I can't find it in the Zohar so I wanted to know if he saw that himself in there or was just stating something he heard second hand.
Maybe someone could point to me where in the Zohar it describes that? AI ofc is getting its panties in a knot when I try requesting that info.
The part you’re talking about of my comment was a quote from Trevor Labonte.
"Judaism is a plan for a world with no countries, only one border, one that separates Jews from gentiles. Judaism's plan is a bi-level world (the communist template), with God's chosen people living in paradise where no one has to work, and with the gentiles inexorably trapped in a lower world which is a hell on Earth, where we exist as slaves, cattle for the Jews. The Jews' plan to create this bi-level world is described in explicit detail in the Zohar, one of the "holiest" (it's pure evil of course) books of Judaism. This plan is exposed to the world in 'Jewish History, Jewish Religion' by Mr. Israel Shahak. So never let ANYONE tell you Judaism is not a problem, it is THE problem, and if it is not reckoned and neutralized, there is no future for humanity." - Trevor Labonte
Hmm but you don't know where it describes it? Damn it... I wanted to read it.
Alright, so I had AI run through it I've noticed a pattern.
AI (taking the jewish side obviously) says this person's take is a misinterpretation. What it says is that Shahak was criticizing old Judaism for harboring similar beliefs and that new Judaism needs to do away with it. He says in the Talmud, Rabbis mention it as a discussion but it's not how the laws in practice developed. Then in the Zohar it was actually a spiritual metaphor and doesn't translate into reality.
I'm realizing that this is how jews communicate. They take both sides so they can claim either side as it is convenient to them. They do this in politics and in everything. It's highly deceptive and difficult for normies to understand.
They say both hi and bye then pick whichever ends up better for them for the circumstance, arguing the other was a hypothetical possibility but not real so-to-speak.
Hahahaha.
Talmud: “it’s okay to rape 2 year olds”
Jew apologists: “ACKSHUALLY IT DOESNT REALLY MEAN THAT…”
Yeah, that's actually what it says.
"Well actually, the Rbbi was just making an argument to better refine the rule. The takeaway from the script though is thet the group of Rabbis concluded his argument was wrong"
Although, I've read the full chapter of the Talmud that gets referenced by people saying it says raping 2 years is okay and that is not what it's saying. It's saying that if someone rapes a 2 year old girl she isn't considered a non-virgin. This is relevant for purposes of marriage. The passage is actually an early feminist passage because it was protecting the sanctity of young girls despite what atrocities were committed against them. I don't like defending jews but using that passage to try and harm jews does really just make goys look stupid.