PGP

The whole home-school education thing is extremely rare in this country. I can count on one hand the cases I have heard of home-schooling. It does seem extremely odd that people can have children and be responsible for them in terms of welfare but they are not allowed to educate the children independently even when they are obviously qualified. From my primary school days, I totted it up and from my class and the year ahead of me I figured that at least a quarter of the males left primary school at 12-13 illiterate. Of these, a small number became literate in later years. This is from the mid-90's. In retrospect alot of these chaps, I can see now, were dyslexic or had ADHD or some other need for adapted learning. There was just absolutely no awareness or taking into account for this at that time.

Here is an article published in the Irish Times 5 Sept 2014 with contribution from Gerard Casey, a libertarian philosopher. I was pleasantly surprised with it as I cannot remember seeing anything on anarchism or libertarianism in mainstream publications here before. http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/would-we-be-better-off-without-the-state-1.1909875

I always thought Affleck got a hard time. I really liked some of his films. However, in one of the few clips I watched of Bill Maher show, Affleck had absolutely no doubt that Iran should be attacked by the US. It was after he made Argo (I think). I just wish I was in the room at that point to hand him the flak jacket and the rifle and send him on his merry way.

A MOTHER jailed in a dispute over homeschooling has said she wanted to show her children how to stand up for themselves. Link to article: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/not-one-educationallyneglected-child-has-been-helped-by-my-going-to-prison-jailed-home-school-mum-30559570.html I am interested to hear your comments on this situation. Seems to me that the state is asserting its ownership and sending up the warning flares to any dissent and imitation.

I'll upvote you for asking an earnestly honest question consciously....

So, there is no criteria for inclusion in this cultural construct. Not genetic, not religious, not by choice in or out, not exclusively cultural, not by land ownership. Actually, I am incorrect. There is one: the willingness to kill other human beings. Wipe them out in fact, to reclaim property based on a fairy tale. Come from far and wide to claim your part of the "promised" land. Just be prepared to kill. Come to think of it, were the jewish clans not slaves at one point to some pharoah or other (I will have to rely on other peoples expertise here, I grew out of fairy tales in my single digits). Does this not mean that they were in fact owned, that is to say the property of this pharoah and by definition of his descendents? Would this not pre-date the cultural construct? What would be the implications of this, I wonder? Come to think of it, wouldn't this be preferable in terms of human livelihood(ie loss of life). No killing, just slavery.

You just make this stuff up as you go along. In the one breath you say there is genetic evidence to link with some mystical past right to property (any deeds?), but also that genetic lineage doesn't matter due to adoption. Just one part of the link you provided: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews Palestinians[edit]Further information: Palestinian people#DNA and genetic studies Many genetic studies have demonstrated that most of the various Jewish ethnic divisions and the Palestinians and other Levantines, like the Druze[12][13][17][39] and Bedouin,[12][13]are genetically closer to each other than the Palestinians or European Jews are to non-Jewish Europeans or Africans.[12][13][94] One DNA study by Nebel and colleagues found genetic evidence in support of historical records that "part, or perhaps the majority" of Muslim Palestinians descend from "local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD".[94] They also found substantial genetic overlap between Muslim Palestinians and Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, though with some significant differences that might be explainable by the geographical isolation of the Jews and by immigration of Arab tribes in the first millennium.[94] So, genetically, when is a jew not a jew? Where do you draw the line? By their nomadic history jews have travelled far and wide. Some that were jews are now Palestinian or Christian or Druze and vice versa. Surely the close relationship between "israelis" and Palestinians means the land should be shared between your mythical collective cultural contruct? So, not only has the state called israel been thieved from its owners and continues to be thieved but you are advocating thieving it from those whom you should call "brother" as part of your mythical "Eretz". Also, I see a common thread here. Anyone that disagrees with your cultural construct is anti-semitic, even if they are jewish. On top of this, if Prof Sand is by your definition part of the cultural construct, then surely you are committing crimes in his name also as an unwilling participant owing to his ancestry. As the cultural construct, whom does the decision fall to to utilise violence to reclaim a mythical property right? Was there a vote taken? Surely seeing as Palestinians and jews share such a remarkable genetic similarity, the colonisation of the land called israel was unnecessary. It was already supporiting "Eretz" before the zionist cultural collective construct was hatched in the 19th century.

IDK if it will help, but I heard a nugget of wisdom from a former Olympic athlete once who was advising amateur and budding athletes on motivation. This is especially pertinent on those cold winter mornings. He said to just run for six minutes. That's all. Just do six minutes and see where that leads you.

A reference once more to Prof Sand seminal work on the fiction of the jewish historical tie to the land currently called israel. Is he anti-semitic also?BTW, you have almost exclusively refused to respond to my comments. The height of ignorance. Found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invention_of_the_Jewish_People Book summary[edit]Sand began his work by looking for research studies about forcible exile of Jews from the area now bordered by modern Israel, and its surrounding regions. He was astonished that he could find no such literature, he says, given that the expulsion of Jews from the region is viewed as a constitutive event in Jewish history. The conclusion he came to from his subsequent investigation is that the expulsion simply didn't happen, that no one exiled the Jewish people from the region, and that the Diaspora is essentially a modern invention. He accounts for the appearance of millions of Jews around the Mediterranean and elsewhere as something that came about primarily through the religious conversion of local people, saying that Judaism, contrary to popular opinion, was very much a "converting religion" in former times. He holds that mass conversions were first brought about by the Hasmoneans under the influence of Hellenism, and continued until Christianity rose to dominance in the fourth century CE.[23] Jewish origins[edit]Sand argues that it is likely that the ancestry of most contemporary Jews stems mainly from outside the Land of Israel and that a "nation-race" of Jews with a common origin never existed, and that just as most Christians and Muslims are the progeny of converted people, not of the first Christians and Muslims, Jews are also descended from converts. According to Sand, Judaism was originally, like its two cousins, a proselytising religion, and mass conversions to Judaism occurred among the Khazars in the Caucasus, Berbertribes in North Africa, and in the Himyarite Kingdom on the Arabian Peninsula. According to Sand, the original Jews living in Israel, contrary to popular belief, were not exiled by the Romans following the Bar Kokhba revolt.[23] The Romans permitted most Jews to remain in the country. Rather, the story of the exile was a myth promoted by early Christians to recruit Jews to the new faith. They portrayed that event as a divine punishment imposed on the Jews for having rejected the Christian gospel. Sand writes that "Christians wanted later generations of Jews to believe that their ancestors had been exiled as a punishment from God."[24] Following the Arab conquest of Palestine in the 7th century, many Jews converted to Islam and were assimilated among the Arab conquerors. Sand concludes that these converts are the ancestors of the contemporary Palestinians.[25] Jewish peoplehood[edit]Sand's explanation of the birth of the "myth" of a Jewish people as a group with a common, ethnic origin has been summarized as follows: "[a]t a certain stage in the 19th century intellectuals of Jewish origin in Germany, influenced by the folk character of German nationalism, took upon themselves the task of inventing a people "retrospectively," out of a thirst to create a modern Jewish people. From historian Heinrich Graetz on, Jewish historians began to draw the history of Judaism as the history of a nation that had been a kingdom, became a wandering people and ultimately turned around and went back to its birthplace."[23] In this, Sand writes, they were similar to other nationalist movements in Europe at the time that sought the reassurance of a Golden Age in their past to prove they have existed as a separate people since the beginnings of history. Jewish people found theirs in what he calls "the mythical Kingdom of David". Before this invention, he says, Jews thought of themselves as Jews because they shared a common religion, not a common ethnic background.[23] Return from exile, Zionism[edit]Sand believes that the idea of Jews being obliged to return from exile to the Promised Land was alien to Judaism before the birth of Zionism, and that the holy places were seen as places to long for, not to be lived in. On the contrary, for 2,000 years Jews stayed away from Jerusalem because their religion forbade them from returning until the Messiah came. According to Sand, the ancestry of Central and Eastern European Jews stems heavily from mediæval Turkic Khazars who were converted to Judaism, a theory which was popularized in a book written by Arthur Koestler in 1976.[26] Overall intent of the book[edit]Sand explained during a newspaper interview his reasons for writing the book: "I wrote the book for a double purpose. First, as an Israeli, to democratise the state; to make it a real republic. Second, I wrote the book against Jewish essentialism."[27] Sand explained in the same interview that what he means by 'Jewish essentialism' is, in the words of the interviewer, "the tendency in modern Judaism to make shared ethnicity the basis for faith."[27] "That is dangerous and it nourishes antisemitism. I am trying to normalise the Jewish presence in history and contemporary life," Sand said.[27]

I would also like to know if murder/ethnic cleansing/genocide/thievery and anti non-semitism is supported or condemned on this forum. I have provided multiple referenced sources, arguments and facts that question your proposition to murder/ethnically cleanse/commit genocide/thieve and advocate anti non-semitism. You have not provided any reason or evidence based in any virtuous moral schema, unless of course murder/ethnic cleansing/genocide/thievery and anti non-semitism is part of your morality? All of course based on an iron-age fairy-tale demarcating jews as religiously but not religiously, culturally but not exclusively cultural, genetic but not proven and also not exclusively apart and in any way that matters superior to all non-jews in terms of land ownership in the geographic area of the land(currently expanding) called israel. Now, are you advocating anti non-semitism or are you not? Answer the question.

I think you are mistaken. I mentioned the Nazi conquest of the Sudetenland far before this reference. Therefore I obviously lose the argument because there is obviously no comparison between Zionism and the mythology of Hitlerian Naziism regarding the Aryan race and the distinct privileges due the Aryans in lebensraum. No comparison at all. Also, since when were Jews a nation? I thought all were welcome in the jewish homeland that you justify retaking through murder? Would they not be citizens also. Or is this an anarchic "state" (ha!) based on judaism as a prerequisite to citizenship But it's not based on religion, is it? Or is it? Is it based on lineage? Yes and no. Please show me the conclusive and non-refuted genetic studies that back up your claim of genetic continuity. I have a degree in genetics, so be very careful with what you reference. As regards your refutation of the references I gave you are really stretching the bounds of discourse. PCR gave solid facts to back up his piece. Also, we have it from the horses mouth of Tzipi and Bibi re: the ownership of the US by the land called israel lobby. Unless you would like to call them anti-semitic also? In a general sense, I would like to point out a very important facet of your "argument". You seem to be basing your "proposition" on the exclusivity of jews as a distinct group. I am formally labelling you as an anti non-semitic. You have exhibited extreme bias against anyone non-jewish here including an exclusion on the ownership of land in your anarchic "state" of israel based along religious lines or is it cultural or is it genetic? You Sir/Madam are a bigot and a racist regarding anyone non-jewish and what is more, you are willingly and actively justify and calling for murder as a legacy of jewish demarcation and "ownership" of land based on fairy-tales. Now, seeing as you are so carefree in throwing out these accusations, I request that you show quite clearly how your views are not anti non-semitic (jewish to be precise, as Palestinians are also Semites). You are justifying killing not only Palestinians but also any other ethnic group including myself that do not conform to your proposition. I await your reply.

Here is a link to PC Roberts article. I ask that any American reading the above "argument" for,(( well I'm still not sure what it is, it seems to change like a chameleon), but lets call it a jewish homeland based on non-religious lines and based on lineage but you can convert and also take part and you can be an anarchist but also adhere to a state and you can be in favour of non-violence but you can also kill to secure "property" based on a fairy-tale and oh yes, you can provide a safe haven for all once they give up their land and submit to your legitimacy) read the PCR article and take solace that your country is being played like a fiddle and funding this "project". YOUR taxpayer money for bombs, missiles and bribe-money. Also, a WP article on the israeli plans to further expand into the West Bank. I'm sure the protagonist for this reclamation is thrilled. It makes me sick. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/08/27/israel-lobby-eliminates-another-critic-paul-craig-roberts/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-proposes-taking-more-west-bank-land-for-jewish-settlers/2014/08/31/97260a8a-1bc7-4406-ba57-c6493dfdf865_story.html

I would like to echo the message above from JWilliam. Please do not have any hesitation to ask for advice or analysis on FDR or by PM if you think it useful. One of your biggest allies here is information so the more you have the better IMO.

Might just be my own perception but I cannot remember as much dangerous rhetoric and outright lies from politicians and their lackies in the media as there is now. I'm not so sure people in Europe and the US will buy it this time though. I think people are genuinely sick of all this stuff.

What do we receive in information re: Jebus. He was born to a virgin and his pop had no idea wtf was going on. Jebus lived with his mother except for a theorized road-trip with an extended group of males and one woman (Mary Magdalene). He dressed in flowing robes and had impeccable hair, abs and pecs. He was betrayed to the authorities for a monetary gain. Said traitor hanged himself in a suspicious incident involving a donkey. Read: Mary a lesbian, conceived via turkey baster (hence turkey now the predominant Christmas meal (mmmm...) Gay, one fag-hag. Gay, looked after himself. Lovers tiff with ANOTHER of the circle-jerk jerks. Betrayed to authority. Judas had exotic tastes in sexual partners and ended his time in an orgasmic grief-ridden suicide. Just sayin'.

Probably Diane Keaton in any movie.

Hi Alexandru. I didn't see your earlier posts but I'd like to throw a few ideas in your path on this one. I don't know what your situation is. If you are seriously stressed atm living with your parents then moving out is a good idea IMO. Firstly, I don't know where you live and what is considered regular, but this sounds like a difficult situation to move into. Living in a house with a landlord (especially where common areas are used by them also) is not a good idea IMHO. I have experience of this from college and I would not recommend it to anyone. There is always the feeling of not being home and walking on eggshells when you are living with a landlord. That has been my experience anyway. Secondly, the landlord and the tenants sound like a challenge to live with. This may just be my prejudice, but perhaps consider: what do you have in common with them? Living with people in a shared environment is a serious matter IMO, especially where there is a track record that you mentioned above. Thirdly and I think most importantly, IMHO, the objectives you have outlined should perhaps be preceded by a big fat number 1: The most important factor is whom you are living with. If this means working a bit more to pay more rent or cycling/walking an extra twenty minutes to get to work then so be it IMO. I get the feeling that you are anxious to move on to pastures new and this IMO is a healthy step. However,(and I mean this with utmost sincerity) waiting a little longer if necessary and being very selective about a new living arrangement is preferable IMO. IDK if you have talked to many people about what sharing a house is like and the different variations but I have given my perspective above. This may be completely different for other people and purely down to my own desires in this regard. That's my piece on it anyway. I applaud you for taking these positive steps in your life in conjunction with your therapist and I hope it works out well.

How about: Grammar FemiNazi? Think of the created demand you could fulfill!!! Every man will have to buy it because they'll be automatically wrong and every non-feminist female will have to buy it because they don't know what's right for them without reference to feminist thinking!!! In fact, you could probably get government funding for an exploratory case-study sub-committee on the feasibility of integration of FemiNazi grammar in the context of patriarchal language structure. hehehe....

He'd need a good ring-name. IDK if Stefan "The Philosopher" Molyneux would strike that much fear in the opposition?

The case for free tampons. Humorous and cutting video on feminist "issues" and "free"-dom. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj1TL8Sps1I&list=UUr3qf3JVwW_41j4LUQZtu9Q

Just call it Grammar Bibi. More contemporary and in technicolour. Why burn in ovens when you can just broil in white phosphorus? All macabre kidding aside, I agree with a post above. From a marketing point of view, it would be off-putting IMO. Unless of course you ramp it up and get massive coverage because of your use of the word "Nazi". Just send a promotional email to all the human-rights groups. It might help them distinguish between an "invasion" and an "aid convoy" in Ukraine. Or a "militant" and a "child" in Gaza. That's my rant.

What misinformation? There should be a good amount of it, so make a good, long list.

Ah, I see. So, YOU are allowed to kill to "reclaim" property, but Hamas is not allowed to kill in defence. Echoes of the Sudetenland and Lebensraum? Also, a question I have asked others before. What is the difference between zionism and ISIS? Both establishing a homeland/caliphate based on iron-age and 6th century texts and fairy-tales.

Satirical. Of course!!! I have continued in this thread (despite the fact that the proponent of the israeli lineage construct will not reply to me) in order to ensure as much of this nonsense is expounded upon as possible. When someone tries to justify genocide or displacement based on fairy tales and then to present it as anarchism it must be exposed. This is a situation where the exposing the truth of a position (from the horses mouth so to speak) is the best way to totally discredit it. As regards Hamas, there are conflicting reports on this. I saw a recent interview of the Hamas leader who refused to accept the legitimacy of israel or its right to exist. I can source the video if you require. Again, I meant no disrespect on the personal situation, it was purely to highlight the absurdity of the proposition. Peace out.

My understanding is that Hamas has the destruction of the state of israel as part of its charter. If you are for anarchism, then you must agree with Hamas?