Let’s Take a Break

We will take a short vacation starting today.

Hyehudi.org will not be daily updated from Tuesday 30.8 through Tuesday 6.9.

Enjoy the archives and please don’t get lost!

Don’t Wait For Mashiach!

Some Mitzvos cannot technically be fulfilled without Mashiach’s might. But there is a prohibition against making a Mitzvah unjustifiably conditional upon Mashiach’s arrival, as Rabbi Brand explains here: “Lo tenasu es Hashem”. If jailed outside the land, such as Jonathan Pollard (still!) it is certainly not possible to make Aliyah. Until circumstances change – which can be brought about through Mashiach, as well, “Onness Rachmana patrei”. But this is true only in extenuating circumstances. One may not say “We’ll come to Israel/wear Techeiles/ascend the Temple Mount when Mashiach comes”, when the two events have nothing to do with each other.

This same point is made in this article by Bob Blue. An excerpt:

Hashem did not say, “Sit on your hands in the land and wait until Moshiach comes to do your job for you”. Hashem said, “drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their temples, destroy their molten idols, and demolish their high places”. Hashem said, “clear out the Land and settle in it”. Hashem said, “You shall utterly destroy them; neither shall you make a covenant with them, nor be gracious to them”. Hashem said, “You shall demolish their altars and smash their monuments, and cut down their asherim trees, and burn their graven images with fire”. Hashem said, “You do this!” He did not say, “Wait for Moshiach to come and do it”.

See the rest.

Bertrand Russell Would Have Loved Brisk

“I am looking forward very much to getting back to Cambridge, and being able to say what I think and not to mean what I say: two things which at home are impossible. Cambridge is one of the few places where one can talk unlimited nonsense and generalities without anyone pulling one up or confronting one with them when one says just the opposite the next day.”

  • Bertrand Russell

From Wikiquote, here.

The Malicious Slandering of Slobodan Milosevic

Provoking Nuclear War by Media

The exoneration of a man accused of the worst of crimes, genocide, made no headlines. Neither the BBC nor CNN covered it. The Guardian allowed a brief commentary. Such a rare official admission was buried or suppressed, understandably. It would explain too much about how the rulers of the world rule.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague has quietly cleared the late Serbian president, Slobodan Milosevic, of war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war, including the massacre at Srebrenica.

Far from conspiring with the convicted Bosnian-Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, Milosevic actually “condemned ethnic cleansing”, opposed Karadzic and tried to stop the war that dismembered Yugoslavia. Buried near the end of a 2,590-page judgement on Karadzic last February, this truth further demolishes the propaganda that justified Nato’s illegal onslaught on Serbia in 1999.

Milosevic died of a heart attack in 2006, alone in his cell in The Hague, during what amounted to a bogus trial by an American-invented “international tribunal”. Denied heart surgery that might have saved his life, his condition worsened and was monitored and kept secret by US officials, as WikiLeaks has since revealed.

Milosevic was the victim of war propaganda that today runs like a torrent across our screens and newspapers and beckons great danger for us all. He was the prototype demon, vilified by the western media as the “butcher of the Balkans” who was responsible for “genocide”, especially in the secessionist Yugoslav province of Kosovo. Prime Minister Tony Blair said so, invoked the Holocaust and demanded action against “this new Hitler”. David Scheffer, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes [sic], declared that as many as “225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59″ may have been murdered by Milosevic’s forces.

Current Prices on popular forms of Silver Bullion

This was the justification for Nato’s bombing, led by Bill Clinton and Blair, that killed hundreds of civilians in hospitals, schools, churches, parks and television studios and destroyed Serbia’s economic infrastructure.  It was blatantly ideological; at a notorious “peace conference” in Rambouillet in France, Milosevic was confronted by Madeleine Albright, the US secretary of state, who was to achieve infamy with her remark that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children were “worth it”.

Albright delivered an “offer” to Milosevic that no national leader could accept. Unless he agreed to the foreign military occupation of his country, with the occupying forces “outside the legal process”, and to the imposition of a neo-liberal “free market”, Serbia would be bombed. This was contained in an “Appendix B”, which the media failed to read or suppressed. The aim was to crush Europe’s last independent “socialist” state.

Once Nato began bombing, there was a stampede of Kosovar refugees “fleeing a holocaust”. When it was over, international police teams descended on Kosovo to exhume the victims of the “holocaust”. The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing “a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines”. The final count of the dead in Kosovo was 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the pro-Nato Kosovo Liberation Front. There was no genocide. The Nato attack was both a fraud and a war crime.

All but a fraction of America’s vaunted “precision-guided” missiles hit not military but civilian targets, including the news studios of Radio Television Serbia in Belgrade. Sixteen people were killed, including cameramen, producers and a make-up artist. Blair described the dead, profanely, as part of Serbia’s “command and control”. In 2008, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Carla Del Ponte, revealed that she had been pressured not to investigate Nato’s crimes.

This was the model for Washington’s subsequent invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and, by stealth, Syria. All qualify as “paramount crimes” under the Nuremberg standard; all depended on media propaganda. While tabloid journalism played its traditional part, it was serious, credible, often liberal journalism that was the most effective – the evangelical promotion of Blair and his wars by the Guardian, the incessant lies about Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction in the Observer and the New York Times, and the unerring drumbeat of government propaganda by the BBC in the silence of its omissions.

At the height of the bombing, the BBC’s Kirsty Wark interviewed General Wesley Clark, the Nato commander. The Serbian city of Nis had just been sprayed with American cluster bombs, killing women, old people and children in an open market and a hospital. Wark asked not a single question about this, or about any other civilian deaths. Others were more brazen. In February 2003, the day after Blair and Bush had set fire to Iraq, the BBC’s political editor, Andrew Marr, stood in Downing Street and made what amounted to a victory speech. He excitedly told his viewers that Blair had “said they would be able to take Baghdad without a bloodbath, and that in the end, the Iraqis would be celebrating. And on both of those points, he has been proved conclusively right.” Today, with a million dead and a society in ruins, Marr’s BBC interviews are recommended by the US embassy in London.

Marr’s colleagues lined up to pronounce Blair “vindicated”. The BBC’s Washington correspondent, Matt Frei, said, “There’s no doubt that the desire to bring good, to bring American values to the rest of the world, and especially to the Middle East … is now increasingly tied up with military power.”

This obeisance to the United States and its collaborators as a benign force “bringing good” runs deep in western establishment journalism. It ensures that the present-day catastrophe in Syria is blamed exclusively on Bashar al-Assad, whom the West and Israel have long conspired to overthrow, not for any humanitarian concerns, but to consolidate Israel’s aggressive power in the region. The jihadist forces unleashed and armed by the US, Britain, France, Turkey and their “coalition” proxies serve this end. It is they who dispense the propaganda and videos that become news in the US and Europe, and provide access to journalists and guarantee a one-sided “coverage” of Syria.

The city of Aleppo is in the news. Most readers and viewers will be unaware that the majority of the population of Aleppo lives in the government-controlled western part of the city. That they suffer daily artillery bombardment from western-sponsored al-Qaida is not news. On 21 July, French and American bombers attacked a government village in Aleppo province, killing up to 125 civilians. This was reported on page 22 of the Guardian; there were no photographs.

Having created and underwritten jihadism in Afghanistan in the 1980s as Operation Cyclone – a weapon to destroy the Soviet Union – the US is doing something similar in Syria. Like the Afghan Mujahideen, the Syrian “rebels” are America’s and Britain’s foot soldiers. Many fights for al-Qaida and its variants; some, like the Nusra Front, have rebranded themselves to comply with American sensitivities over 9/11. The CIA runs them, with difficulty, as it runs jihadists all over the world.

Continue reading

From Lewrockwell.com, here.

כיצד להשתיק את ‘קול המונה של רומי’ בקלות

מסירים מימון ממשלתי, פשוט מאוד.

ציטוט מאתר קו ישר בנושא:

השאלה היסודית היא: האם הממשלה צריכה להשקיע כסף ציבורי בארגון שעשועים? המשחקים יפים, מרשימים ומשעשעים ללא ספק, אבל הם בוודאי לא חיוניים. אז מדוע הממשלה מתעסקת בזה? מדוע היא מוציאה כסף גדול של אחרים? האנשים אוהבים משחקים אולימפיים (ושעשועים אחרים)? אין ספק שאוהבים. אז, שיכניסו יד לכיס ויממנו, כל אחד לפי רצונו ולפי מידת אהבתו. שיאורגנו המשחקים על בסיס מסחרי או על בסיס פילנתרופי (תרומות מרצון), ומי שאוהב הכי הרבה – ייתן הכי הרבה כסף. מדוע צריך לקחת כסף בכוח מאנשים (באמצעות מיסים) כדי לספק שעשועים?

התשובה היא, כמובן, שאין דבר שהפוליטיקאים ואנשי הציבור אוהבים יותר מאשר לבזבז כסף של אחרים. כמה שהפרויקט גדול ויקר יותר הם אוהבים אותו יותר – זה נותן להם תחושה של כוח, של חשיבות. זה מניב יחסי ציבור, ויוצר אינספור אפשרויות להתעשר באופן אישי משחיתות.

ושאר הכתבה