Nostr

From: mikedilger at 10/13 14:56

Thank you for that explanation. We're in the weeds now but I understand your point of view. The weeds don't get simpler as you try to peer through them. Sigh.

CC: #[4]

CC: #[5]

Mike Dilger ☑️ 2y ago

Can we then pull up out of the weeds? Forget the details and the long screeds. I see two fundamentally different overarching narratives:

Story #1:

Primary effect: Jews taking land from Arabs

Secondary effect: Arab violence in retaliation

Tertiary effect: Jews controlling Arabs for their own safety

Story #2

Primary effect: Arabs eternally hate Jews and will be violent when they can

Secondary effect: Jews controlling Arabs for their own safety

Tertiary effect: Jews taking land from Arabs

The first story is more believable to me. Every part of it is emminantly believable. We know if you get your land stolen you will get very very angry and that can lead to violence. We all agree (both stories) that violence of Arabs puts a security risk on the Jews. Nothing is out of place in this story.

But the second story seems crafted in order to justify land stealing. In order to pull this off, they have to invoke this concept that the eternal hatred of Arabs towards Jews is primary. The reason that is less believable is because (1) Arabs and Jews got along together before WWI, and (2) Palestinians live in peace with Jews inside of Israel right now.

Anyhow I really want to shut up now, I'm tired of this topic, but I wanted to share my high-level comparison before I quit.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

unclebobmartin 2y ago

I'm in favor of Story #3.

Primary effect: Jews and Arabs immigrate at different rates.

Secondary effect: Enmity arises between the two groups, helped by the politics of the day.

Tertiary effect: One side eventually outweighs the other leading to resentment, desperation, and violence.

It's a story that's played out many different times in many different places.

From: mikedilger at 10/13 15:31

> Can we then pull up out of the weeds? Forget the details and the long screeds. I see two fundamentally different overarching narratives:

> Story #1:

> Primary effect: Jews taking land from Arabs

> Secondary effect: Arab violence in retaliation

> Tertiary effect: Jews controlling Arabs for their own safety

> Story #2

> Primary effect: Arabs eternally hate Jews and will be violent when they can

> Secondary effect: Jews controlling Arabs for their own safety

> Tertiary effect: Jews taking land from Arabs

> The first story is more believable to me. Every part of it is emminantly believable. We know if you get your land stolen you will get very very angry and that can lead to violence. We all agree (both stories) that violence of Arabs puts a security risk on the Jews. Nothing is out of place in this story.

> But the second story seems crafted in order to justify land stealing. In order to pull this off, they have to invoke this concept that the eternal hatred of Arabs towards Jews is primary. The reason that is less believable is because (1) Arabs and Jews got along together before WWI, and (2) Palestinians live in peace with Jews inside of Israel right now.

> Anyhow I really want to shut up now, I'm tired of this topic, but I wanted to share my high-level comparison before I quit.

CC: #[7]

CC: #[8]

Dissident Sound 2y ago

Story #4

1 - international Jewry declares war on Hitler's Germany

2 - ethnic Germans are persecuted in Poland to provoke Hitler, who invades Poland.

3 - Japanese are baited ( their funds are illegally frozen ) into attacking Pearl Harbor, when attack is imminent radars are dismantled to make the aftermath severe enough to convince Americans to join the war

4 - America helps Jewish Soviet Union to defeat Germany, Germans are genital-tortured to obtain confessions about "the holocaust" in which 6 million Jews were gassed even though the "death camps" didn't have any airtight rooms to gas anybody in, but they did have maternity wards for the inmates ...

5 - to make it up to the Jews for the fake "holocaust" United Nations charters Israel

6 - Jews immediately respond with Nakba and holocaust the Palestinians:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

7 - not much love between Israelis and Palestinians since

Dissident Sound 2y ago

8 - Dissdent Sound is banned from Twitter for questioning the holocaust because Jews made questioning their lies illegal in Europe and Twitter is a global company

9 - Dissident Sound joins NOSTR

Dissident Sound 2y ago

you may not believe me but when i was a kid in Kiev, Ukraine the government leveled our garage ( they later stole our apartment ) and i still remember the urge i had to throw rocks at the head of the operator of the excavator that was destroying our garage. i didn't know what Gaza was, i heard the word but it meant nothing to me, but when you're a kid and you see an excavator or bulldozer destroying your home / garage it is almost like a reflex to grab a rock and hurl it ...

of course i didn't actually throw that rock and the government gave us another apartment ( in a worse neighborhood ) in exchange for the one they stole and remodeled for themselves, but the experience was enough that i know what side i am on in the Middle East conflict ...

there was also this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie#:~:text=Corrie%20was%20part%20of%20a,the%20bulldozer%20and%20fatally%20injured.

Israeli Bulldozer ran over an American Citizen to death and Israel never apologized and it never made the news ...

and retarded Americans continue bleating " our greatest Ally ! "

LuisSP 2y ago

curious... WTF the UA government was doing confiscating buildings? URSS or post-URSS?

Dissident Sound 2y ago

i lived in a "communal apartment" shared by 3 families. it was a gigantic apartment with 12 foot tall ceilings in a really old and fancy building overlooking a giant square with a fancy statue in the center. it was within walking distance of "Maidan" where all the government buildings were. this apartment was shared by 3 families because of how large it was. other apartments in the building were basically the same.

the government eventually realized the building was perfect for their own residences - they just needed to kick out the people living there and remodel it. of course they wouldn't use these apartments communally but as giant private residences.

they condemned the building as being "unsafe" ( they said it was going to collapse ) and kicked everybody out, then they remodeled it and moved in themselves. they never did any structural modifications - only cosmetic remodel. and they still live there.

the apartment was worth several million dollars just before the war ( though as i said it was shared by 3 families and also none of us ever actually "owned" it - we just lived there - there was no private property under Communism ).

this was about 5 years after USSR collapsed and Ukraine became independent. it was also a time of "privatization" which is to say when everything of value in the nation was stolen, including our residence.

LuisSP 2y ago

I know what 'comunal apt' is and that it was common for families in USSR.

And outside of USSR many older books show them (e.g., Kafka's "The Process", the protagonist rents a room).

I actually fear comunal apts will come back. First due to increasing real state pricing and general impoverishment.

Then, as an actual goal of the 'you will own nothing' gang.

But.. I heard about 'the everything is for grabs' post-soviet years, but did not know they went that far.

actually I wondered what happened with all those communal apartments owned by the state.

LuisSP 2y ago

sharia forbids treaties leaving muslim land to non muslim countries. none of it. All of Israel was ottoman ==> all peace stuff was always theater, at least w.r.t. permanent peace. It will never stop.

Egypt was able to sign a peace treaty only after Israel returned the Sinai and Egypt renounced Gaza: then, Egypt got all the lands it is responsible for, and left the unsolvable problem for the PLA - now Palestine government is responsible, unable to sign permament peace if Israel exist. Without a khalifa, no muslim government is responsible for the whole world, then there is this loophole. And even then, Sadat was murdered for that.

doubt -> the globalists let the jews go there in the 40's because:

a) they cared about the jews or at least needed a way to get them somewhere out of sight.

b) they did not know sharia and hoped stuff would settle somehow

c) they knew but salivated with the prospect of lucrative endless wars and political divide & conquer: suffering of jews and/or arabs was of no concern.

d) they knew, but better having those jews fighting and absorbing the energy of the muslim world, than having more jihad elsewhere. better them than us. if they want to go into the fire, who are we to say no?

these options are not exclusive if you consider different actors may know and want different things

Mike Dilger ☑️ 2y ago

Things to ponder. Not things I've heard before.