Plan D from Hell's Outer Space

No, this is not a newly discovered B-movie sci-fi flic from Ed Wood. But it is a horror movie about the times in which we now live . . .
--
If anything can better demonstrate the foulness that underlies this ever-increasingly rabid, seething prejudice against Israel, it is the stinking miasma of anti-Semitism that informs it, to come lurching along hand in hand with it, and what Rough Daily Beastie is it, really? 

Ignorance. It's always ignorance that forms the mob mentality. So let's see if a little inoculation of historical fact might serve to lower the fever of this mob, posting its daily beastly blather here. As much is being made of the initial 1948 expulsion of the 700,000 Arab refugees, many of whom were told to "Go to Gaza" at the point of an Israeli rifle, let's just have a better look at that . . .

The so-called "Naqba" expulsion of Arabs occurred initially and primarily from March to May of 1948 (pursuant to Haganah Plan D) and hateful as the whole thing was to the veteran Israeli fighters who recall having to execute it, there is something else they recall right with it--the terrible thing which forced it into action on the ground: the Arab threats which had issued fully a year before, when Plan D was yet no more than a dread exigency plan. On May 15, 1947, one day after Israeli Independence was declared, "the Arab League Secretary, General Azzam Pasha declared 'jihad', a holy war. He said, 'This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades'. The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al Husseini stated, 'I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!'" 

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/independence.html 

Back in that day, as in this, just as it's always been, the Arabs force Israel's hand to the least happy solution. On May 15, 1948, one year to the day, after issuing those threats, the combined Arab armies of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq invaded, making starkly clear how they were leaving Israel no choice but to have put Plan D into effect against those 700,000 refugees. The Arabs were having nothing else, as indeed there is testimony even from Abu Mazin himself, that many among the number of those refugees had been ordered out of the land by their own brethren in those Arab armies, so that those people might be out of shooting range, while the second wholesale extermination of Jews for that decade was put into effect.

700,000 refugees. Hell of a thing. Especially in view of the most current threats we now hear from Hamas, that if they don't get their demands met in Cairo, they are determined to bring Hell upon their people once again, by refusing the Israeli ceasefire extension.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus

Whose News?

Who knew which nose . . .

Would be the news,
That was all the nose,
Fit to print?

Is Allah A Lie?

Just as this video was nearing its end, my sweetie came in and asked if I was ready for supper? I said to her that I wonder if I'll ever be ready for supper again. She knew what I was watching, and chose for her own peace of mind not to watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEI_tY4TQZs&bpctr=1402177151

This is a video showing in full graphic detail, an orgy of Muslim blood-lust in action, as you hear and see it all in brutal full color close up, while a band of Chechen Mujahideen is slaughtering by decapitation their captives from the Russian army.

If I were you, I would not watch it. It's not apt to be out of your mind for weeks to come if you do. It could give you nightmares. Okay? So, that being the case, why do I bring it here at all in the first place?

So that you can have the choice; the choice to know in the very innermost gut of your soul how vast is the difference between you and people like this. You could never do to another person what these savages are doing to those poor people. And if you watch, you will be forced to contemplate that difference. And in that difference you will recognize the source of it in a difference between religions . . .

Or how can you otherwise account for it--the mentality of a person who could kneel there on the chest of another person with a knife, methodically sawing off their head? Islamo-apologists keep pointing to Surah 5:32 in the Qur'an, to insist that these people are acting in violation of what is truly at the heart of Islam.

So they will recite that verse which states, "That is why We decreed for the children of Israel that whosoever kills a human being, except (as punishment) for murder or for spreading life-threatening chaos on earth, it is as if (one were) killing the entire human race; and whosoever saves a life, saves the entire human race."

But what, in truth and in fact *really* was "decreed for the children of Israel," which this passage from the Qur'an pretends to emulate? It is this from Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5; Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 37a . . .

“Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.”

The difference between those two passages is all the difference in the 'entire world'. The Talmud makes no mention of any exceptions; there is no sanctification for killing of any sort in the Ten Commandments, and none in the teaching of Yeshua of Nazareth. In Judaism, as in Christianity there is no 'except' in the commandment; there are no exceptions to the evil of killing another person, so that even when it is done by necessity of war or capital punishment, or self defense--that 'necessity' is understood by us to be a necessary evil brought upon us by the world and by men, by governments and armies of men, not by God.

For the Muslim, the slaughter of those who are not Muslim in this video, for those Muslims with the big knives; for them, even the most ostensibly 'peaceful' and 'compassionate' verse in their Qur'an puts a blessing on their actions because their victims fall into the category of the exceptions, to wit: "except (as punishment) for murder or for spreading life-threatening chaos on earth."

The Qur'an tells a terrible lie, that it should make reference to that passage from the Talmud and change its meaning entirely by adding Mohammad's exception. And that exception is embedded in the mind of every Muslim who is taught the Qur'an. It's not just in the mind of a few extremists; it's in every Muslim mind. And that's the difference between Muslim and Jew. That's what puts the neck-cutting knife in the hand of the Muslim, but not the Jew, or the Christian. For sake of his religion, and in honor of those exceptions, Muslims are severing heads all around the world.

Observe what is said in the very next Qur'anic verse that follows in Surah 5:33 . . .

"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment." http://quran.com/5/33

The religions of Moses and Yeshua do NOT excuse killing. Killing will be sin till the killer should repent. When the Koran puts its (positive) sanction on killing for the above described purposes, it puts its blessing on it. It puts the butcher knife in the hand of that Muslim husband in London, and it makes him feel righteous. He is not called upon to repent. Indeed he has done 'evil' and must repent should he be negligent in sawing off his wife's head.

http://pamelageller.com/2014/06/uk-wife-doting-mother-beheaded-muslim-husband-west-london-home.html/#comment-1423885951

This is the difference between a religion that does not sanctify the savage things of men and one that does. Most of the present mayhem in the world is explained by it.

If you will watch that video, to see how easily such murder is done by these inhuman mutants who actually, insanely believe that they are doing the will of God, you will know the difference between the inhuman and the human. And people who do inhuman acts, people who are inhuman, are not human.

This video should cause you to have pity for every Muslim who lives under terror of that devil they think to worship as God. Allah is not God, and the men he creates in his own image are not human. If you can't agree with that, you must then watch this video to get it in your gut so that your head may then be screwed on straight--before you lose it to the knives of these antichrist killers who preach from a gospel of lies. 

If you watch that video, then you will know (if you don't already) it is your duty as a human being to take compassion on that inhuman Muslim and convert him to a religion that will make a human of him or her. Or convert them to the ethics of atheistic existentialism, or Ayn Rand's objectivism--or to nothing at all, and to the wisdom of knowing that there is no such thing as a 'god' who demands of man that he or she should kill or be killed in that god's name. No such God damned thing. No god like that at all. Allah is A Lie.

The Tale of the Cow

Ever read "The Cow", second and longest book (sura) of the Qur'an?

This book is called "The Cow" because it begins with an extended account of when Moses gave to the children of Israel, the law concerning sacrifice of the Red Heifer--from the first 19 verses of Numbers, chapter 19 in the Jewish Torah. Only trouble is, as always with the Qur'an, it's a complete distortion of what is textually to be found in that Book of Moses.

It's actually rather brilliant in its own way, as it demonstrates the incredible legerdemain of the Muslim "Prophet", in the way he makes use of the Jews' own scriptures against them. All you find in Numbers is exposition of the law, how the sacrifice is to be performed, what's to be done with the ashes in preparing and preserving them with herbally treated, ritually blessed water to be used in a cleansing ceremony for any Hebrew who had been exposed to 'uncleanness'.

As the Qur'an presents its totally bowdlerized version of those passages, the Muslim "Prophet" by what he calls a "similitude" (parable) symbolically, but clearly casts himself in the role of Moses being resisted by the Jews in the giving of this law. They question every aspect of it, like "Whose cow must it be? How old? What color?" As to the latter, the "Prophet" also gets that wrong: in the Koran, it's a yellow cow. He has "Moses" demanding of the Jews, "What? Are you trying to make a fool of me? What do you mean, 'what color, how old?'

Following upon this comes many verses meant to establish that Moses, called an "apostle of Allah," was sent to the Jews in vain: they ridiculed him, contested everything he got from God; they had no understanding of what was being commanded: in short, they didn't deserve having Moses sent to them in the first place.

Mohammad creates this fictional Moses to portray his own actual experience of being rejected by the Jews of Medina--whose community he, with his band of caravan robbers and slave merchants from Mecca, had invaded.

That's the truth of the matter, but the fiction runs all the further to this: Here, the latest, greatest and last of all "apostles" of Allah, Mohammad is providing himself all the excuses he will now need for genocide to be wreaked upon those Jews, during course of robbing from them their homes, wives, girl children, wells, flocks, camels and date plantations. But really? How may one know that? Because the next thing to follow upon the Tale of the Cow, in this book of the Koran, is a retelling (also bowdlerized) of how Adam and Eve came to be chased out of the Garden.

What Difference Does It Make?

Our then Secretary of State: "Was it a protest or some guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans?"

"What difference does it make?" she shrieks, but then, very next moment: "It is our job to figure out what happened!"

Well--wait a minute, which is it, then? If it makes no difference who it was, it can only be a fool's errand to be figuring out what it was. Without knowing who it was, you can't figure out what it was. What it was is entirely explained by who it was, and it makes all the difference in the world. What difference does it make--who did it, she asks?

Is it really her job to be figuring out what happened? What has "figuring out" got to do with it? Why didn't she say, *finding out* what happened? If you're finding out what happened, you're coming up with facts. If you're figuring out what happened you're coming up with lame explanations, excuses and ruses; coming out with anything but what happened: you're coming out with Susan Rice's talking points to the press.

Truly, the last thing Hillary wants to do is *find out* what happened, because she already knows exactly what happened. And if she should come out with it, this would (or surely ought) bury any chance she may yet have for a presidential bid in 2016.

Charles Krauthammer, bless his brilliant soul, has it wrong: it's got nothing to do with a cover-up for Obama's boasts, his false claims that he's got al Qaeda on the run--lest this should have looked bad for him in the upcoming election. No. It's purely a cover-up of Hillary's incompetence and her neglect of duty; a lack of concern for the people under her watch. A cover-up for all those frequent flier miles she logged (more than any predecessor), partying at 30,000 feet while Benghazi and all the world burns. Nothing more complicated than that.

So long as they could get away with hiding behind the Susan Rice talking points (not long at all), here is the spin they could put on it:  As usual, it is the extremists on the Right who are to blame. The degree of security we had in place at Benghazi, relying on domestic Libyan personnel, was doing just fine and would have continued to be perfectly adequate but for a freak outbreak of Islamophobia from the Right--by which we were blindsided. Who can prepare for a thing like that? Stinky stuff happens.

That's the Obama Administration's party line, the unstated (but obvious) talking points on Benghazi. The issue that must be dealt with now, from this recent Intelligence Committee report is the claim that the Ambassador himself was turning down offers for increased security. Really? But doesn't this conflict with earlier reports that he and/or his staffers had put in requests for it? If there's truth to this recent revelation, then for his own good and that of his staff, Hillary, had she the modicum of good sense it takes to be the leader of an executive department of our government, should have removed him from his post before 'some bunch of guys out for a walk one night' on 9/11 should decide to tie him to it and light a match to him and the rest of his staff.

Strange Bedfellows

The problem in dealing with such attitudes and opinions as are faced daily in all the Internet Israel bashing is this:  How unlikely is it to find a dogma-impassioned mind that is capable to react dispassionately and rationally to facts and reason? As Jonathan Swift has so aptly said, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."

When one's opinions come by indoctrination from agenda-driven, teachers and professors, biased reporting in the media, or bigoted instruction of parents, the effect is the same: you wind up with a person who thinks he or she knows something. But no, they are simply parroting some manner of rubbish they have been told or taught. These angry, thought-conformed sorts then go on in life to restrict any further political input from books, film and media commentary, to carefully cherry picked materials meant only to buttress an opinion already set in cement (or emotional slop) of their former indoctrinations.

As one takes note of the tone in all these execrable screeds from misinformed (or *disinformed*) Israel bashers here and all over the Web, one cannot escape an impression exactly like one used to get from the dogma-ridden, indoctrinated-from-birth minds of white segregationists of the American South. It sounds just the same.

Self-professed "liberal-progressives" with a seething hatred for Israel will be insulted out of their knickers, right down to their Adidas sneakers, to be so compared, of course--and that can't be helped. But it is most odd, isn't it, to be informed that preoccupation with the defense and success of Israel throughout the 1950s was a cause célèbre for liberals, leftist progressives, socialists and communists, right up until the turn of the decade, when official Soviet support abruptly switched from Israel to the Arabs.

So, what was it with this sudden burst of compassion from the international Communist revolution for the plight of Arabs both in and outside Israel--not just those in the refugee camps of Lebanon and Gaza, but for the entire UAR (United Arab Republic)?

The change in Soviet policy toward Israel came as Israel changed, or let us say, 'as she matured' from the early, dominantly socialist and communist culture of the kibbutz movement into the more grown-up, buxom, free market oriented moshavim with their privately owned tracts, families living in their own homes.  At last, there were moderate to conservative elements coming into a share of the political power. 

And that was all it took: seeing this change in the political ferment of Israel, a Soviet interest in the success of the new nation was seen to be betrayed! The former Soviet support and assistance was no longer of advantage in the quest for worldwide communist influence and/or domination.

As socialists and communists have always worked to have influence on the rank and file of liberals and 'progressives' all over the world, so also they have had their measure of success in that effort--in exploiting or creating popular causes. This is Communist Method & Strategy 101. 

The propaganda machine goes into high gear, pumping out anti-Zionist disinformation, to make those militant, murdering, raping, pillaging bands of Arab guerrillas refusing to live at peace with Israel--a new people! An oppressed minority! A pariah with a new name invented to the purpose. They shall no longer be "Fatah", but "the Palestinians" or which is the same, a "liberation army", the Soviet sponsored PLO.

Now an image transformation is made to take place: make the victims (refugees from Russian and Polish pogroms, survivors of Hitler and the British naval blockade, a persecuted people who had been ganged up on by every Arab nation on their borders and beyond) appear to be the aggressor, while the Soviet backed Arab guerrillas and their supporters are made to look like victims!

But one might say the same of the defeated German Reich--were they not victims of the Jews in cahoots with the Allied forces of the US and Europe who came to their liberation? Surely those defeated Nazis are no different than those Arabs who were defeated in their plans to drive every Jew from the land of Judah into the sea. Victims, surely!

Now, with all this Soviet help of propaganda and disinformation, the same underdog status formerly accorded to the Jews of Europe and Israel, is now conferred upon their defeated enemies.  And it works. As the Soviets turned their backs on Israel, American and European liberals and leftists turned their coats to join ranks with the USSR in the genocidal aims of the Arab states surrounding Israel.

Today, the only thing missing from the picture since the turn of the millennium, is the name "Soviet" or "Communist" from the mix of forces allied against Israel. Whether its the USSR/UAR confederation of aggression or that of Russia/China/Iran/Syria--there is no difference. 

The propaganda and disinformation that disseminates against Israel today has changed only insofar as it has become all the more thoroughly entrenched in the so-called "liberal" mind, now to be found in a very sexy alliance of strange bedfellows with the Arian Brotherhood, Neo-Nazis and the KKK. How perverted could anything ever get?

You can't reason such people out of the madness they weren't reasoned into, but you can hold a mirror up to them while they are raving in it, that they may be shocked and ashamed, and enraged to the point of apoplexy to see what they see. Then somebody should call for an ambulance.

Whose News?

Who knew which nose . . .

Would be the news,
That was all the nose,
Fit to print?

She Gave Up Smoking at the Age of 117

. . . only five years before her death.

Only five years . . . before . . .

Wait! Let's just see if I got that right. The longest lived person ever . . .

Jeane Louise Calment

Well? There it is in stunning Wikipedia black and white. And always, I kept promising myself, "Next year I'll quit." But now I figure, hey! Why push it? Why not wait till I'm 118? And while I'm at it, just maybe I can also break the record of Jeanne Louise, for the world's longest living person--still smoking!

Lucky for her, she lived during a time when a smoker was not at hazard of catching her death of pneumonia, snatching a few puffs on lunch break; driven out into the cold, the wind, the rain, sleet and snow by a cruel, sadistic society of hysterics and upight squares who refuse to face the fact of a Mademoiselle Calment!

But at the price of an extortionately taxed pack of cigarettes these days? Shoot! you'd be first driven to poverty, starvation and death, simply for trying to keep puffing so long as that darling old dame.

And what a shame! Think of the Virginia Slims ads in Life Magazine we never got to see: Jeanne Louise in art nouveau vignette, her pretty plumed hat haloed in white curlicues of a slogan blown from her own rosebud lips, "You've Come a Long Way, Baby!"

Like Jesse Ventura keeps saying, "Don't Start the Revolution Without Me."

And God Created Brigitte Bardot

She's 73 years old, and still HOT. And what's so hot about her, might you ask? She's hot under the collar, for one thing, having to show up in court now for a fifth time, charged with the crime of hating Islam.

Bardot was busted for something she said in a letter to French President Sarkozy. As a dedicated animal rights addict--excuse please!--'advocate', she was protesting the ritual slaughter of sheep for the Muslim high holiday of Eid-al-Kabir. The letter was sent in 2004 when Sarkozy was yet French Minister of the Interior, and as it was subsequently somehow leaked to the press--now she is being prosecuted and tried for what she said privately, in a letter.

To think of it. To see everything that Orwell would, in view of this, seem to have prophesied for his horror fantasy of totalitarian European government post-1984; that this may now be threatening to have come true, today for France, and tomorrow, why not for the rest of a former "free world"?

The offending language in Brigitte's missive was, to wit, "this population that leads us around by the nose, [and] which destroys our country." Time Magazine

There is another girl by the name of "Brigitte" who also is totally HOT. Her last name is Gabriel and she, a best selling author, is today here in the USA as an immigrant and new American citizen from Lebanon. I hear from her every day in a newsletter. This morning I read this . . .

Dear John,

While Americans are lulled into complacency as to the threat of Islamofascism because there have been no “9/11’s” since 9/11, the kettle that slowly boils the frog to death is heating up around us.

If you take a frog, put it in a kettle of water, and gradually raise the temperature, the frog will, without thinking and without awareness, adjust to the temperature changes until it boils to death. This is THE metaphor for incrementalism.
--
Any connection between the words "frog" and "French" would be entirely coincidental, and not intended to be understood as being in any way 'significant' or 'prophetic', let alone, least of all, "frog-bashing."

But getting back to the French Brigitte; if all this were not enough to get a free spirit like Bardot hot, after she was already hot and had long been hot, especially in the 1950's and 60's when she was the hottest thing on the international marquee since Theda "Kiss me, my fool" Bara--then consider how trying the whole thing must be for that poor zealot of a prosecutor acting in service of Big Brother, France; Anne de Fonette who has made her feelings plain for the reporters of Time magazine, having said, "I'm a bit tired of trying Madame Bardot," as again according to Time, "she urged the court to impose 'the most striking and remarkable' punishment in the case. A verdict is expected on June 3." Time

Here once again they are saying that Brigitte Bardot "hates Muslims" but how absurd! How can this be, that a lovely little retired sex-kitten like Bardot could 'hate' anything so innocent and defenseless as a religion? What, after no more than five arrests by the French flics, four convictions, four fines and suspended sentences--all this for 'hate'?

Hardly! Such punishment as this can only have been suffered for love, by a French woman--everybody knows!

It is only because Bardot loves France, and loves for France to be France, to stay French and not to be changing into something other, something alien and utterly foreign to French culture and manners.

Where is the 'hate' crime in that?