Warning For Future Wikipedia Editors: Negatively-Cosmopolitan Bias Abounds

In the past, I've discussed this (By the way, "negatively cosmopolitan" means "cosmopolitan" in the worldly, bigoted, etc. sense). I caught an example, which is why I have been even more averse to using Wikipedia than I already was:

User talk:100.16.232.171: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have a new message from another user (last change).

Revision as of 17:18, 27 March 2017 (edit) 100.16.232.171 (talk) ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 18:16, 27 March 2017 (edit) (undo) Vanjagenije (talk | contribs) (→‎March 2017: unblock declined)
Line 83:		Line 83:
	{{unblock reviewed | 1=Ramallah and the West Bank are in the "Palestinian" territories", which are in Israel and under the administration thereof. [[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] is trying to make a revisionist and political statement instead of abiding by Wikipedia's standards. Also, "Palestinians" have identified as "Palestinian Arabs", and Israel was not called "Palestina" until Iudea was renamed by the Romans in 150 CE. [[Special:Contributions/100.16.232.171|100.16.232.171]] ([[User talk:100.16.232.171#top|talk]]) 13:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC) | decline = I warned you about your behaviour last time. You were told if you continued to edit as you were doing, you'd be blocked for longer. You continued. You were blocked for longer. The block is entirely legitimate. [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 13:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)}}		{{unblock reviewed | 1=Ramallah and the West Bank are in the "Palestinian" territories", which are in Israel and under the administration thereof. [[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] is trying to make a revisionist and political statement instead of abiding by Wikipedia's standards. Also, "Palestinians" have identified as "Palestinian Arabs", and Israel was not called "Palestina" until Iudea was renamed by the Romans in 150 CE. [[Special:Contributions/100.16.232.171|100.16.232.171]] ([[User talk:100.16.232.171#top|talk]]) 13:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC) | decline = I warned you about your behaviour last time. You were told if you continued to edit as you were doing, you'd be blocked for longer. You continued. You were blocked for longer. The block is entirely legitimate. [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 13:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)}}
−	{{unblock|reason= That Ramallah and the West Bank are in the "Palestinian" territories" are in Israel and under the administration thereof is a fact. As I said, [[BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] is (and I am not) trying to make a revisionist and political statement instead of abiding by Wikipedia's standards. Also as I mentioned, "Palestinians" have identified as "Palestinian Arabs", and Israel was not called "Palestina" until Iudea was renamed by the Romans in 150 CE. Also, your "I warned you.." is quite patronizing. [[Special:Contributions/100.16.232.171|100.16.232.171]] ([[User talk:100.16.232.171#top|talk]]) 17:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)}}	+	{{unblock reviewed|reason= That Ramallah and the West Bank are in the "Palestinian" territories" are in Israel and under the administration thereof is a fact. As I said, [[BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] is (and I am not) trying to make a revisionist and political statement instead of abiding by Wikipedia's standards. Also as I mentioned, "Palestinians" have identified as "Palestinian Arabs", and Israel was not called "Palestina" until Iudea was renamed by the Romans in 150 CE. Also, your "I warned you.." is quite patronizing. [[Special:Contributions/100.16.232.171|100.16.232.171]] ([[User talk:100.16.232.171#top|talk]]) 17:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)|decline=Your understanding of "facts" is highly questionable. Your refusal to discuss issues with other editors is also quite troublesome. Unblocking you would not benefit this project. '''[[User:Vanjagenije|Vanjagenije]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|(talk)]]''' 18:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)}}

Anti-Semitic bias indeed does abound at Wikipedia, which also explains why other biases—including Pro-Haredi ones—abound—if you haven't been paying attention, start noting that Haredi (aka, "Hasid", "Chabad") = Anti-Zionist = Anti-Semitic.

If the Haredim and others had their way, Ramallah would absolutely be in "Palestine". As is, Ramallah rebecame a part of a refounded Israel 79 Gregorian years ago today; and the Haredi idea of who Moshiach is would've already come if Israel wasn't supposed to be refounded until Moshiach had come—and the Haredi idea of Moshiach hasn't come in any of the past 1947 years, has he?

Well, We Know Where An Egyptian Prince Went

From time to time, I browse Wikipedia outside of looking for basic facts just to see what they're thinking. Per Wikipedia, I realized that the story about Lazarus and the rich man is actually about a Lazarus and Khaemweset the Egyptian Prince. Wikipedia tries to imply that the New Testament stole the Tale of Khaemweset, though they succeeded only in shedding light on an account in Scripture for the first time for me.

By the way, the Egyptians used Matrilineal Descent; or at least Khaemweset did, since he had more than five brothers. Through his mother, he had at least three brothers; and he cleverly tried to use the Abrahamic excuse of a sibling being the child of only the common father and, thus, not a sibling—remember "Besides, she is my sister—she is the daughter of my father, but not of my mother, and so she became my wife"? Incidentally, this is probably way Israel viewed Matrilineal Descent as pagan, despite that Tanakh (and Yigdal) allow for Matrilineal Descent (Remember haben Sh'lomit bat Divri and Kavod-l'El ben Netzkiyah-Tovah—aka, Timotheos ben Eunice? By the way, Google it if you don't believe that my translations are correct. Also, Kavodlel ben Netzkiyahtovah or Kavodlel ben Netzkiyatovah—or the two contractions with "Kavodl'el"—probably work sufficiently.).

Abraham knew that Khameweset was trying to pull what he himself pulled. 

Also, Khawmweset's father was highly Anti Semitic—and Mereneptah knew enough about Torah to try to destroy Israel.

Tommy Christopher and His Racist, "Race" Baiting Ilk

First of all, there are no "races". We are all of the human race. Secondly, Wikipedia of all sources admits that "When Darwin referred to "civilised races" he was almost always describing European cultures, and apparently drew no clear distinction between biological races and cultural races in humans. Few made that distinction at the time, an exception being Alfred Russel Wallace." There was no distinction, as "ethnos" means "people" or "nation". Also, Wikipedia admits that Darwin stated, " At some future point, not distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

People like Tommy Christopher and some of the commenters on "Paging Geraldo" want to continue that Darwinian racism and "race" baiting. By the way, Wikipedia also admits that Classical (19th Century) Conservatives (modern--17th, 20th-21st Century--liberals) took cues from Darwin. "The questions of what "race" was, how many human races there were, and whether they could be "mixed", were key debates in the nascent field of anthropologyin Darwin's time. After the American Civil War (1861–1865), the questions of race and slavery were brought to the forefront in anthropology in the United States and Europe. Some scientists from the Southern U.S. published long monographs on "Why the Negro is inferior" and would soon be driven to extinction by newfound freedom, with an implication that slavery had been not only "beneficial" but "natural.""


Of course, they try to send mixed signals and act like Darwin wasn't really a racist, but know who you're following and what you're doing when you've chosen to cause ethnic division and speak lashon hara against Fox News and Republicans, and attempt to revise history.

Wikipedia: Laughable In Smaller Matters If Not Dangerous In Larger Matters

Why I'm glad that I didn't attempt make a new account at dishonest, revisionist Wikipedia (who, e.g., considers the Nazis [National Socialist German Worker's Party] "Far Right") when I made the article on the Andrulewicz Family:

"This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."

Their hypocrisy and revisionism is stunning. Firstly, they talk about "references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability"--when the specifically-listed family members are clearly notable, and with two of the noted members have Wikipedia pages. Secondly, they talk about "reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject". That would be laughable were Wikipedia not so hypocritical. Ancestry.com and Findagrave (despite their bad points) are considerable "reliable" (and FindAGrave is referenced on Teddy Andrulewicz's page), and JewishGen Genealogy is also considered (and is) reliable and without controversy. So is Yad Vashem (who accepted a submission for and lists Bronislawa Andrulewiczowna Pozniakowa, Teddy's cousin and part of the family, as clearly a victim of the Shoah--she did die in Orlinek in 1944, and Anusim as well as Openly-Jewish Jews were affected by the Shoah.).

This is the same organization who allows the Nazis to be called "Far Right" without reliable, credible, non-revisionist sources; yet they can't trust Ancestry.com (who is working on their credibly issues), FindAGrave (despite what an evil it is), JewishGen, and Yad Vashem, and records therefrom--again, would be laughable if not so hypocritical (and in the cases of the Nazis being considered "Far Right", absolutely dangerous).

By the way, I got banned for setting the record straight on the Far-Left Nazis, and giving Jews such as Eugen Kogon (Kohon) and Sergei Levitsky (Lvitsky) a chance to have their Jewishness noted, for example. That tells you what Wikipedia (which one has to take with a grain of salt at best, and be highly skeptical toward at worst) thinks of history that doesn't fit their mold, and of Jews who don't fit their mold, by the way.

I Actually Didn't Want To Think That Felix Mendelssohn Was A Believing Jew, But...

Alright; alright. I'll believe that Mendelssohn was a believing Jew. But I did read that he resisted "Mendelssohn" being used for "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing". I did read that he expressly resisted it being used for religious purposes and that he may have resisted Christianity in secret. Then again, to say that a lot of believing Jews like myself have had problems with the rest of the Church over the years is fair. I guess that I just wanted to be careful & err on the side of that Mendelssohn was a Non-Messianic Crypto Jew so that I wasn't disappointed.

To know that Mendelssohn was a believing Jew (which Wikipedia of all places surprisingly states) is good. At least I know that I won't be disappointed and that I will meet Mendelssohn in Heaven after all. Coming from an Anusi background, I weirdly don't want to get my hopes up and think that certain Jews were fellow believers if they weren't. I also don't want to err toward and mislead Non Messianics when giving examples of Jews who actually believed. I can safely give Mendelssohn now, so that helps. I guess that I believed what revisionisms tried to imply that he didn't believe.

Too often is the case that (and a contention that I have is that) the Church tends to engage in revisionism as much as non believers. For example, we like to preach that the US was a Christian country. If we're honest, we'll say that it was sadly Desitic Unitarian. We also talk about the Crusades as this great Christian conquest when they were nothing more than Pseudo-Christian, Anti-Semitic pogroms. I get that were in Laodicea, but that doesn't mean that we can fall away like everyone else. We as the Church have to be honest.

Besides, does being dishonest help Non-Believing Jews?

We Have To Stand Up To These Leftist "Professors", And...

I'm helping start the standing up to these "professors"--who are really being indoctrinators and dominators! Let's stand up, give examples of what we choose to stand against, and (if we have to and can do so without getting sued) even name names! Rightists and Moderates--Conservatives and Middle Roaders--stand up and fight back!

Taken from Timothy W. Stanley's blog (Oops; do I need a full bibliography? ;-) )

Students in the world, unite!

My Take On the Arab-Israeli Conflict And The Class That I'm Learning About It In [Initial Draft]

I'm going out on a limb here (and as I stated in a previous blog entry, I don't care if I get "C"s to "F"s as long as I'm doing what's right); so here I am. I'm out on the limb. Being "out on the limb" means getting a "C" (if I'm lucky) or even a "F" (which is probably what will happen). After all, this is supposed to be a midterm essay that I'm writing on my blog first (as I've done with other school papers, which makes writing at least some papers a heck of a lot easier).

By the way, I need to make a full disclosure first. That is, I need to confess that I did not do all of the readings that I should have done. Now that I've made the full disclosure, I need to make a statement about what readings I did do (or at least skim over, or even of which I read only the introduction and conclusion). The statement that I need to make is this: for as much as Israel has her own problems, we don't need Anti Semites like Rashid Khalidi and bulls****ers like deterrence theorists adding to our problems. 

In other words, the State of Israel and we who are her people have enough self-caused issues to which we don't need the Rashid Khalidis and the deterrence theorists adding. I should know, since I'm an Israeli who's directly affected by these issues. I'm a Patrilineal Jew whose more-recent ancestors were Crypto Jews, who was born as an Ashkenazi Jew in the Jewish (read "Israeli") Diaspora, and who is a Messianic Jewish Republican (read--for example--so-called "proselytizer", "religious nut", "right winger", and "ultimate sellout"). I didn't even know that I am Jewish until after March 12, 2008 (the date on which I joined Ancestry.com to research if I am Jewish, as I suspected way before. After all, why else--for example--my dad have taken pains to pronounce my name as "Nicole Charnetski"). So, I obviously don't fit into the Israeli Diaspora, let alone Jewish community back in my homeland--to which I have yet to even be able to make aliyah.

So, I've done at least some of my homework over the years--I'd be remiss if I didn't. Based on my homeworking and conclusions that I've formed while and from doing it, my simple statement about the Arab-Israeli conflict is, again, that we have enough self-caused issues to which we don't need the Rashid Khalidis and the deterrence theorists adding. If you want a more-complex statement than that--in other words, the rest of my midterm homily--, keep reading. Now that I'm done the backgrounding work, I can break down the Arab-Israeli conflict in light of my class about it for you. 

Firstly, I will address the--and I say this with all due respect--ridiculous statement that "States cause war; wars cause states." Maybe states affect wars, and wars affect states; but neither states nor wars cause each other. Then who causes states and wars, you ask? As the Traditional Jewish Bible (that is, the Bible without the New Testament) states, Yehovah "form[eth] the light, and create[th] darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things."

The same Yehovah, "[w]hen [He] gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of men, He set the borders of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel. For the portion of the LORD is His people, Jacob the lot of His inheritance." Yehovah also guaranteed, through the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, "it shall come to pass, that as the chased gazelle, and as sheep that no man gathereth, they shall turn every man to his own people, and shall flee every man to his own land." For, "for fear of the oppressing sword they shall turn every one to his people, and they shall flee every one to his own land."

The old sayings go that safety is found in numbers and that family is one of the most imporant factors in a person's life. The sons and daughters of Adam have been and are still quickly carving out their respective nation states and returning to them in at least trickles, if not droves. For example, Syrian statelessness ended in 1947. Indians and Pakistanis finally had their own united states in the same year. The Czechs and Slovakians peacefully split up into Ceska Republika and Slovenska Republika  in 1991 (Let's face that they were geared to split up with the 1989 Velvet Revolution; the USSR fell on Christmas 1991, and--as I found out when double checking the 1991 date with the "CIA World Factbook"--, they had their respective constitutions well before New Year's Day 1993). The Bangladeshis became a reunited family with their own land twenty years before the Czechs and Slovakians became reunited, nation-stated families.

The final example of a reunited, nation-stated family who I'll give as an example is my own family--'am-Yisra'el b'Ha'Eretz Yisra'el--the People of Israel in the Land of Israel. Yehovah indeed kept His promise to "bring Israel back to his pasture, and he shall feed on Carmel and Bashan, and his soul shall be satisfied upon the hills of Ephraim and in Gilead. In those days, and in that time, saith the LORD, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none, and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found; for I will pardon them whom I leave as a remnant." We were officially given our homeland back on May 14, 1948.

The foolish Arabs knew that, as Masada2000.org taught me (and for as much as they sometimes go too far). I used to fall hook-line-and-sinker for the idea that the Arabs are the "Palestinian" people. Then, as I looked at the Bible and sites like Masada2000.org, I learned the following--which brings me to the second point:

1. Ishmael, one of the patriarchs of the Arabs, "hall be a wild ass of a man: his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren." Thus, Ishamel hates Isaac.
2. Esau, who married his cousin who was a daughter of Ishmael, "saith: 'We are beaten down, but we will return and build the waste places'; thus saith the LORD of hosts: They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall be called the border of wickedness, and the people whom the LORD execrateth for ever. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say: 'The LORD is great beyond the border of Israel.'" Esau. like Ishamel, is one of the patriarchs of the Arabs. Esau has long hated Jacob, and the "Palestinians" complain that Israel "occupies" the land of "Palestine", which they have attempted to rebuild since the "Nabka".
3. The Philistines are also patriarchs of the Arabs, and David has never been liked by Goliath.

Therefore, Yehovah stated, "They have roused Me to jealousy with a no-god; they have provoked Me with their vanities; and I will rouse them to jealousy with a no-people; I will provoke them with a vile nation." Because of our iniquities  He has roused and provoked us with the "Palestinians"--not a people, but a mix of peoples. Thus, concerning longstanding rivalries (the second point), the long-term rivalry between the "Palestinian" Arabs and Arabs goes as far back as Ishmael and Isaac down to Goliath and David--and is an example of why long-standing rivalries can and need to be used to study crises and wars.

As far as the narrative of the "Palestinians" goes in the Arab-Israeli conflict, then, the narrative affects the Arabs only in that the Arabs have chosen to believe themselves to be the "occupied Palestinians". As goes for any narrative in any conflict, a narrative affects any conflict only insofar as it is believed and perpetuated, whether or not it is a lie. Therefore, in the case of the "Palestinians", they have created an Anti-Israel lie with which they delude themselves and which they perpetuate.

They, therefore, are the suspicious "other" in Zionist identity, especially they make us to be the "other" and destroy us. They also, to this day, resent the Balfour Declaration, Points Declarations by Wilson, the Traty of Versailles, the Locarno Treaty, the King-Crane Commission, and --which really had no contradictions, but just disadvantages for "Palestinian" dominance and Anti Semitism.

They also hate that Yehovah used the Holocaust to motivate Jews, including David ben-Gurion, to get out of Europe and no longer "remain in all the places whither I have driven them", including Europe. They also resent that the refounding of Israel was an idea from 70 CE to 1892 CE, and that Theodore Herzl was the one who gave Proto Zionism the kickstarter jump to become Zionism. They can say that the Holocaust motivated the refounding of Israel all that they want, but they'll have to face history and when it judges them.

Also, their "Nabka" myths are not accurate. Jacob was given Canaan. Then, Moses led the Israelites into Canaan and Joshua to help the other Israelites conquer Canaan. After that, the 586 BCE and 70 CE Exiles happened, but yishuvim were still in the land and olim yishuvim quickly came back into the land. Only when Israel started to take "Palestine" fully back from 1892-1917 did the "Palestinians" have problems.

Thus, the "Palestinian"-Israeli rivalry endures, and rivalries within Pro-"Palestinian" and Pro-Israel communities endure. The Pro-"Palestinian" camp has different approaches on how to commit further Anti Semitism; the Pro-Israel camp has different approaches on how to stop the Pro-"Palestinian" and Anti-Semitic nonsense. For example, some "Palestinians" and Pro-"Palestinian" people are merely propagandists while some are active terrorists. As for the Pro-Israel camp, some Pro-Israel people are merely Philo-Semitic awareness raisers while some go as far--or even farther than--the late Meir Kahane.

The 1948 War or the "Nabka", for instance, was a huge part of that--that is, we Jews wanted to live back in our land peacefully; the "Palestinians" wanted to ragingly destroy us. To this day, though, the Anti Semites like Rashid Khalidi blame the Jews and call the 1948 Israeli victory the "Nabka", "oppression", "occupation", and "persecution" of "Palestinians". Meanwhile, I have no time for the likes of Rashid Khalidi. I also have no time for the likes of traitorous Zeev Maoz, who I will have to discuss later. I further have no time for the "Palestinian" and other infiltrators who invaded Sinai, the West Bank, and other areas--especially since the Anti-Semitic infiltrators became worse overtime.

Therefore, Israel did not do enough in the 1956 War. We shouldn't have let anyone buy Nasser's excuses about the Suez Canal, the "oppressive" Anglo-French forces, or the "Palestinian" infiltrators. Our problem is that we didn't take Nasser out right there and then, and we didn't take care of the "Palestinian" infiltrators who were trying to destroy us. We didn't learn from history--we didn't take out the Canaanites as we were supposed to, and now we didn't defend ourselves as much as we should have against our "Palestinian" enemies. This is also part of why we had to escalate--because we were still surrounded by our enemies and at risk of being destroyed at any time.

By the way, Nasser can also used the Gaza Raid as an excuse. I don't buy it. Zeev Maoz can call Israel the aggressive occupiers and oppressors of "Palestinians". I don't buy it. I also know that Nasser knew better because he tried to mess with us much less up until 1967, despite that other Anti-Semitic Arabs and other Anti Semites were calling him to do so. Even in 1962, the year of refounded Israel's entry into adulthood from teenagehood, Nasser didn't attack when he could have. He knew that "[n]o weapon that is formed against [Israel] shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their due reward from Me, saith the LORD". 

This, therefore, makes any psychological, brinkmanship, strategic rationality, institutional, and any other defense or attempt at defense of Nasser an excuse. Thus, in conclusion, it all boils down to "Palestinian" revisionism and Anti Semitism, and Israeli self defense.

So, My Blog Went Offline For A Day...

To make a long story short, a certain family member got pissed at me for confronting a certain group that blackmailed me and threatened my life....so much for confronting racist Anti Semitism--and can you imagine if Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. hadn't stood up for Civil Rights, including against the KKK (who, by the way, is a "Christian" Identity--viz. Pseudo-Jewish, Anti-Semitic--group)? (And just because that other, Non-White Pseudo-Jewish group threatened me, I'm not allowed to talk about them--and this same family member allows that Dr. King, who plagiarized at least a paper, stood up against racism and Anti Semitism just because he had credentials and was [apparently] a trained and educated professional--what hypocrisy! I guarantee that he or she would have no problem with me confronting the KKK, even though he or she denies that--and his or her excuse is the same!).

So, I can no longer speak up against a certain kind of racist Anti Semitism (even though we have no national voice, excepting Mark Potok--although his voice is hardly there and, thus, hardly heard--on the issue) due to the fact that I'm merely a disabled college student and certainly no MLK or Jay Sekulow, or Mark Potok (who, as leftist as he is, is a politically-"incorrect" voice who speaks up against what I was--operative word, "was"--speaking up against). By the way, that--that is, speaking up against the racist Anti Semitism about which I used to speak--is part of why (G-d willing) I wish to get my Christmas gifts, get married to a rich and able guy who is able to pay for the rest of my college career (and who, if you will and for a lack of better wordage, would make a nice Christmas gift), and get out of where I am now.

Thank G-d that this family member wasn't a family member of Timothy or Jeremiah, by the way.

Do Some People Still Have a Problem With My Jewishness?

Is this what the whole situation is coming down to?



Am I that much of a Lt. Kaffee? What can I not handle about being a bat-Anusim with, as sordid as my family history is at points, a sordid family history?