Even Henry Ford, whose notorious anti-Semitic publication, The International Jew—The World’s Foremost Problem, made him the object of Hitler’s admiration, wrote in that infamous composition: “Modern reformers, who are constructing model social systems on paper, would do well to look into the social system under which the early Jews were organized.”
Not only The Book of Zohar, but numerous Jewish scholars and sages wrote that the unity of Israel will save them and save the world. The book, Sefat Emet, writes, “The children of Israel corrected the world … when they returned to being one nation and one language. And also individually … the correction should be that we are rewarded with correcting ourselves and finding the root of unity out of the separation.”
Fyi,,, their is a difference between Jewish and jews. Jewish is a religious, jew is a nation of people. The bible tells us who the real jews are and they is not the peole who live over there in Israel now today. The so-called jews that is over in israel today is called kazares (russians). The bible tells us that the jews was going. Back into slavery on ships with yokes of iron on they necks to a land they never seen and they will be sold as bondman and bondwemans. The only people who fit the bible prophecy is the so-called african american. No white people or any other nation fit that prophecy. Why did yall steal my people identity? Don’t believe me,, research it for yourself.
Israel: God of all waits on your cry to him in the name of Jesus.
Your land belongs to God and not just that little piece of land your on that has the Middle East foaming like pigs that they are. But also Gaza, Egypt, Jordan, Persia “Iran” turkey, the ottoman empire. “These and more was give to Abraham, conquered by Joshua, and king David, and right in that region once stood the beginning of time and earth… the garden of Eden. Benjamin you have great wisdom and patience from God you were chosen for a time like this… Armageddon. There will be no more war after this. If you give God all the glory for every victory you bleed for. He has promised vengeance to those who oppose the apple of his eye; your enemies will be slaughtered by his wrath. There will be a time were be a time were even the powerful I.D.F. will down in two days giving the land time for refuge read the whole word of God all 66 books I am an pagan who took Christ to heart he came and promised to come back in great power, that’s why the orthodox Jews did not receive his visitation the first time. Please get right with the Christ today, they call him Yeshua. Just a taught but push Gaza into the Mediterranean sea and see if rats swim. That land shall not be divided ever, if so damnation comes on the world and Christ will come and take those who call on his name off this earth till all opposition is gone. Shalom.
So, yes, it makes sense then, that a money changer table turning over, in your face and exposing the fraud of the demonic levitical ruling class kind of guy would be immensely hated by his target. And it seems entirely plausible this guy, Jesus, would be perceived as a threat. Now, let’s see … the people with the power, and money are threatened … hmmmm. And the next thing you know, Jesus is dead. But the modern ‘jew’ forefathers had nothing to do with that. No! Impossible! hahahaha
At the time Churchill penned the essay, astronomers favoured a theory that had planets form when stars ripped material off one another as they swept past. Because such encounters were bound to be rare, he reasoned that our sun might be alone in hosting planets. But Churchill proved a good sceptic. “I am not sufficiently conceited,” he writes,” to think that my sun is the only one with a family of planets.” His intuition was right. Astronomers have now spotted thousands of planets beyond the solar system.
Step by step, Churchill reaches a view and expresses it a final sentence that mixes despair with optimism. He writes: “I, for one, am not so immensely impressed by the success we are making of our civilisation here that I am prepared to think we are the only spot in this immense universe which contains living, thinking creatures, or that we are the highest type of mental and physical development which has ever appeared in the vast compass of space and time.”
Richard Toye, professor of history at Exeter University, and author of three books on Churchill, said the great wartime leader wrote scores of newspaper and magazine articles before he took office to fund his expensive lifestyle. It was not unknown for Churchill to jot down notes and pay a ghostwriter to flesh a piece out for him.
A century later, the Japanese "bullet train" would be one of the technological wonders of the world, surpassing anything available in the United States. But, before this happened, a major cultural transformation had to take place among the Japanese people. A painful awareness of their own backwardness spread through Japan. Western nations in general and the United States in particular were held up as models to their children. Japanese textbooks urged imitation of Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin, even more so than Japanese heroes. Many laments about their own shortcomings by the Japanese of that era would today be called "self-hate." But there were no cultural relativists then to tell them that what they had achieved was just as good, in its own way, as what others had. Instead, the Japanese overcame their backwardness, through generations of dedicated work and study, rather than redefining it out of existence.
Both the British and the Japanese became renowned for their ability to absorb the ideas and the technology of others and to carry them forward to higher levels. So did the Scots. At one time, it was common for Scots to blindly imitate the English, even using an English plow that proved to be unsuitable for the soil of Scotland. Yet, once they had absorbed what the English had to offer, the Scots then surpassed the English in some fields, notably medicine and engineering.
History does not offer blueprints for the present but it does offer examples and insights. If nothing else, it can warn us against becoming mesmerized by the heady visions and soaring rhetoric of the moment.
One of the most seductive visions of our time is the vision of "fairness" in a sense that the word never had before. At one time we all understood what was meant by a "fair fight." It meant that both fighters fought by the same Marquis of Queensbury rules. It did not mean that both fighters had equal strength, skill, experience or other factors that would make them equally likely to win.
In today's conception of fairness, only when all have the same prospects of winning is the fight fair. It was not in The Nation or some other left-wing magazine, but in the neoconservative quarterly The Public Interest that we find opportunity equated with "the same chance to succeed" or "an equal shot at a good outcome"-- regardless of the influence of social, cultural, or family background.
This confusion between the fairness of rules and the equality of prospects is spreading across the political spectrum. Regardless of which of these two things might be considered preferable, we must first be very clear in our own minds that they are completely different, and often mutually incompatible, if we are to have any hope of a rational discussion of policy issues ranging from anti-trust to affirmative action.
To add to the confusion, when prospects are not the same for all, this is then blamed on "the system" or "the rules of the game," as Brookings Senior Fellow Isabel V. Sawhill does in the Spring issue of The Public Interest. Rules and standards are the creation of particular human beings but circumstances need not be. Ms. Sawhill herself includes "good genes" among the circumstances which affect economic inequalities, and we might add all sorts of other geographic, demographic, cultural and historical factors that were not created by today's "rules of the game" or by "the system" or by anyone currently on the scene.
It makes sense to blame human beings for biased rules and standards. But who is to be blamed for circumstances that are the results of a confluence of all sorts of conditions of the past and present, interacting in ways that are hard to specify and virtually impossible to disentangle? Unless we wish to start a class action suit against geography or against the cosmos or the Almighty, we need to stop the pretense that somebody is guilty whenever the world does not present a tableau that suits our desires or fits our theories.
This new kind of "fairness" has never existed anywhere at any time. The real world has always been astronomically remote from any such condition. Nor are the costs and risks of trying to achieve this cosmic fairness small.
Crime rates soared when our courts began to concern themselves with such things as the unhappy childhoods of violent criminals or the "root causes" of crime in general. Those who paid the highest price for these excursions into cosmic justice were not the judges or the theorists whose notions the judges reflected, but the victims of rape, murder and terrorization by hoodlums.
The same preoccupation with "fairness" in some cosmic sense has often turned our anti-trust laws into ways of penalizing those whose lower costs enable them to sell profitably to the public at lower prices than those of their competitors who are struggling to survive. Here again there is often a pretense of villainy enshrined in rhetoric about "predatory" pricing or "domination" or "control" of the market. And here again there are third parties who lose-- the consumers.
Equating an absence of cosmic justice with villainy has become common in employment law as well. Companies whose employees do not statistically mirror the ethnic composition of the local labor force can be found guilty of "discrimination," even if no one can find a single employee or job applicant who has been treated unfairly by having different rules or standards applied to his or her work or qualifications.
Do we as individuals and as a nation wish that others less fortunate had our blessings? We should and we do. But our blessings as a nation did not consist of having other nations give us foreign aid. The blessings of individuals who have achieved in life have seldom taken the form of having others accept mediocre performances from them or make excuses for their counterproductive behavior.
Almost as mushy as the quest for cosmic justice is the notion that the alternative is to "do nothing" about the gross disparities in prospects that are common around the world. There has never been a moment in the entire history of the United States when we have done nothing. There are innumerable things that still need to be done, but spreading confusion is not one of them.
I have a notion that genius knows itself; that Dickinson chose her seclusion, knowing she was exceptional and knowing what she needed. It was, moreover, no hermetic retreat, but a seclusion which included a wide range of people, of reading and correspondence. He sister Vinnie said, “Emily is always looking for the rewarding person.” And she found, at various periods, both women and men: her sister-in-law Susan Gilbert, Amherst visitors and family friends such as Benjamin Newton, Charles Wadsworth, Samuel Bowles, editor of the Springfield Republican, and his wife; her friends Kate Anthon and Helen Hunt Jackson, the distant but significant figures of Elizabeth Barrett, the Brontës, George Eliot. But she carefully selected her society and controlled the disposal of her time. Not only the “gentlewomen in plush” of Amherst were excluded; Emerson visited next door but she did not go to meet him; she did not travel or receive routine visits; she avoided strangers. Given her vocation, she was neither eccentric nor quaint; she was determined to survive, to use her powers, to practice necessary economies.