New Freedom Center Video — Ten Reasons to Abolish the UN

While the world witnesses mass atrocities every day, especially at the hands of radical Islam, the United Nations remains obsessively fixated on condemning one democracy, Israel, the only democratic country in the Middle East. The reasons for this are very clear. As Shillman Journalism Fellow Daniel Greenfield explains in his searing new pamphlet, 10 Reasons to Abolish the U.N., the so-called “world body” has become a “democracy of tyrants” that has long since turned its back on the ideals present at its founding. For more information, view the video below and order your copy of the pamphlet by clicking here.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Rifleman

    Alger Hiss, the democrat representing the USA in the formation of the UN was a soviet agent. The UN is rigged against us.

  • H&R_ Barack

    While Lenin & Stalin were too busy hanging peasants to hang any capitalists;

    United Nations remains one of the many dialectical ropes we were sold by the Marxist/Leninist/Stalinists with which to hang ourselves.

    FACT: ….The U.N. most assuredly hangs American Tax Payers.

    • mlcblog

      and wants to and has a plan to take our guns. They do not understand and hate our freedom.

  • popseal

    The U.N. should be evicted from U.S. soil and the U.S should not give another penny to it.

    • Rick_in_VA

      AMEN! And we should charge an appropriate monthly rent for the use of the building(s) until they can find somewhere else from which to spew their hatred of freedom.

  • Schlomotion

    I think it's funny that Israel treats the UN as if it were a country and a Nazi Muslim country at that. Israel does not participate properly in the UN, in the Nuclear NPT, or the Oslo Accords. It is a rogue state. Hasbara organizations even try to fan the flame of American Neo-Confederate anti-UN paranoia to serve their aims of destroying the UN. What would they replace it with? More Israel? The World Jewish Congress?

    • Looking4Sanity

      LOL! I hope you survive the Tribulation if for no other reason than to see Israel still standing and Jesus Christ ruling the entire world from the capitol of Jerusalem for 1000 years.

      What you call a "rogue" state, I call a sovereign nation. It's a pity you hold sovereignty in such low esteem. It doesn't speak well for your loyalty. You obviously never served in the Armed Forces.

      • H&R_ Barack

        Either Way: ~ If the Rapture occurs between now and the 2016 Election;

        America shall STILL have a continuous, worldly, unregenerate Presidential representation.

        • Looking4Sanity

          After Armageddon, America…and the rest of the world…will have a King. THE King of Kings.

      • Schlomotion

        Frankly, you are simply one of those religious fundamentalists that we have to tolerate in our society. I hope you enjoy your religious beliefs. I wouldn't place any bets on the Bible coming true.

        • Looking4Sanity

          Maybe that's why you'll always be poor. Most of it has already come true and the rest is happening as we speak. Let THAT blow your mind.

        • Looking4Sanity

          …and, yes…you strike me as being SO "tolerant"…not! But, that's fine. I don't expect you to tolerate me any more than I tolerate you. The difference is I'm not a hypocrite about it.

          • Schlomotion

            Charles Scoggins?

          • Looking4Sanity

            You have a point to make? Please do something stupid. I live for those moments.

          • Schlomotion

            Yes. I have a point to make, Charles. It is possible that you have some good life accomplishments. You should not try to hold them over other people and make predictions about their apocalyptic demise, nor should you sneer at people for not sharing your religion. Religious beliefs are not an accomplishment or substantial embellishment of a person.

          • Looking4Sanity

            That sounds like a personal opinion to me, and not a statement of fact. Please forgive me if I tell you your opinion means less than dog crap to me.

          • Roger

            Dog doo at least can be wiped off the shoe and tossed outside.

            This one keeps coming back with more stupid.

        • Zionista

          and you are a Jew hating, irrelevant nobody. Did ya hear dummy, that none other than Christoper Columbus was one of us Jews – guess it's time to hate him now too

    • Willy Rho

      Are you a Nazi or a Moo Slim? You sure sound like it. I am just a plain old Anglo Saxon – Swede. What are you?

      • Schlomotion

        I am just a person. I don't have a political or religious affiliation.

        • Looking4Sanity

          You give yourself far too much credit.

      • Looking4Sanity

        He's just a run of the mill douche with no guiding principles, morals, or ethical standards.

        He's a "fellow traveler".

        • Schlomotion

          Actually, I have guiding principles and standards, but they are just not Christian, Charles.

          • Looking4Sanity

            Well, by all means…enlighten us…shlub.

          • Schlomotion

            No thanks.

          • Looking4Sanity

            I thought not. It's no fun being on the other side of the microscope, is it?

          • Schlomotion

            It's fine, but since it would do you no good, why bother?

          • Schlomotion

            Sorry, Charlie.

          • Looking4Sanity

            Hope springs eternal…unless you're an atheist.

          • Roger

            Just a anti-zionist that never missed a chance to prove how well rounded he is in his 'stupid'.

          • Zionista

            GOOD! the less we hear from a boring windbag, the better


      Move the UN to Mecca so two birds can be killed with one stone.

    • stern

      "Israel does not participate properly" ?? Hmm, wonder why?
      Once again, the troll proves that it has nothing to say with a post that says nothing. Best ignored.

    • Touchstone

      Even if you think Israel is a rogue state, it shouldn't be a surprise to you why Israel complains about the UN.

      The UN:

      – focuses obsessively on Israel
      – passes endless resolutions against Israel, in which dozens upon dozens of nations gang up on it, sacrificing its welfare out of expediency
      – holds emergency sessions to punish Israel while never doing any such thing on Israel's behalf
      – declared that Zionism is Racism, thereby criminalizing Israel's Jewish inhabitants
      – hosts dozens of Muslim-majority countries which have essentially hijacked the UN for their own anti-Israel agenda
      – allocates inordinate resources to one refugee group far above all others, the Palestinians, without holding to account the Arab nations who deny them full rights, blaming Israel instead, in perpetuity
      – allows the ridiculous spectacle of despotic regimes like Libya and Iran to sit on councils devoted to human rights and the rights of women
      – pretends to keep the peace in places like Lebanon while permitting openly genocidal terrorist groups like Hezbollah to build up a massive missile arsenal (and it didn't do much to prevent the slaughter in Rwanda either)
      – hosts the notorious Durban conferences allegedly to oppose racism and intolerance which actually provide a worldwide platform to extreme bigots who demonstrate with signs carrying heart-warmingly civilized, tolerant, and peaceful messages like "Too Bad Hitler Didn't Finish The Job"
      – harasses journalists who are pro-Israel or critical of the UN
      – allows a Holocaust denier, demagogue, propagandist and election-stealing despot like Ahmadinejad a dignified platform to bash Israel

      There have been books written on the subject of how rife the UN is with antisemitism. Even Kofi Annan acknowledged the UN's pervasive prejudice. He once conceded that it did appear to be the case that the rights all peoples of the world are respected at the UN except for those of the Jews.

      • Schlomotion

        I think it is to be expected that countries will bring antisemitism to the UN. Israel certainly brings its hatred of non-semites everywhere it goes. To me, it's just something that has to be overlooked or disputed periodically. All groups, all nations, all religions, all races have their baseless chauvinisms, their pointless hatreds, and their plans for a Greater Serbia and Ostmark, and we simply have to deal with them at a table and laugh off their claims when they get too extreme. Like Russia claiming to own the North Pole, or Israel claiming to still own Judea. Jews themselves admit that Judea was destroyed by their God because they were evil. Of course, there is no God, but still they admit it. Muslims know deep down that they killed off the female God and kept the male one and that the world is going to kick their butt if they keep trying to set up a global religious empire. Really, we still do have Nazis in the world and the US adopted much of Nazism after WWII but nobody was going to accept Germany as the central command of Europe, and really even today they still don't. Jews, Israelis, Hebrews, Semites, whatever they want to call themselves in any given moment honestly do know that they can and do overstay their welcome on the patience of nations, people, etc. Meyrav Wurmser even committed to it in writing. Sometimes I think Jews are justified in flipping the bird to the world, but always, always always, this little routine they do where they cite a 2000 year history of oppression, they know, and I know, and you know, and even Charles Jacobs knows, we don't care anymore. It's used up. It is a new century. We are in the future. It is now. All these specters and claims and grievances are anachronisms.

        • Touchstone

          "in any given moment honestly do know that they can and do overstay their welcome"

          Now you presume to be a mind-reader. Is that what Jews "honestly do know"? Really? What Jews know is probably closer to this: Jews have been a very convenient scapegoat throughout history. You may think that sounds trite, but my reading of history shows it to be true. Examples abound of Jews being falsely accused of all manner of ills that have befallen societies from time to time. When the economy tanks, it's convenient to blame Jews and expel them, when in fact the real benefit is stealing Jewish wealth under the pretense that Jews caused a calamity.

          In any case, most Jews are just going about their ordinary lives and certainly aren't responsible for trying "the patience of nations". Are you seriously laying such a massive charge at the feet of "Jews", collectively? You claim to frown on stereotyping, but you always lapse into lumping Jews together, starting sentences with phrases like "Jews, Israelis, Hebrews, Semites, whatever they want to call themselves" and then proceeding to tell us what all the above are guilty of. You crammed a recent post with sweeping generalizations like "Jews hate Muslims… Jews hate the French… Jews hate Americans… etc". You're always condemning "Jews" collectively. Always. Why do you continue to have no compunction about lumping all Jews together? "Jews" hate so-and-so, "Jews" try your patience, "Jews" overstay their welcome, and so on. Why must the rest of us stand accused when it's particular individuals who spark your ire?

          What are you implying? That millions of American Jews have "overstayed their welcome" and must now be deported? You're proving that antisemitic backlashes aren't anachronistic at all; they're a repeating phenomenon throughout history. Your indefensible, accusatory generalizations about Jews render you the contemporary equivalent of all those antisemitic propagandists of the past whose machinations you claim are consigned to history, never to be seen again. But we are in fact seeing them again. In you. And in so many others who sing the same ancient, ever-repeating refrain.

          "Israel certainly brings its hatred of non-semites everywhere it goes."

          There's no counterpart to the globally pervasive antisemitic hate campaign by Muslims committed to demonizing Jews and Israel with genocide as their ultimate goal. That's why when you write that "all these specters and claims and grievances are anachronisms", it bears no relation to the reality I point out, which is that there most certainly IS a specter of a gang of Muslim regimes (and even entire nations, if one merely listens to the average man in the street in Cairo or Beirut or elsewhere) obliterating millions of Jews in Israel, and even beyond (Nasrallah said he wants all Jewry to gather in Israel so he can implement a final solution). The so-called "specters and claims and grievances" will continue to be "anachronisms" until they're palpably real and happening before our eyes. What Jew with even the slightest instinct for self-preservation would be persuaded by anyone who dismisses the global hate campaign that has been so flagrantly real in so many places for such a long time?

          Many modern, educated, enlightened Jews of Weimar Germany believed such alarming ideas to be anachronistic as well, especially in such a civilized place like Germany. Many scoffed at the idea that they were threatened with annihilation, as you scoff now. You're fighting a losing battle if you think there's any chance Jews en masse will be swayed by a theory as discredited as the one you're propounding. History is a far more sobering guide than one exasperated Bostonian of French descent basically telling Jews to "shut up already". Good luck with that, sir.

          • stern

            Touchstone, I applaud and thank you for this outstanding post. I just wish it had been directed at somebody less obdurate than the schlock. Unfortunately, he is not worth the time and effort you have put into replying to him, but on behalf of everyone else here, who will appreciate what you have written, thank you again.

          • Touchstone

            Thanks stern, I appreciate the kind words. Who knows, maybe some of what we say will sink in one of these days.

          • Schlomotion

            How do I know that Jews know? Because Jews publish papers, articles, and have symposiums on the impending next pogrom and do barometer checks on the psychometric response to their political activity, especially behind closed doors at AIPAC, but also at Kehillaths, synagogues and dinner tables, at bars and at barbecues. I know, because I am there. Not at AIPAC, I had to catch that one on video. Jews build all their Holocaust memorials out of glass, and the structures are like Kristallnacht In-Case-Of-Pogrom-Break-Glass material. They even tried to do this with the WTC. Also Zionist articles always contain some kind of flinch about backlash, or try to construe some backlash as a frontlash. That's how I know. I am literate and I am social, so I know.

            The logical flaw I find in your fist paragraph is that "Jews" seems to mean "World Jewry" and also "Jewish Individuals." That kind of ambiguity is a sword of Damocles for a Jew. He is surrounded by the riches of moral indignation, a history of oppression, and other such Judeo-Christian finery, but above him hangs the tyrant's sword of corporate identity, eugenics, nationalism, religious extremism and warfare. That is the price of individuals identifying as groups. It is not unique to Jews. It is not even the world, or history, or humanity that has inflicted that on Jews. Jews inflict that on Jews whenever they play the part of jealous courtier. I posit that the era of courtiers, war machines, and exchequers, or nationalisms should by all rights be ended. It is 2011, not 1411, 411, or 11 AD. I think Gilad Atzmon has the right idea. There are ex-Catholics, ex-Mormons, why not ex-Jews?

            I think that addresses the argument that you permute and combinate in your first two paragraphs.

            Regarding paragraph three, no, I never said American Jews overstayed their welcome. If they are simply Americans who are Jewish, it is not possible for them to overstay a welcome, they are us, we are them. There is no major difference but food. If, however they are Israelis, acting on behalf of Israel but with American citizenship, but with the Zionist equivalent of a World Ummah, they definitely can burn through the neighborliness and good faith of American citizenship. A lot of the writers here at FPM exemplify that. Jonathan Pollard exemplifies that. Irv Rubin exemplified that. No, that does not extend to all Jews. Ron Kuby and William Kunstler make up for Irv Rubin by lightyears.

            Regarding paragraph four, I readily admit that by and large Islam is stupid and Muslims are essentially goat-herders gone crazy with a system of religious fiat designed to grant what are fundamentally ugly and weak men a steady allotment of females. But in many ways they have their counterparts in Orthodox Jews, and really, Lubavitchers and Haredis are as fundamentally wicked as Wahabbists in their beliefs and customs. All of these groups, though they can and should be tolerated, also must be corrected in civic exchanges, because inevitably, in public they will try to enforce their totalitarian mores. To that effect I do support some of these exposes of Islam, although they are often just racist fuel.

            It is, as you say, likely that Jews (World Jewry) will not be swayed by the laughter of one man. However, there are many individuals that I believe understand that hanging up their saber teeth and saber swords is not only a necessary but beneficial part of being a modern human and that universal brotherhood is better.

          • Zionista

            and you can't wait for the next pogrom

          • Ghostwriter

            No disagreement here,Zionista. Schlockmotion would probably celebrate something like that.

          • Touchstone

            You can never truly "know" what random individuals are thinking, especially the full extent of their thoughts and feelings, no matter how much you reassure yourself that you've got your ear to the ground. Your presumption leads you to make sweeping statements that don't hold up to scrutiny, as with the following:

            "Jews build all their Holocaust memorials out of glass"

            I remember walking by the one in downtown Baltimore and it definitely wasn't made of glass. I presume there are others that aren't made of glass either. You don't seem interested in exercising any caution when making absolute statements about Jews or matters Jewish. It shouldn't surprise you when others find that reductive and dismissive, and therefore insulting.

            If you find speaking in collectives so problematic that you feel compelled to devote many paragraphs to explaining yourself, then why keep doing it? Why constantly ascribe failings and wrongdoings to "Jews"? You said you're of 98% French ancestry. How would you like it if people kept making sweeping generalizations about the French? Wouldn't you feel like your uniqueness as an individual was being brushed aside with the wave of an arrogant hand?

            "That is the price of individuals identifying as groups… It is not even the world, or history, or humanity that has inflicted that on Jews."

            That's a profound misreading of history. Peruse a few pages of Mein Kampf or the ignorant, paranoid propaganda disseminated by Henry Ford (an uneducated man who embarrassed himself with his shameful ignorance of basic American history) and let me know if you still believe that non-Jews never ever lump Jews together in a group and demonize them. What was the Yellow Star if not the ultimate example of identifying a group, to the point of branding them like cattle?

            "the Zionist equivalent of a World Ummah"

            There are only 13 million Jews in the world. but there are 1.5 billion Muslims, far more than any conceivable tally of Zionists. Which group constitutes a world Ummah?

            "they have their counterparts in Orthodox Jews"

            Again you compare multitudes to handfuls. There are more Muslims in France than there are orthodox Jews in the world. This enormous imbalance has enormous implications which apparently lie beyond the scope of your contemplation.

            "Lubavitchers and Haredis are as fundamentally wicked as Wahabbists in their beliefs and customs"

            And I'm sure there are some folks who take their Dungeons and Dragons role-playing a little too seriously as well; they might also qualify as being just as wicked as the Wahabbists. Why, I bet there are folks out there who watch movies like Hostel and dream of torturing people. That doesn't make these marginal figures significant enough to discuss. Wahabbists, on the other hand, have exported their barbaric jihadist ideology far and wide. The Saudis have extended their tentacles throughout the world's media, politics, finance, academia, militias, and so on. It's ludicrous to compare a movement with global scope to a few Jews in black hats. You have a monomania that makes you seem unamenable to reason.

            How can you keep failing to see the logical flaw of equating all things Muslim and Jewish? Do things like scale and magnitude mean nothing to you?

            High IQ and good sense don't necessarily coexist. Many of the points you make just don't ring true.

          • Schlomotion

            One can always find outliers and nonconformities. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't make generalizations. Part of why I do it is as a talisman against this trope that Jews cannot be categorized or quantified, this trope that came out of the Holocaust that Jews are uncountable infinities and infinitessimals, not big blocky rectangles that can be poked with index fingers.

            Regarding the French thing, the last time anyone really mercilessly said anything bad about the French was American Jews leading up to the Invasion of Iraq. I kept stock of it, noticing how Zionists were pushing Francophobia as revenge for not kickstarting the war that has now spread to the entire Islamic world. I read the authors names in the newspapers pushing all this crap about Freedom Fries. I worked at Hermes and watched rich Jewish women with fifi dogs come in and pile up silks and ties and jewels at the counter and then say they were not going to buy them because they are officially boycotting the store. Dumb stuff like that. I read articles by Jewish Americans talking about boycotting wines from Bordeaux and that kind of dumb pointless stuff. All of that has petered out into the occasional Frontpage article about how this or that Muslim in France spat on the shoes of a Jew or a Jew was not allowed to wear a yarmulke in public school, or a shooting means that a mass exodus to Israel should happen pronto. Jews complain about the Dreyfus Affair all the time still. I can't take it personally. It's too dumb to take personally. Jews should think antisemitism is too dumb to take personally. It's too dumb for me to actually feel with any genuine emotion.

            I wouldn't make too little though of "folks who take their Dungeons and Dragons role-playing a little too seriously" I think Anders Breivik was one of those. I read his manifesto. I read Mein Kampf. I read The International Jew. I read all the bad books, all the manifestos, all the nationalist treatises. I know they are flawed and stupid in most ways. In others they are significant. I read Myths & Facts, a Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. I can't tell you how much I have read about this stuff because it is the nuclear intellectual fallout of our times and a sonic boom in the background of everything. Of course I have a monomania about it. I have sought out Zionists, Apartheid activists, Black Panthers, Black Muslims, SDSers, racists, antiracists. It's not study. I have spoken to Todd Gitlin about it. Michelle Malkin, Desmond Tutu, Cornel West, Bobby Seale, Charles Jacobs, Richard Landes. There isn't scale. We are all people. 1.5 billion of these, 6 million of those. None of that matters. Here we are discussing this. Do you think there is a wall of separation between this parlor game and the operation of Frontpage? The people who run it comment here. The government comments here. Israelis comment here. English Defense League ringleaders were here last week. When you stand next to a Muslim does he look bigger and you smaller? That is the stuff that is in the imagination.


            Happy Nakba Schlocky!

          • Touchstone

            "It doesn't mean that we shouldn't make generalizations"

            Your generalizations are relentless, glib, mean-spirited and inflammatory.

            "Jews are uncountable infinities and infinitessimals"

            Another glib remark. Jews are just people, and nobody likes being summed up and dismissed reductively.

            "the last time anyone really mercilessly said anything bad about the French"

            The paragraph you devoted to French-bashing being the exclusive province of Jews is outrageously dishonest. Mockery of the French is UBIQUITOUS and it's a sure sign of your pathological monomania (I'm glad you admit to it) that you notice it ONLY when Jews are the ones smearing the French. I guess you've never watched late-night comedians or read too many political columns. Anti-French slanders are everywhere. You're pathologically obsessed with Jews. It's your delusion that Jews and Jews alone are responsible for all manner of wrongdoing.

            "There isn't scale. We are all people. 1.5 billion of these, 6 million of those. None of that matters."

            More proof that you're unhinged. Your position isn't rational. Gross disproportion — between 1.5 billion Muslims and 13 million Jews, or between 300 million Arabs and 6 million Jewish Israelis, or between dozens of Muslim nations and one Israel, or between 100-plus votes at the UN versus 1 veto, and so on — is such a basic concept that it shouldn't have to be explained or defended. In fact, when it comes to the Arab-Israeli dispute, or the broader Muslim-Jew conflict, few things loom as large as the wildly lop-sided disparity of numbers.

          • Schlomotion

            1.5 billion Muslims in deserts, mountain passes and on islands do not compare to 11 million Jews concentrated in three world capital metropolises. A Muslim goatherder does not pack the same punch as a Jewish journalist. A Muslim taxi driver does not measure up to a Jewish lawyer. When you consider the location and occupation of most Muslims, that is far away and not running things, the specter of Islam diminishes. Then, when you consider that Israel has the US generally in its pocket, and the US trumps any voting at the UN, Israel has de-facto veto power over the whole UN just by wailing about stuff. So where is the threat there, other than that the UN might approve Palestinians to also have a state?

            And then take the recent Frontpage example of the Nicaraguan Jews. The lament is that they have to rebuild their community from a cell of 60. When it was 100 population, they were able to help throw the whole country into turmoil by importing Galils, and jets, Uzis, and Helicopters to support the fascist Somoza. A little cyanide is a lot of cyanide if you eat it. A little importation of WMD is a lot of importation of WMD, and a small community of Jews can be a large community of Jews, depending on what their activity is. If people choose to live as a community and not as an individual, it is more than fair to characterize the community.

            Isn't the Jewish community in the US committing a large scale evil by trying to get the US to obliterate an entire major world religion and its adherents?

          • Touchstone

            You conveniently forget about all the MUSLIM journalists and lawyers and political operatives, and all the Jews who have no influence or power or money. Your unchanging, deluded premise is that Jews are sinister aggressors with privileged access and power, while Muslims are country bumpkins. You don't acknowledge that most Jews lack influence, while millions of Muslims are concentrated in a great many urban areas and are as ruthlessly power-seeking as any of the Jews you ever-so-flatteringly liken to cyanide pills.

            "If people choose to live as a community and not as an individual, it is more than fair to characterize the community."

            A laughable smear considering that Jews are famous for a tradition of insisting on individual rights and freedoms. America is home to millions of Jews who see themselves as individuals; independent thinking is something Jews have always championed. Once again, your slanders have no basis in reality, except the reality in your own head. You insist on viewing Jews as a monolith, against all evidence to the contrary. At the same time, you once again fail to train your lens on Muslims (such as those demonstrating in Luton) who are increasingly operating in groupthink mode, clustering together in infamous "no-go zones", exhibiting a growing intolerance of individuality concomitant with their growing fundamentalism and triumphalism.

            It's the absolute height of irony (and the mother of all double standards) for you to indict Jews for a lack of individuality, when it's painfully obvious that Islam is a totalitarian ideology that demands SUBMISSION and therefore a RELINQUISHING of one's natural individuality. Muslims are often MURDERED for exercising their individuality, such as by attempting to convert.

            "Isn't the Jewish community in the US committing a large scale evil by trying to get the US to obliterate an entire major world religion and its adherents?"

            Good grief! Are you seriously laying this outrageous charge at the feet of "the Jewish community in the US"?! Isn't nonsense like that precisely the reason why Jews have much to fear from ignorant bigots running amok with a mob mentality?

            How the hell is Islam threatened? Islam is vast and it's growing faster than any other religion. Muslims are proliferating in Europe. Islamic regimes are raking in the dough because of the high price of oil. In what way is Islam as a whole threatened by anybody? If the Mullahs in Iran are threatened, that doesn't mean all Islam is threatened! Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, isn't under threat! Is Malaysia under threat? Name all the dozens of Islamic countries supposedly under threat. Explain how most Jews vote Democrat and oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan yet still threaten all Islam with destruction. Explain why it doesn't matter to you that millions of American Christians regularly criticize Islam yet it's the JEWS who are to blame. And not just a few Jews, mind you, but THE JEWISH COMMUNITY IN THE US, as you said.

            It's obvious from reading your endlessly, shamelessly inflammatory posts that the "LARGE SCALE EVIL" continues to be BASELESS, DISHONEST, VICIOUS, SELF-SERVING SCAPEGOATING OF JEWS. This is such a large scale evil, it nearly exterminated a people. Congratulations on taking part in its resurgence.

          • Schlomotion

            You probably don't want to admit it, but Zionists want a resurgence of it. Zionism does not function without a opponent. This is a major flaw in all nationalisms. It its the same flaw in Black Nationalism, which David Horowitz believes cannot coexist in the same world with Jewish Nationalism. There is such a fall from grace between Herzl and Barak, between Malcolm X and Khallid Muhammad, even between Nazism and the Third Reich, and between The Declaration of Independence and The Department of Homeland Security. The manifestos on Nationalism are idealistic, brotherly, ambitious, visionary. The implementation is genocidal, swindling, paranoid, and passive-aggressive. That being said, all these people warning about a resurgence of pogroms against the Jews actually want it to occur sporadically, in the same way that the DHS revels in the glory of the sporadic fizzled terrorist attack. Such incidents justify the Antiterror Industry, as the the other justifies the Holocaust Industry, as the other justified the Louis Farrakhan running to Qadhafi for funds, as the marches by Muslims in Luton justify the EDL Skinheads, as every attack on a Muslim country justifies these lunatic Imams wagging their fingers in the air. They are all, all, all, all every last one of them corrupt religious ethnic opportunist totalitarians operating under the guise of protecting their flocks.

            Is AIPAC evidence to the contrary of a Jewish Monolith?
            Is an Israeli-US veto to anything UN evidence contrary to a Jewish Monolith?
            Is the Balfour agreement evidence contrary to a Jewish Monolith?
            Is the redefinition of global empire from anti-Communism to anti-Islam evidence contrary to a Jewish Monolith?
            Is the Iran Contra Scandal evidence contrary to a Jewish Monolith?

            I don't think so. To the contrary, it makes me rank Jews, mostly, with Caucasian Plutocrats. It is common knowledge that the US, UK and Israel form an intelligence and technology triangle that does not really fall under the former pattern of independent nation states and international agreements. Jews are NOT sad little communities of oppressed impoverished and discriminated against peons. Nor should they be. Nor should they be cast as such. In terms of power-size, Israel is gigantic when compared to its neighbors, because it is our foremost client state in the Middle East. The American Jewish diaspora is treated like royalty, if not like deity, against whom one may not utter criticism, or even in truth, mention their name. Google even apologizes when you enter "Jew" in the search bar.

          • stern

            the idiot cannot even speak English.

          • Schlomotion

            I am referring to combinatorial optimization and permutation.

          • Ghostwriter

            Thank you,Touchstone. You've said things about Schlomotion that needed to be said. Unfortunately,he's not going to listen to them. He's a scumsucking anti-semite who's never going to learn anything.

          • Touchstone

            He might never change his mind about Jews, but maybe we'll just wear him down eventually.

          • Schlomotion

            What's to wear down? I don't have enmity towards Jews. I talk to Jews everyday. I listen to Jewish music, eat Jewish food, read Jewish books, watch Jewish movies, look at Jewish art, I carry Jews around in my arms. Should I take up klezmer?

          • Touchstone

            I don't think it's possible to reconcile the following two statements:

            1 – "I don't have enmity towards Jews."

            2 – "I admit to being more or less a Fordian."

            Ford was Hitler's greatest inspiration. Hitler kept a prominent portrait of Ford on his office wall. He decorated Ford with the highest of civilian honors. And for what? For the Edsel? Nope. For the viciously antisemitic tracts he distributed. He practically forced every Ford dealership to sell subscriptions to the Dearborn so he could spread the word about the pernicious Jew. Ford was the most revered American alive when Hitler was organizing his pack of wolves. They all kissed the ground Ford walked on. Ford's work literally made antisemites out of many Germans, with catastrophic consequences for Jews. It's no exaggeration to say that Ford helped pave the way for the extermination of European Jewry, even if that wasn't his explicit intention.

            If you're a Fordian, you subscribe to the — wait for it — VIRULENT beliefs promulgated by the human embodiment of malicious, ignorant, paranoid bigotry, a man who passed his baton to a maniac considered the ultimate embodiment of evil. This is what you traffic in, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE ENMITY TOWARDS JEWS? Tell me another one.

          • Schlomotion

            Did I admit to being a Fordian recently? Or is that from 2007? I have mixed feelings about Henry Ford after reading "The International Jew" and "Henry Ford and the Jews." I respect that Ford invented the basic popular car in his garage, and then the factory to make it, and applied the assembly line process to it. I respect that he ran into some competition from Jewish gangsters and retaliated by seeking to crush them with publication.

            I do not, however subscribe to his hatred of Jews, though he did expose a few true things about some specific Jews. I do not respect his attempt to apply the assembly line principle to humans and to the naturalization process. I do not respect his wildly perverted and drab musical chauvinism and conspiracy theory about Jews inventing Jazz to destroy civilization. I don't respect his hatred of pink cars and cars with fins on them. He was however, a maker, and did not loan, lease, mortgage, nepotize, or labor organize his way into success, or clamber into a company like Disney and devour it from within.

            When I say I am "more or less" a Fordian, I mean that I support the principle behind self-starters, Ted Turner/Richard Branson types, and also of Model Ts, Volkswagens, standard issue transportation at a national level, automated assembly and the willingness to crush your opponents if and only if they try to halt your operation. That doesn't necessitate enmity toward Jews. If I were President, I would force non-gasoline cars into manufacture and also force the support infrastructure into place and if some ANWR lobbyist and Iran war supporter, or the head of AIPAC tried to block what I was doing, I would use the state of emergency to dump them into a prison cell. Economic collapse is a national emergency. In those ways I am a Fordian. That doesn't mean I have enmity toward Jews. Do Jews have to push for war with Iran and more oil drilling and no Fed reform, or twin populism to antisemitism, and junk like that? No.

            It's odd to me to think that two statements can not be reconciled. They are polynomials. You pop out elements and pop in others. If they don't reconcile, they can simply exist as a set. Unless the statement is "I don't have enmity toward Jews" and the other one is "I ran Auschwitz and sent several Jewish families to the gas chamber." I can see those two statements not reconciling, but that does not approach my situation in any way.

          • Touchstone

            If you shared Ford's antisemitism, then the two couldn't be reconciled. That was the point. Ford's entrepreneurial genius wasn't the issue.

            If, as you say, you "do not, however subscribe to his hatred of Jews", then you'll forever be in a position to deny your bigotry and explain yourself in light of making so many antisemitic generalizations and condescending remarks. Maybe what you really mean is that your prejudice isn't as extreme as Ford's, but it's still prejudice. You seem to be in denial about it. Either that, or you're operating with multiple personalities: In one post you're antisemitic, in the next you're denying it.

            If you're not prejudiced, how have you managed to offend so many Jews? How can we all be so wildly wrong? If you're not antisemitic, you must have some respect for Jews, so why keep provoking people you respect?

          • Schlomotion

            One is always in the position of having accusations to deny. That is the nature of accusation.

            I really spent all day trying to figure out how to render an answer to you about this specific set of questions of yours. The difficulty is not in answering, the difficulty is in the rendering, because you are asking me how I think, not what I think, but how.

            So: How can I talk trash about Jews and not be antisemitic? The answer is that you, not I were raised to equate the two, just as you were raised to equate one Jew to all Jews but only positively and never negatively. The other answer is that when you want to combine what I am saying about Jews with antisemitism, it is like you have two gluey magnets each shaped like a hemisphere, whose odd ends attract but cannot be fit together and whose like ends repel but cannot be pulled apart. In other words, there are at least three forces involved in what you are saying, and you want to combine them into one.

            If a man says "I hate America" you say Anti-American.
            If a man says "I hate Israel" you say Anti-Semitic.

            You should say Anti-Israeli.

            But even then, if I am merely saying I only like a certain amount of Israel and the number is finite and it has a border, a boundary equation, a set and outside it is a complementary set, and I prefer Israel and Palestine as a Julia and Mandelbrot series or as a Nash Equilibrium binary system, you say I am Antisemitic. So of course I deny it. There are more forces and shapes involved than that you are trying to combine.

            Your last questions:
            Q) If you're not prejudiced, how have you managed to offend so many Jews?
            A) Because many Jews are offended by brusque, explicit criticism even when it is factual.

            Q) How can we all be so wildly wrong?
            A) Because of flocking.

            Q) If have some respect for Jews, why keep provoking people you respect?
            A) Because that is what I do to myself in order to become better, and I give you the same credit.

          • Touchstone

            "The answer is that you, not I were raised to equate the two, just as you were raised to equate one Jew to all Jews but only positively and never negatively."

            You can't seem to write one post that doesn't contain self-serving, condescending presumptions.

            "There are more forces and shapes involved than that you are trying to combine."

            This is the "you don't appreciate nuance" defense, which is related to the "some of my best friends are Jewish" excuse. You're trying to squirm out of the bed you've made for yourself. What's clear is that you're simply unaware that the very long string of statements you leave behind you hollers "I'm prejudiced against Jews". It doesn't whisper it, it hollers it from the rooftops.

            "many Jews are offended by brusque, explicit criticism even when it is factual."

            Brusque and explicit you are. Factual, not so much. And the fact of your prejudice is something you yourself can't accept.

            "Because of flocking."

            Another condescension. You consider a pro-Israel position to be an example of low-brow groupthink, whereas an anti-Israel position is a sure sign of an enlightened and independent mind. Perhaps you should examine the kind of intellectual company YOU'VE been flocking with, like the notorious personalities you frequently endorse.

            "Because that is what I do to myself in order to become better"

            Are you saying you provoke yourself? How? By posting here? Are you saying you feel edified by the anger you stir? You haven't "become" better by irritating people you disdain, you've made yourself "feel" better.

          • Schlomotion

            Of course I feel edified. It is not every day that people are fanatical enough to push themselves to the brink of transfinite induction to prove that they are ineffable beings of light and simultaneously Nobel Prize winners and victims of social exclusion. Without me, this would just be a chest-beating competition. With me, it is a cybernetic math symposium, a classics debate, and a forum on behaviorism. Do you know that one of the only benefits of Christianity was that it taught so many people Aristotelian hierarchy and the King's English? The morality and cosmology was a complete waste of time. I view myself like that. What you might consider antisemitism, I consider the only hope for anybody in this discussion to know that there is a life outside the cult.

            People like Peder Jensen and Jim Hoft don't know that they operate in a real world where people who are not Muslims could tear them in half bare-handed like bags of sand. They say things as if the internet is a massive CB radio, and people only exist as handles, so it's OK to flirt with talking about assassinating the President or imprisoning the Muslims, or shooting the leftists. It's OK for Pamela Geller to recycle her car dealership cocaine money into a flimsily disguised womens' rights campaign. It's OK for three men from the FBI to post here as commenters, etc. In reality, none of this is OK. I do feel edified speaking to these people, and to Eliyahu M'Tziyon, this rabid settler from Jerusalem, and to people who consistently try to import guest speakers into the United States who get turned away at the border for being criminals. It is edifying to break apart this echo chamber and electronic pamphlet and turn it into an open discussion with real world elements.

          • Touchstone

            "Of course I feel edified."

            You're confusing edification with gratification, the kind that comes from irritating people you look down upon. When you succeed in provoking hostility, you're not edified, you're satisfied.

            "Without me, this would just be a chest-beating competition."

            That itself is quite the example of egotistical chest-beating, while also being a typically inaccurate observation. When a Jew-baiter like yourself comes along and makes Jews feel small, the predictable reaction is something akin to chest-beating by the Jews you've belittled. Your offensive remarks trigger a defensive response which you obtusely mistake for chest-beating. PROVOKED chest-beating isn't true chest-beating, it's defensiveness, a way of justifying one's worth to a heckler who disparages it. You're probably not going to hear about all those Nobel prizes won by Jews if you subtract the belittling, Jew-baiting comments that triggered the "boast".

            In conclusion, without you, there would be far LESS chest-beating. You come here to bring out the worst in people, and claim to feel "edified" when you succeed in doing precisely that. Your motivations aren't nearly so lofty as seeking to hold "a classics debate, and a forum on behaviorism". You seek to LOWER the tenor of debate by heckling and mocking. There's nothing noble or edifying in what you do. Sadly, you won't be able to perceive this reality, only your own self-serving, egocentric version of it.

            "one of the only benefits of Christianity was that it taught so many people Aristotelian hierarchy and the King's English"

            Every uncountable time in history that a Christian stopped short of doing something wrong to another human being because he feared he'd burn in hell for it, Christianity yielded a benefit. Of course, many did harm in the name of Christianity over the centuries, but surely the prospect of an agonizing afterlife prevented much harm as well. So once again, your attempt to summarize thousands of years and multitudes of people in a few glib, self-satisfying remarks meets with its usual fate of embarrassing failure.

            "there is a life outside the cult"

            A highly antisemitic remark in itself. You assume that everyone of Jewish heritage is a member of a cult, completely ignoring all I said about countless Jews being fiercely independent individuals. You sound like you're talking about a tiny sect like the Branch Davidians. You say magnanimously that "we are them, they are us", yet in the next breath reduce the "we" and the "they" to a cult. So YOU'RE a member of the cult now, too? I'm sure that's not what you meant. You carelessly expectorate one flippant spitball after another without regard to consistency or coherence.

            "real world elements"

            The narrow reality you stubbornly cling to isn't the real world, it's a world constructed of your own presumptions and delusions, in which a "Jew" is defined as an anti-individual, medieval, power-seeking, sinister cult member, and in which you're NOT a monomaniacal antisemite incapable of recognizing the blindingly effulgent patterns in your own fatally compromised thinking process.

          • Schlomotion

            I know the difference between edified and gratified.

            I feel edified when we have these discussions that call for the showcasing of facts and ideas and the introspection into motivations. I feel gratified when I sit in my living room munching cigars while surrounded by Jewish friends that I clearly only keep around to camouflage my virulent antisemitism.

            It is also edifying to de-edify, to tear down some of these obnoxious structures of clannish thought and animal husbandry masquerading as religion and ethnicity.

            We really ought to recognize that there are Jew-baiters and also Jews who bait. FPM is entirely an organization of Jews who bait. Whoever did it first is a game of Palestinians versus Israelis or Hamentashen vs Latkes. I don't deny using Jew-baiting as a tactic. When it works, it is gratifying. The debate is edifying. I have belittled many Jews here. They have self-aggrandized and I have belittled. That is the nature of the bow of Heraclitus.

            I AGREE there would be less chest-beating if I were not here. But there is a vast supply of it here already. My goal is to get these people beating their chests so hard that they break their chests. They do. Eliyahu m'Tsiyon beats her chest until she becomes a seething lilitu speaking with the voice of waste, desolation and desert. I hear it when she speaks normally. You hear it after I lay it bare with a few exchanges. Robert Spencer would blithely pretend Anders Breivik had nothing to do with him and he would go on blowing a surrogate shofar of hatred, unless I constantly rubbed in his face that his ideological minion just gunned down 77 adolescents. This makes Spencer and Geller have to disavow their cretinous offspring. This makes David and Jamie reprint ever more belligerent and self righteous crap by Rachel Neuwirth and Peder Jensen, which in turn bruises their chests harder and brings them to where they really want to be, which is into the pantheon of Hope Not Hate's "Counter-Jihad Report." That is gratifying. It is also edifying. It creates the edifice of shame and these people cast themselves in their own hateful bronze with so little help from me. It takes so little a nudge, but I have been blessed with sledgehammers.

            As I said, I was pained by the Holocaust. I sympathize with those who suffered from it, who lost family members to it, and who, like all good patriots throughout history want a piece of land to call their own. But this forum has very little to do with all of that. It does indeed have very much to do with something like the Branch Davidians. Hasbara is a Mount Carmel for wayward rock stars of the Lost Tribes Cults. David Horowitz is like David Koresh in the most critical way: he wants to be the top Qurayshi. He wants the keys to the college Qaaba to establish control over the important revenue-bearing Student Union Building. He is establishing the Counter-Jihad Caliphate, lashing out at the other members of his tribe who oppose his supremacy at the pamphlets table. Every contradiction to every one of his blogger-Imams results in a passionate chest-beating publication the likes of which, Qom chainsmen can only envy. Yes, I do cause them to beat their chests even harder, even into pleurisy. It is as easy as throwing bacon on a Muslim. As you say does this "lower the tenor of debate" or does it merely strip it of its "Shillman fellowship" and conferred titles and (Paulettes, and) epaulettes and other stylistic insignias and badges? To me, the tenor of the debate was shrill and pseudo-intellectual to begin with. I am deliberately making it also rich in sousaphone and adding lead to the chains of martyrdom.

          • Touchstone

            "surrounded by Jewish friends" — Do they know you think they're part of a cult? Is it a true friendship, in which you see each other as equals? Or do you feel superior to them and try to improve them?

            Maybe what you mean by "Jew" is two different things, depending on the context. When it comes to Jews you praise (like Gilad Atzmon, Norman Finkelstein, and your "friends"), I'm assuming you mean "Jews who hate or renounce their Jewishness and bait other Jews". But when you're lumping Jews together, baiting Jews, condescending to Jews, smearing Jews and falsely accusing Jews, you mean something like "Jews who form the majority of Jewry, i.e. the shadowy, cultish, sinister worms of society against whom the rest of us have to be perpetually on our guard". I suppose this is why you seem surprised why you're always accused of antisemitism: you use the term "Jew" in different contexts, mainly as a pejorative but occasionally not, and you want credit for the times when you remind us that there are indeed a few Jew-type organisms you do tolerate.

            "lashing out at the other members of his tribe who oppose his supremacy at the pamphlets table" — Oh please. One could say the same about any media organization competing for readers or viewers. The left-wing outlets caustically oppose the right-wing outlets. I'm sure Huffington fancies herself a queen of sorts too. There's a market for FPM's viewpoint as there is for news organizations that YOU would endorse. You obviously have the same degree of tolerance for this website and its contributors as an Iranian Mullah would have for homosexuality. You're offended that it competes for ANY audience of ANY size. You want to muzzle it, not reform it.

            "Yes, I do cause them to beat their chests even harder, even into pleurisy" — You flatter yourself so fulsomely it's odious. Or maybe it's just pitiable, along the lines of a Walter Mitty lost in a daydream. I don't see any evidence of you causing anyone's chest to become bruised. I seem to be the only one foolish enough to keep taking the bait.

          • Schlomotion

            A few things:

            I only make friends with dynamic people, and I never begrudge their beliefs or try to mold them. I can only befriend people who collaborate. Everyone else, I feel cheerful toward. I feel cheerful toward you. Truly I do.

            I mean by "Jew" anyone who calls himself a Jew. It doesn't mean anything else to me. If he or she thinks he is one, he is one. I am not one, some people are.

            I am never surprised at being called an antisemite. I am a frank speaker who is not Jewish and who doesn't support the annexation of the West Bank and doesn't accept scolding by Jewish organizations. So I expect to be called an antisemite. It used to mean more. It used to mean oppressor of the Jews. I think the word is worn out.

            I would be equally satisfied with FPM closing down as FPM becoming more sane and rational, or at least more like Horowitz's books and less dumbed down products meant to drum up quick sales. I would be happier if each and every person who writes here had his day where he actually had to face off with someone like me, not a naive idealistic college student, nor a person who flinches at being redlined or shunned or excommunicated, and who can give back at least as well as he is given. That may never happen though.

            I don't think there's anything pitiable about Danny Kaye characters, or quixotic personas. I think they are admirable. Some peoples' daydreams are better than other peoples' waking actions.

            Maybe you take the bait because you know I don't have any animosity toward you. I talk to you because you are intelligent and because I am curious as to who you are. As far as I know, you are the only other intelligent commenter. You are good at finding contradictions but we have different beliefs about contradictions. You accept Aristotles' Law of Non-contradiction as a limit. I believe all contradictions are simply slices of much more unlimited numbers of complex arguments. I always research after a discussion exactly what I think that more complex argument is. I don't mean "complex" like hi-brow or esoteric, or convoluted. I mean combinations of real and imaginary elements. So,

            I am not surprised at how often I am accused of saying imaginary things. I fashion imaginary things and fit them into the real elements of discussion, because we can't know everything. I admire Anthony Newley. What we don't have ready to hand, we compose, or imagine. Or Bach. The simple things we have, we make variations with. Or Schoenberg "If it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art."

            This is art. I am doing this as art. This whole discussion. This used time. My statements, display of beliefs and the provocation. You ask why? Coevolutionary art. It hangs in Intensedebate. Most of the people who come here see a shooting gallery. I see an art gallery. Not art that is a cop out explanation for what somebody somebody just did. Art where if it fails, the artist is also destroyed. This kind of art is my Samson Option.

          • Touchstone

            You're guilty of using two different meanings of "Jew" when in some posts you lump Jews together and smear them, while in others you insist that the same people you just reduced to the level of caricature happen to be your friends. Since you can't be friends with people whom you view simultaneously as cultish caricatures and "dynamic collaborators", you obviously mean different things when you refer to Jews. You won't confess to this dichotomous usage, so it's something that has to be deduced from your writings.

            "It used to mean oppressor of the Jews. I think the word is worn out." — The word was never limited to oppressors. Most Jew-haters aren't in a position to oppress anyone. There will always be far more run-of-the-mill haters than oppressors. Since the world is teeming with Jew-haters, the word has lost none of its relevance, only some of its impact.

            I think there are many intelligent people here. They just haven't shown the same interest in engaging with you at length, probably because they think it's futile to converse with someone who keeps poking them in the eye. It strains credulity to believe you're NOT trying to arouse animosity, even though you say you "feel cheerful toward everyone else". If you want to discover how intelligent other contributors are, try conversing with them for a change, rather than goading them.

            "I believe all contradictions are simply slices of much more unlimited numbers of complex arguments." — This is a fancy way of making excuses after being called out on your contradictions. It's a cop-out in line with your earlier "you don't appreciate nuance" defense. If you're abdicating any responsibility whatsoever for maintaining a coherent position in your arguments, you're telling me to accept anarchy. Anything goes. No rules required. Throw logic to the wind. No wonder you feel you can keep maligning Jews as a collective, and then squirm out of it by momentarily reversing your position and saying something praiseworthy about your dynamic Jewish friends. And then resuming your Jew-baiting. And then denying it again, invoking the "slices of unlimited complexity" defense. And then repeating the cycle ad infinitum.

            What you call art is more like a practical joke, in which you keep pulling the rug out from under people. But art is communication, and communication entails rules. You mentioned Bach. Bach composed according to certain rules, with the intention of communicating a coherent musical statement to a listener. He didn't disdain his listeners. He didn't pull the rug out from under them. He abided by rules. One can perceive the logic and coherence in his work. He didn't have to continually justify his incoherence because there wasn't any. He didn't violate the rules of counterpoint in order to disturb his listeners and then claim artistic license when they objected. He created art within boundaries. You reject boundaries. You don't want to be constrained by the discipline a need for coherence would impose on you. Your "art" suffers as a result. The gallery patrons are grumbling. Your exhibit may soon be canceled due to low attendance.

            Perhaps one day you'll be hailed as a creative genius sadly misunderstood in your lifetime. Perhaps your posts will be posthumously auctioned for millions. I'm guessing that prospect pleases your vanity. You do seem quite taken with yourself.

          • Schlomotion

            I didn't say that I slavishly follow Bach.

            Violating the rules of counterpoint and disturbing his listeners is a fantastic idea. I do create art within boundaries and then break the Nash Equilibrium so it doesn't turn into a Coke/Pepsi Israeli/Palestinian liar's paradox. It is intentional.

            Wholly bounded art is too baroque. BIBO (bounded input/bounded output) stability is for linear signals. I am not giving linear signals. I am giving nonlinear signals on purpose to make this less of a discussion in a box. I love that the art suffers as a result. If all suffering could be transferred from people into the art, what a service!

            If people actually believed, when they were told, that they were just people, there would be no Alexanders.

            As I said, when I say "Jew" I mean "person who calls himself a Jew." That can mean anything from ordinary guy to Jesus, Einstein or Hitler. I didn't do that. It does it itself.

          • aspacia

            He resents Jew's success and hard work, probably because he is not successful, and needs a scapegoat like Hitler.

          • aspacia

            Schlock, you may be educated, and somewhat intelligent, but your are also a amoral, myopic totalitarian who does not respect the individual, and are never swayed by Touchstone's valid facts. Instead, you rely on antiSemitic propaganda/lies. Basically, you are claiming we are the stupid, unwashed masses who do not know what is best for ourselves. While reading your prose, Hiter, Mao, Lenin come to mind along with the millions they shoved in the hole all the while claiming they knew what was best.

          • Schlomotion

            You are incorrect in assuming that I am not swayed by Touchstone's facts.

          • Ted G

            Just my two cents Schlomo,
            But throughout this entire thread and based on my prior readings of your posts. I have skimmed over most if not all of your posts and simply selected the thumbs down and moved on to read the posts that actually make sense and have a point to make.
            Touchstone, I commend your forbearance in responding to this less than admirable human being.

          • Schlomotion

            Thanks Ted. I always wondered who you were.

          • Roger

            A thinker, that is the clarion distinction between the two of you.

          • Touchstone

            Thanks Ted, but I'm not inclined to keep this up indefinitely. Maybe someone else will have more success helping Schlomo mitigate his Schlomo-ness.

  • Silver Scumbag

    No I do not want to see the UN repalced by the WJC – I see it also as a source of kumbayah and Jews with German names.

    I do not know why the Americans tolerate it on their soil. McCain said that the US should pull out but ass-kisses Al Jazeera.

    Problem is the US propaganda machine for the financial elites, known as the American MSMedia. Just suggesting that the US should expel this worthless box of cigars is tantamount to being a nazi.

  • Silver Scumbag

    I would like to add that the source of financing of this worthless thing are the taxpayers of the West. Do we not have enough garbage to finance thanks to our governments?

  • Asher

    The U.N should have no jurisdiction or say in American policies or control us in any way. We are a free Sovereign Nation! Stand up against Tyranny!

  • Willy Rho

    I agree with the first guys comment. Alger Hiss was a Russian Communist. The US voted to join the UN after everyone opposing it went home for Christmas Holidays in 1948, As usual Comms don't care about Honesty, Truth and Fair Play. They will Lie, Steal, Cheat and Mer Der because they have no Righteousness. They Love Sat Tan.


    10 Reasons to Abolish the "United Nations".

    – Russia
    – China
    – Islamic Republic of Iran
    – Islamic Republic of Pakistan
    – Saudi Arabia
    – Venezuela
    – Cuba
    – Socialist Norway
    – United Socialist Kingdom
    – Socialist Frawnce

  • Abisja

    Just in general – Why do the people of the most powerful nation in the world, tolerate the UN on its soil – it is absolutely "sic". What do they achieve – nothing, zilch, luto, niks, nothing worth while, So why spend billions on an organization that means NOTHING and its achievements are the same.SO KICK THEM OUT TO SOME REMOTE ISLAND, so that they can have their fun there – we will sort out the world without them.

  • mrbean

    The Law of the Sea Treaty, is coming up once again for a ratification vote in the U.S. Senate, which declares most of the earth's vast ocean floor to be "the common heritage of mankind" and places it under United Nations ownership "for the benefit of mankind as a whole. Morally, undersea mining operations are entitled to own outright those portions of the ocean floor they exploit, by virtue of the productive effort they expend. Producers in general are morally entitled to live and work for their own sake, keeping the wealth they create without any moral debt to those who didn't create it. Because nature requires us to be productive in order to live, the businessman's pursuit of profit is properly regarded as a virtue, not a vice indebting him to a hungry planet.

  • Oleg

    Hmm, lets see, the U.N sends an envoy to inspect Canada's food security, a Belgian Eurocrat stuffed shirt named Olivier De Schutter, who spends ten days visting every commune, while staying in five star hotels, and consulting with every crackpot 100 mile diet group, then condemns Canada for everything from soda pop to corperate tax rates in a 30 minute rant climaing the solution is the European way. The idiot needed the Federal Health minister to point out where Nunavut was on a map, who is Inuit by the way, in order to explain why they can't have market gardens North of 60 degrees. Meanwhile in Africa, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, the Congo, and elsewhere they have real problems, people are actually starving to death on a daily basis because of war, or drought, but that doesn't matter apparently. Now that Canadians have seen what a real U.N bureaucrat looks and sounds like it's not too surprising that even those in power are contemplating pulling the financial plug.

  • ross1948

    On a tragicomical note, has anyone else noted the UN seal of approval for Zimbabwe's Marxist dictator Mugabe?