Chinese, Indian Jews Move to Israel - Meanwhile, Chabad Expands in China

Lost Tribes of Jews From China, India, Make Aliyah

Chabad of China - Bringing the Jews in the Far East Closer

From China - The Lost Jew of Dali:

After being in China for a year I have to say I sorely missed Jews, especially their sarcasm and irony and a specific, sardonic type of humor seemingly nonexistent in China. And then I met Guri at Lost Angel Café in Southern China’s Yunnan Province. “You have real Yunnan coffee, right?” he asked the barista. “Not Nescafe?” And then he turned to me and asked where I’m from. I told him New York and he said, “Crown Heights?” What? “The organization I’m involved in is based in Crown Heights,” he said. “Chabad.” And he pulled a Star of David amulet out from his shirt. I was vaguely aware of Chabad, and was more than a bit taken aback to find a one of their members in this ancient small city under Cangshan Mountain.

Vice: Do you work for Chabad?

Guri Katz: No, no. I just attend their meetings, and I did once make applesauce for Hanukkah, you know, at least I think it was applesauce. Yes, it was, three years ago, Hanukkah on the Great Wall, lighting the menorah. We got a lot of press for that, two different television networks covered it, and people were telling me from around the globe that they’d seen me celebrating Hanukkah on the Great Wall. The next year they set us up in a princely palace near Houhai, and the next year at Chinese Ethnic Culture Park, with police stationed all around us. You know that joke, right? What are the two biggest lies of all time? The check’s in the mail and some of my best friends are Jews. Jews tell the best Jewish jokes, of course. I’ve got a lot of good ones from the Rabbi in Beijing, but he seems to have stopped telling any, which is too bad really.

What’s the situation with being Jewish in China?

The problem is Judaism isn’t one of the officially recognized religions in China [those would be Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism], so you can’t open a synagogue. There were three in Shanghai, dating from the early 20th century, but two were demolished, one in the 80s, and one as recently as the early 90s, if you can believe that, and the third we can’t even go into and hold services because it’s been turned into a museum that’s entirely under Chinese control. But generally we have a lot to be thankful for here, in that Jews have never been really oppressed in China and it’s been a haven.

Back to the Jews, can you tell me more about Chabad in China?

Chabad came to China seven yeas ago, and now there are seven Chabad houses, in Beijing, Shanghai, Pudong, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Kowloon, and a new one is starting in some big industrial city I’d never heard of before, one of those huge unknown cities in China, Yiwu. They are based in Crown Heights, and are also called Lubavitchers.

Are they ultra-orthodox?

No, not all, they are very tolerant and accept all Jews who want to come together, at any level of observance. They are a uniting force, they accept even people who don’t go to Shul or Synagogue. Of course they’re Eastern European Jews, Ashkenazis, but they are very inclusive.

Mossad Entrenched at Vancouver Airport? "We Lost the Video of 7/7" Verint Doing Security for 2010 Olympics?

The Israeli Intel front company Verint is doing security in Calgary (YYC) and Vancouver (YVR) International airports. 

The company is famous for putting back-doors in its software, which phones home to Israel. The company is suspected with facilitating the 9/11 attacks, and the 7/7 attacks.   Verint's video system on London's subway was inoperable during the London 7/7 terror incident. 

Web page on Mossad and Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics here 

It is also interesting to note that CANUTEC, an organization set up by the Canadian government to cope with potential disasters, can be reached by dialing 666.  CANUTEC will manage the potential roadblocks in case of a pandemic or terror attack. 

In other news:  Israeli Spies at South Africa's Johannesburg International Airport  

Below some older video on Verint's contract vis a vis Montreal security: 

Ayn Rand on Israel

 

Arabs: Savages that resent the civilized Israelis.  
So sayeth the guru Ayn Rand.  
The video below shows what Palestine looked like 
before the Zionist takeover.

When Ayn Rand spoke at the Ford Hall Forum she frequently got asked about Israel – whose supporters are anything if not vociferous – during the question and answer periods, which were open to any question. 

Her reply would go along the following lines: I support Israel; though Israel is a socialist country, [2]  in that region of the world Israel is the vanguard of civilization.

In other words, the gray of Israel is white compared to the surrounding near-black of Arabia. There is something to be said for that kind of argument, but of course it fails when the gray gets dark enough. 

Did Ayn Rand know how dark Israel really was? The year she wrote her essay, 1975, was long before Israeli torture came to light in the 1993 New York Times exposé, over 20 years after her death. 1975 was long before Israel’s massacre of Beirut in 1982, the year of her death. [3] 

Ayn Rand believed that Israel was America’s ally. Did she know how treacherous Israel really was? 1975 was long before the exposure of the Pollard Affair in 1985, three years after her death. Not to mention the USS Liberty attack (though it occurred in 1967 it was not made public until 1980), and many other acts by Israel against America. [4] And long before the publication of such exposés as Victor Ostrovsky’s By Way of Deception (1990) and Ari Ben-Menashe’s Profits of War (1992).

It is far more probable that Ayn Rand was ignorant of Israel’s brutality and deceit than that she thought Israel’s brutality and deceit were comparatively unimportant.

Still, she must be held partly responsible for her ignorance. With some effort even in 1975 one could break through the cloud of propaganda thrown out by Israel and its worshippers. Her mistake was surrounding herself with people like Leonard Peikoff, and – very likely – relying on their research, or lack of it. [5]

Even if Israel were truly civilized and our ally, it would not justify forcing American citizens to pay for Israel’s support. Ayn Rand did not have John Galt say:

“I swear – by my life and my love of it – that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine ... uh ... except in the case of Israel.”

Israel is no exception, and one would like to think Ayn Rand did not make it one. She was mistaken about the nature of Israel and sincerely believed that helping the Israeli government was in our interest. A mistake preserved in amber which ARI’s (Ayn Rand Institute) supporters bring forth at every opportunity. [6]   Source:  Ayn Rand Institute Watch

Naked Zionism

A Mr. Yitzhak Epstein, visiting Palestine in 1907, admonished his fellow Zionists that “our country” (meaning Arab Palestine) was not empty and that they should disabuse themselves of the notion that Palestine was a deserted place. He told them quite candidly that Palestine had been inhabited “for centuries by another race” which had “absolutely no thought of departing the land” He further informed them that there was not “a cultivable parcel of acreage” left in Palestine”; all arable land being already worked by the Arabs.

Remember these words were written in 1907 by a Jew who had done an on-site inspection. How can these words be reconciled with the Zionist narrative that Palestine was an empty land before the coming of the Zionists? They can’t, obviously. There are literally dozens of similar statements by early Zionist scouts of Arab Palestine, 1880-1914. The Zionist Asher Ginsberg/Achad Haam, sadly commented that the incoming Zionists never took the slightest account of the Arabs of Palestine, except as an obstacle to be overcome. Herzl himself proposed that the penniless Arab population be expelled across the border at the first opportunity.

None of these comments can be reconciled with the Zionist fiction of “a land without a people for a people without a land”. The Zionists moving to Palestine after the Balfour Declaration of 1917 were at great pains to pretend that they were not going to dispossess the Arabs. They spoke in mellow, lying words about how they only wanted a “national home”, not a national state, while privately admitting that “national home” was merely a circumlocution for the real thing. Sir Herbert Samuel, the English Jew who was the first British High Commissioner of Palestine, proclaimed that the Jews, having been victims of persecution for centuries, were not about to dispossess nor expropriate the Arabs. These Jews lied, obviously. But some Jews were more honest.

Vladimir Jabotinsky wrote two famous essays in a Russian language Paris newspaper in the early 1920’s. These essays, entitled “The Iron Wall” and “The Iron Law” proclaimed that Zionism was “a colonizing adventure and that it stood or fell on the question of armed force”. It was important to “read Hebrew but it is more important to shoot”. He went on to say that the Arabs of Palestine were not savages but were deeply attached to their land. They would never voluntarily relinquish their land. They would only do so when all hope was lost to them. Thus, they must be confronted with an “iron wall of bayonets”. Agreement with the Arabs in the future was possible only if there was no agreement with them now.

Here we have the entire ugly truth about Zionism in Palestine. Hiding behind the myth of “a land without a people for a people without a land” Zionism was never anything but a naked power grab aimed at taking Palestine from the Arabs. Rather than admit this undeniable truth, the Zionists manipulate statistics, turn the truth upside down and reinvent history to pretend that pure thievery constitutes a bogus national right “to exist”.

Below - Jewish terrorists in Palestine

 
Before Zionism: The shared life of Jews and Palestinians

The Ayn Rand Cult on the Issue of Palestine and Israel

The Palestinian Victims?
Monday, April 22, 2002
By: Robert Tracinski
From the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

When a whole society lionizes terrorists and accepts them as its leaders--what right do they have to complain when their wish for blood and death is granted?

As Israel pulls out of the West Bank--a foolish move that will only allow Palestinian terrorists to regroup--the media is being flooded with piteous tales about Palestinian victims, who, we are told, are innocent civilians.

But a glance at the stories coming out of the West Bank gives us a flavor for this "innocence."

The bulk of the current news stories are coming from Jenin, a major center of Palestinian terrorism where Israeli troops encountered the fiercest resistance. A typical story is from Khadra Samara, who is quoted in at least three separate newspaper accounts. She complains that her family was forced to flee when the Israelis bulldozed her home. Her instant response: "I was so furious, I felt like committing a suicide bombing against the Israelis."  more at this link

The Moral Case for Supporting Israel
by Yaron Brook

Since its founding in 1948 Israel has been under siege--courageously fending off hostile neighbors while defending itself against Arab terrorists. In a Mideast dominated by Arab monarchies, theocracies and dictatorships--Israel is a free country standing as the lone bastion of Western civilization in that region. Yet for decades Israel has faced growing international pressure--often led by the United States--to compromise with its enemies, and act against its self-interest. In this talk, Dr. Brook argues that the United States should unequivocally support Israel's effort at self-defense; that allowing Israel to rid itself of terrorist and foreign military threats is in America's best interests. Israel is our only true ally in the Mideast, and supporting it is the only moral thing for the United States to do. Source:  The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights 

Funny thing, supporting a religious state (Namely Israel.  Palestine is not a religious state) does not fit in with Rand's view on religion:

PLAYBOY: "Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?"

RAND: "Qua religion, no—in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason."

["Playboy's Interview with Ayn Rand," Playboy, March 1964. ]

Are We Supposed to be Jealous of Wall Street's Easy Access to Swine Flu Shots?

Apparently the new "got to have it" item is a swine flu shot.  After all, those fat cats on Wall Street don't have to wait in line for theirs.  I wonder who thought this angle up to sell people on flu shots.  Satchi and Satchi?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Ayn Rand's Ideal Man Was an Axe Murderer

Right:  Russian Jewish writer Ayn Rand (born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum), her "ideal man", axe murderer William Edward Hickman, and Hickman's 12 year old victim, Marion Parker, who Hickman kidnapped, raped and dismembered.  Hickman stated that he wanted as much publicity as the then famous child murderers Leopold and Loeb.    

From Slate.com:

The newspapers were filled for months with stories about serial killer called William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl called Marion Parker from her junior high school, raped her, and dismembered her body, which he sent mockingly to the police in pieces. 

Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented "the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. … Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should." 

She called him "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy," shimmering with "immense, explicit egotism." Rand had only one regret: "A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough." 

From Wikipedia:

In 1928, the writer Ayn Rand began planning a novel called The Little Street, whose hero, Danny Renahan, was to be based on Hickman. The novel was never finished, but Rand wrote notes for it which were published after her death in the book Journals of Ayn Rand. In her notes, Rand quoted a statement by Hickman that "I am like the state: what is good for me is right." Rand called this "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I ever heard."

Rand wanted the hero of her novel to be "A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."

Rand scholars Chris Matthew Sciabarra and Jennifer Burns both interpret Rand's interest in Hickman as a sign of her early admiration of the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche.

Rand also expressed sympathy for Hickman, writing, "The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal..." 

From "The Murder of Marion Parker"

The kidnapper and father met at the corner of 5th Avenue and South Manhattan Street in Los Angeles about 7:30 p.m. on the 17th.

“He pointed a gun at me and said ‘You know what I’m here for. No monkey business,’” Parker recalled later. “I said ‘Can I see my little girl?’”

Hickman pointed to a tightly tied package in the car that revealed only Marion’s head.

“He said she was sleeping,” Parker said. “I assumed she had been chloroformed.”

Parker handed over the 75 $20 gold certificates and as they agreed, Hickman drove a block down the road and pushed Marion out of the car.

Witnesses said Parker ran down to where his little girl was lying and picked her up in his arms. Then he let out a soul-shattering anguished cry of grief.

Marion was dead. The package contained just her head and torso. Her arms and legs had been chopped off where they joined her body. A wire had been wrapped around her head just above her eyes. It cut so deeply into her flesh that it left a gaping wound. Her body had been disemboweled and her entrails replaced with rags. She had also apparently been flogged to such an extent that the flesh on her back was flayed.