Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Five Videos - Nixon On The Jews





RCMP and CSIS Torturing People For Fun---- This Is How Pathetic These Losers Are

See the video below and realize that the pieces of trash that run the RCMP and CSIS know of classified technology and they use horrible Stasi stalking and discrediting methods on targeted individuals. They don't need to torture people to obtain information, but they still do. This is no different than what I am saying here about Guantanamo Bay. Why are they doing all of this? It's pretty simple... because they are control freaks who like having power over people. This sort of counterintelligence work attracts people who are liars and psychopaths because only psychopaths would go along with the lies of these organizations.

Read Article: Jewish Individual Admits The Hypocrisy Of Liberal Jews and Zionism



See here for more about the so-called Jews and their belief system. Very few people know about nor understand this because Jews keep the population in ignorance about it. See this comedy bit about the absolute hypocrisy of the state of Israel. Truth be told, if you really are a Liberal, you should hate what the state of Israel is. It is an ethno-state based on biblically "chosen people" treating others unfairly in the occupied territories. 


By Luke Ford


A Jew can be a leftist, but leftism does not mesh easily with Judaism. Leftism does not take race and religion as valid ways of organizing and separating people. The essence of Judaism is separation — separation between Jews and non-Jews, between men and women, adults and children, the Sabbath and the other days of the week, etc.

The Hebrew word for holiness — “Kadosh” — literally means “separate.” Judaism conceives of Jews as a people who dwell apart.

If you are a normal Orthodox Jew, you put your Jewish identity first before all other identities. You see what is going on in the world in terms of whether or not it is good for the Jews. One of the major advantages in being an Orthodox Jew is that you know who you are. Your choices in life are simplified.

The stronger your in-group identity, be it as Jewish or Muslim, the less likely you are to be liberal (to live and let live and to be ok with diversity) and the more likely you are to have negative views of outsiders.

Shmuel Rosner writes:

The more liberal they are, the less their tendency to be actively “Jewish.” The level of liberalism is high among those who raise non-Jewish children “or who are married to non-Jews.” Liberal Jews feel less responsible for other Jews. They have a somewhat lesser sense of belonging to the Jewish people. Only a third of the “very liberal” (34%) feel that “being Jewish is very important” – compared to 54% of “right of center” non-Orthodox Jews. The “very liberal” don’t belong to synagogues (18%), have less Jewish friends, and tend less than others to fast on Yom Kippur or light Shabbat candles. Their attachment to Israel is markedly lower than the attachment of less liberal Jews.
That is to say: all across the board – feelings, activities, traditions, and affiliations – the liberals show a lesser level of engagement. The correlation between liberalism and disengagement is “modest” when it comes to “feelings” (Feel responsible for Jews in need, Feel a sense of belonging to the Jewish people, Feel being Jewish is very important). It is “strong” when it comes to “religious engagement” (Being religious very important, Kosher home, Shabbat candles usually+, Attends services monthly). It is also “strong” when it comes to “Israel attachment” (Israel essential to being Jewish, Feel very attached to Israel). In other words: liberal Jews feel moderately passionate about being Jewish; but they do not appreciate religion and do not appreciate Israel, and they especially do not appreciate hawkish views on Israel…

Why is it so difficult to seriously discusses these numbers and this reality? That’s simple: because often times liberal Jews tend to value their “liberalism” more than they value their “Jewishness” (this is me speaking, not Cohen. I am not sure he’d agree). If the numbers tell a story from which one learns that liberalism and Judaism cannot go hand in hand, the liberals will choose liberalism. So the obvious policy of Jewish leaders and institutions is to avoid this seeming contradiction – to hide it for as long as possible and thus not force the choice on a growing group of Jewish liberals…

These numbers have meaning. They have implications, and these implications could be of three possible types:
– Judaism and liberalism cannot go hand in hand, and we ought to understand that some Jewish Americans are lost to us, Jews.
– There is a need to make Jews slightly less liberal – at least when it comes to the kind of liberalism that seems to make it difficult for them to be actively Jewish.
– There is a need to make Jewish Americanism more adaptable to the priorities of liberal Americanism. In all likelihood, to succeed in an enterprise whose aim is to strengthen the active Jewishness of American Jewish liberals, it will have to be a combination of both points two and three (that is, if you do not accept point one). But the exact prescription will not be easy, as the numbers – while telling us a story – do not reveal its source. As Cohen framed it: “What about being liberal makes them ‘less Jewish?’”
In other words: as hard as it is to spell it out with such bluntness, as a general rule, liberal American Jews seem to be less Jewish.



Evil Incarnate: Leading Jewish Academic Wants Jews to Rape Palestinians

See a past article on this topic here, to see more about the Talmud, go to the Talmud category on my blog located here. (Be sure to scroll through all the articles there.) Also, be sure to watch this short excellent video from an honest Israeli talking about Judaism and Israel. 

============================================================================

The true evil of the Jewish Supremacist mindset has been dramatically revealed with the demand by Israeli professor Mordechai Kedar that Israeli forces carry out sex attacks on the relatives of Palestinians in order to halt Palestinian demands to return to their country.



Professor Kedar, from Bar- Ilan University’s Department of Arabic advocated rape of innocent women on an Israeli nationally broadcast radio show, according to a report in the Jewish Daily Forward. It has been totally covered up in the Jewish owned Western media read by Gentiles.

“The only thing that can deter terrorists, like those who kidnapped the children and killed them, is the knowledge that their sister or their mother will be raped,” Kedar said.

“It sounds very bad, but that’s the Middle East,” he added.

The program “Hakol Diburim” (“It’s All Talk”) was broadcast on July 1, immediately after the discovery of the bodies of the three young Jews abducted and murdered in the Occupied West Bank, which has been used as the excuse by the Israleis to attack all of Gaza once again.

“You have to understand the culture in which we live,” said Kedar. “The only thing that deters [Hamas leaders] is a threat to the connection between their heads and their shoulders.”

When presenter Yossi Hadar asked if that “could filter down” the organization’s ranks, Kedar replied: “No, because lower down the considerations are entirely different. Terrorists like those who kidnapped the children and killed them — the only thing that deters them is if they know that their sister or their mother will be raped in the event that they are caught. What can you do, that’s the culture in which we live.”

When Hadar said, “We can’t take such steps, of course,” Kedar continued: “I’m not talking about what we should or shouldn’t do. I’m talking about the facts. The only thing that deters a suicide bomber is the knowledge that if he pulls the trigger or blows himself up, his sister will be raped. That’s all. That’s the only thing that will bring him back home, in order to preserve his sister’s honor.”

Kedar is also a research fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan, and in the past also served as chairman of the Israel Academia Monitor organization, which is involved in “exposing extremist Israeli academics who exploit academic freedom in order to take steps to deny Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.”

Imagine for a second if any body in the world called for the mass rape of Jews, or any population group, for that matter.

There would be an international outcry, and demands for prosecution.

But because it is a Jewish Supremacists who made the comment, don’t even think that you will read about this in their Jewish-dominated mass media. There will be no outcry, no headlines, no uproar, no demands for resignation—because there is one standard for Jewish Supremacist, and another for the hated Goyim.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Hacking Goes Way Beyond Simple Identity Theft

Yes, they can even hack into your brain. See here for the mind has no firewall and here for more about classified technology. See here for more about weaponizing nanotechnology.

Transhumanism's Roots In Eugenics

 

Monday, May 15, 2017

Transhumanism– the world's most dangerous idea

By Francis Fukuyama
See here for a previous article on Transhumanism.  (When you click through on that link, be sure to scroll down and go through all of the articles under the Transhumanist section of blog.)
For the last several decades, a strange liberation movement has grown within the developed world. Its crusaders aim much higher than civil rights campaigners, feminists, or gay-rights advocates. They want nothing less than to liberate the human race from its biological constraints. As "transhumanists" see it, humans must wrest their biological destiny from evolution’s blind process of random variation and adaptation and move to the next stage as a species.

It is tempting to dismiss transhumanists as some sort of odd cult, nothing more than science fiction taken too seriously: Witness their over-the-top Web sites and recent press releases ("Cyborg Thinkers to Address Humanity’s Future," proclaims one). The plans of some transhumanists to freeze themselves cryogenically in hopes of being revived in a future age seem only to confirm the movement’s place on the intellectual fringe.

But is the fundamental tenet of transhumanism — that we will someday use biotechnology to make ourselves stronger, smarter, less prone to violence, and longer-lived — really so outlandish? Transhumanism of a sort is implicit in much of the research agenda of contemporary biomedicine. The new procedures and technologies emerging from research laboratories and hospitals — whether mood-altering drugs, substances to boost muscle mass or selectively erase memory, prenatal genetic screening, or gene therapy — can as easily be used to "enhance" the species as to ease or ameliorate illness.

Although the rapid advances in biotechnology often leave us vaguely uncomfortable, the intellectual or moral threat they represent is not always easy to identify. The human race, after all, is a pretty sorry mess, with our stubborn diseases, physical limitations, and short lives. Throw in humanity’s jealousies, violence, and constant anxieties, and the transhumanist project begins to look downright reasonable. If it were technologically possible, why wouldn’t we want to transcend our current species? The seeming reasonableness of the project, particularly when considered in small increments, is part of its danger. Society is unlikely to fall suddenly under the spell of the transhumanist worldview. But it is very possible that we will nibble at biotechnology’s tempting offerings without realizing that they come at a frightful moral cost.

The first victim of transhumanism might be equality. The U.S. Declaration of Independence says that "all men are created equal," and the most serious political fights in the history of the United States have been over who qualifies as fully human. Women and blacks did not make the cut in 1776 when Thomas Jefferson penned the declaration. Slowly and painfully, advanced societies have realized that simply being human entitles a person to political and legal equality. In effect, we have drawn a red line around the human being and said that it is sacrosanct.

Underlying this idea of the equality of rights is the belief that we all possess a human essence that dwarfs manifest differences in skin color, beauty, and even intelligence. This essence, and the view that individuals therefore have inherent value, is at the heart of political liberalism. But modifying that essence is the core of the transhumanist project. If we start transforming ourselves into something superior, what rights will these enhanced creatures claim, and what rights will they possess when compared to those left behind? If some move ahead, can anyone afford not to follow? These questions are troubling enough within rich, developed societies. Add in the implications for citizens of the world’s poorest countries — for whom biotechnology’s marvels likely will be out of reach — and the threat to the idea of equality becomes even more menacing.

Transhumanism’s advocates think they understand what constitutes a good human being, and they are happy to leave behind the limited, mortal, natural beings they see around them in favor of something better. But do they really comprehend ultimate human goods? For all our obvious faults, we humans are miraculously complex products of a long evolutionary process — products whose whole is much more than the sum of our parts. Our good characteristics are intimately connected to our bad ones: If we weren’t violent and aggressive, we wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves; if we didn’t have feelings of exclusivity, we wouldn’t be loyal to those close to us; if we never felt jealousy, we would also never feel love. 

Even our mortality plays a critical function in allowing our species as a whole to survive and adapt (and transhumanists are just about the last group I’d like to see live forever). Modifying any one of our key characteristics inevitably entails modifying a complex, interlinked package of traits, and we will never be able to anticipate the ultimate outcome.

Nobody knows what technological possibilities will emerge for human self-modification. But we can already see the stirrings of Promethean desires in how we prescribe drugs to alter the behavior and personalities of our children. The environmental movement has taught us humility and respect for the integrity of nonhuman nature. We need a similar humility concerning our human nature. If we do not develop it soon, we may unwittingly invite the transhumanists to deface humanity with their genetic bulldozers and psychotropic shopping malls.