Those who wish to support them and their airing of lewd and bigoted shows, have at it. Serves you right to pay more for their service.
From SF Gate: This article, Netflix raised prices because you all are signing up like crazy, originally appeared on CNET.com.
If you want to blame anyone for Netflix raising prices, look to all the newbs who are signing up in droves.
The streaming video service reported that more people signed up in the last three months of 2018 than any other quarter ever, and it predicted even more new members in the first quarter of 2019. The company added 8.84 million new paid members, according to its end-of-year financial report Thursday. That’s better than the 7.6 million it’d predicted in October.
Netflix tends to end every year on an upswing, as people on holiday breaks spend extra time streaming and those who received new gadgets as gifts start setting them up by adding services like Netflix. But this time, Netflix had already issued a couple of particularly positive signals about how business was faring.
Last month, the company said Bird Box, its post-apocalyptic thriller starring Sandra Bullock, was watched by 45 million accounts in the first seven days it was available, the best viewership for one of its original movies yet. And Tuesday, Netflix announced price hikes.The prospect of a higher monthly bill wasn’t welcome news for consumers, but investors reacted with glee, and analysts interpreted it as Netflix flexing its muscles in the middle of a hot streak.
Netflix doubled down on viewership disclosures Thursday. Bird Box has now been watched by more than 80 million member households in four weeks, the company said, adding that the movie was getting “high repeat viewing.” Looking ahead, Netflix expects You — a thriller series about a bookish stalker, which struggled to find an audience when it aired on Lifetime — to surpass 40 million households in its first four weeks, and it predicts Sex Education, a British series that Netflix is distributing globally, to reach more than 40 million in the first four weeks too.
The eternal caveat about Netflix numbers like these? They’re not independently verified. Nielsen offers some ratings for Netflix programs, which it figures with its own system of measurement that leaves out any viewing on mobile devices and doesn’t count people watching outside the US. Nielsen’s initial Bird Box numbers supported the general case that the movie was widely popular, though.
And Netflix’s definition of a view carries different meaning for a movie versus a show. Netflix counts a movie as viewed once an account watches 70 percent of the total runtime, including credits. But for shows, Netflix credits the title with a view if an account gets through 70 percent of the total runtime of a single episode.
An exhibition at the Haifa Museum of Art in Israel displays artworks that insult Jesus Christ, but not the Islamic and Judaic religions.
The museum describes the “Sacred Goods” exhibition, curated by Shaked Shamir, which began on August 4 last year and ends today, as follows:
This exhibition focuses on the responses of contemporary artists to issues of religion and faith in the contemporary global reality, which is dominated by the consumer culture. In recent decades, various cultures and places around the world have witnessed a surprising religious revival. Theorist Boris Groys argues that in a world that has renounced the grand secular ideologies, the return to religion fulfills the need for meaning. Contemporary religions offer answers to the ills of the modern world and the sense of emptiness that pervades this era of extreme individualism and aggressive capitalism…. Consumer culture dictates a superficial interest in religious products and techniques, while ignoring the philosophical and ethical meanings of religion…. In the contemporary context, the artists participating in the exhibition employ religious symbols to criticize the encroachment of the consumer culture on our lives in general, and on the religious sphere in particular. The artists also criticize the way religions use consumer values and practices in order to prosper in the contemporary reality.
The participating artists are identified as Elodie Abergel, Ido Abramsohn, Gabi Ben Avraham, Magnus Gjoen, Vania Heymann, Jani Leinonen, Tony Leone, Ariane Littman, Esther Naor, Karam Natour, Pool & Marianela, and Nick Stern.
The exhibition includes these artworks and images that blaspheme God the Father, Jesus Christ and insults Christianity:
Our Lord Jesus Christ as a Ken doll:
Mocking His Crucifixion:
Mocking His Resurrection:
But no mockery of the Ark of the Covenant that’s celebrated in Judaism, or any other Judaic symbol or figure, nor of Islam:
In addition to insulting Jesus, the art exhibition trashes religion in general, while glorifying globalization:
In a reality wherein globalization aspires for cultural unification, religion offers its followers the illusion of a return to their roots and to distinctive local traditions.
Christian leaders in Israel have singled out Finnish artist Jani Leinonen‘s McJesus sculpture of a crucified Ronald McDonald, while ignoring the other offensive exhibits.
For his part, Leinonen said that last September, he had requested his McJesus sculpture be removed from the museum’s Sacred Goods exhibition, to no avail, and that McJesus is on display against his wishes.
In early January 2019, some four months after the opening of the “Sacred Goods” exhibition, Israel’s culture minister Miri Regev sent museum director Nissim Tal a letter week demanding McJesus’s removal, writing that: “Disrespect of religious symbols sacred to many worshippers in the world as an act of artistic protest is illegitimate and cannot serve as art at a cultural institution supported by state funds.” But the museum refused to remove the sculpture.
On January 14, 2019, hundreds of Christians protested outside the Haifa Museum of Art against McJesus. Violent clashes broke out between Christian protesters who tried to storm their way into the museum and the police, after a molotov cocktail was thrown at the museum the day before.
One of the protesters complained that the Israeli government was slow to respond because McJesus mocks Christianity and not Judaism: “If they put up [a sculpture of] Hitler with a Torah scroll they would immediately respond.” (The Art Newspaper)
Facebook’s “hate speech” suspension only lasted 24 hours. But it may have been the longest 24 hours yet for the social media giant. Evangelist Franklin Graham, CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, told the Charlotte Observer that he was recently suspended from Facebook for taking a stand for his biblical beliefs. The offending “hate speech” that shut down Graham’s account was nothing recent. Rather it stemmed from an April 9, 2016 post in which Graham endorsed a North Carolina law that prevents men from being able to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms. In addition, Graham’s post urged a return to biblical principles as a way of life.
The Facebook suspension prompted an immediate flurry of comment from numerous media outlets, including Fox News, the Washington Post and The New York Times. In addition, the suspension was concurrent with a Times investigative report revealing that Facebook maintains a secret rule book for policing—and censoring—Facebook members’ speech.
Facebook moved quickly to remove the suspension, but not soon enough. By the time Facebook restored Graham’s account, the word was out. On December 28, Facebook apologized. A Facebook spokesperson admitted to the Charlotte Observer that Graham was indeed punished for his post. And while the spokesperson is now apologizing for censoring Graham, it’s clear that some of Facebook’s team of 15,000 speech police can censor conservative Christians at will.
Graham says it’s just wrong that his biblical comments would be ever considered “hate speech.”
“Facebook said the post went against their ‘community standards on hate speech.’ Facebook is trying to define truth. There was a character in a movie a few years back who said, ‘The truth is what I say it is!’ That’s what Facebook is trying to do. They’re making the rules and changing the rules,” Graham said.
But he says God’s truth will always be the only real truth. “Truth is truth,” Graham said. “God made the rules and His Word is truth. Actually, Facebook is censoring free speech. The free exchange of ideas is part of our country’s DNA.
Graham reposted his 2016 post, last week, asking readers to judge whether what he said was “hate speech.”
“April 9, 2016—Bruce Springsteen, a long-time gay rights activist, has cancelled his North Carolina concert. He says the NC law #HB2 to prevent men from being able to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms is going ‘backwards instead of forwards.’ Well, to be honest, we need to go back! Back to God. Back to respecting and honoring His commands. Back to common sense. Mr. Springsteen, a nation embracing sin and bowing at the feet of godless secularism and political correctness is not progress. I’m thankful North Carolina has a governor, Pat McCrory, and a lieutenant governor, Dan Forest, and legislators who put the safety of our women and children first! HB2 protects the safety and privacy of women and children and preserves the human rights of millions of faith-based citizens of this state.”
The suspension, however brief, raises serious questions. If Facebook is willing to block one of the most prominent Christian leaders in the world, then what’s next? Graham’s Facebook suspension also reinforces ongoing reports of censorship against Christian beliefs by other social media giants and the tech companies that control so much of the communication and interaction in our world today – companies such as Google, Twitter, WordPress and Apple.
The revelation that Facebook records, monitors, scrutinizes and judges all subscribers’ speech according to a draconian and biased set of secret rules is frightening. It is a direct threat to free expression and an assault on conservative and Christian values. Had Graham’s suspension been confined to his account, Facebook might have been able to say that it was a simple error in judgment. But it was not an aberration. It was a punitive suspension levied according to corporate policy that was, until then, a secret. But the cat, so to speak, is out of the bag.
Christopher Carbone, writing for Fox News, outlined the report by The New York Times that disclosed the existence of Facebook’s rulebook. He said the rulebook was Facebook’s attempt to eliminate misinformation and hate speech. But he noted that the effort was predicated on a “byzantine and secret document of rules packed with spreadsheets and power point slides that gets updated regularly for its global content moderators.”
He said the New York Times showed the social network to be “a far more powerful arbiter of global speech than has been publicly recognized or acknowledged by the company itself.” The Times, he said, discovered a range of gaps, biases and outright errors — including instances where Facebook allowed extremism to spread in some counties while censoring mainstream speech in others.”
The rulebook’s details were revealed by a Facebook employee who leaked more than 1,400 pages of the speech policing rulebook to the Times because he “feared that the company was exercising too much power, with too little oversight — and making too many mistakes.”
Carbone said that Facebook “is trying to monitor billions of posts per day in over 100 languages while parsing out the subtle nuances and complicated context of language, images and even emojis. The group of Facebook employees who meet every other Tuesday to update the rules, according to the Times, are trying to boil down highly complex issues into strict yes-or-no rules.”
Facebook, he said, then outsources the content moderation to other companies that tend to hire unskilled workers. The 7,500-plus moderators “have mere seconds to recall countless rules and apply them to the hundreds of posts that dash across their screens each day. When is a reference to “jihad,” for example, forbidden? When is a “crying laughter” emoji a warning sign?”
In the U.S., Facebook has banned the Proud Boys, a far-right group that has been accused of fomenting real-world violence. It also blocked an advertisement about the caravan of Central American illegal aliens put out by President Trump’s political team.
“It’s not our place to correct people’s speech, but we do want to enforce our community standards on our platform,” Sara Su, a senior engineer on the News Feed, told the Times. “When you’re in our community, we want to make sure that we’re balancing freedom of expression and safety.”
Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of global policy management, said that the primary goal was to prevent harm, and that to a great extent, the company had been successful. But perfection, she said, is not possible.
“We have billions of posts every day, we’re identifying more and more potential violations using our technical systems,” Bickert told the newspaper. “At that scale, even if you’re 99 percent accurate, you’re going to have a lot of mistakes.”
Facebook’s most politically consequential and potentially divisive document could be an Excel spreadsheet that the Times reports lists every group and individual the company has barred as a “hate figure.” Moderators are told to remove any post praising, supporting or representing any of the people on that list.
Anton Shekhovtsov, an expert in far-right groups, told the publication he was “confused about the methodology.” The company bans an impressive array of American and British groups, he added, but relatively few in countries where the far right can be more violent, particularly Russia or Ukraine.
Still, there’s inconsistency in how Facebook applies the rules. In Germany, where speech in general is more scrutinized, Facebook reportedly blocks dozens of far-right groups. In nearby Austria, it only blocks one.
For a tech company to draw these lines is “extremely problematic,” Jonas Kaiser, a Harvard University expert on online extremism, told the Times. “It puts social networks in the position to make judgment calls that are traditionally the job of the courts.”
See what love the Father has bestowed on us that we may be called the children of God. And so we are. The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We do know that when it is revealed we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope based on him makes himself pure, as he is pure…. No one who remains in him sins; no one who sins has seen him or known him. Children, let no one deceive you. The person who acts in righteousness is righteous, just as he is righteous. Whoever sins belongs to the devil, because the devil has sinned from the beginning. Indeed, the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil…. In this way, the children of God and the children of the devil are made plain; no one who fails to act in righteousness belongs to God, nor anyone who does not love his brother…. Do not be amazed, [then,] brothers, if the world hates you…. [Now] this is how we shall know that we belong to the truth and reassure our hearts before him in whatever our hearts condemn, for God is greater than our hearts and knows everything. Beloved, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence in God and receive from him whatever we ask, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. And his commandment is this: we should believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another just as he commanded us. Those who keep his commandments remain in him, and he in them, and the way we know that he remains in us is from the Spirit he gave us.
Five days ago, we celebrated the Nativity of Jesus the Christ.
This Sunday’s reading from 1 John 3 is rich with joy, mystery, instruction, and warning.
We are joyful that we are the children of God, and intrigued by the promise that “what we shall be has not yet been revealed” and that when our time comes, we shall see God “as he is”.
How awesome is that!
But we are reminded that for this to happen, we must be pure, “belong to the truth” and keep His commandments, because “No one who remains in him sins”.
It is in so doing that we are true “children of God,” instead of “children of the devil”. But it is also precisely because we are “children of God” that we are hated by the world, which should neither surprise nor dishearten us, for being the object of the fallen world’s hatred and abuse means we are on the right path.
And so, the battle lines are drawn.
It isn’t and won’t be easy. We are and will be reviled and scorned, not because we’ve done something wrong, but precisely because we fight for truth instead of lies, good instead of evil.
And when our hopes are dashed and our spirits deflated, just remember this promise:
“Beloved, we are God’s children now;
what we shall be has not yet been revealed.
We do know that when it is revealed
we shall be like him,
for we shall see him as he is.”
May the joy and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you,
William Nardi reports for The College Fix, Dec. 24, 2018, that a new student club, Satanic Students at NC State, just completed its inaugural semester at North Carolina State University (NCSU), a taxpayer-funded public university.
The mission of Satanic Students at NC State University is to 1) encourage benevolence and empathy among all people, 2) reject tyrannical authority, 3) advocate scientific examination of the universe and our place in it, 4) promote morality and justice based on rational, humanistic values, and 5) be directed by the human conscience to undertake noble pursuits guided by the individual will.
According to Technician, the official student newspaper of NC State University, a recent slide presentation at a Satanic Students meeting denied that the club worships Satan because “Satan doesn’t exist”.
That doesn’t make any sense. If the Satanic Students at NC State believe Satan doesn’t exist, then why call the club “Satanic”?
The satanic club’s founder and president is Peter Aker, a third-year studying chemical engineering. He said the purpose of the club is not to be inflammatory or to promote any particular system of beliefs, but that “Satanism is more of a philosophy and ideology, and not so much a religion. We don’t believe in a literal Satan. Instead, we use its philosophy and the symbology behind it to form our opinions on the way the world should go.”
Aker claims his club has “the same amount of validity” as other religious groups on campus, but has a better message — “It’s more modern. It’s less restrictive and puritan. We don’t preach that you’re going to go to Hell if you do bad things … What matters is what you do here, while you’re alive.”
In other words, it’s the same old Aleister Crowleyism — Do As Thou Will.
Aker admitted that his club’s five-part mission statement is based loosely off of the seven tenets of The Satanic Temple, which Aker lauds for advocating topics such as women’s reproductive rights that was promoted by several of the temple’s chapters as “Menstruatin’ With Satan,” in which feminine health care products were collected and redistributed to communities in need.
Alec Nabinger, a fourth-year student studying sustainable materials and technology, described some of Satanic Students’ principles to which he was drawn when he joined the club: “It’s more of just, the Satanic ideals of bodily autonomy, knowledge through science, accountability.”
Aker said the club has 8 members.
A 2017 column in Crisis Magazine addressed the rise of “Satanism” groups in America (Breitbart):
The real issue is all about the mainstreaming of Satanism in America. Much as the same-sex ‘marriage’ debate was about acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, so also Satanic groups seek social acceptance. Indeed, this is what the Satanists themselves declare. For them, it has nothing to do with religious practices. Many of them even allege they have none. They simply want to mainstream Satanism so that it will be viewed as normal.
Graham Moomaw reports for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Dec. 6, 2018, that the West Point High School in West Point, Virginia, fired French teacher Peter Vlaming for refusing to go along with the madness of ‘transgenderism’ by addressing a female 9th-grade student who imagines herself to be male with the Left-mandated “correct” male pronouns.
Note that FOTM‘s recounting of Moomaw’s report for the Richmond Times-Dispatch refers to the biologically-female student as “girl,” “she” and “her,” instead of “boy” and male pronouns employed by Moomaw, which is now mandated for journalists in America’s insane Left-dominated media.
Vlaming, 47, who had taught at the school for almost seven years after spending more than a decade in France, told his superiors his Christian faith prevented him from using male pronouns for a student he saw as female.
A year ago, the student was in Vlaming’s class, at which point, she had identified as female. Then, over the summer, the girl’s family informed the school system of her “transition” to being male. Vlaming agreed to use the student’s new, male name, but avoided using any pronouns — he or him, and she or her — when referring to the student in her presence. But Vlaming did use female pronouns to refer to the female student in conversations with others. According to “witnesses,” during a class activity on Halloween involving the use of a virtual reality headset, the student was about to run into a wall, and Vlaming told others to stop “her.”
In other words, the school relied on spies and informants.
The student said that Vlaming made her feel uncomfortable and singled out. And the school’s administrators sided with her. They recommended that Vlaming be fired for violating the school system’s nondiscrimination and harassment policies that were updated a year ago to include protections for gender identity.
West Point’s principal Jonathan Hochman said he had told Vlaming to use male pronouns in accordance with the student’s wishes, and hyperbolically condemned Vlaming’s refusal as “I can’t think of a worse way to treat a child than what was happening.” West Point schools Superintendent Laura Abel said that Vlaming’s gender “discrimination” created “a hostile learning environment” which made the student and her parents feel “disrespected.”
Although the school district’s attorney, Stacy Haney, justifies Vlaming’s firing on the basis of a school employee’s refusal to follow policies, Vlaming’s lawyer, Shawn Voyles, said the school district’s nondiscrimination and harassment policies contain no specific guidance on the use of gender pronouns, and that even as a public employee, Vlaming has constitutional rights of his own, specificially the right “to be free from being compelled to speak something that violates your conscience.”
Speaking in his own defense, Vlaming said he loves and respects all his students and had tried to reach a solution based on “mutual tolerance.” But the effort was rejected, which put him at risk of losing his job for having views held by “most of the world for most of human history.” Vlaming said, “That is not tolerance. That is coercion.”
Vlaming’s hearing drew an overflow crowd, made up largely of parents and students who support him. They describe Vlaming as a model teacher who does extra duty as a soccer coach and bus driver. They had brought to the hearing “Justice for Mr. Vlaming” signs, but school officials forebade the signs in the meeting room with the ridiculous excuse that the small room did not have space for the signs. So the signs were left in a stack outside the meeting room’s doors.
During the hearing, to highlight the pitfalls of rules against “misgendering,” Vlaming and his lawyer pointed out that school principal Hochman himself used the “wrong” pronoun for the student during his testimony. Describing his conversation with Vlaming after the incident on Halloween, Hochman testified that he told Vlaming: “You need to say sorry for that. And refer to her by the male pronoun.”
Despite the support from many students and parents, the school board chose to terminate Vlaming’s employment. Superintendent Abel released this brief statement after the vote: “As detailed during the course of the public hearing, Mr. Vlaming was recommended for termination due to his insubordination and repeated refusal to comply with directives made to him by multiple WPPS administrators.”
Vlaming has asked the School Board to reconsider their decision — the “absurdity” of punishing a teacher for discrimination on the basis of pronoun usage alone, with no accusation of overtly malicious behavior. He said, “I am being punished for what I haven’t said.”
Vlaming is considering a wrongful-termination lawsuit and is consulting with his attorney. He said: “I have to research how we would do that, what that would entail. I do think it’s a serious question of First Amendment rights.”
Contact information for your protests:
Principal, West Point High School
Phone: (804) 843-3630 x104
Laura K. Abel
Superintendent, West Point Public Schools
Phone: (804) 843-4386
There is a petition asking Superintendent Abel to reinstate Vlaming. To sign, click here.
Founded in 1986, the European Jewish Congress (EJC) is an umbrella organization of 42 national Jewish communities in Europe, representing more than 2.5 million European Jews. Affiliated to the World Jewish Congress, the EJC is one of the most influential international public associations. It works with national governments, European Union institutions and the Council of Europe. Based in Paris, the EJC has offices in Brussels, Strasbourg, Berlin and Budapest.
The Jerusalem Post reports that on November 21, 2018, the EJC convened a high level conference in Vienna, Austria, on “Europe beyond antisemitism and anti-Zionism – securing Jewish life in Europe”.
The conference was arranged by the Federal Chancellery of Austria led by Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz who, in his opening address, said “Antisemitism and anti-Zionism are getting blurred, but they are two sides of the same coin.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a recorded video speech at the conference, in which he said that antisemitism was resurgent again “throughout the world,” and that a new antisemitism has arisen which attempts “to demonize the Jewish state and prevent the Jewish people the right to self-determination in the homeland of our forefathers, the Land of Israel. Netanyahu said that “The Holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers of Auschwitz. The Holocaust began with the spread of hate speech, the burning of books and the smashing of shop windows.”
EJC president Dr. Moshe Kantor said at the conference:
“Today, on European streets, people are being killed again simply for being Jewish. Jewish communities in Europe are increasingly concerned about their security and pessimistic about their future. Europe doesn’t have a monopoly on antisemitism anymore. No Jewish community anywhere in the world, however strong and well organized, is now immune from Jew hatred. Fighting antisemitism deserves much more than simple statements of good will – we need concrete policies and reinforced legislation.”
To that end, the conference produced a Catalogue of Policies to Combat Antisemitism — detailed proposals and recommendations for combating antisemitism in Europe, drawn up by the EJC with the assistance of academics from universities in Vienna, Tel Aviv and New York. (Daily Mail names Israeli historian Dina Porat and New York University professor Lawrence H. Schiffman as among the academics.)
Chancellor Kurz said he intends to bring the document before the European Council, the body comprising the 28 EU member heads of state that determines policy direction, at its next summit in December. Raising the issue at the European Council would be prelude to the adoption of the recommendations by the EU and Europe’s national governments.
On its website, the European Jewish Congress identifiesthe following recommendations of the Catalogue of Policies to Combat Antisemitism:
Adoption and implementation of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism by all countries, institutions and businesses;
Governments and intergovernmental organizations should condemn the blatant state-sanctioned antisemitism that exist in a number of countries, such as Iran;
All countries should appoint an envoy for combatting antisemitism;
Every country should commit to a percentage of its GDP, annually, to fund the fight against antisemitism;
Creating new legal frameworks to combat antisemitism effectively and strengthening existing ones;
People who express or hold antisemitic views should not be allowed to be members of political parties or occupy a position of power;
Companies should be advised not to do business with countries or organizations that support antisemitism in any way;
Governments should commit financial and operational resources to ensure the security of Jewish communities;
Internet companies should be liable for antisemitic content on their platforms.
Curiously, left out of the above recommendations is the call for new editions of the Bible and Koran to carry warning messages about anti-Semitic passages.
James Wood reports for Daily Mail, Nov. 23, 2018, that the recommendation is in the EJC’s conference document, An End to Antisemitism! A Catalogue of Policies to Combat Antisemitism, in a chapter entitled “Recommendations regarding Religious Groups and Institutions”. The document reads:
Translations of the New Testament, the Qur’an and other Christian or Muslim literatures need marginal glosses, and introductions that emphasize continuity with Jewish heritage of both Christianity and Islam and warn readers about antisemitic passages in them. While some efforts have been made in this direction in the case of Christianity, these efforts need to be extended and made consistent in both religions.
The Catalogue of Policies to Combat Antisemitism also calls for:
The identification and rejection of all antisemitic texts and passages in the heritage of Christianity and Islam.
Religious leaders and thinkers to public denounce as “unholy writ” all canonical or quasi-canonical writings of religious anti-Semites.
The Catalogue‘s justification for these changes is because divine messages are always communicated through human beings and therefore subject to error. It reads:
God’s revelation is thus marred by human fallibility. Beginning with the New Testament, divine revelation expresses itself in Christian holy texts that also express a form of hatred. The manifestations of this hatred resulted in a tradition of antisemitism that gave moral legitimacy to crimes against the Jewish people, the epitome of which is the Shoah.
Several themes in the New Testament have come under fire for being anti-Semitic. These include blaming Jews for the death of Jesus, and negative remarks about the stubborn nature of the Jewish people and their disloyalty to God.
So what is the IHRA working definition of antisemitism?
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
Alas, the working definition does not define what “hatred toward Jews” means, but that meaning can be gleaned from what the IHRA considers to be contemporary examples of antisemitism, including:
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations aboutJews as such or the power of Jews as collective—such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Denying thefact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
What the IHRA, European Jewish Congress and its Catalogue of Policies to Combat Antisemitism conveniently omit is that the Talmud, which supercedes the Torah (Old Testament) in religious authority for Jews, is rabidly anti-Christian.
Written in Hebrew between the third and sixth centuries, the Talmud is a collection of 63 books that together codify the oral law that Jewish rabbis claim was handed down from Moses. Jesus, in Matthew 15, however condemns that oral law when he said: “By the traditions of your elders you make void the Word of God.”
English translations of the Talmud have been watered down so as to conceal from the Gentiles the “satanic verses” contained in the original Hebrew. Those “satanic verses” can be classified into three categories:
Hatred for “goys” or Gentiles
Hatred for Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and all Christians. Some examples:
Jesus (“Yashu”) is in Hell being “boiled in hot excrement” (Gittin 57a); Jesus was sexually immoral and “worshipped a brick” (Sanhedrin 107b); Jesus was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness and refusal to repent (Sotah 47a).
Mary (“Miriam the hairdresser”) was a prostitute who “had sex with many men” (Shabbath 104b, Hebrew Edition only); “She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters” (Sanhedrin 106a).
“Christians who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations” (Rosh Hashanah 17a); “All things pertaining to the Goim are like a desert; the first person to come along and take them can claim them for his own” (Babha Bathra 54b).
Here’s more evidence that the Democrat Party is the Party of Evil.
According to Wikipedia, with a networth in February 2018 of $1.54 billion, Mark Pincus, 52, is an Internet entrepreneur who was a founding investor of Twitter and Facebook. He is also the founder of Zynga, a mobile social gaming company; the startups Freeloader, Inc., and Support.com; incubator SuperLabs; and the co-founder of Win the Future (WTF), the “progressive left wing” insurgency movement within the already left-wing Democratic Party.
In the 2016 presidential election, Pincus was a supporter of Hillary Clinton, as seen in the pic below. He blames Hillary’s loss on “outside factors like Russian meddling”.
In 2003, at age 37, Pincus founded his third startup, Tribe.net, an early social network. Tribe.net partnered with major local newspapers and was backed by The Washington Post, Knight Ridder Digital, and Mayfield Fund and Guy Spier.
Pincus said in 2008:
“We’ve kept Tribe going not because we believed it would turn into a phenomenal business success like Bebo or Facebook, but because I think it serves a really valuable role for the community.”
In November 2016, a poster on Voat discovered a massive sadistic pedophile “community” at Tribe.net, where child porn of the sickest sort is openly available, and where sadistic pedophiles boast of “no limits” to their twisted perversities.
On Tribe, members can initiate a discussion on a particular subject by starting a new thread. One of the threads is truly evil, titled “Newborn Snuff,” which was begun on October 2, 2015 by a member who calls himself BabySnuff. This is what BabySnuff wrote (WARNING: Graphic language):
“Anyone else have a fantasy of raping a newborn to death? Kidnap a woman off the street, rape her and impregnate her, then when she gives birth, immediately shove your cock inside the newborn and rape it, tearing it apart with your cock. Once you cum, and the baby is a broken mess, just shove it back inside the whore it came from.”
Below are some of the comments on that thread:
“HAIL SATAN. its the best”
“HAIL SATAN! I need to give myself to him to become a temple 4 him to enter & instruct me how to fuck NB’s as a way of worshiping him!!”
“i want to ruff fuck bbys balls deep on my cock & worship satan with a large group of nepi bby snffers into 666!!!! ”
Other threads on Tribe include incest, cannibalism, and spreading AIDS via “gay” sex.
Want more evidence that the Democrat Party is the Party of Evil? See:
Inés San Martin reports for Crux, Nov. 15, 2018, that the United Nations Human Rights Committee wants to make abortion and “assisted suicide” — a euphemism for euthanasia — a univeral human right.
A “General Comment” is a UN agency’s interpretation of the provisions of the treaties to which it is a party.
According to a draft “General Comment” of the UN Human Rights Committee’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN member governments:
Must decriminalize abortion for women and abortionists.
Must guarantee “safe, legal and effective” access to abortion when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk, or when carrying the pregnancy to term could cause her “pain or suffering” as in the cases of rape or incest.
Must remove barriers that deny access to a safe abortion, “including barriers caused as a result of the exercise of conscientious objection by individual medical providers.” In other words, medical providers must be forced to perform abortion, regardless of their religious or moral objection.
Guarantee girls’ and women’s access to post-abortion health care “in all circumstances, and on a confidential basis.”
Guarantee access by “boys and girls” to a wide range of affordable contraceptive methods.
Allow medical professionals to “facilitate the termination of life of afflicted adults, such as those who are terminally ill, who experience severe physical or mental pain and suffering and who wish to die with dignity.”
An earlier version of the draft was read in July 2017, during the 120th session of the Human Rights Committee and made available online by the UN. “All interested stakeholders” were invited to comment on the draft. Although many pro-life groups submitted comments, their views are disregarded as the current version of the draft, as of October 31, shows that the language calling for governments to guarantee access to abortion and “assisted suicide” remains.
Meanwhhile, writing for American Thinker, Oct. 27, 2018, E. Jeffrey Ludwig reminds us that in 2015, the UN issued a program for world government, entitled Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
The 14,883-words document has 91 numbered sections addressing issues under the five headings of People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnership; and contains 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to improve life on the planet.
The earlier UN ideas and ideals of rights, freedom, equality, and justice are now subsumed under “sustainability”. The UN World Commission on Environment and Development defines “sustainable development” as:
Development “that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” — whatever that means.
“Environmentalism” — preventing the depletion of scarce planetary resources.
The Marxist axiom that society should be organized around the idea of “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”
The entire “Transforming Our World” document is cast in a stream of consciousness of pious platitudes for a utopian future. It is an outsize utopian dream. Five of the 17 items pertain to the environment. There are goals for the cities, for women, for the poor, and even for life under the water. Absolutely no sphere of human activity is exempt from control by the UN….
The one-worlders of the 1950s and early 1960s are now in the UN driver’s seat, and they have made their move. The overlay of Marxist talk about “meeting needs” has moved to center stage. The UN has assigned itself a time frame for moving forward in its plan for planetary hegemony.
This projected transformation detailing (yet without details) a new world order of environmental responsibility and a significant reduction of poverty and hunger never speaks to the practical dimension of vast manipulations of people by cynical leaders and ignorant bureaucrats who hold their positions through terrorism and bribery. They never discuss incompetence and corruption, twin brothers in the family of venality. The document portrays a sincere world where all those in power want to help humanity despite the daily evidence of the selfishness, corruption, murderous intents, devilish manipulations, thefts, personal immoralities, hatreds, and utter depravity of many governmental leaders in every country in the world, and among the leaders of business as well. Is not the Agenda for Sustainable Development itself one of those devilish manipulations?
The sustainability ideal is not wedded to a Christian worldview; instead, individual liberty is submerged in a scientifically determined collectivist mindset with final decisions in the hands of the devilish, all-knowing Big Brothers. The relevance of the individual is downplayed. It is being put forward by a UN that is no longer pro-western, a much larger body than existed in 1945. Will you accept it, or is it time, more than ever before, to begin rethinking our membership in that unsustainable body?
On Nov. 16, 1993, then-President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that “ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected” into law, with an almost-unanimous approval by Congress. Every House member approved of the bill; only three senators voted no.
Incredibly, both the House and Senate versions of RFRA were sponsored by Democrats: Rep. Chuck Shumer (NY) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (MA).
Then is then, and now is now.
The Democrat Party that spearheaded RFRA has become the hate-America, hate-God Demonrat Party that now is bent on the all-but-in-name repeal of the same law it once championed.
In an op/ed for the Washington Examiner, November 14, 2018, former Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.), who now teaches political science at Utah Valley University, reports that even before the Nov. 6 election, 50 House Democrats had co-sponsored H.R. 3222, a bill to gut the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). With a majority of Demonrats now in control of the House of Representatives after the recent mid-term elections, there are now 172 House Democrats who support H.R. 3222, as their party takes control of the House.
H.R. 3222, sanctimoniously and deceptively titled the Do No Harm Act, is sponsored by Rep. Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.) and co-sponsored by 170 other House members, all Demonrats, one of whom is the anticipated incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), 71. That committee would be in charge of approving the undoing of RFRA.
H.R. 3222’s companion Senate bill (S. 2918) is authored by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and co-sponsored by 28 other Demonrat senators.
Instead of a head-on repeal of RFRA, H.R. 3222 and S. 2918 take a sly approach by creating a long itemized list of exemptions from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, thereby diminishing and undermining RFRA’s protection of religious freedom. The exemptions include sexual orientation, gender identity, and abortion. In effect, our Constitutional First Amendment right to freedom of religion would be declared less important than other claims never mentioned in the Constitution and often not even legislated by elected officials.
Groups endorsing HR 3222 and S 2918 are the usual leftwing suspects and promoters of evil: the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Human Rights Campaign, Center for American Progress, Lambda Legal, NAACP, NARAL, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Organization of Women, and Planned Parenthood.
H.R. 3222 would declare that religious freedoms must yield when they run counter to the LGBTQ agenda or to other progressive causes such as abortion rights. Pushing this are progressive groups which claim that religious beliefs are just a cover for discrimination, bigotry, and hate….
The turnaround [since RFRA] dramatizes how culture and politics have changed in 25 years. Secular values have been given priority and religious freedoms have been narrowed.
Istook warns that HR 3222 and S 2918 will also reverse the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby and Masterpiece Cakeshop decisions. State-level versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act are also being attacked. Those were enacted in 21 states after the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997 ruled that RFRA protects only against intrusive laws on the federal level.
And although the GOP-majority Senate is very unlikely to approve S. 2918 or any legislation gutting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, those who oppose RFRA will be emboldened by HR 3222, and they will keep trying.