Post by RPankn on Dec 4, 2005 0:30:50 GMT -5
Another "liberal" Zionist gatekeeper. This has to be the most illogical and emotionally manipulative piece of crap I've read in awhile; probably since David Brooks claimed the use of the word "neocon" was an epithet for Jews. Keep enabling the neocons Gillard, and the final destruction of this country will be on your head too.
From Steve Gillard's blog:
Old fashioned Jew Hatred
The thing about American anti-semitism is that is is a disease, like herpes, which hides, then comes out, but has never really gone away. There has been a desire to pretend it's in the American past, but the reality is that the various strains of anti-semitic activity in the US has come in waves.
The 1930's was the highpoint, but the 1960's saw a race-based revival.
The current wave of anti-semitic activity, couched in code words and hints, hasn't reached threats and violence, yet, but as familiar themes, like the corruption of the media and the attacks on Christianity reach a fever pitch, that isn't unlikely.
[Has Gillard spent any time at DU? Every day there's at least a dozen threads which equate all Christians with the fundamentalist sects, followed by a broad-brushed bashing of every denomination for the beliefs of a minority sect. When they're not bashing fundamentalism, they're transposing the views of the Holy See on every last Catholic on the planet and bashing them. They aren't that far apart from the Right in this respect because both views are simply an irrational fear bred by their own ignorance. It's especially dispicable in the case of so-called "liberals" because for people who are supposed to be "open minded" and "progressive," they're too lazy to do their research, or use their critical thinking skills, and instead resort to groupthink.]
So how did we get here?
Into the 1960's, there was a strong black-Jewish political alliance. But as Jews assimilated into the American middle class, their interests with blacks diminished. Also, blacks were lured by the appeal of Islam as a "authentic" black religion, until people reseached and found that Arabs also owned slaves and treated blacks as second class citizens.
Conservatives used their affinity for Israel to gain inroads to Jewish support, while playing up ethnic conflict between blacks and Jews to imply widespread anti-semitism within the black community. Jesse Jackson's Hymietown comment and Louis Farrakhan's speeches were given a great deal of attention by the Anti-Defamation League, to the point where people believed that the two communities had divergent interests, and many felt that ADL head Abraham Foxman had an animus towards blacks.
[Slippery logic, and I'm not even sure what Gillard's point is here; he gets paid to write this? Anyway, how are the actions of the ADL, or its president, that of conservatives in general? Abe Foxman is certainly a "conservative" Jew in the religious sense, but he is not the face of the political conservative movement. Or is Gillard implying that Jackson, Farrakhan and Foxman are plants or shills? Now that's a conspiracy theory.]
But lurking in the background were people like Pat Buchanan, who's admiration of fascist ideology and resentment of Israel is widely known. [For Pete's sake, Gillard, anti-Israel does not equal anti-semetic. You've lost whatever credibility you had by repeating this lie. Furthermore, Buchanan is friends with Lynn Samuels for Christ's sake, so how can he be an anti-semite? Also, Buchanan's views may be extreme at times -- I think he's wrong on social policy -- but he's certainly not a fascist.] In 1992, he delivered a memorable Republican convention speech which attacked "Hollywood". Warren Beatty called it anti-semitic, and with good reason, but was laughed at. People didn't want to believe it.
[Why should anyone listen to Warren Beatty on bigotry? He's not that great of an actor and his status as a has been in Hollywood is deserved. Probably the only reason anyone in my generation knows who is, is because he dated Madonna and she wrote a song about him after the break up. But besides that, why should we consider a wealthy, sheltered, pampered star an authority on anything? Can he read Buchanan's mind? Lynn Samuels doesn't seem to have a problem with Buchanan, but then Samuels doesn't equate anti-Israel with anti-semitism, or see Jew baiters lurking everywhere either.]
Move forward to 2005, and Foxman gives a similar speech and Jews are divided on how to respond. Some fear upsetting their "allies", others think that he's mistaken. A few get what he was saying.
The irony is that blacks and Jews have always realized that their fates are effectively intertwined. Underneath every racist is an anti-semite and underneath every anti-semite is a racist. While exploiting and heightening their differences, fundamentalists convinced Jews that they supported a Jewish Israel, and played on the deep religiocity of the black community, meaning neither well.
[Not so fast Gillard. Who's really taking advantage of who here, the evangelicals of the Zionists, or vice versa? That argument could go either way. I am sick and tired of crappy essay after crappy essay which give an evil, conniving, hate-filled man like Sharon a pass as a "victim" of "scapegoating," when Sharon is clearly no idiot and knows what he does. In the case of Black churches, no matter what race or ethnicity, you can always find at least one person willing to put their their personal ambition over the well-being of the community -- the Chalabi cousins, for instance.]
A Salon article on this suggested that Jews were alone in the fight to keep a secular society, which I felt was untrue for this reason. The "Christianity" promoted by the fundies on the right excludes blacks as well as Jews. Brothers in Christ means white brothers in Christ in many cases.
[Jesus, Gillard, have you ever spoken to a Black Evengelical, or a Latino Evangelical? How about a Black or Latino fundamentalist Muslim? They're just as bad as any White Evangelical. Do you think that their race makes their brand of hatred any better? Such a statement also has a streak of racism to it, so it's not only the White fundies, Gillard.]
A famous reverend on the West Coast, Fredrick Price, was doing fellowship with a white minister, who told him he would never let his daughter marry a black man. That shook Price deeply. Why? I have no idea. The racism of many fundamentalist Churches lies on the surface, not hidden away.
[And I've known many Jews who told me point blank that they would only date Black people, but never marry them, or tell their parents they were dating one, because they "had" to marry another Jew. I've also known Jews who would never consider dating a Gentile. Glass houses, Gillard. Glass houses.]
A few months ago, I ripped into Amy Sullivan for repeating anti-semitic code words, words which she didn't even realize were anti-semitic. Which is how code words work. So you can get a Joe Lieberman decrying the video game industry, and Ted Stevens attacking Howard Stern for indecency and it seems ok. But then you get ranting about the "War on Christmas" and no one adds it up. At the very least,its using coded language which harks back to the most brutal anti-semitic language of the last century.
[Are you smoking crack, Gillard? What in the hell are you talking about? This "war on Christmas" b.s. is a ploy to get Bush's fundamentalist base revved up, as well as distract them from other issues, by giving them something to whine and feel "persecuted" about -- something Zionists should easily recognize as such, since essays like this one are written to serve the same purpose for "liberal" Zionists. Gillard meet kettle.]
Here are some examples of an earlier, openly anti-semitic text from Henry Ford's The International Jew and some comparisons, all taken from Media Matters
ATTACKS ON CHRISTIANITY
Previous to the formation of the Kehillah and the Jewish Committee, this sort of attack on the rights of Americans was sporadic, but since 1906 it has increased in number and insistence. Under cover of the ideal of Liberty we have given the Jews liberty to attack Liberty. What America has been tolerating is intolerance itself. Let us look rapidly down the years and see one phase of that attack. It is the attack upon Christianity. Here are a few items from the record. They are recorded over a period of years following the rise of Jewish power in America:
1899-1900. The Jews attempt to have the word "Christian" removed from the Bill of Rights of the State of Virginia.
1906-1907. The Jews of Oklahoma petition the Constitutional Convention protesting that the acknowledgment of Christ in the new State constitution then being formulated would be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.
The Jews force "The Merchant of Venice" to be dropped from public schools in Texas, Ohio.
1907-1908. Widespread demand by the Jews for the complete secularization of the public institutions of this country, as a part of the demand of the Jews for their constitutional rights.
Supreme Court Justice Brewer's statement that this is a Christian country widely controverted by Jewish rabbis and publications.
Jews agitate in many cities against Bible reading. Christmas celebrations or carols in Philadelphia, Cincinnati, St. Paul and New York met with strong Jewish opposition.
.......................
And so it goes on, year after year, right up to the present day. The incidents quoted are typical not occasional. [Ah, the Alan Dershowitz tactic: make a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations which play on people's emotions -- in this instance, using a text by a known anti-semite that has no citations to back up the assertions made -- to make your case. Isn't it possible that Ford exaggerated or made up some of these anecdotes, Gillard, because he knew it would rile up readers? Lazy, aren't you Gillard?] They represent what is transpiring all the time in the United States as the Jews pursue their "rights." There is no interference with Jewish ways and manners. The Jew may use his own calendar, keep his own days, observe his own form of worship, live in his own ghetto [When's the last time there was a Jewish ghetto?], exist on a dietary principle all his own, slaughter his cattle in a manner which no one who knows about it can approve-he can do all these things without molestation, without the slightest question of his right in them. But, the non-Jew is the "persecuted one." He must do everything the way the Jew wants it done; if not he is infringing on Jewish "rights."-=-
Fox News host John Gibson on Janet Parshall's show [Wasn't Parshall one of the hate radio hosts who was sent to Israel to broadcast from there by a pro-Israel group?]
GIBSON: The whole point of this is that the tradition, the religious tradition of this country is tolerance, and that the same sense of tolerance that's been granted by the majority to the minority over the years ought to go the other way too. Minorities ought to have the same sense of tolerance about the majority religion -- Christianity -- that they've been granted about their religions over the years.
PARSHALL: Exactly. John, I have to tell you, let me linger for a minute on that word "tolerance." Because first of all, the people who like to promulgate that concept are the worst violators. They cannot tolerate Christianity, as an example.
GIBSON: Absolutely. I know -- I know that.
PARSHALL: And number two, I have to tell you, I don't know when they held this election and decided that tolerance was a transcendent value. I serve a god who, with a finger of fire, wrote, he will have no other gods before him. And he doesn't tolerate sin, which is why he sent his son to the cross, but all of a sudden now, we jump up and down and celebrate the idea of tolerance. I think tolerance means accommodation, but it doesn't necessarily mean acquiescence or wholehearted acceptance.
GIBSON: No, no, no. If you figure that -- listen, we get a little theological here, and it's probably a bit over my head, but I would think if somebody is going to be -- have to answer for following the wrong religion, they're not going to have to answer to me. We know who they're going to have to answer to.
[Shame on you Gillard. You truly are a slimy, wretched piece of work. This is not even argumentation, it's a smear. I would even go so far as to say bordering on libel, if not crossing that line, and it makes me wonder if someone paid you to write this tripe. First, you attempt to play on reader's emotions by using an unreferenced work by a known anti-semite, and then hope to conflate it with a conversation between two rightwing media personailities, hoping that your readers' visceral hatred of two would blind them to the fact that neither one used the word "Jew" or "Jewish" once. I did see them use the word "minority," but that could mean Muslim, Jew, Wiccan, atheist, agnostic, etc. If you do believe in God Gillard, I suggest you start taking care of your soul now.]
NAME THE ENEMY!
The warning has already gone out through the colleges. The system of Jewish procedure is already fully known. How simple it is ! First, you secularize the public schools -"secularize" is the precise word the Jews use for the process. You prepare the mind of the public school child by enforcing the rule that no mention shall ever be made to indicate that culture or patriotism is in any way connected with the deeper principles of the Anglo-Saxon religion. Keep it out, every sight and sound of it ! Keep out also every word that will aid any child to identify the Jewish race. Then, when you have thus prepared the soil, you can go into the universities and colleges and enter upon the double program of pouring contempt on all the AngloSaxon landmarks, at the same time filling the void with Jewish revolutionary ideas.
[This sounds like the incoherent rantings of an insane person; it makes no sense whatsoever. It's just pure, unadulterated hatred and you, Gillard, have just blown the hell out of any argument you were trying to make.]
The influence of the common people is driven out of the schools, where common people's influence can go; but Jewish influence is allowed to run rampant in the higher institutions where the common people's influence cannot go. Secularize the schools, and you can then Judaize the universities.
[And the non-sequiter of the month award goes to...Steve Gillard for his essay "Jew Baiting In America"! Congratulations, Steve! And it's only the 3rd day of the month!]
This is the "liberalism" which Jewish spokesmen so much applaud. In labor unions, in churches, in universities, it has tainted the principles of work, faith and society. The proof of it is written thickly over all Jewish activities and utterances. It is in exerting these very influences that Jewry convinces itself that it is fulfilling its "mission" to the world. [Huh? How did you get from schools to the workplace, churches and union halls? Where's your foundation for making these accusations, Gillard, because this leap makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.]
The capitalism attacked is non-Jewish capitalism; the orthodoxy attacked is Christian orthodoxy; the society attacked is the Anglo-Saxon form of society; all of which bat their destruction would redound to the glory of Judaism.
[Ok, try the last sentence again, but in English this time.]
The list could be extended-the influence of the Jewish idea on Anglo-Saxon sports and pleasure, on the Anglo-Saxon idea of patriotism, on the Anglo-Saxon conception of the learned professions; the influence of the Jewish idea runs down through every department of life.
[Well, Gillard, it appears your use of the words "Anglo-Saxon" is code for the WASPs. And your blind hatred of them has stunted your ability to form a coherent thought, let alone string together a logical setence. Yep, you're really different from "them" Gillard, and these paragraphs prove it (that's sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell).
Further, there's no point in me even attempting to analyze, or rebut, the rest of your essay, because you're not arguing logically or with any facts. It's nothing more than a sophomoric string of ad hominem attacks, non-sequiters and underhanded appeals to the reader's emotions in an attempt to prove that which you assert; none of which is proper argumentation style. If I had written something like this in my college logic class, or law school, I would have been severely upbraided by the professor, given a grade of 'F', and told to seek counseling. I suggest you do the same as this essay reads like a tortured and tedious peek into the mind of a paranoid schitzophrenic, instead of that of a "liberal" writer.
If anyone would like to read the rest of this crap, it's continued in the next post.]
From Steve Gillard's blog:
Old fashioned Jew Hatred
The thing about American anti-semitism is that is is a disease, like herpes, which hides, then comes out, but has never really gone away. There has been a desire to pretend it's in the American past, but the reality is that the various strains of anti-semitic activity in the US has come in waves.
The 1930's was the highpoint, but the 1960's saw a race-based revival.
The current wave of anti-semitic activity, couched in code words and hints, hasn't reached threats and violence, yet, but as familiar themes, like the corruption of the media and the attacks on Christianity reach a fever pitch, that isn't unlikely.
[Has Gillard spent any time at DU? Every day there's at least a dozen threads which equate all Christians with the fundamentalist sects, followed by a broad-brushed bashing of every denomination for the beliefs of a minority sect. When they're not bashing fundamentalism, they're transposing the views of the Holy See on every last Catholic on the planet and bashing them. They aren't that far apart from the Right in this respect because both views are simply an irrational fear bred by their own ignorance. It's especially dispicable in the case of so-called "liberals" because for people who are supposed to be "open minded" and "progressive," they're too lazy to do their research, or use their critical thinking skills, and instead resort to groupthink.]
So how did we get here?
Into the 1960's, there was a strong black-Jewish political alliance. But as Jews assimilated into the American middle class, their interests with blacks diminished. Also, blacks were lured by the appeal of Islam as a "authentic" black religion, until people reseached and found that Arabs also owned slaves and treated blacks as second class citizens.
Conservatives used their affinity for Israel to gain inroads to Jewish support, while playing up ethnic conflict between blacks and Jews to imply widespread anti-semitism within the black community. Jesse Jackson's Hymietown comment and Louis Farrakhan's speeches were given a great deal of attention by the Anti-Defamation League, to the point where people believed that the two communities had divergent interests, and many felt that ADL head Abraham Foxman had an animus towards blacks.
[Slippery logic, and I'm not even sure what Gillard's point is here; he gets paid to write this? Anyway, how are the actions of the ADL, or its president, that of conservatives in general? Abe Foxman is certainly a "conservative" Jew in the religious sense, but he is not the face of the political conservative movement. Or is Gillard implying that Jackson, Farrakhan and Foxman are plants or shills? Now that's a conspiracy theory.]
But lurking in the background were people like Pat Buchanan, who's admiration of fascist ideology and resentment of Israel is widely known. [For Pete's sake, Gillard, anti-Israel does not equal anti-semetic. You've lost whatever credibility you had by repeating this lie. Furthermore, Buchanan is friends with Lynn Samuels for Christ's sake, so how can he be an anti-semite? Also, Buchanan's views may be extreme at times -- I think he's wrong on social policy -- but he's certainly not a fascist.] In 1992, he delivered a memorable Republican convention speech which attacked "Hollywood". Warren Beatty called it anti-semitic, and with good reason, but was laughed at. People didn't want to believe it.
[Why should anyone listen to Warren Beatty on bigotry? He's not that great of an actor and his status as a has been in Hollywood is deserved. Probably the only reason anyone in my generation knows who is, is because he dated Madonna and she wrote a song about him after the break up. But besides that, why should we consider a wealthy, sheltered, pampered star an authority on anything? Can he read Buchanan's mind? Lynn Samuels doesn't seem to have a problem with Buchanan, but then Samuels doesn't equate anti-Israel with anti-semitism, or see Jew baiters lurking everywhere either.]
Move forward to 2005, and Foxman gives a similar speech and Jews are divided on how to respond. Some fear upsetting their "allies", others think that he's mistaken. A few get what he was saying.
The irony is that blacks and Jews have always realized that their fates are effectively intertwined. Underneath every racist is an anti-semite and underneath every anti-semite is a racist. While exploiting and heightening their differences, fundamentalists convinced Jews that they supported a Jewish Israel, and played on the deep religiocity of the black community, meaning neither well.
[Not so fast Gillard. Who's really taking advantage of who here, the evangelicals of the Zionists, or vice versa? That argument could go either way. I am sick and tired of crappy essay after crappy essay which give an evil, conniving, hate-filled man like Sharon a pass as a "victim" of "scapegoating," when Sharon is clearly no idiot and knows what he does. In the case of Black churches, no matter what race or ethnicity, you can always find at least one person willing to put their their personal ambition over the well-being of the community -- the Chalabi cousins, for instance.]
A Salon article on this suggested that Jews were alone in the fight to keep a secular society, which I felt was untrue for this reason. The "Christianity" promoted by the fundies on the right excludes blacks as well as Jews. Brothers in Christ means white brothers in Christ in many cases.
[Jesus, Gillard, have you ever spoken to a Black Evengelical, or a Latino Evangelical? How about a Black or Latino fundamentalist Muslim? They're just as bad as any White Evangelical. Do you think that their race makes their brand of hatred any better? Such a statement also has a streak of racism to it, so it's not only the White fundies, Gillard.]
A famous reverend on the West Coast, Fredrick Price, was doing fellowship with a white minister, who told him he would never let his daughter marry a black man. That shook Price deeply. Why? I have no idea. The racism of many fundamentalist Churches lies on the surface, not hidden away.
[And I've known many Jews who told me point blank that they would only date Black people, but never marry them, or tell their parents they were dating one, because they "had" to marry another Jew. I've also known Jews who would never consider dating a Gentile. Glass houses, Gillard. Glass houses.]
A few months ago, I ripped into Amy Sullivan for repeating anti-semitic code words, words which she didn't even realize were anti-semitic. Which is how code words work. So you can get a Joe Lieberman decrying the video game industry, and Ted Stevens attacking Howard Stern for indecency and it seems ok. But then you get ranting about the "War on Christmas" and no one adds it up. At the very least,its using coded language which harks back to the most brutal anti-semitic language of the last century.
[Are you smoking crack, Gillard? What in the hell are you talking about? This "war on Christmas" b.s. is a ploy to get Bush's fundamentalist base revved up, as well as distract them from other issues, by giving them something to whine and feel "persecuted" about -- something Zionists should easily recognize as such, since essays like this one are written to serve the same purpose for "liberal" Zionists. Gillard meet kettle.]
Here are some examples of an earlier, openly anti-semitic text from Henry Ford's The International Jew and some comparisons, all taken from Media Matters
ATTACKS ON CHRISTIANITY
Previous to the formation of the Kehillah and the Jewish Committee, this sort of attack on the rights of Americans was sporadic, but since 1906 it has increased in number and insistence. Under cover of the ideal of Liberty we have given the Jews liberty to attack Liberty. What America has been tolerating is intolerance itself. Let us look rapidly down the years and see one phase of that attack. It is the attack upon Christianity. Here are a few items from the record. They are recorded over a period of years following the rise of Jewish power in America:
1899-1900. The Jews attempt to have the word "Christian" removed from the Bill of Rights of the State of Virginia.
1906-1907. The Jews of Oklahoma petition the Constitutional Convention protesting that the acknowledgment of Christ in the new State constitution then being formulated would be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.
The Jews force "The Merchant of Venice" to be dropped from public schools in Texas, Ohio.
1907-1908. Widespread demand by the Jews for the complete secularization of the public institutions of this country, as a part of the demand of the Jews for their constitutional rights.
Supreme Court Justice Brewer's statement that this is a Christian country widely controverted by Jewish rabbis and publications.
Jews agitate in many cities against Bible reading. Christmas celebrations or carols in Philadelphia, Cincinnati, St. Paul and New York met with strong Jewish opposition.
.......................
And so it goes on, year after year, right up to the present day. The incidents quoted are typical not occasional. [Ah, the Alan Dershowitz tactic: make a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations which play on people's emotions -- in this instance, using a text by a known anti-semite that has no citations to back up the assertions made -- to make your case. Isn't it possible that Ford exaggerated or made up some of these anecdotes, Gillard, because he knew it would rile up readers? Lazy, aren't you Gillard?] They represent what is transpiring all the time in the United States as the Jews pursue their "rights." There is no interference with Jewish ways and manners. The Jew may use his own calendar, keep his own days, observe his own form of worship, live in his own ghetto [When's the last time there was a Jewish ghetto?], exist on a dietary principle all his own, slaughter his cattle in a manner which no one who knows about it can approve-he can do all these things without molestation, without the slightest question of his right in them. But, the non-Jew is the "persecuted one." He must do everything the way the Jew wants it done; if not he is infringing on Jewish "rights."-=-
Fox News host John Gibson on Janet Parshall's show [Wasn't Parshall one of the hate radio hosts who was sent to Israel to broadcast from there by a pro-Israel group?]
GIBSON: The whole point of this is that the tradition, the religious tradition of this country is tolerance, and that the same sense of tolerance that's been granted by the majority to the minority over the years ought to go the other way too. Minorities ought to have the same sense of tolerance about the majority religion -- Christianity -- that they've been granted about their religions over the years.
PARSHALL: Exactly. John, I have to tell you, let me linger for a minute on that word "tolerance." Because first of all, the people who like to promulgate that concept are the worst violators. They cannot tolerate Christianity, as an example.
GIBSON: Absolutely. I know -- I know that.
PARSHALL: And number two, I have to tell you, I don't know when they held this election and decided that tolerance was a transcendent value. I serve a god who, with a finger of fire, wrote, he will have no other gods before him. And he doesn't tolerate sin, which is why he sent his son to the cross, but all of a sudden now, we jump up and down and celebrate the idea of tolerance. I think tolerance means accommodation, but it doesn't necessarily mean acquiescence or wholehearted acceptance.
GIBSON: No, no, no. If you figure that -- listen, we get a little theological here, and it's probably a bit over my head, but I would think if somebody is going to be -- have to answer for following the wrong religion, they're not going to have to answer to me. We know who they're going to have to answer to.
[Shame on you Gillard. You truly are a slimy, wretched piece of work. This is not even argumentation, it's a smear. I would even go so far as to say bordering on libel, if not crossing that line, and it makes me wonder if someone paid you to write this tripe. First, you attempt to play on reader's emotions by using an unreferenced work by a known anti-semite, and then hope to conflate it with a conversation between two rightwing media personailities, hoping that your readers' visceral hatred of two would blind them to the fact that neither one used the word "Jew" or "Jewish" once. I did see them use the word "minority," but that could mean Muslim, Jew, Wiccan, atheist, agnostic, etc. If you do believe in God Gillard, I suggest you start taking care of your soul now.]
NAME THE ENEMY!
The warning has already gone out through the colleges. The system of Jewish procedure is already fully known. How simple it is ! First, you secularize the public schools -"secularize" is the precise word the Jews use for the process. You prepare the mind of the public school child by enforcing the rule that no mention shall ever be made to indicate that culture or patriotism is in any way connected with the deeper principles of the Anglo-Saxon religion. Keep it out, every sight and sound of it ! Keep out also every word that will aid any child to identify the Jewish race. Then, when you have thus prepared the soil, you can go into the universities and colleges and enter upon the double program of pouring contempt on all the AngloSaxon landmarks, at the same time filling the void with Jewish revolutionary ideas.
[This sounds like the incoherent rantings of an insane person; it makes no sense whatsoever. It's just pure, unadulterated hatred and you, Gillard, have just blown the hell out of any argument you were trying to make.]
The influence of the common people is driven out of the schools, where common people's influence can go; but Jewish influence is allowed to run rampant in the higher institutions where the common people's influence cannot go. Secularize the schools, and you can then Judaize the universities.
[And the non-sequiter of the month award goes to...Steve Gillard for his essay "Jew Baiting In America"! Congratulations, Steve! And it's only the 3rd day of the month!]
This is the "liberalism" which Jewish spokesmen so much applaud. In labor unions, in churches, in universities, it has tainted the principles of work, faith and society. The proof of it is written thickly over all Jewish activities and utterances. It is in exerting these very influences that Jewry convinces itself that it is fulfilling its "mission" to the world. [Huh? How did you get from schools to the workplace, churches and union halls? Where's your foundation for making these accusations, Gillard, because this leap makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.]
The capitalism attacked is non-Jewish capitalism; the orthodoxy attacked is Christian orthodoxy; the society attacked is the Anglo-Saxon form of society; all of which bat their destruction would redound to the glory of Judaism.
[Ok, try the last sentence again, but in English this time.]
The list could be extended-the influence of the Jewish idea on Anglo-Saxon sports and pleasure, on the Anglo-Saxon idea of patriotism, on the Anglo-Saxon conception of the learned professions; the influence of the Jewish idea runs down through every department of life.
[Well, Gillard, it appears your use of the words "Anglo-Saxon" is code for the WASPs. And your blind hatred of them has stunted your ability to form a coherent thought, let alone string together a logical setence. Yep, you're really different from "them" Gillard, and these paragraphs prove it (that's sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell).
Further, there's no point in me even attempting to analyze, or rebut, the rest of your essay, because you're not arguing logically or with any facts. It's nothing more than a sophomoric string of ad hominem attacks, non-sequiters and underhanded appeals to the reader's emotions in an attempt to prove that which you assert; none of which is proper argumentation style. If I had written something like this in my college logic class, or law school, I would have been severely upbraided by the professor, given a grade of 'F', and told to seek counseling. I suggest you do the same as this essay reads like a tortured and tedious peek into the mind of a paranoid schitzophrenic, instead of that of a "liberal" writer.
If anyone would like to read the rest of this crap, it's continued in the next post.]