https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/08/21/brilliant-what-israel-is-trying-to-do-is-self-preservation-not-genocide-so-genocide-has-to-be-redefined-so-israel-can-be-accused-of-doing-it/

Brilliant: What Israel Is Trying To Do Is Self-Preservation, Not
Genocide. So “Genocide” Has To Be Redefined So Israel Can Be Accused Of
Doing It…
August 21, 2024 / Jack Marshall

The case of “genocide” is a classic in the annals of deliberate
linguistic manipulation for unethical goals.

A detailed essay in the New York Times explains the machinations around
the word, which is similar to what we have seen recently in other cases,
like that of “women,” “racism,” “lying,” “ad hominem” (in a debate here
on Ethics Alarms), “fascism,”and “insurrection,” to name just a few of
many. The proliferation of this Orwellian process should set off not
just ethics alarms but evil alarms.

As the article correctly explains, international law addressing genocide
was aimed at extreme and unequivocal examples where a nation sets out to
exterminate an entire race or ethnic group for no other reason than that
group’s existence. It is the ultimate hate crime, and thus was labeled a
“crime against humanity.” The Holocaust was the prime example: nothing
describes genocide more indisputably than a group of experts, military
officials and government leaders sitting around a table and deciding on
a “Final Solution.”

But as the article relates, mission creep has invaded the anti-genocide
brigade, for example with the United States being accused of genocide in
its treatment of Native American and because of the actions of the KKK
and others during the Jim Crow era, and now, with Israel being vilified
by the genocide label for being determined to eliminate a terrorist
organization pledged to commit genocide against Israelis.

Naturally, the United Nations is complicit in this process, and,
naturally, so is the I.C.J., the U.N.’s top court. The U.S., among other
nations, supports the Geneva Convention but doesn’t accept the authority
of the I.C.J. The article doesn’t explicitly explain why, but the reason
is obvious: the court is subject to political motives and bias. It can’t
be trusted.

“Genocide” has been slowly made a synonym for “human rights violations,”
and wars are by definition human rights violations. Thus the U.N. can
always use a politicized definition of “genocide” to declare any war,
even one triggered by a nation’s right and obligation to defend itself
and its citizens, as “genocide”—particularly if the nation waging the
war is Israel.

By the standards being weaponized by the protesters at the Democratic
National Convention, the U.S. ending World War II with two atom bombs
would qualify as genocide.

This is the unethical—but effective—process:

1. Identify a nation, group, individual, or leader that you want to
demonize.

2. Find a word universally regarded as describing conduct that is
heinous and unforgivable.

3. Redefine that word so that the policies, conduct or stated position
of that nation, group, individual, or leader can be described by it.

4. Repeat that word in association with the nation, group, individual,
or leader’s policies, conduct or stated positions so that the word
itself is defined by those policies, conduct or stated positions, rather
than the other way around.

The average member of the public—you know, morons—won’t know the difference.

What makes this tactic so effective, diabolical, and impossible to stop
is that there are many examples of pejorative words that should be used
and understood to apply beyond their most narrow definitions. Child
abuse. Indoctrination. Propaganda. Totalitarianism. Conflicts of
interest. The distinction, perhaps, is whether the expanded definition
is made in good faith, or it it is only aimed at a particular adversary
to achieve strategic political gains.

The article, “The Bitter Fight Over the Meaning of ‘Genocide’” is here
for you to read, freed from the paywall.

On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 13:08:48 -0400, HeartDoc Andrew
<achung@EmoryCardiology.com> wrote:

>Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
>>https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/08/21/brilliant-what-israel-is-trying-to-do-is-self-preservation-not-genocide-so-genocide-has-to-be-redefined-so-israel-can-be-accused-of-doing-it/
>>
>>Brilliant: What Israel Is Trying To Do Is Self-Preservation, Not
>>Genocide. So “Genocide” Has To Be Redefined So Israel Can Be Accused Of
>>Doing It…
>>August 21, 2024 / Jack Marshall
>>
>>
>>The case of “genocide” is a classic in the annals of deliberate
>>linguistic manipulation for unethical goals.
>>
>>A detailed essay in the New York Times explains the machinations around
>>the word, which is similar to what we have seen recently in other cases,
>>like that of “women,” “racism,” “lying,” “ad hominem” (in a debate here
>>on Ethics Alarms), “fascism,”and “insurrection,” to name just a few of
>>many. The proliferation of this Orwellian process should set off not
>>just ethics alarms but evil alarms.
>>
>>As the article correctly explains, international law addressing genocide
>>was aimed at extreme and unequivocal examples where a nation sets out to
>>exterminate an entire race or ethnic group for no other reason than that
>>group’s existence. It is the ultimate hate crime, and thus was labeled a
>>“crime against humanity.” The Holocaust was the prime example: nothing
>>describes genocide more indisputably than a group of experts, military
>>officials and government leaders sitting around a table and deciding on
>>a “Final Solution.”
>>
>>But as the article relates, mission creep has invaded the anti-genocide
>>brigade, for example with the United States being accused of genocide in
>>its treatment of Native American and because of the actions of the KKK
>>and others during the Jim Crow era, and now, with Israel being vilified
>>by the genocide label for being determined to eliminate a terrorist
>>organization pledged to commit genocide against Israelis.
>>
>>Naturally, the United Nations is complicit in this process, and,
>>naturally, so is the I.C.J., the U.N.’s top court. The U.S., among other
>>nations, supports the Geneva Convention but doesn’t accept the authority
>>of the I.C.J. The article doesn’t explicitly explain why, but the reason
>>is obvious: the court is subject to political motives and bias. It can’t
>>be trusted.
>>
>>“Genocide” has been slowly made a synonym for “human rights violations,”
>>and wars are by definition human rights violations. Thus the U.N. can
>>always use a politicized definition of “genocide” to declare any war,
>>even one triggered by a nation’s right and obligation to defend itself
>>and its citizens, as “genocide”—particularly if the nation waging the
>>war is Israel.
>>
>>By the standards being weaponized by the protesters at the Democratic
>>National Convention, the U.S. ending World War II with two atom bombs
>>would qualify as genocide.
>>
>>This is the unethical—but effective—process:
>>
>>1. Identify a nation, group, individual, or leader that you want to
>>demonize.
>>
>>2. Find a word universally regarded as describing conduct that is
>>heinous and unforgivable.
>>
>>3. Redefine that word so that the policies, conduct or stated position
>>of that nation, group, individual, or leader can be described by it.
>>
>>4. Repeat that word in association with the nation, group, individual,
>>or leader’s policies, conduct or stated positions so that the word
>>itself is defined by those policies, conduct or stated positions, rather
>>than the other way around.
>>
>>The average member of the public—you know, morons—won’t know the difference.
>>
>>What makes this tactic so effective, diabolical, and impossible to stop
>>is that there are many examples of pejorative words that should be used
>>and understood to apply beyond their most narrow definitions. Child
>>abuse. Indoctrination. Propaganda. Totalitarianism. Conflicts of
>>interest. The distinction, perhaps, is whether the expanded definition
>>is made in good faith, or it it is only aimed at a particular adversary
>>to achieve strategic political gains.
>>
>>The article, “The Bitter Fight Over the Meaning of ‘Genocide’” is here
>>for you to read, freed from the paywall.
>
>Instead of genocide, it's Purim. Phonetically, Hamas remind us of
>Haman, who was so hangry at Mordecai, the Jew, that his hatred/bigotry
>extended to latter's entire ethnic group. Just as GOD utterly
>defeating/destroying Haman wasn't murder, His destroying Hamas isn't
>genocide. It is written that GOD says "Vengeance is Mine. I will
>avenge."
>
>Bottom line: Terrible things happen to the terribly hungry (aka
>https:/bit.ly/h_angry like Hamas now following the example of Haman in
>the time of Esther and the example of https://bit.ly/BiblicalEsau in
>the time of Jacob/Israel in Genesis 25:32 when all of Palestine was
>sold forever to Israel for just a single meal of bread and red lentil
>soup).
>
>So, instead of hangry, I am simply http://WonderfullyHungry.org for
>food right now (Luke 6:21a) and hope you, Michael, and others reading
>this, also have a healthy appetite for food right now too.
>
>So how are you ?

He's got monkeypox and anal warts, thanks to you.

On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:39:47 -0700, Michael Ejercito
<MEjercit@HotMail.com> wrote:

>https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/08/21/brilliant-what-israel-is-trying-to-do-is-self-preservation-not-genocide-so-genocide-has-to-be-redefined-so-israel-can-be-accused-of-doing-it/
>
>Brilliant: What Israel Is Trying To Do Is Self-Preservation, Not
>Genocide. So “Genocide” Has To Be Redefined So Israel Can Be Accused Of
>Doing It…
>August 21, 2024 / Jack Marshall
>
>
>The case of “genocide” is a classic in the annals of deliberate
>linguistic manipulation for unethical goals.
>
>A detailed essay in the New York Times explains the machinations around
>the word, which is similar to what we have seen recently in other cases,
>like that of “women,” “racism,” “lying,” “ad hominem” (in a debate here
>on Ethics Alarms), “fascism,”and “insurrection,” to name just a few of
>many. The proliferation of this Orwellian process should set off not
>just ethics alarms but evil alarms.
>
>As the article correctly explains, international law addressing genocide
>was aimed at extreme and unequivocal examples where a nation sets out to
>exterminate an entire race or ethnic group for no other reason than that
>group’s existence. It is the ultimate hate crime, and thus was labeled a
>“crime against humanity.” The Holocaust was the prime example: nothing
>describes genocide more indisputably than a group of experts, military
>officials and government leaders sitting around a table and deciding on
>a “Final Solution.”
>
>But as the article relates, mission creep has invaded the anti-genocide
>brigade, for example with the United States being accused of genocide in
>its treatment of Native American and because of the actions of the KKK
>and others during the Jim Crow era, and now, with Israel being vilified
>by the genocide label for being determined to eliminate a terrorist
>organization pledged to commit genocide against Israelis.
>
>Naturally, the United Nations is complicit in this process, and,
>naturally, so is the I.C.J., the U.N.’s top court. The U.S., among other
>nations, supports the Geneva Convention but doesn’t accept the authority
>of the I.C.J. The article doesn’t explicitly explain why, but the reason
>is obvious: the court is subject to political motives and bias. It can’t
>be trusted.
>
>“Genocide” has been slowly made a synonym for “human rights violations,”
>and wars are by definition human rights violations. Thus the U.N. can
>always use a politicized definition of “genocide” to declare any war,
>even one triggered by a nation’s right and obligation to defend itself
>and its citizens, as “genocide”—particularly if the nation waging the
>war is Israel.
>
>By the standards being weaponized by the protesters at the Democratic
>National Convention, the U.S. ending World War II with two atom bombs
>would qualify as genocide.
>
>This is the unethical—but effective—process:
>
>1. Identify a nation, group, individual, or leader that you want to
>demonize.
>
>2. Find a word universally regarded as describing conduct that is
>heinous and unforgivable.
>
>3. Redefine that word so that the policies, conduct or stated position
>of that nation, group, individual, or leader can be described by it.
>
>4. Repeat that word in association with the nation, group, individual,
>or leader’s policies, conduct or stated positions so that the word
>itself is defined by those policies, conduct or stated positions, rather
>than the other way around.
>
>The average member of the public—you know, morons—won’t know the difference.
>
>What makes this tactic so effective, diabolical, and impossible to stop
>is that there are many examples of pejorative words that should be used
>and understood to apply beyond their most narrow definitions. Child
>abuse. Indoctrination. Propaganda. Totalitarianism. Conflicts of
>interest. The distinction, perhaps, is whether the expanded definition
>is made in good faith, or it it is only aimed at a particular adversary
>to achieve strategic political gains.
>
>The article, “The Bitter Fight Over the Meaning of ‘Genocide’” is here
>for you to read, freed from the paywall.

Gook, what the zionist occupier is doing in Gaza is EXACTLY what the
Ukrainian auxiliary police did to the kikes in Kiev circa 1941-42

HeartDoc Andrew
> Instead of genocide, it's Purim. Phonetically, Hamas remind us of
> Haman, who was so hangry at Mordecai, the Jew, that his hatred/bigotry
> extended to latter's entire ethnic group. Just as GOD utterly
> defeating/destroying Haman wasn't murder, His destroying Hamas isn't
> genocide. It is written that GOD says "Vengeance is Mine. I will
> avenge."
Very great point!

>
> Bottom line: Terrible things happen to the terribly hungry (aka
> https:/bit.ly/h_angry like Hamas now following the example of Haman in
> the time of Esther and the example of https://bit.ly/BiblicalEsau in
> the time of Jacob/Israel in Genesis 25:32 when all of Palestine was
> sold forever to Israel for just a single meal of bread and red lentil
> soup).
>
> So, instead of hangry, I am simply http://WonderfullyHungry.org for
> food right now (Luke 6:21a) and hope you, Michael, and others reading
> this, also have a healthy appetite for food right now too.
>
> So how are you ?
I am wonderfully hungry!

Michael

Andrew B. Chung Ph.D (plagiarised) MD (revoked)about 19 hours ago
> Yup. The only difference is that the Kiev pogrom was a MITZVAH.
Mangina, there is nothing mitzvah about it.

I will never forget how the Peeler dominated you and humiliated you
on a daily basis!

You are a Nazi.

As a Nazi, you are, above all else, a craven coward.

You are afraid to compete with others as equals because you know you
can not measure up.

You are afraid of your own inadequacy, so you want to murder your
betters.

You are afraid of the truth, so you want to murder those who would
tell it.

You are afraid of history, so you want to murder the past, to wipe
out the knowledge of the degeneracy, cowardice and failure of National
Socialism.

Finally, you are afraid of the power of educated, informed adults.
Freedom of choice terrifies you… which is why you choose minor children
as sexual partners. You can not interact with competent adults in a
consensually sexual way. You need to be able to impose yourself on a
helpless victim, be it a prepubescent boy, or a patient in a mental
hospital.

That is what you are, a Nazi, and there is nothing polite or honest
about it.

Michael

Andrew B. Chung Ph.D (plagiarised) MD (revoked)about 11 hours ago
> ReplyPermalinkOn Thu, 22 Aug 2024 08:20:08 -0700, NOT Michael Ejercito
>> Mangina, there is nothing mitzvah about it.
> Needledick, it was like TOTALLY mitzvah.
Nithing, it was an atrocity!

>> I will never forget how the Peeler dominated you and humiliated you
>> on a daily basis!
> I will never forget how I mocked, dominated and humiliated the
> Foreskin PEELER to the point that he couldn't take it any more and
> LEFT with his tail between his legs. JUST like all the others!.
The Peeler dominated you, humiliated you, and tormented you!

>> You are a Nazi.
> You are a gook.
That would be better than being a Nazi nithing.

>> As a Nazi, you are, above all else
> As a craven gook who zsuckles jew ani, you are, below all else
You are a nithing- homo sapiens by birth, subhuman BY CHOICE. The
key word is CHOICE. You were born with the same human nature as the
rest of us. Your CHOICES made you a nithing.

Bill explains what nithings are.

http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=9446

Define and Dehumanize the Enemy: Jihadists as Nithings or Nidings

by Bill Levinson
It is an ancient principle of magic (which modern people recognize as
stories that reflect a society’s culture and psychology) that
knowledge of a person’s real or True Name delivers power over that
person. What it really means is that, if you know the person’s
psychology, you can gain an advantage over him. It is also well known
that the side that controls the language of an argument controls the
argument. As an example, Hamas terrorists and their enablers refer to
Israel’s military as an “occupation force” and terrorisitic violence
against civilians as “resistance.”

We have long sought a single word that strips the enemy of all
humanity, and reduces him to something less than an animal that is
worthy of nothing less than extermination. As far as we know, the
English language contains no such word, although “dreck” (garbage or
refuse) comes close. “Homo sapiens by BIRTH, subhuman by CHOICE”
describes Islamic supremacists perfectly, but it is a phrase and not a
word. We now propose to refer to Islamic supremacists as nithings or
nidings: a Scandinavian word that strips its object of all humanity.
Webster’s dictionary (1913) defines it as “A coward; a dastard; — a
term of utmost opprobrium.”

We remind readers who object to the dehumanization of Islamic
supremacists that those enemies are already attempting to dehumanize
Jews, and to a lesser degree Christians, with images that could have
come directly from Adolf Hitler. As they have chosen to sow the
dragon’s teeth, our position is that they must now reap their rightful
harvest: the complete hatred and loathing of all civilized human
beings.
nithings

Nithing or niding was more than a common insult, because Scandinavian
culture required its subject to fight a duel with the accuser or
become an outlaw: totally devoid of rights, honor, and even
recognition as a human being. Per the Wikipedia entry,

The actual meaning of the adjective argr or ragr [= Anglo-Saxon
earg] was the nature or appearance of effeminacy, especially by
obscene acts. Argr was the worst, most derogatory swearword of all
known to the Norse language. According to Icelandic law, the accused
was expected to kill the accuser at once. …If the accused did not
retort by violent attack yielding either the accuser to take his words
back or the accuser’s death, he was hence proven to be a weak and
cowardly nithing by not retorting accordingly.

A nithing was devoid of all human rights, and he was considered the
enemy of civilized humanity: a perfect depiction of Islamic
supremacists. The word therefore strips the enemy of all humanity, and
degrades him to the status of a wolf or strangler (per Scandinavian
tradition) or a virulent disease like the Black Plague. Black Plague
is a deadly and contagious disease whose vector consists of plague-
carrying rats, while the Green Plague of militant “Islam” is a deadly
and contagious ideology that is spread by bipedal rats: nidings or
nithings, non-humans that raise violent hands to all of civilized
Humanity.

The immediate consequence of being proven a nithing was
outlawing. The outlawed did not have any rights, he was exlex (Latin
for “outside of the legal system”), in Anglo-Saxon utlah, Middle Low
German uutlagh, Old Norse utlagr. Just as feud yielded enmity among
kinships, outlawry yielded enmity of all humanity.[63] …”Yet that is
but one aspect of outlawry. The outlaw is not only expelled from the
kinship, he is also regarded henceforth as an enemy to mankind.”

The actual definition of a nithing is somewhat more involved and
complex, and it gets into sexual perversions and zoomorphical
transformations (Loki’s transformation of himself into a mare to have
sexual intercourse with a stallion, and thus beget Odin’s horse
Sleipner is probably an example), but the following line is pertinent:
“The nithing used its malicious seid magic to destroy anything owned
and made by man, ultimately the human race and Midgard itself[6], due
to its basically unlimited envy, hate, and malice that were nith.”

"Destruction of everything owned and made by Man” (the Palestinians’
destruction of the greenhouses in Gaza comes to mind immediately) and
“unlimited envy, hate, and malice” describe militant “Islam”
perfectly, and further underscore the application of nithing or niding
to describe it. The propensity for mindless destruction also appears
in Orson Scott Card’s Alvin Maker series, in which a supernatural
enemy is known as the Unmaker: a personification of evil that is the
total antithesis of God the Creator.

The Unmaker is the main antagonist in Orson Scott Card’s
alternate history/fantasy series The Tales of Alvin Maker. Never
directly confronted, it is a supernatural force that breaks apart
matter and aims to destroy and consume everything and everyone. …To
make something is to oppose the Unmaker, but a point often made is
that this is futile. By natural law the Unmaker can tear down faster
than any man can build.

This also is an outstanding definition of militant “Islam” or Islamic
supremacy: an ideology that seeks to destroy everything into which it
comes in contact, and with which no reason, negotiation, or compromise
is possible.

In summary, a nithing or niding is the enemy of Civilization, a
subhuman (through its behavioral choices, and emphatically NOT due to
its racial or ethnic origin) monster with total hatred and malice
toward all human industry and arts, and worthy of nothing but
extermination like any virulent disease. This is the word we will now
apply to Islamic supremacists and their enablers, and we encourage
others to do likewise.

Andrew B. Chung Ph.D (plagiarised) MD (revoked)about 2 hours ago
> ReplyPermalinkOn Thu, 22 Aug 2024 19:44:44 -0700, NOT Michael Ejercito
>> So where IS he, gook? Where are the OTHER jewlovers and jews?
>
> I mocked, ridiculed, dominated, humiliated and tormented the Foreskin
> PEELER for YEARS! In the end, the silly little grik faggot couldn't
> TAKE it any more and LEFT.
he kept dominating you and humiliating you.

>
> If YOU had an ounce of self-respect, YOU would leave TOO.
Why would I leave?

I defend the truth wherever I go.

The following article explains your pathology.

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/11/historys_oldest_hatred/

History's oldest hatred
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / March 11, 2009
Email|Print|Single Page||Text size – +

ANTI-SEMITISM is an ancient derangement, the oldest of hatreds, so
it is strange that it lacks a more meaningful name. The misnomer
"anti-Semitism" - a term coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm
Marr, who wanted a scientific-sounding euphemism for Judenhass, or
Jew-hatred - is particularly inane, since hostility to Jews has never
had anything to do with Semites or being Semitic.

Perhaps there is no good name for a virus as mutable as anti-Semitism.
"The Jews have been objects of hatred in pagan, religious, and secular
societies," write Joseph Telushkin and Dennis Prager in "Why the Jews?,"
their classic study of anti-Semitism. "Fascists have accused them of
being Communists, and Communists have branded them capitalists. Jews who
live in non-Jewish societies have been accused of having dual loyalties,
while Jews who live in the Jewish state have been condemned as
'racists.' Poor Jews are bullied, and rich Jews are resented. Jews have
been branded as both rootless cosmopolitans and ethnic chauvinists. Jews
who assimilate have been called a 'fifth column,' while those who stay
together spark hatred for remaining separate."

There was Jew-hatred before there was Christianity or Islam, before
Nazism or Communism, before Zionism or the Middle East conflict. This
week Jews celebrate the festival of Purim, gathering in synagogues to
read the biblical book of Esther. Set in ancient Persia, it tells of
Haman, a powerful royal adviser who is insulted when the Jewish sage
Mordechai refuses to bow down to him. Haman resolves to wipe out the
empire's Jews and makes the case for genocide in an appeal to the king:

"There is a certain people scattered and dispersed among . . . all the
provinces of your kingdom, and their laws are different from those of
other peoples, and the king's laws they do not keep, so it is of no
benefit for the king to tolerate them. If it please the king, let it be
written that they be destroyed."

When the king agrees, Haman makes plans "to annihilate, to kill and
destroy all the Jews, the young and the elderly, children and women, in
one day . . . and to take their property for plunder."

What drives such bloodlust? Haman's indictment accuses the Jews of
lacking national loyalty, of insinuating themselves throughout the
empire, of flouting the king's law. But the Jews of Persia had done
nothing to justify Haman's murderous anti-Semitism - just as Jews in
later ages did nothing that justified their persecution under the Church
or Islam, or their repression at the hands of Russian czars and Soviet
commissars, or their slaughter by Nazi Germany. When the president of
Iran today calls for the extirpation of the Jewish state, when firebombs
are hurled at synagogues in London and Paris and Chicago, it is not
because Jews deserve to be victimized.

Many Jews are no saints, but the paranoid frenzy that is anti-Semitism
is not explained by what Jews do, but by what they are. They are the
object of anti-Semitism, not its cause. That is why the haters'
rationales can be so wildly inconsistent and their agendas so
contradictory. What do those who vilify Jews as greedy bankers have in
common with those who revile them as fiendish Bolsheviks? Nothing, save
an irrational obsession with Jews.

At one point, Haman lets the mask slip. He boasts to his friends and
family of "the glory of his riches, and the great number of his sons,
and everything in which the king had promoted him and elevated him."
Still, he seethes with rage and frustration: "Yet all this is worthless
to me so long as I see Mordechai the Jew sitting at the king's gate."
That is the unforgivable offense: "Mordechai the Jew" refuses to blend
in, to be just like everyone else. He goes on sitting there -
undigested, unassimilated, and therefore unbearable.

Of course Haman had his ostensible reasons for targeting Jews. So did
Hitler and Arafat, so does Ahmadinejad. Sometimes the anti-Semite
focuses on the Jew's religion, sometimes on his laws and lifestyle,
sometimes on his professional achievements. Under it all, however, it is
the Jew's Jewishness that the anti-Semite cannot abide.

With all their flaws and failings, the Jewish people endure, their role
in history not yet finished. So the world's oldest hatred endures too,
as obsessive and indestructible - and deadly - as ever.