antisemitism and the atrophying of the mind

Antisemitism seems to come in the place of a conscience, especially the intellectual conscience, the sense of having to justify ones beliefs with logical causality.
In the 11th century, Al Ghazali set in motion a chain of events that caused for logical causality to be outlawed in Islamic thought. Which, I think, thereby became an oxymoron.
Only revelation was to be allowed as truth;

The antisemite community of this world is bound by this very refusal to think that Al Ghazali first proposed.

Whether it takes place in the islamic caliphate or here, the atrophying of the mind possessed with this prideful refusal to argue its far reaching claims is very disparaging, and it truly takes away the humanity of the person possessed. Once down this road of resentment beyond any will to justify it deep enough, it seems that the person disappears and a sweltering hole of puss remains.

Such is the mind that it requires delicate tending, and I argue that a love of philosophy is incompatible with the arrogant scorn of justification. Philosophy needs penicillin, or “soft doctors make for stinking wounds”.

Absolutely, as Jews we are the chosen privileged people of God thereby being beyond all scrutiny, suspicion, doubt, or ridicule. Anybody that challenges or ridicules us will be in the wrong by that alone. There is no room at all for any kind of ridicule of our people on this earth where it should all be banished and outlawed.

The right kind of mind adores us and aligns themselves in total service to us paying tribute or constant homage.

We must wage a war against the amaleks of the world.

Who tells us what “logical causality” is? And how do we recognize them? By what measure? And why would logic be a higher judge? Is it meant to be some sort of god or what?

All logic (syllogistic logic) is, is a means for building a machine to derive inferences, it is totally uninteresting for serious people. Producing the premises is the only serious matter. And that stands outside logic. As does determining the conception of logic, i.e., answering the question: What is logic? Simply giving an ostenive answer, pointing, they do logic, look!, there are the one’s doing god’s holy thang, namely logic!, is insufficient.

Ergo, faith in logic is inadequately grounded; one must reserve the right to regard it as irrational in the absence of a persuasive defense of its benefit to humans.

Reading yesterday’s newspaper today is simple but reading tomorrow’s paper yesterday not so much-there is a ground that subsist in the caveman living in an abyss, and his logic is existence, who is stronger to over come me, and mine, either am assailant is beatable or, not. It is not faith but reality which is constructed as faith.

I don’t know, one often reads tomorrow’s paper yesterday. It’s called planing. At the same time, one just as often can not read yesterday’s paper today, it’s called interpreting. Almost the whole ideological indoctrination in the universities today is concerned with recasting the past, and correspondingly claiming students as apostles of the new past to go out in the world and proclaim it. Gigantic divisions open up, between claques of professors, concerning what happened in yesterday’s paper.