, and both certainly had very strong opinions about it.
All three of us huddled close over the kitchen table, our eyes pouring over and admiring this little egg: it was an absolutely adorable and perfect little miniature, you know, a stunning and impeccably curved creation; and for a few seconds, I inspected it with gentle fingers and with utter fascination. I asked if it was generally safe to eat a rooster egg and my gardener and housekeeper, they both simultaneously and excitedly yelled out two opposing answers at the same time: one shouted 'yes' in one ear, the other a firm 'no' in the other. Their loud and confusing outburst startled me and I took a step back from the table. It confused me even further to now see them stare each other down with hostility.
And like so this ludicrous pagan argument went circular and on till it drove me nuts and I stopped it with firm hand gestures. When all was calm again, I proceeded to question each on the thinking behind their answers.
My housekeeper, though a life-long devout Christian, believes that this rare rooster egg is very powerful: that if broken for any reason, it unleashes evil forces, therefore it must remain intact, placed in a small box and hidden in the dark of a stored suitcase, thus eventually bringing wealth and fortune to the owner of the suitcase. That's the kind of power it has, she insisted. Emotional, she begged me to keep the rooster egg for herself. Because I really didn't care about the egg, I wanted to say yes then and there to indulge her, but decided to google 'rooster egg' first and find out more about the quirky little bugger. I told my housekeeper that I would think about it.
My gardener, himself a life-long religious Muslim, he too attributed magical powers to the rooster egg. His native farmland lore says that when a rooster egg is laid, it is a very special blessing from Allah, that it brings good fortune and that it would be an offense to Allah for the owner of the rooster not to eat the little egg. Visibly worried, he said that if a second party ate the tiny egg, or a rat assaulted and broke it, then a terrible tragedy will strike the rooster's owner (yikes that be me!). He advised me to eat it as soon as possible and I assured him that I would, while crossing my fingers behind my back.
So now I have this pagan egg drama going on in my house. I have no idea how I'm going to resolve it. I'll have to find a way that doesn't upset either gardener or housekeeper - one that hopefully doesn't involve me having to eat the darn thing either cuz I'm now totally turned off. I will sleep on it and see what happens tomorrow.
But in the meantime, I googled rooster egg and was stunned to find so much folk literature on the subject. But confusingly too, some scientific information on the phenomenon is contradictory. Some sites claim it as an impossibility, a rooster being male and all, while other sites claim that a rooster can have sudden and temporary reverse-genderization (or is it genderification?) and would under these rare, biological-hormonal anomalies be able to lay an egg, albeit a small dud one. Anyway, these rooster eggs apparently have no yoke, hence the small size. Some say that the chicken that lays a rooster egg is a weak chicken that must be rushed to the vets and hooked up to feeding drips. Others say to slaughter that chicken quick because it's possessed by a sickly, contagious spirit.
And this, dear reader, is the problem with internet research: often you get contradictory information that you have to somehow discern for yourself. This is also the problem with paganism: too many contradictions for any consistency, efficiency, or long term system-unification to ever occur. A problem too when monotheist are not really monotheists in their internal machinations - and they don't realize this inconsistency in themselves. They are externalized monotheists but internalized pagans. I think most of humanity is in this state of being, regardless of what religion they follow.
I can't believe how much time was spent on this little egg today - I'm vexed about this kind of waste of time and I have a mind to smash that celebrated little egg in front of both my gardener and housekeeper, point at the broken shell and egg-ooze and say: There! You see! No good no bad no god no gold here, just egg, just small-small egg, okay?!
But I can't do that now, can I? They're such sweet people and I don't want to traumatize their fragile belief systems. It's their right to live in whatever mental realm they choose, in whatever fantastical universe they determine best suits them. And besides, what steady alternative would I have to offer them if I were to shatter their beliefs? My current world view is immersed in an ideology of nothingness. All I have to give is a solid nothing.
It's impossible to sell nothingness as a religion. And that, my dear readers, is why I'm very fond of it. You can't buy this nothingness and you can't sell it either. It just dawns on you out of the blue.
Or. It doesn't.
For seven decades Western media (under zionist instruction) has laughed at and accused Arab media of spreading lies and conspiracy theories about israel. Turns out that the Arabs were onto the israeli deceptions from day one and the real fools are the Western public who believed what their zionist media and politicians were telling them.
Ryan Dawson, the young dude who made the documentary below is being attacked and hounded out of social media by the zionist/jewish internet army. If you like his work, please support him and his excellent research by subscribing to his youtube channel:
© Copyright Plato's Guns 2015