The modern-day ’House Slaves’

Rehmat wrote: blond wrote: Good post Rehmat. I would like to add that the Zionists have long funded both sides of every issue in order to exorcise complete control of the issues. Most of the time, their involvement is a closely guarded secret. This is how they can cause the "leaders" of most movements to capitulate, ... And how they feel about the same people - The Black? Let us hear from horse's mouth: Philadelphia Jewish weekly The Jewish Record of January 23, 1863: "We know not how to speak in the same breath of the Negro and the Israelite. The very names have startlingly opposite sounds ­p; one representing all that is debased and inferior in the hopeless barbarity and heathenism of six thousand years the other, the days when Jehovah conferred on our fathers the glorious equality which led the Eternal to converse with them, and allow them to enjoy the communion of angels. Thus the abandoned fanatics insult the choice of God himself, in endeavoring to reverse the inferiority which he stamped on the African, to make him the compeer, even in bondage, of His chosen people. "There is no parallel between such races. Humanity from pole to pole would scout such a comparison. The Hebrew was originally free and the charter of his liberty was inspired by his Creator. The Negro was never free and his bondage in Africa was simply duplicated in a milder form when he was imported here....The judicious in all the earth agree that to proclaim the African equal to the surrounding races, would be a farce which would lead the civilized conservatism of the world to denounce the outrage."

Thank you.

It is also worth while to add that these are the same people who renamed the blacks from their original names to the name "negro"; meaning, a dead thing; after the etimological root word "necro". This was done during the 64 hidden years of history that it took to make the black slaves into the people we see today. This history was hidden because they never want anyone to know what they really did to the blacks. It is more revolting than anything we have seen of their society today. It is a recreation of the Masonic ritual of Hiram Abiff.

Also, the name African comes from Leo Africanus of Greece. He was a white man who "discovered" and named Africa after himself.

Lastly, according to the scriptures of the Torah, the "Israelites" name was changed to Israel after Yacub the Surrplanter wrestled with the Angel of the Lord "Jibril", all night long. After throwing his thighbone out of place, Yacub's name became Israel. This is interesting in light of our earlier discussion on Malcolm X, who said that their real name came from their father Yacub and they surrplanted the birthright of the true children of Israel to stand in their place and reap the benefits from Allah.

Angel wrote: ....Rehmet, that's funny, in another thread you said you are a volunteer and not for someone's livelihood

No that's another example of your acute ignorance. And you know what - The two-hours I spent each day at a high school - They call me Volunteer teacher.

Don't worry - ignorance is not your monopoly - some Muslims have too.

I don't think you DO understand. You're assuming Guilt By Association (here we call that McCarthyism). HNN is a history site, and the article I cited summarizes (pretty fairly I think) some of what we know about the subject and offers a conclusion.

COMMENT: No, it's not guilt by association on my part. My entire gist is that a Muslim would see pipes' name and discount the site's credibility.

********************

would you try to persuade a jewish audience by citing an article that lists louis farrakhan as one of its featured links?

That's a straw horse. But, as a matter of fact, I might, if I thought the featured article was fair and truthful. Why not? And I can't condemn Farakhan himself entirely either: the man is deeper than his featured animosities and the media caricature.

COMMENT: I agree with your final statement. But it's no straw horse; It's a pretty fair comparison and reflection of what i see on many websites. I prefaced my statement by saying "would you try to persuade Jewish audience" by citing him. You yourself might feel, and justifiably so, that the information you presented was convincing, but a Jewish person would, at a visceral level, reject the information. This might not be fair, but it is a fact. Heck, articles I have used on some political sites are condemned out of hand by conservatives because they come from that virulently anti-american, communist newspaper the Washington Post! So, if your goal is to convince them, you would not use the information from that site.

**************************

the fact is the entire Islamic world considers daniel pipes one of its main enemies.


I know that, and I think that it is a mistake to turn your back on an enemy. Better to confront and refute, especially if they are strong. One can ignore small whiny enemies, but Big Guys have to be confronted (and in spare time you can confront the little ones).

As a parallel, the RightBlogs consider Juan Cole their enemy (sometimes there are long learned threads running to hundreds of entries excoriating Cole and challenging his articles, cf. Belmont Club), but they read him anyway (then a vein pops out on the forehead, the face turns red and they start hyperventilating).

And anyway, I wasn't trying to persuade Rehmat of anything, I just thought he ought to use better data. Nothing negates ones arguments faster than bad premises, and throwing around bad numbers and invalid premises brands one as a lightweight, easily ignored.

[/QUOTE]

COMMENT: Well, that's fine. I see your points and hope you understand my perspective. As always, I find myself unable to clearly express what i am really trying to say.