The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Philip Giraldi ArchiveBlogview
Palestinians to the Woodshed?
Trump leans on Abbas but Israel is afraid of surprises
Abbas
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

For many Palestinians, President Mahmoud Abbas is seen as something like a Quisling, a timid man who has dedicated himself to selling out to American and Israeli interests in exchange for his remaining in power. Others, recognizing that a return to an intifada would bring down terrible destruction, accept that the enormous disparity of force between Israel and the Palestinians means that a policy of accommodation with Benjamin Netanyahu and his ever-threatening right-wing government is the only possible course, even as West Bank land continues to be stolen by the brutal Israeli settlers. And Abbas is even viewed somewhat sympathetically and somewhat appreciated by that patient minority of Palestinians which hopes that international pressure on Israel will grow until it reaches a point where the Israelis will eventually be compelled to take steps to recognize Palestinian rights.

Abbas did not expect much from his first face to face meeting with American President Donald Trump, but he reportedly came away from the encounter pleased by what he was hearing even though the discussion was light on specifics. According to various media sources, Trump did indeed privately pressure the Palestinians to comply with the usual Israeli laundry list of “concessions for peace,” namely stopping what is regarded as “incitement” of violence, ceasing negative portrayals of Israel in textbooks and the ending of payments to families of Palestinians in Israeli jails, which the Netanyahu government sees as support of terrorism. Abbas might well have noted that most of the violence in the region is instigated by the Israelis, that Israeli textbooks demonize Arabs, and that settlers are subsidized by the Israeli government to steal and build on more Arab land while terrorizing and imprisoning the local inhabitants, but he prudently kept his mouth shut.

But Trump was also upbeat on the potential for an agreement to end the nearly seventy-year conflict and even described his talk with Abbas as “an honor.” Immediately after the meeting with the Palestinian president, he said a deal was “frankly maybe not as difficult as people have thought over the years…We need two willing parties. We believe Israel is willing, we believe you’re willing, and if you both are willing, we’re going to make a deal.” He also offered “to do whatever is necessary,” acting as mediator: “I’m committed to working with Israel and the Palestinians to reach an agreement.”

To put it mildly, Donald Trump has been inconsistent in terms of what he has said about Israel-Palestine. It is generally accepted that he is much closer to Israel and to Jewish interests than he is to seeking justice for the Palestinians. The first foreign leader Trump spoke to after his election was Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister has already been in Washington for a visit and Trump has indeed said repeatedly that he is the best friend as U.S. president that Israel has ever had. He has backed up that claim by appointing leading Zionists David Friedman as U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Jason Greenblatt as special representative for international negotiations. He has also promised to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, even if he has slowed up the process that would lead to actually doing so. His Jewish son in law Jared Kushner and Jewish-by-conversion daughter Ivanka are also believed to be involved in promoting initiatives relating to Israel and American Jews.

So why are some Israelis worried about what will come out of Trump’s visit to Jerusalem at the end of this month? To be sure, he has endorsed Israel’s “right” to “keep going” in building settlements but has also asked Netanyahu “hold back a bit,” noting several times that they are bad for the peace process. It was a warning sign that Donald Trump can be unpredictable, similar to his campaign promise to “love Israel” while also telling Republican Jewish donors that he didn’t need their money and pledging to remain “neutral” in any negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis.

Though it is expected that the president will avoid saying anything dramatic during his day in Israel, there is some fear that he might go off script and press for a new peace initiative, which Netanyahu and those to the right of him in the political spectrum would want to avoid as they currently hold all the cards relative to their Arab opponents. Any American backing for a new discussion on a final settlement of borders or sovereignty would be unwelcome, particularly so for Netanyahu, who is currently believed to be about to face corruption charges and is being pushed by hard liners to be prepared to resign and name a replacement if that takes place.

It has also not gone unnoticed by America-watchers in Israel that Trump has been particularly friendly to Arab leaders, including Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt, King Abdullah of Jordan and King Salman of Saudi Arabia. The Arabs have long had a formula to end the Israel-Palestine conflict on the table, ready to go, and it is the sort of thing that Trump might find to his liking as it is very much a “deal,” involving trade-offs of land and recognition. The formula was originally proposed by the 22-member Arab League in 2002. It would involve peace agreements and bilateral relations with the Arab League states as well as with 34 other associated Muslim countries, with only Iran as a hold-out. In return Palestine would become a sovereign state roughly based on the 1967 armistice lines, which would mean the West Bank and Gaza, having East Jerusalem as its capital. Israel would have security and international recognition in exchange for permitting the creation of a small Palestinian state, which would also end Israel’s being labeled an apartheid regime and an occupying power. Details about the return of refugees and mutual defense arrangements between the two states would have to be worked out but were considered to be manageable.

ORDER IT NOW

Some reports out of Washington suggest that Trump is intrigued by the prospect of hosting a regional peace conference later this summer using the Arab League document as a framework, inviting not only Israel and Palestine but also the Saudis, Jordanians and Egyptians. It would simultaneously address the issues of normalization, border adjustments and statehood creation so that all parties could benefit from the process as it moved along. It is believed that Netanyahu would find it very hard to refuse such an offer if his “good friend” Trump were to push it hard.

But will Trump be able to push hard even if he is inclined to do so? If Israel gets the faintest whiff of a White House demand for a conference it will unleash its dogs of war. Indeed, it has probably done so already with AIPAC’s Myrmidons roaming the halls of Congress and knocking on doors. Israel still holds the whip hand in the legislative branch and among the media.

Trump is certainly aware of the fact that the end of April two warning shots were fired across the bow of anyone seeking to threaten Israel’s perceived interests. Republican congressmen formed a group called the Israel Victory Caucus to supplement an already existing bipartisan Israel Allies Conference. The new group immediately asserted that “We believe Israel has been victorious in the war…victory means imposing your will on your enemy.” This has been interpreted to mean that the Palestinians should now admit defeat and then wait for terms, which will be harsh if there is any resistance.

In a separate development, all 100 U.S. Senators sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General demanding that the international body end its “unacceptable” anti-Israel bias. An AIPAC official once bragged that he could get the signatures of 70 senators on a paper napkin if he needed to do so, and one wonders whether anyone even broke a sweat in rounding up all 100 in support of Israel. Incidentally, the “bias” being referred to in the letter is the pushback against well-financed efforts to punish the U.N. for its efforts to call attention to Israeli violations of human rights and international law. Israeli partisans in the U.S. Congress persist in exploiting alleged anti-Semitism to defund U.N. humanitarian efforts to alleviate suffering of the Palestinians in their refugee camps and to counter criticism of the continued occupation and colonization of the West Bank. The letter also made reference to and condemned the current Israeli bête noire, namely the non-violent Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement (BDS), a first amendment constitutional right which the U.S. congress and many state legislatures have been actively seeking to make illegal.

Quite frankly, I do not expect Donald Trump to do anything in Jerusalem at the end of the month apart from making the usual noises about how much he loves Israel. The Palestinians will walk away shaking their heads over the usual Washington message, which is pretty much the Israeli message spun a bit for the U.S. audience. But it is interesting to speculate that there might be some surprises down the road and Donald Trump is certainly capable of that. Israel thinks that the status quo of unlimited U.S. support coming from a corrupted political class leading a docile American people will last forever, but it ignores the fact that Israeli and American interests increasingly are in conflict in Syria and elsewhere. Knee-jerk support will not continue, as more and more the message of Israeli savagery in its occupation becomes public knowledge in spite of the media filter. Someday there will come a tipping point and Israel and its kleptocratic leaders will have to figure out how and why they missed out on so many opportunities to make peace with their neighbors over so many years.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. “there might be some surprises down the road and Donald Trump is certainly capable of that”

    I’m not so certain Phil, or more likely the perverse sort of surprise, considering the developing track record. Example given, after Trump had requested Preet Bharara stay on as US Attorney in the southern district of New York, Mike Pence’s fraternal brother, Jeff Sessions, fired Bharara regardless of Trump’s stated position and Trump said and did precisely nothing. Relevant to your article, Pence and Sessions are hyper-Christian Zionists who it appears may be calling the shots. I expect your pessimism is the more accurate picture.

    If you’ll indulge me, Friedman, who may be to the right of Netanyahu, has panned the two-state solution:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2016/12/30/friedman-and-the-narrative/

    And insofar as Bharara fired, a couple more Christian super-Zionists, Mukasey & Giuliani, enter a very stinky circumstance (I stole your Erdogan illustration for this one)

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/05/06/the-sultans-sleaze-circus/

    ^

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Friedman:
    Radicalized Palestinian terrorists need to be rooted out and eliminated.

    I'm reminded of what Hitler said in 1939, about jews, 'if they again start a world war, they themselves might be "ausgerottet" '.
    , @Z-man
    Sessions is not a hyper CZ as he has been very critical of The Zionist Entity hence the opposition to his nomination in the owned congress and media. You are right about Pence though.
    Mukasey is a Jew and as I spell it Jew-liani is a Neocon boot licker who should be drawn and quartered. His erratic behavior in the campaign has been noted, even by Donald, so he hopefully will have less and less influence with Trump. Mukasey is a outlier so he also may not have that much influence over Trump.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/palestinians-to-the-woodshed/#comment-1865331
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. It seems like everyone walks away from Trump “pleased by what he is hearing,” but that’s as far as it goes. Trump’s subsequent actions leave everyone disappointed.

    The very fact that there is such a thing as the Israel Victory Caucus leaves me feeling more disgusted than I care to express at the moment.

    Read More
  3. Netanyahu on TV throwing a Hamas offer into a rubbish bin confirmed my suspicion, entertained for quite some time now, that Israelis are not particularly intelligent. Or at any rate he was trying to appeal to a demographic that isn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    At least there is something to celebrate. The obnoxious half-wit, Bernard-Henri Lévy, a shameless murderous zionist, has received a pie to his ugly visage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRMEVnvfVuY
  4. Anyone familiar with the history of zionism knows that zionists are of the opinion that they rightfully own Palestine, despite the fact that from say 300 CE to 1850 hardly any jews lived there.

    As long as jewish power in the USA remains as it is, and the USA is the one and only true world power, Palestinians will remain refugees.

    It is quite simple, all talk about peace etc. is hogwash.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Lot

    Anyone familiar with the history of zionism knows that zionists are of the opinion that they rightfully own Palestine, despite the fact that from say 300 CE to 1850 hardly any jews lived there.
     
    And there have been millions since 1945. In most European legal traditions, adverse possession gives you title to property you occupy openly for 20 years.
    , @Trutherator
    Zionists that created the modern state of Israel were a secular, socialist bunch. That's one reason for the kibbutzes. They certainly weren't trying to emulate the apostles' model in Acts 2 and 4.

    Deir Yassin will haunt future history forevforever.
  5. @Ronald Thomas West
    "there might be some surprises down the road and Donald Trump is certainly capable of that"

    I'm not so certain Phil, or more likely the perverse sort of surprise, considering the developing track record. Example given, after Trump had requested Preet Bharara stay on as US Attorney in the southern district of New York, Mike Pence's fraternal brother, Jeff Sessions, fired Bharara regardless of Trump's stated position and Trump said and did precisely nothing. Relevant to your article, Pence and Sessions are hyper-Christian Zionists who it appears may be calling the shots. I expect your pessimism is the more accurate picture.

    If you'll indulge me, Friedman, who may be to the right of Netanyahu, has panned the two-state solution:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2016/12/30/friedman-and-the-narrative/

    And insofar as Bharara fired, a couple more Christian super-Zionists, Mukasey & Giuliani, enter a very stinky circumstance (I stole your Erdogan illustration for this one)

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/05/06/the-sultans-sleaze-circus/

    ^

    Friedman:
    Radicalized Palestinian terrorists need to be rooted out and eliminated.

    I’m reminded of what Hitler said in 1939, about jews, ‘if they again start a world war, they themselves might be “ausgerottet” ‘.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    I don't subscribe to the idea Jews are special, either especially evil or especially good. They're just people with all of the typical human foibles that, inclusive of other things, often see killer-sociopaths rise to the top and rule; circumstantially in a particularly world threatening (nearly necrotic) situation at the moment. If we all die for the fact, blame can be spread around, and not least, proportionally pinned on the apocalyptic world-view of Christian Zionists backing Israel.
    , @Wally
    "Ausgerottet" simply means uprooted, a la what happened to Japanese-Americans in WWII.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are laughable, scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    - We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... [b]11,000,000[/b].
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

    Why have supremacist Jews have been marketing the '6,000,000' lie since at least 1869?
    http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k598/WhiteWolf722/TheSixMillionMyth.jpg
  6. I have trouble understanding any suggestions of a deal or even speculation about it without discussion of what is to become of the Israeli settlements (or “Israeli towns” in Daniel Pipes’s terminology).

    Could some or all of them be left within the Palestinian state? The terms of the safeguards built in for them at least need an early airing. Is it possible to have most of them move to Israel proper? Does PG think that could or would be negotiated? (Maybe it is not as impossible as one might at first suppose. Enormous ingenuity using solsr power and desalination is going into developing the Negev????).

    Given the certainty that any settlement would have to be lubricated with vast amounts of money what about financing 3, 4 or 5 mini Hong Kongs on the West Bank, realistically accepting that Palestinians basing their economy and employment on farming is a lost cause?

    Re-sent with typos fixes. It was #3 but with no editing facility.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Jordan is doing quite well with horticulture. Of course, there may not be enough water to go round.
    , @richard vajs
    Sure, the Israeli settlers could remain on their stolen Palestinian land - provided 1. they become Palestinian citizens, subject to Palestinian taxes and military conscription, 2. they compensate the Palestinian citizens who land was stolen. But if those two conditions are imposed, it is advised that you protect your hearing as the screams of outrage and perceived suffering would be ear-splitting and constant.
  7. It is laughable and misleading to present any serious discussion of the by far the most consistent, brutal and appalling shame of the West, with any suggestion that Trump has even a slither of power. He has none.

    The only officials close enough to him he may have chosen or been led to believe he chose have been fires or maimed into a political eunuch.

    He holds as much real power as Obama and Bush before him. In fact, not since JFK has their appeared a US president within touching distance of the true power structure. And that went well for him?…

    The Zionists own the media, the banks, are bedfellows with the military industrial complex, as close to symbiotic relationship. They own the US and most European governments, flagrantly violate UN sanctions and international law on a daily basis and seem the most logical, obvious crowd behind 9/11 and the wars which have subsequently followed. For they have gained. The greater Israel project is very much under way.

    Along with its little brother the project for a new American century. These are no crazed consoirai theories but the reality on the ground.

    You wish to see who is truly in power you look to who is always above the law and cannot be challenged or even criticised. One regime fits this, which is the Israeli regime.

    There is probably more to the eschatological concerns and beliefs found high up in the Anglo Zionist power structure, all that astonishing power and money leads to encouraging megalomaniacal behaviour. Yet I have not the space or time to delve…

    The Palestinians are as unfortunately as much of lost cause as our own will become further down the line if we have any wish to avoid slavery or our own destruction. Still I roar for their cause and my own, they are one and the same.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu, Druid
    • Replies: @Johan Nagel
    (edit - conspiracy, not consoirai which my phone deemed more applicable!)
    , @Wizard of Oz
    "obvious crowd behind 9/11 and the wars which have subsequently followed" is expressed so as to be clearly theory, convincing to some, spun in your head rather than a matter of fact based on evidence. And as such theory it falls down on plausibility grounds when Oclham's Razor is applied.

    The simple case that the evidence supports is that Osama bin Laden wanted to do the maximum damage to America and therefore, with only asymmetric warfare available to him, wanted to draw America into a Vietnam War type quagmire by using his estanlished simultaneous suicide attacks strategy. Considering that this was actually achieved it is highly credible.

    By contrast the alternative is ridiculously complicated and uncertain. Why would anyone plot 9/11 so it eould be blamed on Al Qaeda and the Afghans protecting its leaders and lead to an attack on Iraq which had nothing to do with it? Even if such an outcome was fantasised no planning staff would treat it as more than a fanciful brainstorming idea.

    , @utu

    There is probably more to the eschatological concerns and beliefs found high up in the Anglo Zionist power structure.... Yet I have not the space or time to delve…
     
    Perhaps you should find time and write about it.
  8. There’s no way a two state “solution” will ever work. Not a chinaman’s chance.

    Read More
  9. Trump is finding the reality of the ME situation. A year-ago he was naive about the whole subject. He thought that you could crash some heads together and it would all come together. He did not understand the full extent of evil intent harbored by the US Jews who support Zionism. And in the campaign, Trump condemned the evil Wahhabi Saudis. Things have changed.

    Now he is going to use those two evils to force peace on the Palestinians.

    Hmm – both tribal cabals hate Iran – could this combo lead to a war on Iran?

    Trump is the only block to that happening! (Congress is useless – it is owned by the Jews.)

    Peace — Art

    p.s. A little hope. In Trump’s meeting with Abbas I did not see Kushner lurking around. This is good. The Kushner family are rabid hate filled Zionists. It was a cruel joke to say he would find peace with the Palestinians. The only deal he would have made is “one that they could not refuse.”

    Read More
  10. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    It is a terrible thing to realize that the Palestinians and those Americans living in fly-over country, the so-called deplorables, are enslaved and marginalized by the same clan of ruthless psychopaths. That the elected leaders in Washington are willing accomplices, adds insult to injury.

    Read More
  11. @Johan nagel
    It is laughable and misleading to present any serious discussion of the by far the most consistent, brutal and appalling shame of the West, with any suggestion that Trump has even a slither of power. He has none.

    The only officials close enough to him he may have chosen or been led to believe he chose have been fires or maimed into a political eunuch.

    He holds as much real power as Obama and Bush before him. In fact, not since JFK has their appeared a US president within touching distance of the true power structure. And that went well for him?...

    The Zionists own the media, the banks, are bedfellows with the military industrial complex, as close to symbiotic relationship. They own the US and most European governments, flagrantly violate UN sanctions and international law on a daily basis and seem the most logical, obvious crowd behind 9/11 and the wars which have subsequently followed. For they have gained. The greater Israel project is very much under way.

    Along with its little brother the project for a new American century. These are no crazed consoirai theories but the reality on the ground.

    You wish to see who is truly in power you look to who is always above the law and cannot be challenged or even criticised. One regime fits this, which is the Israeli regime.

    There is probably more to the eschatological concerns and beliefs found high up in the Anglo Zionist power structure, all that astonishing power and money leads to encouraging megalomaniacal behaviour. Yet I have not the space or time to delve...

    The Palestinians are as unfortunately as much of lost cause as our own will become further down the line if we have any wish to avoid slavery or our own destruction. Still I roar for their cause and my own, they are one and the same.

    (edit – conspiracy, not consoirai which my phone deemed more applicable!)

    Read More
  12. @jilles dykstra
    Friedman:
    Radicalized Palestinian terrorists need to be rooted out and eliminated.

    I'm reminded of what Hitler said in 1939, about jews, 'if they again start a world war, they themselves might be "ausgerottet" '.

    I don’t subscribe to the idea Jews are special, either especially evil or especially good. They’re just people with all of the typical human foibles that, inclusive of other things, often see killer-sociopaths rise to the top and rule; circumstantially in a particularly world threatening (nearly necrotic) situation at the moment. If we all die for the fact, blame can be spread around, and not least, proportionally pinned on the apocalyptic world-view of Christian Zionists backing Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Google 'gentiles in wallacha', you then find a site in hebrew, in the top left hand corner is an empty box, at the right side of that box you van switch to english and german, then read what three rabbi's write about judaism.
    Or read
    Israel Shahak, ‘Jewish History, Jewish Religion, The Weight of Three Thousand Years’, 1994, 2002, London
    Then a question, do you know a christian or Muslim Soros ?
    Or something comparable to neocons, or to Israel ?
    , @Johan nagel
    It is not a case of all Jews are awful, it is a case of a Zionist regime appearing quite clearly at the top of the Israeli/western power structure and the majority or moves of this power structure benefitting first and foremost the Zionists and their agenda.
  13. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “It is a terrible thing to realize that the Palestinians and those Americans living in fly-over country, the so-called deplorables, are enslaved and marginalized by the same clan of ruthless psychopaths.”

    The difference is that the Palestinians don’t have a choice. The deplorables could, at any time, rebel – kick out Israel first politicians, vote out Zionists, stop attending mega churches dedicated to Jew worship, change state laws to make it more difficult for outside Zionist groups to interfere in state politics, coordinate lawfare against the various Zionists groups, etc. It’s hard to feel sorry for a victim who likes being a victim (or doesn’t care or is too low IQ to do anything about it).

    Read More
    • Agree: Z-man, L.K
    • Replies: @Miro23

    The deplorables could, at any time, rebel – kick out Israel first politicians, vote out Zionists, stop attending mega churches dedicated to Jew worship, change state laws to make it more difficult for outside Zionist groups to interfere in state politics, coordinate lawfare against the various Zionists groups, etc. It’s hard to feel sorry for a victim who likes being a victim (or doesn’t care or is too low IQ to do anything about it).
     
    It's not so easy. The position of Israel vs. the United States is analogous to the position of Great Britain vs. India (until Independence it's largest and richest colony).

    Indian troops fought in Britain's imperial wars, the continent supported Great Britain economically, and India had a cadre of British Imperial administrators that took care of India's government, legal system, banking and press, with any sign of dissent (Indian nationalism or anti-British agitation) being prosecuted.

    The basis of Imperial India was economic, to favour British interests, but plenty of native Indians benefited from British administrative jobs (lower level), and the British co-operated with, and respected, the local power of Indian princes when they accepted nationwide British rule from Calcutta and Delhi.

    The fact was that it paid many natives to co-operate with British imperialism in the same way that US Congressmen know what to do and say with regard to Israel.

  14. Meanwhile:

    Israeli ministers back proposed law demoting Arabic language
    Parliament to consider nation state bill that would make Hebrew the lone national language

    Israeli ministers have approved the wording of a new law that would downgrade Arabic as an official language and which states that the right to self-determination in Israel “is unique to the Jewish people”, despite the country’s sizeable non-Jewish minority…

    Critics say the law is discriminatory and could undermine Israel’s balance of being both a Jewish and democratic state by harming the rights of minorities.

    Hebrew and Arabic are both Israel’s national languages, but the bill states that Hebrew would be the lone national language, downgrading Arabic to “a special status in the state” whose “speakers have the right to language-accessible state services”…

    The timing of the bill – after four years of deliberations – is significant, coming two weeks before a planned visit by Donald Trump in which the US president had hoped to breath life into a moribund peace process…

    Ayman Odeh, the head of the Joint List, representing Arab-Israeli parties, said the bill was a “declaration of war” on Israel’s Arab citizens. “Discrimination has received a legal stamp. The danger in this law in that it establishes two classes of citizen – Jewish and Arab,”…

    The bill’s sponsor, Avi Dichter, an MP from Benjamin Netanyahu’s rightwing Likud party, defended the proposals, as did other ministers.

    ”This is a small step for the Jewish state bill, which establishes that Israel is and will be a Jewish and democratic state, and it’s a big step towards defining our identity, not only in the eyes of the world but primarily for ourselves, Israelis – to be a free people in our land,” said Dichter after the committee’s vote.

    He said the bill was necessary because “events of recent months prove that this is a battle for Israel’s image and national identity. The Palestinians no longer hide their goal of erasing the Jewish people’s nation state”…

    -The Guardian Peter Beaumont 8 May 2017
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/07/israeli-ministers-back-proposed-law-demoting-arabic-language

    Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

    Read More
  15. @Johan nagel
    It is laughable and misleading to present any serious discussion of the by far the most consistent, brutal and appalling shame of the West, with any suggestion that Trump has even a slither of power. He has none.

    The only officials close enough to him he may have chosen or been led to believe he chose have been fires or maimed into a political eunuch.

    He holds as much real power as Obama and Bush before him. In fact, not since JFK has their appeared a US president within touching distance of the true power structure. And that went well for him?...

    The Zionists own the media, the banks, are bedfellows with the military industrial complex, as close to symbiotic relationship. They own the US and most European governments, flagrantly violate UN sanctions and international law on a daily basis and seem the most logical, obvious crowd behind 9/11 and the wars which have subsequently followed. For they have gained. The greater Israel project is very much under way.

    Along with its little brother the project for a new American century. These are no crazed consoirai theories but the reality on the ground.

    You wish to see who is truly in power you look to who is always above the law and cannot be challenged or even criticised. One regime fits this, which is the Israeli regime.

    There is probably more to the eschatological concerns and beliefs found high up in the Anglo Zionist power structure, all that astonishing power and money leads to encouraging megalomaniacal behaviour. Yet I have not the space or time to delve...

    The Palestinians are as unfortunately as much of lost cause as our own will become further down the line if we have any wish to avoid slavery or our own destruction. Still I roar for their cause and my own, they are one and the same.

    “obvious crowd behind 9/11 and the wars which have subsequently followed” is expressed so as to be clearly theory, convincing to some, spun in your head rather than a matter of fact based on evidence. And as such theory it falls down on plausibility grounds when Oclham’s Razor is applied.

    The simple case that the evidence supports is that Osama bin Laden wanted to do the maximum damage to America and therefore, with only asymmetric warfare available to him, wanted to draw America into a Vietnam War type quagmire by using his estanlished simultaneous suicide attacks strategy. Considering that this was actually achieved it is highly credible.

    By contrast the alternative is ridiculously complicated and uncertain. Why would anyone plot 9/11 so it eould be blamed on Al Qaeda and the Afghans protecting its leaders and lead to an attack on Iraq which had nothing to do with it? Even if such an outcome was fantasised no planning staff would treat it as more than a fanciful brainstorming idea.

    Read More
    • LOL: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    AEI did, in PNAC they asked for ' a new Pearl Harbour'.
    , @Skeptikal
    Troll alert!!
  16. Are they going to be given the West Bank? No. If they end up in a Palestinian state then it could only be the one across the river.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    The Arab Liga peace proposal is that all jews leave the territories stolen in and after 1967, and that compensation is paid for what was stolen en destroyed until 1967.
    In return the Palestinians will give up the right to return to the territories stolen before 1967, there is nothing to return to, all houses, farms, villages and small towns have been razed to the ground.

    When the proposal was first made Sharon perpetrated the blood bath of Jenin.
    Israel will never get a better deal, but of course will never accept.

    Jews seem to have a sense of what is acceptable or possible lacking, this explains how they became, in their view, innocent victims over and over again.

    There is one jewish writer who describes the phenomenon:
    ‘From prejudice to destruction’, Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA
  17. @Ronald Thomas West
    "there might be some surprises down the road and Donald Trump is certainly capable of that"

    I'm not so certain Phil, or more likely the perverse sort of surprise, considering the developing track record. Example given, after Trump had requested Preet Bharara stay on as US Attorney in the southern district of New York, Mike Pence's fraternal brother, Jeff Sessions, fired Bharara regardless of Trump's stated position and Trump said and did precisely nothing. Relevant to your article, Pence and Sessions are hyper-Christian Zionists who it appears may be calling the shots. I expect your pessimism is the more accurate picture.

    If you'll indulge me, Friedman, who may be to the right of Netanyahu, has panned the two-state solution:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2016/12/30/friedman-and-the-narrative/

    And insofar as Bharara fired, a couple more Christian super-Zionists, Mukasey & Giuliani, enter a very stinky circumstance (I stole your Erdogan illustration for this one)

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/05/06/the-sultans-sleaze-circus/

    ^

    Sessions is not a hyper CZ as he has been very critical of The Zionist Entity hence the opposition to his nomination in the owned congress and media. You are right about Pence though.
    Mukasey is a Jew and as I spell it Jew-liani is a Neocon boot licker who should be drawn and quartered. His erratic behavior in the campaign has been noted, even by Donald, so he hopefully will have less and less influence with Trump. Mukasey is a outlier so he also may not have that much influence over Trump.

    Read More
  18. @Ronald Thomas West
    I don't subscribe to the idea Jews are special, either especially evil or especially good. They're just people with all of the typical human foibles that, inclusive of other things, often see killer-sociopaths rise to the top and rule; circumstantially in a particularly world threatening (nearly necrotic) situation at the moment. If we all die for the fact, blame can be spread around, and not least, proportionally pinned on the apocalyptic world-view of Christian Zionists backing Israel.

    Google ‘gentiles in wallacha’, you then find a site in hebrew, in the top left hand corner is an empty box, at the right side of that box you van switch to english and german, then read what three rabbi’s write about judaism.
    Or read
    Israel Shahak, ‘Jewish History, Jewish Religion, The Weight of Three Thousand Years’, 1994, 2002, London
    Then a question, do you know a christian or Muslim Soros ?
    Or something comparable to neocons, or to Israel ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    Not going there dude. The Jews in my personal acquaintance/experience range from incredibly arrogant to among the finest people I've ever encountered.

    Billionaires tend to arrogance. Soros happens to be Jewish. Bill Gates, who is also a social engineer 'by right of wealth', is not. They both set themselves above common humanity. Ciao.
  19. @Sean
    Are they going to be given the West Bank? No. If they end up in a Palestinian state then it could only be the one across the river.

    The Arab Liga peace proposal is that all jews leave the territories stolen in and after 1967, and that compensation is paid for what was stolen en destroyed until 1967.
    In return the Palestinians will give up the right to return to the territories stolen before 1967, there is nothing to return to, all houses, farms, villages and small towns have been razed to the ground.

    When the proposal was first made Sharon perpetrated the blood bath of Jenin.
    Israel will never get a better deal, but of course will never accept.

    Jews seem to have a sense of what is acceptable or possible lacking, this explains how they became, in their view, innocent victims over and over again.

    There is one jewish writer who describes the phenomenon:
    ‘From prejudice to destruction’, Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The Palestinians were offered a fairly good deal by Ehud Barak, one they could reasonably expect to be able to build on They turned it down, because they know time is on their side. The official US policy is for a Palestinian state to be formed out of the West Bank--into every corner of which which Israel has put Jewish settlers. Going by the settlements, Israel will never give up the West Bank, and yet they cannot keep pretending to be willing to give it up while actually holding on to it as an Apartheid territory with an Arab majority without rights indefinitely. I don't know when or how, but I think the West Bank Jews are suddenly going to cease to be a minority.
  20. @Wizard of Oz
    "obvious crowd behind 9/11 and the wars which have subsequently followed" is expressed so as to be clearly theory, convincing to some, spun in your head rather than a matter of fact based on evidence. And as such theory it falls down on plausibility grounds when Oclham's Razor is applied.

    The simple case that the evidence supports is that Osama bin Laden wanted to do the maximum damage to America and therefore, with only asymmetric warfare available to him, wanted to draw America into a Vietnam War type quagmire by using his estanlished simultaneous suicide attacks strategy. Considering that this was actually achieved it is highly credible.

    By contrast the alternative is ridiculously complicated and uncertain. Why would anyone plot 9/11 so it eould be blamed on Al Qaeda and the Afghans protecting its leaders and lead to an attack on Iraq which had nothing to do with it? Even if such an outcome was fantasised no planning staff would treat it as more than a fanciful brainstorming idea.

    AEI did, in PNAC they asked for ‘ a new Pearl Harbour’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I was well awate of that quote or misquote. You missed my point. If you want a war against Iraq you don't set up a NATO invasion of Afghanistan with no end point planned. By comparison ObL can be seen as having got exactly what he planned for in a very straightforward way consistent with his previous tactics.

    It is necessary to bear in mind that the Pearl Harbour version presupposes a strong Israeli and Israel lobby desire to get the US into a war which would Balkanise Iraq. Who in their right mind is going to choose destroying the Twin Towers and all the rest on 9/11 and its being blamed on Al Qaeda so a war can be contrived against one of Al Qaeda's secular enemies?

  21. @jilles dykstra
    Google 'gentiles in wallacha', you then find a site in hebrew, in the top left hand corner is an empty box, at the right side of that box you van switch to english and german, then read what three rabbi's write about judaism.
    Or read
    Israel Shahak, ‘Jewish History, Jewish Religion, The Weight of Three Thousand Years’, 1994, 2002, London
    Then a question, do you know a christian or Muslim Soros ?
    Or something comparable to neocons, or to Israel ?

    Not going there dude. The Jews in my personal acquaintance/experience range from incredibly arrogant to among the finest people I’ve ever encountered.

    Billionaires tend to arrogance. Soros happens to be Jewish. Bill Gates, who is also a social engineer ‘by right of wealth’, is not. They both set themselves above common humanity. Ciao.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Bill Gates is not a jew ?
    I wonder what your definition of a jew is, I prefer the definition of the atheistic jews about themselves 'people who feel associated to the jewish culture'.
    In this definition there are more than four times as much jews as normally assumed.

    Sarkozy, officially catholic, is seen as one of them, antisemitic words were painted in France when he was president, Israeli newspapers were jubilant 'he was from an old Greek jewish dynasty'.
    A Spanish bishop long ago on his deathbed stated 'I've always been a jew'.

    I corresponded with a christian historian, whose great grandfather in 1870 converted from judaism to christianity.
    In my view this historian still was a jew, he twisted history to the advantage of jewry.
    His statement about the Palestinians was 'both jews and Palestinians suffered a lot'.
    What is true, but far more true is that it was just jews that made, and still make, Palestinians suffer.

    That here are fine people among jews is true, we here in the Netherlands have Hamburger and the psychologist Frijda, both members of 'Een Ander Joods Geluid', 'another statement from jews', the jewish anti Israel, or pro Palestinian organisation.

    Alas, for the majority of Dutch jews Hamburger is a traitor, as is Finkelstein in the USA, and Ilian Pappe, now living in GB, as far as I know.
    Both Finkelstein and Pappe were not allowed to speak in Germany, recently.
  22. @jilles dykstra
    The Arab Liga peace proposal is that all jews leave the territories stolen in and after 1967, and that compensation is paid for what was stolen en destroyed until 1967.
    In return the Palestinians will give up the right to return to the territories stolen before 1967, there is nothing to return to, all houses, farms, villages and small towns have been razed to the ground.

    When the proposal was first made Sharon perpetrated the blood bath of Jenin.
    Israel will never get a better deal, but of course will never accept.

    Jews seem to have a sense of what is acceptable or possible lacking, this explains how they became, in their view, innocent victims over and over again.

    There is one jewish writer who describes the phenomenon:
    ‘From prejudice to destruction’, Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA

    The Palestinians were offered a fairly good deal by Ehud Barak, one they could reasonably expect to be able to build on They turned it down, because they know time is on their side. The official US policy is for a Palestinian state to be formed out of the West Bank–into every corner of which which Israel has put Jewish settlers. Going by the settlements, Israel will never give up the West Bank, and yet they cannot keep pretending to be willing to give it up while actually holding on to it as an Apartheid territory with an Arab majority without rights indefinitely. I don’t know when or how, but I think the West Bank Jews are suddenly going to cease to be a minority.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    You refer to the proposed Palestinian Bantustans ?
    , @nebulafox
    Especially considering that the West Bank Jews are probably not going to be "Western" in the sense that Western governments think of the term, but are either going to be haredi, Russian, or descendants of those expelled from the Arab World in 1967. None of these Likud supporting groups see the conflict, or geopolitics in general, in the same way as the Ashkenazim who dominate the Labour Party do. The amount of Israelis who actually feel some sort of emotional tie to Europe has never been smaller, demographically speaking.

    "They turned it down, because they know time is on their side."

    In the sense of long term demographics decades down the line, yes. In the sense of the actual military conflict, no. Israel has never been a more thoroughly dominant position, and the Palestinians won't accept the fact that a Collins style deal-without Jerusalem-is probably the best thing they can realistically get, Western left-wing insistence to the contrary aside.

    Israel is not bothering with Brussels, partially as a result of the demographic shifts I mentioned, so they don't really care about what they think. In the past couple of decades, Israel has done a very good job at improving relations with governments that either privately don't care what they do with the Palestinians as long as order is reasonably maintained (China, much of East Asia in general), or are genuinely sympathetic to Israel's situation and modern worldview, especially if the ideological Islam element becomes pronounced (India, Russia). They might not be willing to fight for Israel's conquests in the direct sense, but they most certainly will sympathize with a fight for the concept of national sovereignty, and specifically for the right of a nation to handle "security issues" without interference from Western liberal busybodies.

    Israel has also done a pretty good job at quietly co-opting the Saudis-formerly a major funder of Palestinian aspirations-in recent years. One of the things Tehran notices more than anything is how cozy the Sauds have become with the Zionist entity.

    , @MEexpert
    No they were not. Barak backed out at the last minute. Clinton was furious about it but could not do anything. Furthermore, a close reading of that deal showed that the Palestinians were again being stabbed in the back. A Jew is not capable of giving an honest deal to a gentile let alone a Palestinian.
  23. Someday there will come a tipping point and Israel and its kleptocratic leaders will have to figure out how and why they missed out on so many opportunities to make peace with their neighbors over so many years.

    Funny spin on what the Zionists and their ‘amen corner’ in America used to say about Arafat and the Palestinians, lol! ‘The Palis never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to make peace with Iz-rule.

    Read More
  24. @Johan nagel
    It is laughable and misleading to present any serious discussion of the by far the most consistent, brutal and appalling shame of the West, with any suggestion that Trump has even a slither of power. He has none.

    The only officials close enough to him he may have chosen or been led to believe he chose have been fires or maimed into a political eunuch.

    He holds as much real power as Obama and Bush before him. In fact, not since JFK has their appeared a US president within touching distance of the true power structure. And that went well for him?...

    The Zionists own the media, the banks, are bedfellows with the military industrial complex, as close to symbiotic relationship. They own the US and most European governments, flagrantly violate UN sanctions and international law on a daily basis and seem the most logical, obvious crowd behind 9/11 and the wars which have subsequently followed. For they have gained. The greater Israel project is very much under way.

    Along with its little brother the project for a new American century. These are no crazed consoirai theories but the reality on the ground.

    You wish to see who is truly in power you look to who is always above the law and cannot be challenged or even criticised. One regime fits this, which is the Israeli regime.

    There is probably more to the eschatological concerns and beliefs found high up in the Anglo Zionist power structure, all that astonishing power and money leads to encouraging megalomaniacal behaviour. Yet I have not the space or time to delve...

    The Palestinians are as unfortunately as much of lost cause as our own will become further down the line if we have any wish to avoid slavery or our own destruction. Still I roar for their cause and my own, they are one and the same.

    There is probably more to the eschatological concerns and beliefs found high up in the Anglo Zionist power structure…. Yet I have not the space or time to delve…

    Perhaps you should find time and write about it.

    Read More
  25. @Sean
    The Palestinians were offered a fairly good deal by Ehud Barak, one they could reasonably expect to be able to build on They turned it down, because they know time is on their side. The official US policy is for a Palestinian state to be formed out of the West Bank--into every corner of which which Israel has put Jewish settlers. Going by the settlements, Israel will never give up the West Bank, and yet they cannot keep pretending to be willing to give it up while actually holding on to it as an Apartheid territory with an Arab majority without rights indefinitely. I don't know when or how, but I think the West Bank Jews are suddenly going to cease to be a minority.

    You refer to the proposed Palestinian Bantustans ?

    Read More
  26. @jilles dykstra
    AEI did, in PNAC they asked for ' a new Pearl Harbour'.

    I was well awate of that quote or misquote. You missed my point. If you want a war against Iraq you don’t set up a NATO invasion of Afghanistan with no end point planned. By comparison ObL can be seen as having got exactly what he planned for in a very straightforward way consistent with his previous tactics.

    It is necessary to bear in mind that the Pearl Harbour version presupposes a strong Israeli and Israel lobby desire to get the US into a war which would Balkanise Iraq. Who in their right mind is going to choose destroying the Twin Towers and all the rest on 9/11 and its being blamed on Al Qaeda so a war can be contrived against one of Al Qaeda’s secular enemies?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Well, how many USA citizens protested against the Afghan and Iraq war at the time ?
    And was not sept 11 great for getting the Patriot Act accepted ?
    After Pearl Harbour all USA peace activists understood they had been beaten 'he got us in through the back door'.
    So Lindbergh began assisting Ford in building bombers.
    Israel wanted more than balkanise Iraq, they wanted the destabilisation of the whole ME.
    And did it not succeed, up to Tunesia ?
    Why now the hysteria over contacts with Russia, is it not unimaginable that Assad remains in control of a stable Syria ?
    What is or was El Quaida but a USA propaganda invention ?
    Why do you think that Bin Laden was murdered ?
    The same reason that the man in Spandau who was not Hess was killed, had they spoken out, world history would have been changed.
    , @Art
    Hey Wiz,

    Scratch 9/11 and it bleeds Jew.

    You can post a million lines that bamboozle and misdirect people, but Jews will still be central to 9/11. From the reason we were attacked to the final investigation – it bleeds Jew.

    I wonder what Trump really thinks about 9/11?

    If Netanyahu gives Trump to bad a time – maybe Trump will turn on him and start a real 9/11 investigation run by real Americans.

    Peace --- Art
  27. @Ronald Thomas West
    Not going there dude. The Jews in my personal acquaintance/experience range from incredibly arrogant to among the finest people I've ever encountered.

    Billionaires tend to arrogance. Soros happens to be Jewish. Bill Gates, who is also a social engineer 'by right of wealth', is not. They both set themselves above common humanity. Ciao.

    Bill Gates is not a jew ?
    I wonder what your definition of a jew is, I prefer the definition of the atheistic jews about themselves ‘people who feel associated to the jewish culture’.
    In this definition there are more than four times as much jews as normally assumed.

    Sarkozy, officially catholic, is seen as one of them, antisemitic words were painted in France when he was president, Israeli newspapers were jubilant ‘he was from an old Greek jewish dynasty’.
    A Spanish bishop long ago on his deathbed stated ‘I’ve always been a jew’.

    I corresponded with a christian historian, whose great grandfather in 1870 converted from judaism to christianity.
    In my view this historian still was a jew, he twisted history to the advantage of jewry.
    His statement about the Palestinians was ‘both jews and Palestinians suffered a lot’.
    What is true, but far more true is that it was just jews that made, and still make, Palestinians suffer.

    That here are fine people among jews is true, we here in the Netherlands have Hamburger and the psychologist Frijda, both members of ‘Een Ander Joods Geluid’, ‘another statement from jews’, the jewish anti Israel, or pro Palestinian organisation.

    Alas, for the majority of Dutch jews Hamburger is a traitor, as is Finkelstein in the USA, and Ilian Pappe, now living in GB, as far as I know.
    Both Finkelstein and Pappe were not allowed to speak in Germany, recently.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    Ron, note to self: don't feed the trolls
    , @Alden
    So, you believe in the crypto Jew theory that lurking about the world to do evil are millions of people who have a bit of Jewish DNA.

    Check out the theory that American president Lyndon Johnson was a crypto Jew, as was his wife.
    , @Dieter Heymann
    Nico Frijda was a classmate of mine in the Eerste Openbare Montessori School in the Corellistraat in Amsterdam. His father was murdered in a German concentration camp.
  28. @Sean
    The Palestinians were offered a fairly good deal by Ehud Barak, one they could reasonably expect to be able to build on They turned it down, because they know time is on their side. The official US policy is for a Palestinian state to be formed out of the West Bank--into every corner of which which Israel has put Jewish settlers. Going by the settlements, Israel will never give up the West Bank, and yet they cannot keep pretending to be willing to give it up while actually holding on to it as an Apartheid territory with an Arab majority without rights indefinitely. I don't know when or how, but I think the West Bank Jews are suddenly going to cease to be a minority.

    Especially considering that the West Bank Jews are probably not going to be “Western” in the sense that Western governments think of the term, but are either going to be haredi, Russian, or descendants of those expelled from the Arab World in 1967. None of these Likud supporting groups see the conflict, or geopolitics in general, in the same way as the Ashkenazim who dominate the Labour Party do. The amount of Israelis who actually feel some sort of emotional tie to Europe has never been smaller, demographically speaking.

    “They turned it down, because they know time is on their side.”

    In the sense of long term demographics decades down the line, yes. In the sense of the actual military conflict, no. Israel has never been a more thoroughly dominant position, and the Palestinians won’t accept the fact that a Collins style deal-without Jerusalem-is probably the best thing they can realistically get, Western left-wing insistence to the contrary aside.

    Israel is not bothering with Brussels, partially as a result of the demographic shifts I mentioned, so they don’t really care about what they think. In the past couple of decades, Israel has done a very good job at improving relations with governments that either privately don’t care what they do with the Palestinians as long as order is reasonably maintained (China, much of East Asia in general), or are genuinely sympathetic to Israel’s situation and modern worldview, especially if the ideological Islam element becomes pronounced (India, Russia). They might not be willing to fight for Israel’s conquests in the direct sense, but they most certainly will sympathize with a fight for the concept of national sovereignty, and specifically for the right of a nation to handle “security issues” without interference from Western liberal busybodies.

    Israel has also done a pretty good job at quietly co-opting the Saudis-formerly a major funder of Palestinian aspirations-in recent years. One of the things Tehran notices more than anything is how cozy the Sauds have become with the Zionist entity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Then why were Palme and Anna Lyndh murdered ?
    , @jilles dykstra
    Israel cooperates with any nation where they see an advantage.
    During the Iran Iraq war Israel trained Iranian fighter pilots in N Germany.
    Local politician Barschel wanted to stop this, he was suicided in a Geneva hotel.
    Mölleman's parachute did not open, suicide was the verdict.
    , @Clyde
    Yours is an excellent post swimming in a sea of anti-Zionist conspiracy theories in the comments section.
  29. @Anon
    "It is a terrible thing to realize that the Palestinians and those Americans living in fly-over country, the so-called deplorables, are enslaved and marginalized by the same clan of ruthless psychopaths."

    The difference is that the Palestinians don't have a choice. The deplorables could, at any time, rebel - kick out Israel first politicians, vote out Zionists, stop attending mega churches dedicated to Jew worship, change state laws to make it more difficult for outside Zionist groups to interfere in state politics, coordinate lawfare against the various Zionists groups, etc. It's hard to feel sorry for a victim who likes being a victim (or doesn't care or is too low IQ to do anything about it).

    The deplorables could, at any time, rebel – kick out Israel first politicians, vote out Zionists, stop attending mega churches dedicated to Jew worship, change state laws to make it more difficult for outside Zionist groups to interfere in state politics, coordinate lawfare against the various Zionists groups, etc. It’s hard to feel sorry for a victim who likes being a victim (or doesn’t care or is too low IQ to do anything about it).

    It’s not so easy. The position of Israel vs. the United States is analogous to the position of Great Britain vs. India (until Independence it’s largest and richest colony).

    Indian troops fought in Britain’s imperial wars, the continent supported Great Britain economically, and India had a cadre of British Imperial administrators that took care of India’s government, legal system, banking and press, with any sign of dissent (Indian nationalism or anti-British agitation) being prosecuted.

    The basis of Imperial India was economic, to favour British interests, but plenty of native Indians benefited from British administrative jobs (lower level), and the British co-operated with, and respected, the local power of Indian princes when they accepted nationwide British rule from Calcutta and Delhi.

    The fact was that it paid many natives to co-operate with British imperialism in the same way that US Congressmen know what to do and say with regard to Israel.

    Read More
  30. @jilles dykstra
    Friedman:
    Radicalized Palestinian terrorists need to be rooted out and eliminated.

    I'm reminded of what Hitler said in 1939, about jews, 'if they again start a world war, they themselves might be "ausgerottet" '.

    “Ausgerottet” simply means uprooted, a la what happened to Japanese-Americans in WWII.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are laughable, scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    - We’re talking about an alleged ’6M Jews & 5M others’ … [b]11,000,000[/b].
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

    Why have supremacist Jews have been marketing the ’6,000,000′ lie since at least 1869?

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst, L.K
    • Replies: @Anon
    But Hitler didn't use the term "ausrotten" in the January 1939 speech. Here's the line:

    Wenn es dem internationalen Finanzjudentum in und außerhalb Europas gelingen sollte, die Völker noch einmal in einen Weltkrieg zu stürzen, dann wird das Ergebnis nicht die Bolschewisierung der Erde und damit der Sieg des Judentums sein, sondern die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa.
     
    Vernichten is defined by Duden thus: "völlig zerstören, gänzlich zunichtemachen," i.e., "fully destroy, completely negate."

    Gern geschehen.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Ausrotten had more than one significance.
    Since Hitler in 1939 used the word, to warn jews, the significance in WWII discussions became genocide.
    Auschwitz was an enormous industrial center, where from coal and water synthetic oil, rubber and high octane fuel was produced.
    The water table, many rivers, is close to the surface, this simply makes deep huge holes impossible.
  31. @Sean
    The Palestinians were offered a fairly good deal by Ehud Barak, one they could reasonably expect to be able to build on They turned it down, because they know time is on their side. The official US policy is for a Palestinian state to be formed out of the West Bank--into every corner of which which Israel has put Jewish settlers. Going by the settlements, Israel will never give up the West Bank, and yet they cannot keep pretending to be willing to give it up while actually holding on to it as an Apartheid territory with an Arab majority without rights indefinitely. I don't know when or how, but I think the West Bank Jews are suddenly going to cease to be a minority.

    No they were not. Barak backed out at the last minute. Clinton was furious about it but could not do anything. Furthermore, a close reading of that deal showed that the Palestinians were again being stabbed in the back. A Jew is not capable of giving an honest deal to a gentile let alone a Palestinian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Ehud Barak's successors said they would not dream of offering as much as he did at Camp David.. And the Palestinians in effect backed out by making no counter offer, although once they had the Bantustans they could have easily built and coalesced it into a more contiguous state. Barak was the last Israeli leader who thought in terms of a final settlement with the Palestinians. The Israelis have abandoned the idea of giving any of the West Bank back, they're just waiting for a chance to make Jews the majority in the West Bank, and I am not talking about a baby boom.
    , @Lot

    A Jew is not capable of giving an honest deal to a gentile let alone a Palestinian.
     
    Andy Bechtolsheim's $100,000 investment in Google, given to Brin and Page after a short meeting before Google was even incorporated, is now worth about $5 billion. With Jews you win!
  32. @jilles dykstra
    Bill Gates is not a jew ?
    I wonder what your definition of a jew is, I prefer the definition of the atheistic jews about themselves 'people who feel associated to the jewish culture'.
    In this definition there are more than four times as much jews as normally assumed.

    Sarkozy, officially catholic, is seen as one of them, antisemitic words were painted in France when he was president, Israeli newspapers were jubilant 'he was from an old Greek jewish dynasty'.
    A Spanish bishop long ago on his deathbed stated 'I've always been a jew'.

    I corresponded with a christian historian, whose great grandfather in 1870 converted from judaism to christianity.
    In my view this historian still was a jew, he twisted history to the advantage of jewry.
    His statement about the Palestinians was 'both jews and Palestinians suffered a lot'.
    What is true, but far more true is that it was just jews that made, and still make, Palestinians suffer.

    That here are fine people among jews is true, we here in the Netherlands have Hamburger and the psychologist Frijda, both members of 'Een Ander Joods Geluid', 'another statement from jews', the jewish anti Israel, or pro Palestinian organisation.

    Alas, for the majority of Dutch jews Hamburger is a traitor, as is Finkelstein in the USA, and Ilian Pappe, now living in GB, as far as I know.
    Both Finkelstein and Pappe were not allowed to speak in Germany, recently.

    Ron, note to self: don’t feed the trolls

    Read More
  33. The only solution is a one vote one person One State solution. Call it Israel/Palestine, Palestine/Israel or as I prefer Palestine. Will it ever happen? Sure ‘over our dead bodies’ after the Samson option.

    Read More
  34. Jan. 24, 2009 *How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas* Moshav Tekuma, Israel

    Surveying the wreckage of a neighbor’s bungalow hit by a Palestinian rocket, retired Israeli official Avner Cohen traces the missile’s trajectory back to an “enormous, stupid mistake” made 30 years ago.

    https://www.transcend.org/tms/2014/07/how-israel-helped-to-spawn-hamas/

    Apr 19, 2017 Pro Palestinian rally during AIPAC convention 2017

    On March 26, 2017 Thousands gathered in a pro Palestinian rally which began in front of the White House in Washington DC, followed by a march the the Washington Convention Center to protest the AIPAC convention.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    How Sharon created Hezbollah
    Ferdinand Smit, ‘The battle for South Lebanon, The radicalisation of Lebanon’s Shi’ites, 1982-1985’, Amsterdam, 2000
    , @Z-man
    https://youtu.be/M70qnhWJGpU
    A righteous Jew.
  35. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Wally
    "Ausgerottet" simply means uprooted, a la what happened to Japanese-Americans in WWII.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are laughable, scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    - We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... [b]11,000,000[/b].
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

    Why have supremacist Jews have been marketing the '6,000,000' lie since at least 1869?
    http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k598/WhiteWolf722/TheSixMillionMyth.jpg

    But Hitler didn’t use the term “ausrotten” in the January 1939 speech. Here’s the line:

    Wenn es dem internationalen Finanzjudentum in und außerhalb Europas gelingen sollte, die Völker noch einmal in einen Weltkrieg zu stürzen, dann wird das Ergebnis nicht die Bolschewisierung der Erde und damit der Sieg des Judentums sein, sondern die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa.

    Vernichten is defined by Duden thus: “völlig zerstören, gänzlich zunichtemachen,” i.e., “fully destroy, completely negate.”

    Gern geschehen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Where did you find the text ?
    But also vernichten is not simple, for example vernichten an army does not mean killing any soldier, but stop the army being effective.
    , @Anonymous
    " " "Vernichten is defined by Duden thus: “völlig zerstören, gänzlich zunichtemachen,” i.e., “fully destroy, completely negate.”

    Gern geschehen. " " "

    riiiight.

    And "two states living side by side in peace" means Palestinians achieve autonomy, security, and sovereignty over their land, lives, politics, finances and defense.

    How do you say "never gonna happen" in Hebrew?

    "By way of deception shall you expand zionism to the limits of mankind's patience"

    , @Wally
    Given that Jews were in fact not 'destroyed' the use of the word could not mean 'exterminate'

    That speech and the alleged meaning is debunked here:
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10278&p=77453&hilit=Vernichtung+der+rasse#p77453

    Also Hitler spoke of solving the Jewish problem AFTER the war, the Schlegelberger Document, which read:

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Schlegelberger/Schlegelberger42.JPG

    "Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party."
     
    In support of the Schlegelberger Document see the Luther Memorandum:
    http://www.codoh.com/library/document/154/
    Hitler, the 'Final Solution,' and the Luther Memorandum
    A Response to Evans and Longerich
    excerpt:

    "On the occasion of a reception by the Reich Foreign Minister on 26 November 1941 the Bulgarian Foreign Minister Popoff touched on the problem of according like treatment to the Jews of European nationalities and pointed out the difficulties that the Bulgarians had in the application of their Jewish laws to Jews of foreign nationality."

    "The Reich Foreign Minister answered that he thought this question brought by Mr. Popoff not uninteresting. Even now he could say one thing to him, that at the end of the war all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was the unalterable decision of the Fuehrer and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much."
     
    , @L.K
    This nonsense has long been debunked by various revisionist authors, you known, those who are persecuted for their views, fined and even thrown in jail...
    Say, why didn't you cite the rest of what Hitler said? Bc if you did we would have the proper context, right?

    Denn die Zeit der propagandistischen Wehrlosigkeit der nicht-jüdischen Völker ist zu Ende. Das nationalsozialistische Deutschland und das faschistische Italien besitzen jene Einrichtungen, die es gestatten, wenn notwendig, die Welt über das Wesen einer Frage aufzuklären, die vielen Völkern instinktiv bewußt und nur wissenschaftlich unklar ist.
    […] Wenn es diesem [jüdischen] Volke aber noch einmal gelingen sollte, die Millionenmassen der Völker in einen für diese gänzlich sinnlosen und nur jüdischen Interessen dienenden Kampf zu hetzen, dann wird sich die Wirksamkeit einer Aufklärung äußern, der in Deutschland allein schon in wenigen Jahren das Judentum restlos erlegen ist.
    Die Völker wollen nicht mehr auf den Schlachtfeldern sterben, damit diese wurzellose internationale Rasse an den Geschäften des Krieges verdient und ihre alttestamentarische Rachsucht befriedigt.
     
    In English: "“for the time when the non-Jewish nations had no propaganda is at an end. National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy have institutions which enable them when necessary to enlighten the world about the nature of a question of which many nations are instinctively conscious, but which they have not yet clearly thought out.
    […] If this [Jewish] nation should once more succeed in inciting the millions which compose the nations into a conflict which is utterly senseless and only serves Jewish interests, then there will be revealed the effectiveness of an enlightenment which has completely routed the Jews in Germany in the space of a few years. The nations are no longer willing to die on the battlefield so
    that this unstable international race may profiteer from a war or satisfy its Old Testament vengeance.”
    As holocaust revisionist Germar Rudolf put it :

    So here you have it: Hitler will annihilate the Jews by enlightening the world about their alleged evil plans and deeds, which has already led to their routing(=annihilation) in Germany within a few years.
     
    He adds that "During the 1920s and early 1930s, the leaders of National Socialism, who later became Germany’s leading politicians, evolved politically in an atmosphere of permanent civil war. The language used by the more radical parties involved in this struggle was quite often inflammatory and violent. Words said in the heat of the moment were not always considered to be taken literally. This, too, needs to be kept in mind."
    This sort of crap reminds me of the Zionist campaign against Iranian president Ahmadinejad, by quoting him out of context and outright mis-translation of what the man said; the whole 'he said Iran will wipe Israel off the map' BS.

    As for Hitler and the NS, that is the sad result of the propagandist's failure to produce documents, blueprints, forensic reports, mass graves, etc. The hoaxters are left with distorting the meaning of words given in speeches... PATHETIC.
  36. Correction; Jewish settlers are not subsidized by the Israeli government to to steal real property from and terrorize Arabs.

    Jewish settlers are subsidized by the American taxpayer to steal real property from and terrorize Arabs.

    Read More
  37. @MEexpert
    No they were not. Barak backed out at the last minute. Clinton was furious about it but could not do anything. Furthermore, a close reading of that deal showed that the Palestinians were again being stabbed in the back. A Jew is not capable of giving an honest deal to a gentile let alone a Palestinian.

    Ehud Barak’s successors said they would not dream of offering as much as he did at Camp David.. And the Palestinians in effect backed out by making no counter offer, although once they had the Bantustans they could have easily built and coalesced it into a more contiguous state. Barak was the last Israeli leader who thought in terms of a final settlement with the Palestinians. The Israelis have abandoned the idea of giving any of the West Bank back, they’re just waiting for a chance to make Jews the majority in the West Bank, and I am not talking about a baby boom.

    Read More
  38. @Wally
    "Ausgerottet" simply means uprooted, a la what happened to Japanese-Americans in WWII.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are laughable, scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    - We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... [b]11,000,000[/b].
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, 1,250,000 at Auschwitz, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

    Why have supremacist Jews have been marketing the '6,000,000' lie since at least 1869?
    http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k598/WhiteWolf722/TheSixMillionMyth.jpg

    Ausrotten had more than one significance.
    Since Hitler in 1939 used the word, to warn jews, the significance in WWII discussions became genocide.
    Auschwitz was an enormous industrial center, where from coal and water synthetic oil, rubber and high octane fuel was produced.
    The water table, many rivers, is close to the surface, this simply makes deep huge holes impossible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    Jilles, beware. Wally operates a very bitter vineyard.

    Go to codoh.com (Wally’s favorite web site). Beware. Normal sites don’t preface an invitation with a “No name calling, level playing field debate here.” But, of course, decide for yourself.

    “Since Hitler in 1939 used the word [ausrotten], to warn jews, the significance in WWII discussions became genocide.”

    “Warn jews”? How about 1 April ‘33 (two months into power) when Hitler called the first boycott of Jewish business, lawyers and doctors? Widespread beatings by SA thugs? Was that a “warning”? The 7 April ‘33 Civil Service Law - the first official curtailment of equal rights for German Jews. Was that a "warning"? Were the Nüremberg laws in ‘35 depriving German Jews from citizenship, intermarriage rights and the means to earn a living also a "warning"? Was Kristallnacht 9-10 Nov ‘38 a "warning"?

    Simple question Jilles. How many "warnings" (‘warnungen’) does it take to equal extermination (‘ausrotten’)?

    “But also vernichten is not simple, for example vernichten an army does not mean killing any soldier, but stop the army being effective.”

    Well, there you have it. Nothing's simple. Something routinely translated as ‘destroy’ can mean - if you work hard to parse language - “stop.” How benign! We should all feel so much better! It was all a misunderstanding. Wally’s right. No one died in WW2, it’s all a giant fabrication. “No name calling, level playing field” and all the rest.

    “Auschwitz was an enormous industrial center, where from coal and water synthetic oil, rubber and high octane fuel was produced. The water table, many rivers, is close to the surface, this simply makes deep huge holes impossible.”

    Yes, indeed. Were workers voluntary Jilles? Or slaves? How much were they paid? What was their daily caloric intake? Worked to death? Murdered when they weren’t able to work? How many survived? No mention of the numerous other sites like Mittelbau-Dora. Why, Jilles? Did they have high water tables too?

    I sense you’ll get along well with Wally. Never mind Rotterdam 14 May '40. No doubt that was also a misunderstanding. Squeeze those bitter grapes.
  39. @Anon
    But Hitler didn't use the term "ausrotten" in the January 1939 speech. Here's the line:

    Wenn es dem internationalen Finanzjudentum in und außerhalb Europas gelingen sollte, die Völker noch einmal in einen Weltkrieg zu stürzen, dann wird das Ergebnis nicht die Bolschewisierung der Erde und damit der Sieg des Judentums sein, sondern die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa.
     
    Vernichten is defined by Duden thus: "völlig zerstören, gänzlich zunichtemachen," i.e., "fully destroy, completely negate."

    Gern geschehen.

    Where did you find the text ?
    But also vernichten is not simple, for example vernichten an army does not mean killing any soldier, but stop the army being effective.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Quite correct, see my full reply to Anon.

    The terms 'ausrotten' and 'vernichtung' are both used repeatedly in Hitler's Mein Kampf with reference to groups of people (armies, German-Austrians) where they do not refer to extermination. They refer to such things as military defeat and slavization. He also used 'vernichtung' in reference to abolishing political parties. Hence, 17th century usage does not seem to be decisive or particularly relevant.

    see:
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10278&p=77453&hilit=Vernichtung+der+rasse#p77453

    Thanks.
    , @Anon
    The text is easily found. Google: Hitler Rede 30 Januar 1939

    Deutsch ist deine Freund.
  40. @Agent76
    Jan. 24, 2009 *How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas* Moshav Tekuma, Israel

    Surveying the wreckage of a neighbor’s bungalow hit by a Palestinian rocket, retired Israeli official Avner Cohen traces the missile’s trajectory back to an “enormous, stupid mistake” made 30 years ago.

    https://www.transcend.org/tms/2014/07/how-israel-helped-to-spawn-hamas/

    Apr 19, 2017 Pro Palestinian rally during AIPAC convention 2017

    On March 26, 2017 Thousands gathered in a pro Palestinian rally which began in front of the White House in Washington DC, followed by a march the the Washington Convention Center to protest the AIPAC convention.

    https://youtu.be/M70qnhWJGpU

    How Sharon created Hezbollah
    Ferdinand Smit, ‘The battle for South Lebanon, The radicalisation of Lebanon’s Shi’ites, 1982-1985’, Amsterdam, 2000

    Read More
  41. @nebulafox
    Especially considering that the West Bank Jews are probably not going to be "Western" in the sense that Western governments think of the term, but are either going to be haredi, Russian, or descendants of those expelled from the Arab World in 1967. None of these Likud supporting groups see the conflict, or geopolitics in general, in the same way as the Ashkenazim who dominate the Labour Party do. The amount of Israelis who actually feel some sort of emotional tie to Europe has never been smaller, demographically speaking.

    "They turned it down, because they know time is on their side."

    In the sense of long term demographics decades down the line, yes. In the sense of the actual military conflict, no. Israel has never been a more thoroughly dominant position, and the Palestinians won't accept the fact that a Collins style deal-without Jerusalem-is probably the best thing they can realistically get, Western left-wing insistence to the contrary aside.

    Israel is not bothering with Brussels, partially as a result of the demographic shifts I mentioned, so they don't really care about what they think. In the past couple of decades, Israel has done a very good job at improving relations with governments that either privately don't care what they do with the Palestinians as long as order is reasonably maintained (China, much of East Asia in general), or are genuinely sympathetic to Israel's situation and modern worldview, especially if the ideological Islam element becomes pronounced (India, Russia). They might not be willing to fight for Israel's conquests in the direct sense, but they most certainly will sympathize with a fight for the concept of national sovereignty, and specifically for the right of a nation to handle "security issues" without interference from Western liberal busybodies.

    Israel has also done a pretty good job at quietly co-opting the Saudis-formerly a major funder of Palestinian aspirations-in recent years. One of the things Tehran notices more than anything is how cozy the Sauds have become with the Zionist entity.

    Then why were Palme and Anna Lyndh murdered ?

    Read More
  42. Excellent article once again Phil, thanks!

    Amazing how the Palestinian flag in the picture is deliberately obscured! Some little sh..t in the WH and at AP (or whatever crap freelancer) worked together to censore it. They must have a little protocol from the State (War) Department to do that, to turn it that way and to take the photograph so it cannot be seen properly. Doesn’t that just say everything we need to know about it?

    Read More
  43. @nebulafox
    Especially considering that the West Bank Jews are probably not going to be "Western" in the sense that Western governments think of the term, but are either going to be haredi, Russian, or descendants of those expelled from the Arab World in 1967. None of these Likud supporting groups see the conflict, or geopolitics in general, in the same way as the Ashkenazim who dominate the Labour Party do. The amount of Israelis who actually feel some sort of emotional tie to Europe has never been smaller, demographically speaking.

    "They turned it down, because they know time is on their side."

    In the sense of long term demographics decades down the line, yes. In the sense of the actual military conflict, no. Israel has never been a more thoroughly dominant position, and the Palestinians won't accept the fact that a Collins style deal-without Jerusalem-is probably the best thing they can realistically get, Western left-wing insistence to the contrary aside.

    Israel is not bothering with Brussels, partially as a result of the demographic shifts I mentioned, so they don't really care about what they think. In the past couple of decades, Israel has done a very good job at improving relations with governments that either privately don't care what they do with the Palestinians as long as order is reasonably maintained (China, much of East Asia in general), or are genuinely sympathetic to Israel's situation and modern worldview, especially if the ideological Islam element becomes pronounced (India, Russia). They might not be willing to fight for Israel's conquests in the direct sense, but they most certainly will sympathize with a fight for the concept of national sovereignty, and specifically for the right of a nation to handle "security issues" without interference from Western liberal busybodies.

    Israel has also done a pretty good job at quietly co-opting the Saudis-formerly a major funder of Palestinian aspirations-in recent years. One of the things Tehran notices more than anything is how cozy the Sauds have become with the Zionist entity.

    Israel cooperates with any nation where they see an advantage.
    During the Iran Iraq war Israel trained Iranian fighter pilots in N Germany.
    Local politician Barschel wanted to stop this, he was suicided in a Geneva hotel.
    Mölleman’s parachute did not open, suicide was the verdict.

    Read More
    • Replies: @truthtellerAryan
    Just as Rothschild said on European wars, "We finance both sides of the warring parties, we win either way..." They destroy themselves, the goyim has as much value as a cockroach! Then they win again by financing the reconstruction... Rothschild, Goldman-Sachs, Hollywood, porn industry, brothels, and billions of compensation from everyone who "VICTIMIZED" the chosen ones..........
  44. @jilles dykstra
    Bill Gates is not a jew ?
    I wonder what your definition of a jew is, I prefer the definition of the atheistic jews about themselves 'people who feel associated to the jewish culture'.
    In this definition there are more than four times as much jews as normally assumed.

    Sarkozy, officially catholic, is seen as one of them, antisemitic words were painted in France when he was president, Israeli newspapers were jubilant 'he was from an old Greek jewish dynasty'.
    A Spanish bishop long ago on his deathbed stated 'I've always been a jew'.

    I corresponded with a christian historian, whose great grandfather in 1870 converted from judaism to christianity.
    In my view this historian still was a jew, he twisted history to the advantage of jewry.
    His statement about the Palestinians was 'both jews and Palestinians suffered a lot'.
    What is true, but far more true is that it was just jews that made, and still make, Palestinians suffer.

    That here are fine people among jews is true, we here in the Netherlands have Hamburger and the psychologist Frijda, both members of 'Een Ander Joods Geluid', 'another statement from jews', the jewish anti Israel, or pro Palestinian organisation.

    Alas, for the majority of Dutch jews Hamburger is a traitor, as is Finkelstein in the USA, and Ilian Pappe, now living in GB, as far as I know.
    Both Finkelstein and Pappe were not allowed to speak in Germany, recently.

    So, you believe in the crypto Jew theory that lurking about the world to do evil are millions of people who have a bit of Jewish DNA.

    Check out the theory that American president Lyndon Johnson was a crypto Jew, as was his wife.

    Read More
  45. @Wizard of Oz
    I was well awate of that quote or misquote. You missed my point. If you want a war against Iraq you don't set up a NATO invasion of Afghanistan with no end point planned. By comparison ObL can be seen as having got exactly what he planned for in a very straightforward way consistent with his previous tactics.

    It is necessary to bear in mind that the Pearl Harbour version presupposes a strong Israeli and Israel lobby desire to get the US into a war which would Balkanise Iraq. Who in their right mind is going to choose destroying the Twin Towers and all the rest on 9/11 and its being blamed on Al Qaeda so a war can be contrived against one of Al Qaeda's secular enemies?

    Well, how many USA citizens protested against the Afghan and Iraq war at the time ?
    And was not sept 11 great for getting the Patriot Act accepted ?
    After Pearl Harbour all USA peace activists understood they had been beaten ‘he got us in through the back door’.
    So Lindbergh began assisting Ford in building bombers.
    Israel wanted more than balkanise Iraq, they wanted the destabilisation of the whole ME.
    And did it not succeed, up to Tunesia ?
    Why now the hysteria over contacts with Russia, is it not unimaginable that Assad remains in control of a stable Syria ?
    What is or was El Quaida but a USA propaganda invention ?
    Why do you think that Bin Laden was murdered ?
    The same reason that the man in Spandau who was not Hess was killed, had they spoken out, world history would have been changed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I'm not sure you have understood my point when I read "how many citizens protested against the Afghan and Iraq war [sic]...." But it is perhaps the unexplored idea that some people set up 9/11 so they could get the Patriot Act enacted that really boggles the mind.

    For the rest, just too many conspiracies for me, including ones I had never heard of.

  46. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anon
    But Hitler didn't use the term "ausrotten" in the January 1939 speech. Here's the line:

    Wenn es dem internationalen Finanzjudentum in und außerhalb Europas gelingen sollte, die Völker noch einmal in einen Weltkrieg zu stürzen, dann wird das Ergebnis nicht die Bolschewisierung der Erde und damit der Sieg des Judentums sein, sondern die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa.
     
    Vernichten is defined by Duden thus: "völlig zerstören, gänzlich zunichtemachen," i.e., "fully destroy, completely negate."

    Gern geschehen.

    ” ” “Vernichten is defined by Duden thus: “völlig zerstören, gänzlich zunichtemachen,” i.e., “fully destroy, completely negate.”

    Gern geschehen. ” ” ”

    riiiight.

    And “two states living side by side in peace” means Palestinians achieve autonomy, security, and sovereignty over their land, lives, politics, finances and defense.

    How do you say “never gonna happen” in Hebrew?

    “By way of deception shall you expand zionism to the limits of mankind’s patience”

    Read More
  47. @Anon
    But Hitler didn't use the term "ausrotten" in the January 1939 speech. Here's the line:

    Wenn es dem internationalen Finanzjudentum in und außerhalb Europas gelingen sollte, die Völker noch einmal in einen Weltkrieg zu stürzen, dann wird das Ergebnis nicht die Bolschewisierung der Erde und damit der Sieg des Judentums sein, sondern die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa.
     
    Vernichten is defined by Duden thus: "völlig zerstören, gänzlich zunichtemachen," i.e., "fully destroy, completely negate."

    Gern geschehen.

    Given that Jews were in fact not ‘destroyed’ the use of the word could not mean ‘exterminate’

    That speech and the alleged meaning is debunked here:

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10278&p=77453&hilit=Vernichtung+der+rasse#p77453

    Also Hitler spoke of solving the Jewish problem AFTER the war, the Schlegelberger Document, which read:

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Schlegelberger/Schlegelberger42.JPG

    “Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers’ opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party.”

    In support of the Schlegelberger Document see the Luther Memorandum:

    http://www.codoh.com/library/document/154/

    Hitler, the ‘Final Solution,’ and the Luther Memorandum
    A Response to Evans and Longerich
    excerpt:

    “On the occasion of a reception by the Reich Foreign Minister on 26 November 1941 the Bulgarian Foreign Minister Popoff touched on the problem of according like treatment to the Jews of European nationalities and pointed out the difficulties that the Bulgarians had in the application of their Jewish laws to Jews of foreign nationality.”

    “The Reich Foreign Minister answered that he thought this question brought by Mr. Popoff not uninteresting. Even now he could say one thing to him, that at the end of the war all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was the unalterable decision of the Fuehrer and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Wally writes, "Given that Jews were in fact not ‘destroyed’ the use of the word could not mean ‘exterminate’."

    That, for you kids at home, is a textbook example of begging the question.

    Regarding the Schlegelberger document, it's worthless as proof of anything considering that it's undated.

    Regarding the Luther memo, it's specific to the topic of Jews in unoccupied countries, thus the mention of Popoff, a Bulgarian.
    , @jilles dykstra
    The same as in
    Hans Jansen, ‘Der Madagaskar Plan, Die beabsichtigte Deportation der europäischen Juden nach Madagaskar’, München 1997
    After 1945 for some time the GB government supported the Madagaskar plan.
    , @Didi
    One cannot discuss Hitler and the Jews without noticing that Hitler's definition of who was and who was not a Jew as codified in the Nuernberg laws differs from the Judaic definition. Hitler classified Jews strictly according to the number of Jewish grandparents. If you had four or three you were in great danger of arrest and shipment to an extermination camp. If you had two and were a male you had to serve in his armed forces until the Wehrmacht was stalled before Moscow in 1941 when all such males were placed in the reserves. Even then Hitler made exceptions for "Halbjuden" which he needed such as General Milch. Several highly placed "Halbjuden" in his armed forces were "Aryanized" or declared to be "Deutschbluetig". A rough estimate would be that one-half of these "Halbjuden" might be considered Jews according to halakha law.
  48. @jilles dykstra
    Where did you find the text ?
    But also vernichten is not simple, for example vernichten an army does not mean killing any soldier, but stop the army being effective.

    Quite correct, see my full reply to Anon.

    The terms ‘ausrotten’ and ‘vernichtung’ are both used repeatedly in Hitler’s Mein Kampf with reference to groups of people (armies, German-Austrians) where they do not refer to extermination. They refer to such things as military defeat and slavization. He also used ‘vernichtung’ in reference to abolishing political parties. Hence, 17th century usage does not seem to be decisive or particularly relevant.

    see:

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10278&p=77453&hilit=Vernichtung+der+rasse#p77453

    Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    But the usage cited is from 30 January 1939.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Did not find such texts in my copy, an english translation one can buy in the USA.
    Boring book, 600 pages.
  49. Philip Giraldi wrote:

    Israeli textbooks demonize Arabs

    Really? The most easily found reference

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textbooks_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

    indicates that there is no such symmetry. And that’s from a report whose data were specially cooked to exclude the more flagrant cases of Jews and Israelis being demonized:

    http://israelbehindthenews.com/comments-victims-narratives/12078/

    Of course MEMRI.org has tons of videos for children as well.

    the non-violent Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement (BDS), a first amendment constitutional right which the U.S. congress and many state legislatures have been actively seeking to make illegal.

    17 state legislatures passed symbolic condemnations, or laws to prevent some/all funds belonging to those states from being spent on entities that support BDS. Nothing about First Amendment rights or making support for BDS illegal. Is there some other legislation you had in mind? Wikipedia does not list any other legislation in the United States.

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/anti-bds-legislation

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#United_States

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWKPRC-_oSg

    "images used in Israeli textbooks marginalize Palestinians"

    "How come Israeli boys and girls were educated on enlightened values end up being such horrible monsters in the Israeli army? The answer is what they learn from their textbooks. . . .
    So I thought it interesting to learn how Palestinians are represented in Israeli textbooks . . ."

    "You cannot find one image of a human being who is Palestinians . . . Palestinians are represented only as problems, as terrorists, . . . as primitive farmers . . . as cartoons . . ."


    -Nurit Peled

  50. @Agent76
    Jan. 24, 2009 *How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas* Moshav Tekuma, Israel

    Surveying the wreckage of a neighbor’s bungalow hit by a Palestinian rocket, retired Israeli official Avner Cohen traces the missile’s trajectory back to an “enormous, stupid mistake” made 30 years ago.

    https://www.transcend.org/tms/2014/07/how-israel-helped-to-spawn-hamas/

    Apr 19, 2017 Pro Palestinian rally during AIPAC convention 2017

    On March 26, 2017 Thousands gathered in a pro Palestinian rally which began in front of the White House in Washington DC, followed by a march the the Washington Convention Center to protest the AIPAC convention.

    https://youtu.be/M70qnhWJGpU

    A righteous Jew.

    Read More
  51. Soon we can look back on the smoldering ruins, shake our heads sadly, and say:
    “Poor Israelis. They never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity!”
    Bwahahahahahahaha!

    Read More
  52. If the most powerful country and all its wealthy allies are in Zionist control, you think a down on their luck, stone throwing Palestinians have a remote chance of a homeland? They’ll be squeezed out of that land by this mid-century. The Zionists love free stuff, and this land grabbing is only done slowly to calm opposition from sponsoring countries (The Western Alliance). There will be no Palestinian state. Not in our life time. All the negotiation is done to show how “unreasonable Arabs are” and for the MSM to have “breaking news”, and someone to demonize as “terrorist”, so the dogs don’t get off their guard. To serve the master, we need to be in a constant state of threat.

    Read More
  53. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Wally
    Given that Jews were in fact not 'destroyed' the use of the word could not mean 'exterminate'

    That speech and the alleged meaning is debunked here:
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10278&p=77453&hilit=Vernichtung+der+rasse#p77453

    Also Hitler spoke of solving the Jewish problem AFTER the war, the Schlegelberger Document, which read:

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Schlegelberger/Schlegelberger42.JPG

    "Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party."
     
    In support of the Schlegelberger Document see the Luther Memorandum:
    http://www.codoh.com/library/document/154/
    Hitler, the 'Final Solution,' and the Luther Memorandum
    A Response to Evans and Longerich
    excerpt:

    "On the occasion of a reception by the Reich Foreign Minister on 26 November 1941 the Bulgarian Foreign Minister Popoff touched on the problem of according like treatment to the Jews of European nationalities and pointed out the difficulties that the Bulgarians had in the application of their Jewish laws to Jews of foreign nationality."

    "The Reich Foreign Minister answered that he thought this question brought by Mr. Popoff not uninteresting. Even now he could say one thing to him, that at the end of the war all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was the unalterable decision of the Fuehrer and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much."
     

    Wally writes, “Given that Jews were in fact not ‘destroyed’ the use of the word could not mean ‘exterminate’.”

    That, for you kids at home, is a textbook example of begging the question.

    Regarding the Schlegelberger document, it’s worthless as proof of anything considering that it’s undated.

    Regarding the Luther memo, it’s specific to the topic of Jews in unoccupied countries, thus the mention of Popoff, a Bulgarian.

    Read More
  54. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @jilles dykstra
    Where did you find the text ?
    But also vernichten is not simple, for example vernichten an army does not mean killing any soldier, but stop the army being effective.

    The text is easily found. Google: Hitler Rede 30 Januar 1939

    Deutsch ist deine Freund.

    Read More
  55. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Wally
    Quite correct, see my full reply to Anon.

    The terms 'ausrotten' and 'vernichtung' are both used repeatedly in Hitler's Mein Kampf with reference to groups of people (armies, German-Austrians) where they do not refer to extermination. They refer to such things as military defeat and slavization. He also used 'vernichtung' in reference to abolishing political parties. Hence, 17th century usage does not seem to be decisive or particularly relevant.

    see:
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10278&p=77453&hilit=Vernichtung+der+rasse#p77453

    Thanks.

    But the usage cited is from 30 January 1939.

    Read More
  56. @academic gossip
    Philip Giraldi wrote:

    Israeli textbooks demonize Arabs
     
    Really? The most easily found reference

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textbooks_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

    indicates that there is no such symmetry. And that's from a report whose data were specially cooked to exclude the more flagrant cases of Jews and Israelis being demonized:

    http://israelbehindthenews.com/comments-victims-narratives/12078/

    Of course MEMRI.org has tons of videos for children as well.


    the non-violent Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement (BDS), a first amendment constitutional right which the U.S. congress and many state legislatures have been actively seeking to make illegal.
     
    17 state legislatures passed symbolic condemnations, or laws to prevent some/all funds belonging to those states from being spent on entities that support BDS. Nothing about First Amendment rights or making support for BDS illegal. Is there some other legislation you had in mind? Wikipedia does not list any other legislation in the United States.

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/anti-bds-legislation
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#United_States

    “images used in Israeli textbooks marginalize Palestinians”

    “How come Israeli boys and girls were educated on enlightened values end up being such horrible monsters in the Israeli army? The answer is what they learn from their textbooks. . . .
    So I thought it interesting to learn how Palestinians are represented in Israeli textbooks . . .”

    “You cannot find one image of a human being who is Palestinians . . . Palestinians are represented only as problems, as terrorists, . . . as primitive farmers . . . as cartoons . . .”

    -Nurit Peled

    Read More
    • Replies: @academic gossip
    Where in the video is there evidence of "demonization" of Arabs? Do the textbooks say that Arab civilians (vs states or combatants) are enemies, or contain false negative information about them, racist descriptions of their character, or some adverse judgement of their value as human beings?

    I don't think the books are required to present National Geographic photo spreads and shining examples of Palestinian humanity (though the Wikipedia page indicates that this does occur here and there) or to be written from the point of view of the Peace Now party or of Hamas, in order to qualify as non-demonizing. Mrs Peled's complaint in the video seems to amount to the lack of "presenting the other side's point of view" in a conflict. That might be a bad thing, or not. But it is not demonization and does not approach the level of partisanship in Arab textbooks.

    Just for laughs, here's some stuff from Palestinian children's TV.

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hamas+bunny+assud

  57. @jilles dykstra
    Ausrotten had more than one significance.
    Since Hitler in 1939 used the word, to warn jews, the significance in WWII discussions became genocide.
    Auschwitz was an enormous industrial center, where from coal and water synthetic oil, rubber and high octane fuel was produced.
    The water table, many rivers, is close to the surface, this simply makes deep huge holes impossible.

    Jilles, beware. Wally operates a very bitter vineyard.

    Go to codoh.com (Wally’s favorite web site). Beware. Normal sites don’t preface an invitation with a “No name calling, level playing field debate here.” But, of course, decide for yourself.

    “Since Hitler in 1939 used the word [ausrotten], to warn jews, the significance in WWII discussions became genocide.”

    “Warn jews”? How about 1 April ‘33 (two months into power) when Hitler called the first boycott of Jewish business, lawyers and doctors? Widespread beatings by SA thugs? Was that a “warning”? The 7 April ‘33 Civil Service Law – the first official curtailment of equal rights for German Jews. Was that a “warning”? Were the Nüremberg laws in ‘35 depriving German Jews from citizenship, intermarriage rights and the means to earn a living also a “warning”? Was Kristallnacht 9-10 Nov ‘38 a “warning”?

    Simple question Jilles. How many “warnings” (‘warnungen’) does it take to equal extermination (‘ausrotten’)?

    “But also vernichten is not simple, for example vernichten an army does not mean killing any soldier, but stop the army being effective.”

    Well, there you have it. Nothing’s simple. Something routinely translated as ‘destroy’ can mean – if you work hard to parse language – “stop.” How benign! We should all feel so much better! It was all a misunderstanding. Wally’s right. No one died in WW2, it’s all a giant fabrication. “No name calling, level playing field” and all the rest.

    “Auschwitz was an enormous industrial center, where from coal and water synthetic oil, rubber and high octane fuel was produced. The water table, many rivers, is close to the surface, this simply makes deep huge holes impossible.”

    Yes, indeed. Were workers voluntary Jilles? Or slaves? How much were they paid? What was their daily caloric intake? Worked to death? Murdered when they weren’t able to work? How many survived? No mention of the numerous other sites like Mittelbau-Dora. Why, Jilles? Did they have high water tables too?

    I sense you’ll get along well with Wally. Never mind Rotterdam 14 May ’40. No doubt that was also a misunderstanding. Squeeze those bitter grapes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    when Hitler called the first boycott of Jewish business, lawyers and doctors?
     
    How long did it last, Inci?
    One day?


    Here's a trick question:
    Which came first, the March 24, 1933 publication of "International Jewry's" determination to strangle Germany economically -- to "deprive it of its export business, which is essential to its survival" [i.e. an existential threat] , or the April 1, 1933, one-day German boycott of Jewish businesses?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    See #75, my response to StoC...
    , @jilles dykstra
    A very interesting book on jewish influence in Germany is
    Ismar Schorsch, 'Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870 - 1914', New York 1972
    Since is was written by a jew, it is difficult to label it as antisemitic.
    Especially the statistics are interesting, jews being some three percent of the German population, in some areas, especially big cities, they occupied 50% of professions as lawyers, judges, professors, and so on.
    In combination with what another jew writes, Katz, one can imagine that non jewish Germans felt overruled.
    ‘From prejudice to destruction’, Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA

    In Lithuania jews controlled economic life almost completely.
    Dan Jacobson, ‘Heschel’s Rijk, Familiekroniek’, Amsterdam, 1998
    Before the Germans occupied Lithania Lithuanians exterminated most of their jews.

    As for caloric intake in concentration camps, I can recommend
    Paul Rassinier, ´Was ist Wahrheit ?, Die Juden und das Dritte Reich´, Leoni am Starnberger See, 7th printing, 1981 (Le véritable procès Eichmann ou les vainqueurs incorrigibles, 1963; The Real Eichmann Trial or the Incorrigible Victors. ISBN: 0911038485, 1983)
    and
    J.G. Burg, Schuld und Schicksal, Europas Juden zwischen Henkern und Heuchlern, München, 1962
    Burg, nom de plume for Ginsberg, was a jew.

    Both he and Rassinier, French resistance fighter, who was in Buchenwald and Dora, Burg was inn the big jewish camp E of Brest Litovsk, E of the river Bug, describe the same, the camps had self rule.
    The camp leadership, some 25% of those who were there, ate quite well, according to Rassinier up to 3500 kcal a day, the 75% lived on some 1100 a day, consequently died afer six months.

    Who was part of the camp leadership had a comparatively easy life, as you can find in
    Eugen Kogon, ‘Der SS-Staat, Das System der deutschen Konzentrationslager’, 1974, München
    From 1938, he, as an Austrian, to 1945 he was in a concentration camp.


    The caloric intake on average in the camps was higher than what the allies allowed the Germans after 1945, the estimate is that until 1950 about a milion Germans died.
    How the food situation was in occupied Germany one can find in many books, such as
    Konstanze von Schulthess, ´Nina Schenk Gräfin von Stauffenberg, Ein Porträt’, München 2009

    The Kristallnacht seems to have been deliberately provoked, since in 1938 relations between German jews and the Hitler regime had become more or less stabilised.
    You may be surprised to learn that a rabbi more or less wrote the Neurenberg laws, they feared assimilation.
    René d’Argile, etc., Das Geheimnis um die Ursachen des Zweiten Weltkrieges, Wiesbaden 1958 ( Les Originals Secrêtes de la Guerre 1939 – 1945, Paris 1958).
  58. @Wizard of Oz
    I was well awate of that quote or misquote. You missed my point. If you want a war against Iraq you don't set up a NATO invasion of Afghanistan with no end point planned. By comparison ObL can be seen as having got exactly what he planned for in a very straightforward way consistent with his previous tactics.

    It is necessary to bear in mind that the Pearl Harbour version presupposes a strong Israeli and Israel lobby desire to get the US into a war which would Balkanise Iraq. Who in their right mind is going to choose destroying the Twin Towers and all the rest on 9/11 and its being blamed on Al Qaeda so a war can be contrived against one of Al Qaeda's secular enemies?

    Hey Wiz,

    Scratch 9/11 and it bleeds Jew.

    You can post a million lines that bamboozle and misdirect people, but Jews will still be central to 9/11. From the reason we were attacked to the final investigation – it bleeds Jew.

    I wonder what Trump really thinks about 9/11?

    If Netanyahu gives Trump to bad a time – maybe Trump will turn on him and start a real 9/11 investigation run by real Americans.

    Peace — Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @truthtellerAryan
    Trump, during his campaign to demonize Muslims, called the cheering Israelis from across Manhattan as cheering Muslims. He wouldn't dare opening up another 9/11 investigation. Jared and Ivanka will make sure of that. But Trump knows well who did the 9/11. Sad, power trumps truth......
  59. @Incitatus
    Jilles, beware. Wally operates a very bitter vineyard.

    Go to codoh.com (Wally’s favorite web site). Beware. Normal sites don’t preface an invitation with a “No name calling, level playing field debate here.” But, of course, decide for yourself.

    “Since Hitler in 1939 used the word [ausrotten], to warn jews, the significance in WWII discussions became genocide.”

    “Warn jews”? How about 1 April ‘33 (two months into power) when Hitler called the first boycott of Jewish business, lawyers and doctors? Widespread beatings by SA thugs? Was that a “warning”? The 7 April ‘33 Civil Service Law - the first official curtailment of equal rights for German Jews. Was that a "warning"? Were the Nüremberg laws in ‘35 depriving German Jews from citizenship, intermarriage rights and the means to earn a living also a "warning"? Was Kristallnacht 9-10 Nov ‘38 a "warning"?

    Simple question Jilles. How many "warnings" (‘warnungen’) does it take to equal extermination (‘ausrotten’)?

    “But also vernichten is not simple, for example vernichten an army does not mean killing any soldier, but stop the army being effective.”

    Well, there you have it. Nothing's simple. Something routinely translated as ‘destroy’ can mean - if you work hard to parse language - “stop.” How benign! We should all feel so much better! It was all a misunderstanding. Wally’s right. No one died in WW2, it’s all a giant fabrication. “No name calling, level playing field” and all the rest.

    “Auschwitz was an enormous industrial center, where from coal and water synthetic oil, rubber and high octane fuel was produced. The water table, many rivers, is close to the surface, this simply makes deep huge holes impossible.”

    Yes, indeed. Were workers voluntary Jilles? Or slaves? How much were they paid? What was their daily caloric intake? Worked to death? Murdered when they weren’t able to work? How many survived? No mention of the numerous other sites like Mittelbau-Dora. Why, Jilles? Did they have high water tables too?

    I sense you’ll get along well with Wally. Never mind Rotterdam 14 May '40. No doubt that was also a misunderstanding. Squeeze those bitter grapes.

    when Hitler called the first boycott of Jewish business, lawyers and doctors?

    How long did it last, Inci?
    One day?

    Here’s a trick question:
    Which came first, the March 24, 1933 publication of “International Jewry’s” determination to strangle Germany economically — to “deprive it of its export business, which is essential to its survival” [i.e. an existential threat] , or the April 1, 1933, one-day German boycott of Jewish businesses?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    And here are common sense questions. When someone makes it appear that they intend bad things to happen do you wait to organise your counterpressure till after the bad things are happening? What were the threats, actions and/or expressions of Nazi hostility to Jews that preceded any boycott and did tbey not occur before 24th March 1933?
    , @jilles dykstra
    The jewish declaration of war on Germany of 1933 was not just economic, it ended with the demand for regime change.
    It was realised, one might say.
    , @Incitatus
    “Here’s a trick question:
    Which came first, the March 24, 1933 publication of “International Jewry’s” determination to strangle Germany economically — to “deprive it of its export business, which is essential to its survival” [i.e. an existential threat] , or the April 1, 1933, one-day German boycott of Jewish businesses?”


    Two issues. The ‘Who started it’ defense and, second, the fiction that a boycott could inhibit rearmament.

    Imagine yourself a bystander in Potempa (Upper Silesia) the evening of 9 Aug ‘32. Nine drunk men brake into miner Konrad Pietrzuch’s apartment on the night of 9 Aug ‘32, drag him out of bed, and kick him to death in front of his mother and brother. They’re apprehended and put on trial in Beuthen for their notorious crime. The court publishes a verdict 22 Aug ‘32: Five men are sentenced to death, one receives two years in prison, and three are acquited.

    All nine are uniformed SA. Dolf’s reaction? He sends the following telegram: “I feel connected to you in boundless loyalty. From this moment on, your freedom is a matter of honour for us, and the fight against a government, under which this judgement was possible, is our duty.”

    Is kicking a man (outnumbered 9 to 1) to death in front of his family members a heartwarming Teutonic ritual? Hitler’s intentions to make his own law were never clearer. Why should this concern us in the question of who started the grudge-match between Nazis and German Jews?

    On 24 Aug ‘32 Göbbels publishes the headline “The Jews Are to Blame” and goes on to say “Never forget it comrades! Repeat it out loud a hundred times a day until the words follow you into your deepest dreams: The Jews are to blame! And they will not evade the criminal tribunal that they deserve.”

    I don’t know. Sounds like a declaration of war to me. Would you patronize someone who blamed Italian-Americans for the Mafia and all other worldly ills S2C?

    Which came first : 24 Aug ‘32 or 24 Mar ‘33?

    But wait! How about numerous Dolf quotes from the pre-Putsch years or ‘Mein Kampf’ (vol I: ‘25, vol 2: ‘26)? Tell us, if you were a Jew how would you feel reading this:

    “And so I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord...Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate? On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light.”
    -Adolf Hitler ‘Mein Kampf’ Vol 1 Chapter 2 1925

    How did Dolf gain the trust of the Wilhemine crowd (ultimately being put illegally in power by them in ‘33):

    “But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists...by placing responsibility for the loss of the World War on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.”
    -Adolf Hitler ‘Mein Kampf’ Vol 1 Chapter 10 1925

    Thus was nitwit/coconspirator Ludendorff relieved of any responsibility (with blockheads von Moltke, von Falkenhaynn, von Hindenburg, Willie II, Bethmann-Hollweg, Conrad von Hötzendorf, etc ) for eagerly launching WW1 - a war they knew they’d lost when Helmuth resigned Sep ‘14. Nonetheless they kept feeding their own men into the abattoir (with many, many others). Why? Dolf (Paul, Eric, Helmuth, Willie and most Germans) wanted a rematch! After all, none of them personally suffered (except for bruised egos. It was the making of stateless Austrian Dolf. The General Staff? Swanning around in absurd feathered helmets with ugly cast eagles and tunics festooned with pounds of medals would never command the respect given in 1871. Only another war would do!

    Solution? The Jews were all to blame! What’s not to like (as long as you’re not Jewish)?

    Which came first S2C: ‘Mein Kampf’ 1925 or 24 Mar ‘33?

    I’ll spare you many, many other quotes (some much worse). Anyone (Jew or Gentile) in Germany would have been aware of them. Dolf wasn’t shy, after all. He was a ‘sleepwalker guided by providence’ with a big mouth to the day he poisoned his wife and blew his brains out in a grand ‘Teutonic’ gesture (leaving all who believed in him to take the blame). What a guy!

    Second Issue: “International Jewry’s” determination to strangle Germany economically — to “deprive it of its export business, which is essential to its survival”

    Please! You know better. Or should.

    Hitler replaced Reichsbank President Hans Luther with Hjalmar Schacht in Mar ‘33. Why? Dolf thought “the future of Germany depends solely and alone on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht.” Think “survival.” What did Hjalmar do? He formed dummy Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschafgt (Mefo - Metallurgic Research Society) with the purpose of financing four large weapons concerns (Gutehoffnungschütte, Krupp, Rheinstahl, and Seimens) for that purpose. Mefo issued bills of exchange, “guaranteed by the state and discounted by the Reichsbank” to the weapons firms. The lag between issuance and payments (autumn ‘33- Apr ’34) was key: it was a ponzi scheme. Nothing to do with any “export business...essential to its [Germany’s] survival.” In fact, it was another reason to go to war early (before the curtain could fall on paying debts).

    You'll have do better S2C!
  60. @Art
    Hey Wiz,

    Scratch 9/11 and it bleeds Jew.

    You can post a million lines that bamboozle and misdirect people, but Jews will still be central to 9/11. From the reason we were attacked to the final investigation – it bleeds Jew.

    I wonder what Trump really thinks about 9/11?

    If Netanyahu gives Trump to bad a time – maybe Trump will turn on him and start a real 9/11 investigation run by real Americans.

    Peace --- Art

    Trump, during his campaign to demonize Muslims, called the cheering Israelis from across Manhattan as cheering Muslims. He wouldn’t dare opening up another 9/11 investigation. Jared and Ivanka will make sure of that. But Trump knows well who did the 9/11. Sad, power trumps truth……

    Read More
  61. @SolontoCroesus

    when Hitler called the first boycott of Jewish business, lawyers and doctors?
     
    How long did it last, Inci?
    One day?


    Here's a trick question:
    Which came first, the March 24, 1933 publication of "International Jewry's" determination to strangle Germany economically -- to "deprive it of its export business, which is essential to its survival" [i.e. an existential threat] , or the April 1, 1933, one-day German boycott of Jewish businesses?

    And here are common sense questions. When someone makes it appear that they intend bad things to happen do you wait to organise your counterpressure till after the bad things are happening? What were the threats, actions and/or expressions of Nazi hostility to Jews that preceded any boycott and did tbey not occur before 24th March 1933?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    When someone makes it appear that they intend bad things to happen do you wait to organise your counterpressure till after the bad things are happening?

    What were the threats, actions and/or expressions of Nazi hostility to Jews that preceded any boycott and did tbey not occur before 24th March 1933?
     
    You are making the argument that it was appropriate to "organize counter pressure before 'bad things happen;' the burden is on you to answer the questions you posed:

    Based on the evidence, What was the situation in Germany in the Weimar era and at the time Hitler took power?

    Because I'm such a nice guy, I'll even give you some (non-wikipedia) sources to explore:

    1. Liaquat Ahamed, "Lords of Finance: The Bankers who Broke the World" https://www.amazon.com/Lords-Finance-Bankers-Broke-World/dp/0143116800
    p 181 for a description of life in Germany in the mid-1920s

    2. Richard Breitman and Allan Lichtman, "FDR and the Jews,"
    https://www.amazon.com/FDR-Jews-Richard-Breitman/dp/0674050266/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1494383124&sr=1-1&keywords=fdr+and+the+jews
    see p. 1: "Hitler and the Nazis quelled physical violence against Jews . . . no Jew was sent to concentration camp until late in 1938."

    3. Jeffrey Herf, "The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda . . ."
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?192852-1/jewish-enemy-nazi-propaganda
    Herf's book pivots on the "warning" by Hitler that "IF Jews and other financiers continue their war against Germany, they will be _____ ."
    In a remarkable, if heated, exchange with an audience member, Herf concedes that the German people DID have grievances against the Jews, that entitled them to take actions such as the legal actions taken against Jews."
  62. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @truthtellerAryan
    Trump, during his campaign to demonize Muslims, called the cheering Israelis from across Manhattan as cheering Muslims. He wouldn't dare opening up another 9/11 investigation. Jared and Ivanka will make sure of that. But Trump knows well who did the 9/11. Sad, power trumps truth......

    You are totally delusional.

    Read More
    • Replies: @truthtellerAryan
    Delusional or mysterious? The cheering bunch were on the news for a day and then mysteriously disappeared, together with their half brothers, the Bin Ladens. All sent back in private jets. No follow-up.....
    See some footage including Fox (fix) News

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwie-OGr7OXTAhVK6mMKHXz0CzUQtwIILTAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dxv5s_VEmZd0&usg=AFQjCNGNOh47M9VC6dQb366ujZCHAGfonA
  63. @SolontoCroesus
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWKPRC-_oSg

    "images used in Israeli textbooks marginalize Palestinians"

    "How come Israeli boys and girls were educated on enlightened values end up being such horrible monsters in the Israeli army? The answer is what they learn from their textbooks. . . .
    So I thought it interesting to learn how Palestinians are represented in Israeli textbooks . . ."

    "You cannot find one image of a human being who is Palestinians . . . Palestinians are represented only as problems, as terrorists, . . . as primitive farmers . . . as cartoons . . ."


    -Nurit Peled

    Where in the video is there evidence of “demonization” of Arabs? Do the textbooks say that Arab civilians (vs states or combatants) are enemies, or contain false negative information about them, racist descriptions of their character, or some adverse judgement of their value as human beings?

    I don’t think the books are required to present National Geographic photo spreads and shining examples of Palestinian humanity (though the Wikipedia page indicates that this does occur here and there) or to be written from the point of view of the Peace Now party or of Hamas, in order to qualify as non-demonizing. Mrs Peled’s complaint in the video seems to amount to the lack of “presenting the other side’s point of view” in a conflict. That might be a bad thing, or not. But it is not demonization and does not approach the level of partisanship in Arab textbooks.

    Just for laughs, here’s some stuff from Palestinian children’s TV.

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hamas+bunny+assud

    Read More
  64. @jilles dykstra
    Well, how many USA citizens protested against the Afghan and Iraq war at the time ?
    And was not sept 11 great for getting the Patriot Act accepted ?
    After Pearl Harbour all USA peace activists understood they had been beaten 'he got us in through the back door'.
    So Lindbergh began assisting Ford in building bombers.
    Israel wanted more than balkanise Iraq, they wanted the destabilisation of the whole ME.
    And did it not succeed, up to Tunesia ?
    Why now the hysteria over contacts with Russia, is it not unimaginable that Assad remains in control of a stable Syria ?
    What is or was El Quaida but a USA propaganda invention ?
    Why do you think that Bin Laden was murdered ?
    The same reason that the man in Spandau who was not Hess was killed, had they spoken out, world history would have been changed.

    I’m not sure you have understood my point when I read “how many citizens protested against the Afghan and Iraq war [sic]….” But it is perhaps the unexplored idea that some people set up 9/11 so they could get the Patriot Act enacted that really boggles the mind.

    For the rest, just too many conspiracies for me, including ones I had never heard of.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    There seems to be a conspiracy these days to deny the existence of conspiracies.
    Yet many history books explain them, such as
    C. V. Wedgwood, ´William the Silent, William of Nassau, Prince of Orange, 1533 – 1584’, London, 1945
    This Dutchman, proudly described in each Dutch history book, was a master conspiror, it made him king of England.

    Conspiracies of course are seldom documenten, yet two are well known, because they were documented:
    - the 1939 Von Ribbentrop Molotov consoiracy to divide up Poland between them, to the great embarassment of the USSR a copy of the secret clause appeared during the Neurenberg show trials
    - the 1956 GB, France Israel conspiracy to attack Egypt; Ben Gurion wanted the conspiracy written down and signed, the French copy was never destroyed
    , @Anon
    That a thing boggles your mind is no guarantee that it is false, and the charge is difficult to dispute without the use of ad hominem (which temptation I have resisted), being itself an example of what might be called argumentum ad se ipsum.
  65. @jilles dykstra
    Anyone familiar with the history of zionism knows that zionists are of the opinion that they rightfully own Palestine, despite the fact that from say 300 CE to 1850 hardly any jews lived there.

    As long as jewish power in the USA remains as it is, and the USA is the one and only true world power, Palestinians will remain refugees.

    It is quite simple, all talk about peace etc. is hogwash.

    Anyone familiar with the history of zionism knows that zionists are of the opinion that they rightfully own Palestine, despite the fact that from say 300 CE to 1850 hardly any jews lived there.

    And there have been millions since 1945. In most European legal traditions, adverse possession gives you title to property you occupy openly for 20 years.

    Read More
    • LOL: Z-man
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    In most European legal traditions, adverse possession gives you title to property you occupy openly for 20 years.
     
    Similar tradition in US law.
    There are numerous ways to frustrate adverse possession, some of which the Palestinians have employed, i.e. taking legal action against the trespasser; posting No Trespassing signs or barriers against trespass.
    Actions such as offering to lease part of the trespassed-upon property to the trespasser vitiate the requirement that the trespass be "hostile." It could be construed that Palestinian offers such as Oslo, etc. comprise such an offer to the trespasser (Israel) of non-hostile use of the land, therefore Israeli trespass on Palestinian land fails to meet the requirement that possession be "hostile" therefore the requirements for adverse possession are not met.

    No soup for you.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Indeed, alas unless that possession is opposed.
    But you do not seem interested in the moral side of the question.
    , @Bill Jones
    And what the fuck do the yids have to do with European tradition?
    , @L.K
    Zionist operative detected!
  66. @MEexpert
    No they were not. Barak backed out at the last minute. Clinton was furious about it but could not do anything. Furthermore, a close reading of that deal showed that the Palestinians were again being stabbed in the back. A Jew is not capable of giving an honest deal to a gentile let alone a Palestinian.

    A Jew is not capable of giving an honest deal to a gentile let alone a Palestinian.

    Andy Bechtolsheim’s $100,000 investment in Google, given to Brin and Page after a short meeting before Google was even incorporated, is now worth about $5 billion. With Jews you win!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man
    That's just a Jew making money off gentile work and inovation. The money lenders..beware the money lenders.
    , @Clyde
    The most profitable for Andy Bechtolsheim was his initial $100,000 investment in Google, which, in March 2010, was worth approximately $1.7 billion. His net worth was estimated at $2 billion. ---from Wikipedia

    This makes his Google investment worth 5.61 billion today. This one of the best investments I have ever heard of. The best in fact.

  67. Truman’s approval of the Jewish state was the biggest disaster since WWII, LBJ’s failure to glass the nasty shitty State after the attack on the USS Liberty act of war was the second- an absolute act of treason for which he should have been hanged.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man

    Truman’s approval of the Jewish state was the biggest disaster since WWII
     
    Since WWII???? How about in the entire history of mankind, of the United States at least (grin), followed closely by the invasion of Eye-raq by Dumbo Dubbya in 2003.

    PS. Well I should include the American Civil War which really pitted brother against brother.

  68. @Bill Jones
    Truman's approval of the Jewish state was the biggest disaster since WWII, LBJ's failure to glass the nasty shitty State after the attack on the USS Liberty act of war was the second- an absolute act of treason for which he should have been hanged.

    Truman’s approval of the Jewish state was the biggest disaster since WWII

    Since WWII???? How about in the entire history of mankind, of the United States at least (grin), followed closely by the invasion of Eye-raq by Dumbo Dubbya in 2003.

    PS. Well I should include the American Civil War which really pitted brother against brother.

    Read More
  69. @Wizard of Oz
    "obvious crowd behind 9/11 and the wars which have subsequently followed" is expressed so as to be clearly theory, convincing to some, spun in your head rather than a matter of fact based on evidence. And as such theory it falls down on plausibility grounds when Oclham's Razor is applied.

    The simple case that the evidence supports is that Osama bin Laden wanted to do the maximum damage to America and therefore, with only asymmetric warfare available to him, wanted to draw America into a Vietnam War type quagmire by using his estanlished simultaneous suicide attacks strategy. Considering that this was actually achieved it is highly credible.

    By contrast the alternative is ridiculously complicated and uncertain. Why would anyone plot 9/11 so it eould be blamed on Al Qaeda and the Afghans protecting its leaders and lead to an attack on Iraq which had nothing to do with it? Even if such an outcome was fantasised no planning staff would treat it as more than a fanciful brainstorming idea.

    Troll alert!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    On this webzine such a use of the word "troll" is far from self-explanatory. Since, if directed at me you could have used the built in Troll alert function I infer that you were warning me that the Dutchman, to whom I gave a carefully elaborate response, was trolling?????
  70. @Lot

    A Jew is not capable of giving an honest deal to a gentile let alone a Palestinian.
     
    Andy Bechtolsheim's $100,000 investment in Google, given to Brin and Page after a short meeting before Google was even incorporated, is now worth about $5 billion. With Jews you win!

    That’s just a Jew making money off gentile work and inovation. The money lenders..beware the money lenders.

    Read More
  71. @Lot

    Anyone familiar with the history of zionism knows that zionists are of the opinion that they rightfully own Palestine, despite the fact that from say 300 CE to 1850 hardly any jews lived there.
     
    And there have been millions since 1945. In most European legal traditions, adverse possession gives you title to property you occupy openly for 20 years.

    In most European legal traditions, adverse possession gives you title to property you occupy openly for 20 years.

    Similar tradition in US law.
    There are numerous ways to frustrate adverse possession, some of which the Palestinians have employed, i.e. taking legal action against the trespasser; posting No Trespassing signs or barriers against trespass.
    Actions such as offering to lease part of the trespassed-upon property to the trespasser vitiate the requirement that the trespass be “hostile.” It could be construed that Palestinian offers such as Oslo, etc. comprise such an offer to the trespasser (Israel) of non-hostile use of the land, therefore Israeli trespass on Palestinian land fails to meet the requirement that possession be “hostile” therefore the requirements for adverse possession are not met.

    No soup for you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Some jurisdictions allow considerably shorter periods of adverse possession to extinguish competing titles but increasingly in recent decades exceptions have been made to prevent time beginning to run. Even before recent statutory relief time didn't start running against someone under a disability, including not being legally adult, and deliberate concealment of relevant matters by the person relying on passage of time, or someone through whom he claims, would vitiate his claim.

    I think the moral reasonimg that it is more unfair to displace someone in actual possession for many years than to allow someone who could have asserted his rights but for many years didn't bother could have some applicability. But what is fair if the original owner says "I didn't bother when it was just a case of a poor man keeping the weeds down on that unpromising land with his goats, but now that aerial geophysical zurveys have disclosed the mineral bonanza beneath I am really interested!"? Hire a smart lawyer, maybe Jewish, maybe Arab.
    , @Lot

    There are numerous ways to frustrate adverse possession, some of which the Palestinians have employed, i.e. taking legal action against the trespasser;
     
    Legal action must be taken within the relevant statute of limitations. Even giving them 20 years, that would be 1969 for most of Israel and 1987 for the West Bank. If a case was filed by then, it would be resolved by now 3+ decades later. No such binding judgment exists against Israel, QED.

    posting No Trespassing signs or barriers against trespass.
     
    LOL what? That is not the law anywhere in the USA. Unless you mean a situation where the adverse possessor is not actually in full control of the land because he can't stop the title holder from putting up signs and barriers. But that is not remotely the case with Israel.

    Actions such as offering to lease part of the trespassed-upon property to the trespasser vitiate the requirement that the trespass be “hostile.”
     
    "Offering" to lease land in the process of being adversely possessed means nothing. An actual lease both parties agree to is what would destroy the "hostile" or "adverse" possession. Think about it, saying "Hey bro do you want to pay me rent for that land I say I own you are own" and getting a "No this is my land I am not paying you" is just about the definition of hostile possession.
  72. @Wizard of Oz
    And here are common sense questions. When someone makes it appear that they intend bad things to happen do you wait to organise your counterpressure till after the bad things are happening? What were the threats, actions and/or expressions of Nazi hostility to Jews that preceded any boycott and did tbey not occur before 24th March 1933?

    When someone makes it appear that they intend bad things to happen do you wait to organise your counterpressure till after the bad things are happening?

    What were the threats, actions and/or expressions of Nazi hostility to Jews that preceded any boycott and did tbey not occur before 24th March 1933?

    You are making the argument that it was appropriate to “organize counter pressure before ‘bad things happen;’ the burden is on you to answer the questions you posed:

    Based on the evidence, What was the situation in Germany in the Weimar era and at the time Hitler took power?

    Because I’m such a nice guy, I’ll even give you some (non-wikipedia) sources to explore:

    1. Liaquat Ahamed, “Lords of Finance: The Bankers who Broke the World” https://www.amazon.com/Lords-Finance-Bankers-Broke-World/dp/0143116800
    p 181 for a description of life in Germany in the mid-1920s

    2. Richard Breitman and Allan Lichtman, “FDR and the Jews,”

    https://www.amazon.com/FDR-Jews-Richard-Breitman/dp/0674050266/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1494383124&sr=1-1&keywords=fdr+and+the+jews

    see p. 1: “Hitler and the Nazis quelled physical violence against Jews . . . no Jew was sent to concentration camp until late in 1938.”

    3. Jeffrey Herf, “The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda . . .”

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?192852-1/jewish-enemy-nazi-propaganda

    Herf’s book pivots on the “warning” by Hitler that “IF Jews and other financiers continue their war against Germany, they will be _____ .”
    In a remarkable, if heated, exchange with an audience member, Herf concedes that the German people DID have grievances against the Jews, that entitled them to take actions such as the legal actions taken against Jews.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Potentially interesting, even persuasive to one with no particular agenda but I shall pause to see what the sane and well read Incitatus or Sam Shama may have to say before I set aside time to wade in.
    , @Sam Shama
    To paraphrase a sage: The cleverest thing on earth is to cry out before one is hurt. It's of no use screaming after you are hurt, certainly not when the blow might be mortal. Sound historians will agree that most tyrannies and tyrants have tyrannised since good men did not move. It is not a profitable attitude to speak with distant optimism of schemes merely up in the air; for the cut from a sword can scarcely be parried if not while it is in the air.

    That was Chesterton. And he was writing about Eugenics. It may as well have been written for the war-weary, common European - Jew and Gentile - sufferers of a long tradition of Prussian cloddishness, mendacity and wickedry.

    I hesitate, responding to the eternal charges levelled atbankers and moneychangers; a topic at least as old as Yehoshua ben Yosef who failed to find vocation as one. It is the topic broached by the natives of Germania, so this, therefore, is wholly premised on a misdemeanour previously committed.

    Liaquat Ahmad's book is a worthy read for both economists and non-economists. It is the chronology of events which snowballed into the Great Depression and the failure of central banks to respond in a manner as the wont of a lender of last resort ought to be. In this context, J.M. Keynes wrote at length, decrying the ongoing failures of central banks' acting procyclically, precisely in contradiction to Keynes' policy prescriptions. So blame Benjamin Strong, Emile Moreau, Montagu Norman, and Hjalmar Schacht.

    Modern central banking is the child which learnt a great deal from the folly of it parents.

    Liaquat is equally scathing of politicians, btw. He summons no soft words for Hoover and his Berkely economist who instituted the most misguided set of policy rules apparently in aid of curbing "excessive speculation in the stock markets".

    Keynes’ economic observations go to the very heart of the matter, which is that Germany should have never gotten herself into a position where, when feeding her population required significant external inflows of grain, her basest instincts compelled the first strike. And the second. It was Germany’s many actions which precipitated the civilian food shortage precariously waiting in the wings. No leadership worth its salt should’ve brought the nation to this condition. Britain and her allies did nothing more than what any powerful alliance would’ve done under the circumstances, which is to gain every advantage in a war.

    Returning to the simple notion that it is only useful to cry out before the hatchet lands on the head, Chesterton's own account of the reasons for the WWI, stands undisputed not only in its rapier insight but for the present context, a reason based on recent experience for all concerned to "cry out".

    Here is Chesterton:


    Before we go on to the deeper things which make this war the most sincere war of human history, it is as easy to answer the question of why England came to be in it at all, as it is to ask how a man fell down a coal-hole, or failed to keep an appointment. Facts are not the whole truth. But facts are facts, and in this case the facts are few and simple. Prussia, France, and England had all promised not to invade Belgium.

    Prussia proposed to invade Belgium, because it was the safest way of invading France. But Prussia promised that if she might break in, through her own broken promise and ours, she would break in and not steal. In other words, we were offered at the same instant a promise of faith in the future and a proposal of perjury in the present.

    Those interested in human origins may refer to an old Victorian writer of English, who, in the last and most restrained of his historical essays, wrote of Frederick the Great, the founder of this unchanging Prussian policy. After describing how Frederick broke the guarantee he had signed on behalf of Maria Theresa, he then describes how Frederick sought to put things straight by a promise that was an insult.

    “If she would but let him have Silesia, he would, he said, stand by her against any power which should try to deprive her of her other dominions, as if he was not already bound to stand by her, or as if his new promise could be of more value than the old one."

    That passage was written by Macaulay, but so far as the mere contemporary facts are concerned it might have been written by me. Upon the immediate logical and legal origin of the English interest there can be no rational debate.

    There are some things so simple that one can almost prove them with plans and diagrams, as in Euclid. One could make a kind of comic calendar of what would have happened to the English diplomatist, if he had been silenced every time by Prussian diplomacy. Suppose we arrange it in the form of a kind of diary:

    July 24: Germany invades Belgium.

    July 25: England declares war.

    July 26: Germany promises not to annex Belgium.

    July 27: England withdraws from the war.

    July 28: Germany annexes Belgium, England declares war.

    July 29: Germany promises not to annex France, England withdraws from the war.

    July 30: Germany annexes France, England declares war.

    July 31: Germany promises not to annex England.

    Aug. 1: England withdraws from the war. Germany invades England.

    How long is anybody expected to go on with that sort of game; or keep peace at that illimitable price? How long must we pursue a road in which promises are all fetishes in front of us; and all fragments behind us?

    No; upon the cold facts of the final negotiations, as told by any of the diplomatists in any of the documents, there is no doubt about the story. And no doubt about the villain of the story.


     

    And then, of course, there was Mein Kampf.

    Shouldn't good citizens, armed with knowledge, cry out while the sword is still in air?

  73. @Skeptikal
    Troll alert!!

    On this webzine such a use of the word “troll” is far from self-explanatory. Since, if directed at me you could have used the built in Troll alert function I infer that you were warning me that the Dutchman, to whom I gave a carefully elaborate response, was trolling?????

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    I never quite understood trolling.
    In my opinion I give opinions with sources, and answer criticism.
  74. @SolontoCroesus

    When someone makes it appear that they intend bad things to happen do you wait to organise your counterpressure till after the bad things are happening?

    What were the threats, actions and/or expressions of Nazi hostility to Jews that preceded any boycott and did tbey not occur before 24th March 1933?
     
    You are making the argument that it was appropriate to "organize counter pressure before 'bad things happen;' the burden is on you to answer the questions you posed:

    Based on the evidence, What was the situation in Germany in the Weimar era and at the time Hitler took power?

    Because I'm such a nice guy, I'll even give you some (non-wikipedia) sources to explore:

    1. Liaquat Ahamed, "Lords of Finance: The Bankers who Broke the World" https://www.amazon.com/Lords-Finance-Bankers-Broke-World/dp/0143116800
    p 181 for a description of life in Germany in the mid-1920s

    2. Richard Breitman and Allan Lichtman, "FDR and the Jews,"
    https://www.amazon.com/FDR-Jews-Richard-Breitman/dp/0674050266/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1494383124&sr=1-1&keywords=fdr+and+the+jews
    see p. 1: "Hitler and the Nazis quelled physical violence against Jews . . . no Jew was sent to concentration camp until late in 1938."

    3. Jeffrey Herf, "The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda . . ."
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?192852-1/jewish-enemy-nazi-propaganda
    Herf's book pivots on the "warning" by Hitler that "IF Jews and other financiers continue their war against Germany, they will be _____ ."
    In a remarkable, if heated, exchange with an audience member, Herf concedes that the German people DID have grievances against the Jews, that entitled them to take actions such as the legal actions taken against Jews."

    Potentially interesting, even persuasive to one with no particular agenda but I shall pause to see what the sane and well read Incitatus or Sam Shama may have to say before I set aside time to wade in.

    Read More
  75. @Incitatus
    Jilles, beware. Wally operates a very bitter vineyard.

    Go to codoh.com (Wally’s favorite web site). Beware. Normal sites don’t preface an invitation with a “No name calling, level playing field debate here.” But, of course, decide for yourself.

    “Since Hitler in 1939 used the word [ausrotten], to warn jews, the significance in WWII discussions became genocide.”

    “Warn jews”? How about 1 April ‘33 (two months into power) when Hitler called the first boycott of Jewish business, lawyers and doctors? Widespread beatings by SA thugs? Was that a “warning”? The 7 April ‘33 Civil Service Law - the first official curtailment of equal rights for German Jews. Was that a "warning"? Were the Nüremberg laws in ‘35 depriving German Jews from citizenship, intermarriage rights and the means to earn a living also a "warning"? Was Kristallnacht 9-10 Nov ‘38 a "warning"?

    Simple question Jilles. How many "warnings" (‘warnungen’) does it take to equal extermination (‘ausrotten’)?

    “But also vernichten is not simple, for example vernichten an army does not mean killing any soldier, but stop the army being effective.”

    Well, there you have it. Nothing's simple. Something routinely translated as ‘destroy’ can mean - if you work hard to parse language - “stop.” How benign! We should all feel so much better! It was all a misunderstanding. Wally’s right. No one died in WW2, it’s all a giant fabrication. “No name calling, level playing field” and all the rest.

    “Auschwitz was an enormous industrial center, where from coal and water synthetic oil, rubber and high octane fuel was produced. The water table, many rivers, is close to the surface, this simply makes deep huge holes impossible.”

    Yes, indeed. Were workers voluntary Jilles? Or slaves? How much were they paid? What was their daily caloric intake? Worked to death? Murdered when they weren’t able to work? How many survived? No mention of the numerous other sites like Mittelbau-Dora. Why, Jilles? Did they have high water tables too?

    I sense you’ll get along well with Wally. Never mind Rotterdam 14 May '40. No doubt that was also a misunderstanding. Squeeze those bitter grapes.

    See #75, my response to StoC…

    Read More
  76. @SolontoCroesus

    In most European legal traditions, adverse possession gives you title to property you occupy openly for 20 years.
     
    Similar tradition in US law.
    There are numerous ways to frustrate adverse possession, some of which the Palestinians have employed, i.e. taking legal action against the trespasser; posting No Trespassing signs or barriers against trespass.
    Actions such as offering to lease part of the trespassed-upon property to the trespasser vitiate the requirement that the trespass be "hostile." It could be construed that Palestinian offers such as Oslo, etc. comprise such an offer to the trespasser (Israel) of non-hostile use of the land, therefore Israeli trespass on Palestinian land fails to meet the requirement that possession be "hostile" therefore the requirements for adverse possession are not met.

    No soup for you.

    Some jurisdictions allow considerably shorter periods of adverse possession to extinguish competing titles but increasingly in recent decades exceptions have been made to prevent time beginning to run. Even before recent statutory relief time didn’t start running against someone under a disability, including not being legally adult, and deliberate concealment of relevant matters by the person relying on passage of time, or someone through whom he claims, would vitiate his claim.

    I think the moral reasonimg that it is more unfair to displace someone in actual possession for many years than to allow someone who could have asserted his rights but for many years didn’t bother could have some applicability. But what is fair if the original owner says “I didn’t bother when it was just a case of a poor man keeping the weeds down on that unpromising land with his goats, but now that aerial geophysical zurveys have disclosed the mineral bonanza beneath I am really interested!”? Hire a smart lawyer, maybe Jewish, maybe Arab.

    Read More
  77. @Lot

    Anyone familiar with the history of zionism knows that zionists are of the opinion that they rightfully own Palestine, despite the fact that from say 300 CE to 1850 hardly any jews lived there.
     
    And there have been millions since 1945. In most European legal traditions, adverse possession gives you title to property you occupy openly for 20 years.

    Indeed, alas unless that possession is opposed.
    But you do not seem interested in the moral side of the question.

    Read More
  78. @SolontoCroesus

    when Hitler called the first boycott of Jewish business, lawyers and doctors?
     
    How long did it last, Inci?
    One day?


    Here's a trick question:
    Which came first, the March 24, 1933 publication of "International Jewry's" determination to strangle Germany economically -- to "deprive it of its export business, which is essential to its survival" [i.e. an existential threat] , or the April 1, 1933, one-day German boycott of Jewish businesses?

    The jewish declaration of war on Germany of 1933 was not just economic, it ended with the demand for regime change.
    It was realised, one might say.

    Read More
  79. @Incitatus
    Jilles, beware. Wally operates a very bitter vineyard.

    Go to codoh.com (Wally’s favorite web site). Beware. Normal sites don’t preface an invitation with a “No name calling, level playing field debate here.” But, of course, decide for yourself.

    “Since Hitler in 1939 used the word [ausrotten], to warn jews, the significance in WWII discussions became genocide.”

    “Warn jews”? How about 1 April ‘33 (two months into power) when Hitler called the first boycott of Jewish business, lawyers and doctors? Widespread beatings by SA thugs? Was that a “warning”? The 7 April ‘33 Civil Service Law - the first official curtailment of equal rights for German Jews. Was that a "warning"? Were the Nüremberg laws in ‘35 depriving German Jews from citizenship, intermarriage rights and the means to earn a living also a "warning"? Was Kristallnacht 9-10 Nov ‘38 a "warning"?

    Simple question Jilles. How many "warnings" (‘warnungen’) does it take to equal extermination (‘ausrotten’)?

    “But also vernichten is not simple, for example vernichten an army does not mean killing any soldier, but stop the army being effective.”

    Well, there you have it. Nothing's simple. Something routinely translated as ‘destroy’ can mean - if you work hard to parse language - “stop.” How benign! We should all feel so much better! It was all a misunderstanding. Wally’s right. No one died in WW2, it’s all a giant fabrication. “No name calling, level playing field” and all the rest.

    “Auschwitz was an enormous industrial center, where from coal and water synthetic oil, rubber and high octane fuel was produced. The water table, many rivers, is close to the surface, this simply makes deep huge holes impossible.”

    Yes, indeed. Were workers voluntary Jilles? Or slaves? How much were they paid? What was their daily caloric intake? Worked to death? Murdered when they weren’t able to work? How many survived? No mention of the numerous other sites like Mittelbau-Dora. Why, Jilles? Did they have high water tables too?

    I sense you’ll get along well with Wally. Never mind Rotterdam 14 May '40. No doubt that was also a misunderstanding. Squeeze those bitter grapes.

    A very interesting book on jewish influence in Germany is
    Ismar Schorsch, ‘Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870 – 1914′, New York 1972
    Since is was written by a jew, it is difficult to label it as antisemitic.
    Especially the statistics are interesting, jews being some three percent of the German population, in some areas, especially big cities, they occupied 50% of professions as lawyers, judges, professors, and so on.
    In combination with what another jew writes, Katz, one can imagine that non jewish Germans felt overruled.
    ‘From prejudice to destruction’, Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA

    In Lithuania jews controlled economic life almost completely.
    Dan Jacobson, ‘Heschel’s Rijk, Familiekroniek’, Amsterdam, 1998
    Before the Germans occupied Lithania Lithuanians exterminated most of their jews.

    As for caloric intake in concentration camps, I can recommend
    Paul Rassinier, ´Was ist Wahrheit ?, Die Juden und das Dritte Reich´, Leoni am Starnberger See, 7th printing, 1981 (Le véritable procès Eichmann ou les vainqueurs incorrigibles, 1963; The Real Eichmann Trial or the Incorrigible Victors. ISBN: 0911038485, 1983)
    and
    J.G. Burg, Schuld und Schicksal, Europas Juden zwischen Henkern und Heuchlern, München, 1962
    Burg, nom de plume for Ginsberg, was a jew.

    Both he and Rassinier, French resistance fighter, who was in Buchenwald and Dora, Burg was inn the big jewish camp E of Brest Litovsk, E of the river Bug, describe the same, the camps had self rule.
    The camp leadership, some 25% of those who were there, ate quite well, according to Rassinier up to 3500 kcal a day, the 75% lived on some 1100 a day, consequently died afer six months.

    Who was part of the camp leadership had a comparatively easy life, as you can find in
    Eugen Kogon, ‘Der SS-Staat, Das System der deutschen Konzentrationslager’, 1974, München
    From 1938, he, as an Austrian, to 1945 he was in a concentration camp.

    The caloric intake on average in the camps was higher than what the allies allowed the Germans after 1945, the estimate is that until 1950 about a milion Germans died.
    How the food situation was in occupied Germany one can find in many books, such as
    Konstanze von Schulthess, ´Nina Schenk Gräfin von Stauffenberg, Ein Porträt’, München 2009

    The Kristallnacht seems to have been deliberately provoked, since in 1938 relations between German jews and the Hitler regime had become more or less stabilised.
    You may be surprised to learn that a rabbi more or less wrote the Neurenberg laws, they feared assimilation.
    René d’Argile, etc., Das Geheimnis um die Ursachen des Zweiten Weltkrieges, Wiesbaden 1958 ( Les Originals Secrêtes de la Guerre 1939 – 1945, Paris 1958).

    Read More
  80. @Wizard of Oz
    On this webzine such a use of the word "troll" is far from self-explanatory. Since, if directed at me you could have used the built in Troll alert function I infer that you were warning me that the Dutchman, to whom I gave a carefully elaborate response, was trolling?????

    I never quite understood trolling.
    In my opinion I give opinions with sources, and answer criticism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I think it usually refers to commenters make assertions or using arguments they don't actually believe for reasons malicious or frivolous in order to stir.

    You may have been suspect for throwing in so many conspiracies without anything like the evidence that there is for those you cited later.
  81. @Wally
    Quite correct, see my full reply to Anon.

    The terms 'ausrotten' and 'vernichtung' are both used repeatedly in Hitler's Mein Kampf with reference to groups of people (armies, German-Austrians) where they do not refer to extermination. They refer to such things as military defeat and slavization. He also used 'vernichtung' in reference to abolishing political parties. Hence, 17th century usage does not seem to be decisive or particularly relevant.

    see:
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10278&p=77453&hilit=Vernichtung+der+rasse#p77453

    Thanks.

    Did not find such texts in my copy, an english translation one can buy in the USA.
    Boring book, 600 pages.

    Read More
  82. @Wally
    Given that Jews were in fact not 'destroyed' the use of the word could not mean 'exterminate'

    That speech and the alleged meaning is debunked here:
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10278&p=77453&hilit=Vernichtung+der+rasse#p77453

    Also Hitler spoke of solving the Jewish problem AFTER the war, the Schlegelberger Document, which read:

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Schlegelberger/Schlegelberger42.JPG

    "Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party."
     
    In support of the Schlegelberger Document see the Luther Memorandum:
    http://www.codoh.com/library/document/154/
    Hitler, the 'Final Solution,' and the Luther Memorandum
    A Response to Evans and Longerich
    excerpt:

    "On the occasion of a reception by the Reich Foreign Minister on 26 November 1941 the Bulgarian Foreign Minister Popoff touched on the problem of according like treatment to the Jews of European nationalities and pointed out the difficulties that the Bulgarians had in the application of their Jewish laws to Jews of foreign nationality."

    "The Reich Foreign Minister answered that he thought this question brought by Mr. Popoff not uninteresting. Even now he could say one thing to him, that at the end of the war all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was the unalterable decision of the Fuehrer and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much."
     

    The same as in
    Hans Jansen, ‘Der Madagaskar Plan, Die beabsichtigte Deportation der europäischen Juden nach Madagaskar’, München 1997
    After 1945 for some time the GB government supported the Madagaskar plan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    the Madagascar plan - If people of Madagascar knew of the plan they would be celebrating the VE Day the most. Hitler lost and they were not blessed with Jewish settlers.

    One may wonder what if the Jewish state was really crated in Madagascar who would it be at war with? All fish from Indian Ocean?

  83. @Wizard of Oz
    I'm not sure you have understood my point when I read "how many citizens protested against the Afghan and Iraq war [sic]...." But it is perhaps the unexplored idea that some people set up 9/11 so they could get the Patriot Act enacted that really boggles the mind.

    For the rest, just too many conspiracies for me, including ones I had never heard of.

    There seems to be a conspiracy these days to deny the existence of conspiracies.
    Yet many history books explain them, such as
    C. V. Wedgwood, ´William the Silent, William of Nassau, Prince of Orange, 1533 – 1584’, London, 1945
    This Dutchman, proudly described in each Dutch history book, was a master conspiror, it made him king of England.

    Conspiracies of course are seldom documenten, yet two are well known, because they were documented:
    - the 1939 Von Ribbentrop Molotov consoiracy to divide up Poland between them, to the great embarassment of the USSR a copy of the secret clause appeared during the Neurenberg show trials
    - the 1956 GB, France Israel conspiracy to attack Egypt; Ben Gurion wanted the conspiracy written down and signed, the French copy was never destroyed

    Read More
  84. @Lot

    Anyone familiar with the history of zionism knows that zionists are of the opinion that they rightfully own Palestine, despite the fact that from say 300 CE to 1850 hardly any jews lived there.
     
    And there have been millions since 1945. In most European legal traditions, adverse possession gives you title to property you occupy openly for 20 years.

    And what the fuck do the yids have to do with European tradition?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    And what the fuck do the yids have to do with European tradition?
     
    Yiddish is primarily a Germanic language, and Jews have been in Europe for more than 2000 years. Their special talent and understanding of the law has been recognized by all of the other civilized European peoples.
  85. @nebulafox
    Especially considering that the West Bank Jews are probably not going to be "Western" in the sense that Western governments think of the term, but are either going to be haredi, Russian, or descendants of those expelled from the Arab World in 1967. None of these Likud supporting groups see the conflict, or geopolitics in general, in the same way as the Ashkenazim who dominate the Labour Party do. The amount of Israelis who actually feel some sort of emotional tie to Europe has never been smaller, demographically speaking.

    "They turned it down, because they know time is on their side."

    In the sense of long term demographics decades down the line, yes. In the sense of the actual military conflict, no. Israel has never been a more thoroughly dominant position, and the Palestinians won't accept the fact that a Collins style deal-without Jerusalem-is probably the best thing they can realistically get, Western left-wing insistence to the contrary aside.

    Israel is not bothering with Brussels, partially as a result of the demographic shifts I mentioned, so they don't really care about what they think. In the past couple of decades, Israel has done a very good job at improving relations with governments that either privately don't care what they do with the Palestinians as long as order is reasonably maintained (China, much of East Asia in general), or are genuinely sympathetic to Israel's situation and modern worldview, especially if the ideological Islam element becomes pronounced (India, Russia). They might not be willing to fight for Israel's conquests in the direct sense, but they most certainly will sympathize with a fight for the concept of national sovereignty, and specifically for the right of a nation to handle "security issues" without interference from Western liberal busybodies.

    Israel has also done a pretty good job at quietly co-opting the Saudis-formerly a major funder of Palestinian aspirations-in recent years. One of the things Tehran notices more than anything is how cozy the Sauds have become with the Zionist entity.

    Yours is an excellent post swimming in a sea of anti-Zionist conspiracy theories in the comments section.

    Read More
  86. “Israeli Victory Caucus”

    And they call Snowden a traitor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
    Snowden's a great man compared to the scumbags of the "Israeli Victory Caucus."

    Giraldi mentions that all 100 U.S. Senators sent a letter to the UN Secretary General criticizing the UN's alleged anti-Israeli bias. I live in Minnesota, so that includes Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken.

    Thanks for nothing, Klobuchar and Franken, you grovel-to-AIPAC hacks.
  87. A bit OT, but just had to share my thoughts after reading two interesting articles posted on Forward online,

    The first, Armed And Dangerous: After Firing James Comey, Trump Will Weaponize The FBI, bemoans the fact that Trump has committed to making “the largest increase in military spending in history.”

    http://forward.com/opinion/371495/firing-james-comey-trump-weaponize-the-fbi/?attribution=home-hero-item-text-1

    Now, rather than pointing out that the Israel Lobby has been pushing for these increases, as Irving Kristol has previously made crystal clear:

    Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel… Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States… American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.

    these purported bleeding heart liberals denounce this spending as wasteful, especially against the backdrop of his recently announced budget cuts:

    The budget released today by President Donald Trump’s administration makes clear that he assigns no value to the human cost of his policy choices.

    The egregiousness of the cuts he proposes can best be understood through the impact they would have on the access that millions of people would have to such a basic need: food. Here are the 10 worst cuts in Trump’s “skinny budget”:

    Meals on Wheels
    Aid for poor college students
    Heating assistance for low-income people
    After school and summer programs
    Nutrition for pregnant and nursing women
    Nutrition for kids in developing countries
    Emergency food assistance
    Efforts to revitalize public housing
    Legal services
    Community service

    Which brings me to the second article:

    In First, Florida State Budget Includes Money For Jewish School Security

    Florida lawmakers passed a budget that allocates $645,000 to increase security at Jewish day schools.
    The fiscal year 2018 budget approved on Monday night marked the first time that the state’s Legislature has allocated security funds to Jewish day schools, according to the Orthodox Union.

    An O.U. program, Teach Florida, helped draft the legislation for the security grants and advocated for its passage, the O.U. said in a statement.

    Teach Florida also advocated for expanding tax credit scholarships for nonpublic school students. The new budget will increase elementary school scholarships by nearly $500 per student and high school scholarships by more than $1,000 per student.

    “Security is a public good, and we appreciate that Florida’s elected officials have stepped up to help safeguard our students,” Mimi Jankovits, executive director of Teach Florida, said in a statement.

    Last month, New York state allocated $40 million in security funds for nonpublic schools in its fiscal year 2018 budget after lobbying from the O.U.’s Teach NYS.

    http://forward.com/fast-forward/371457/in-first-florida-state-budget-includes-money-for-jewish-school-security/

    So not only are The Dumb Goy expected to pay the exorbitant price tab ($6 trillion… and counting) to keep the villa in the jungle secure, they are also expected to pay the tab to keep the community that lobbies for these policies that lead to this massive redirection of expenditure secure, as well.

    What’s the word I’m looking for? Oh yeah, chutzpah!

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Let's not forget the town of Kiryas Joel, in New York State, the Jewish town in which Goyim are not allowed to purchase real estate or send their children to the "public schools". You see, this town is a Jewish town. Federal "civil-rights" laws do not apply to the Jews of Kiryas Joel as civil-rights laws are only for goyim...NOT Jews.
    There are many other "Jews only" towns that are run the same way...
    , @RobinG
    Posted by L.K. today:

    Journalist Jonathan Cook explores Israel’s key role in persuading the Bush administration to invade Iraq, as part of a plan to remake the Middle East...
    Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East,
    Jonathan Cook , author
    https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Clash-Civilisations-Remake-Middle/dp/0745327540

    American-Israeli relations have intrigued, occupied and preoccupied two generations of scholars and of politicians around the world. Which of the two is the contemporary Rome and which is the belligerent Sparta in the Middle East? Jonathan Cook's book undeniably enriches and elevates the debate. -- Afif Safieh, Palestinian Ambassador in Washington
     
    This book might be on the web as a pdf.
  88. Mahmoud Abbas is a collaborationist traitor to Palestine and all Muslims.

    Marwan Barghouti is the true leader of Palestine.

    Read More
  89. @jilles dykstra
    I never quite understood trolling.
    In my opinion I give opinions with sources, and answer criticism.

    I think it usually refers to commenters make assertions or using arguments they don’t actually believe for reasons malicious or frivolous in order to stir.

    You may have been suspect for throwing in so many conspiracies without anything like the evidence that there is for those you cited later.

    Read More
  90. @jilles dykstra
    The same as in
    Hans Jansen, ‘Der Madagaskar Plan, Die beabsichtigte Deportation der europäischen Juden nach Madagaskar’, München 1997
    After 1945 for some time the GB government supported the Madagaskar plan.

    the Madagascar plan – If people of Madagascar knew of the plan they would be celebrating the VE Day the most. Hitler lost and they were not blessed with Jewish settlers.

    One may wonder what if the Jewish state was really crated in Madagascar who would it be at war with? All fish from Indian Ocean?

    Read More
  91. @SolontoCroesus

    When someone makes it appear that they intend bad things to happen do you wait to organise your counterpressure till after the bad things are happening?

    What were the threats, actions and/or expressions of Nazi hostility to Jews that preceded any boycott and did tbey not occur before 24th March 1933?
     
    You are making the argument that it was appropriate to "organize counter pressure before 'bad things happen;' the burden is on you to answer the questions you posed:

    Based on the evidence, What was the situation in Germany in the Weimar era and at the time Hitler took power?

    Because I'm such a nice guy, I'll even give you some (non-wikipedia) sources to explore:

    1. Liaquat Ahamed, "Lords of Finance: The Bankers who Broke the World" https://www.amazon.com/Lords-Finance-Bankers-Broke-World/dp/0143116800
    p 181 for a description of life in Germany in the mid-1920s

    2. Richard Breitman and Allan Lichtman, "FDR and the Jews,"
    https://www.amazon.com/FDR-Jews-Richard-Breitman/dp/0674050266/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1494383124&sr=1-1&keywords=fdr+and+the+jews
    see p. 1: "Hitler and the Nazis quelled physical violence against Jews . . . no Jew was sent to concentration camp until late in 1938."

    3. Jeffrey Herf, "The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda . . ."
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?192852-1/jewish-enemy-nazi-propaganda
    Herf's book pivots on the "warning" by Hitler that "IF Jews and other financiers continue their war against Germany, they will be _____ ."
    In a remarkable, if heated, exchange with an audience member, Herf concedes that the German people DID have grievances against the Jews, that entitled them to take actions such as the legal actions taken against Jews."

    To paraphrase a sage: The cleverest thing on earth is to cry out before one is hurt. It’s of no use screaming after you are hurt, certainly not when the blow might be mortal. Sound historians will agree that most tyrannies and tyrants have tyrannised since good men did not move. It is not a profitable attitude to speak with distant optimism of schemes merely up in the air; for the cut from a sword can scarcely be parried if not while it is in the air.

    That was Chesterton. And he was writing about Eugenics. It may as well have been written for the war-weary, common European – Jew and Gentile – sufferers of a long tradition of Prussian cloddishness, mendacity and wickedry.

    I hesitate, responding to the eternal charges levelled atbankers and moneychangers; a topic at least as old as Yehoshua ben Yosef who failed to find vocation as one. It is the topic broached by the natives of Germania, so this, therefore, is wholly premised on a misdemeanour previously committed.

    Liaquat Ahmad’s book is a worthy read for both economists and non-economists. It is the chronology of events which snowballed into the Great Depression and the failure of central banks to respond in a manner as the wont of a lender of last resort ought to be. In this context, J.M. Keynes wrote at length, decrying the ongoing failures of central banks’ acting procyclically, precisely in contradiction to Keynes’ policy prescriptions. So blame Benjamin Strong, Emile Moreau, Montagu Norman, and Hjalmar Schacht.

    Modern central banking is the child which learnt a great deal from the folly of it parents.

    Liaquat is equally scathing of politicians, btw. He summons no soft words for Hoover and his Berkely economist who instituted the most misguided set of policy rules apparently in aid of curbing “excessive speculation in the stock markets”.

    Keynes’ economic observations go to the very heart of the matter, which is that Germany should have never gotten herself into a position where, when feeding her population required significant external inflows of grain, her basest instincts compelled the first strike. And the second. It was Germany’s many actions which precipitated the civilian food shortage precariously waiting in the wings. No leadership worth its salt should’ve brought the nation to this condition. Britain and her allies did nothing more than what any powerful alliance would’ve done under the circumstances, which is to gain every advantage in a war.

    Returning to the simple notion that it is only useful to cry out before the hatchet lands on the head, Chesterton’s own account of the reasons for the WWI, stands undisputed not only in its rapier insight but for the present context, a reason based on recent experience for all concerned to “cry out”.

    Here is Chesterton:

    Before we go on to the deeper things which make this war the most sincere war of human history, it is as easy to answer the question of why England came to be in it at all, as it is to ask how a man fell down a coal-hole, or failed to keep an appointment. Facts are not the whole truth. But facts are facts, and in this case the facts are few and simple. Prussia, France, and England had all promised not to invade Belgium.

    Prussia proposed to invade Belgium, because it was the safest way of invading France. But Prussia promised that if she might break in, through her own broken promise and ours, she would break in and not steal. In other words, we were offered at the same instant a promise of faith in the future and a proposal of perjury in the present.

    Those interested in human origins may refer to an old Victorian writer of English, who, in the last and most restrained of his historical essays, wrote of Frederick the Great, the founder of this unchanging Prussian policy. After describing how Frederick broke the guarantee he had signed on behalf of Maria Theresa, he then describes how Frederick sought to put things straight by a promise that was an insult.

    “If she would but let him have Silesia, he would, he said, stand by her against any power which should try to deprive her of her other dominions, as if he was not already bound to stand by her, or as if his new promise could be of more value than the old one.”

    That passage was written by Macaulay, but so far as the mere contemporary facts are concerned it might have been written by me. Upon the immediate logical and legal origin of the English interest there can be no rational debate.

    There are some things so simple that one can almost prove them with plans and diagrams, as in Euclid. One could make a kind of comic calendar of what would have happened to the English diplomatist, if he had been silenced every time by Prussian diplomacy. Suppose we arrange it in the form of a kind of diary:

    July 24: Germany invades Belgium.

    July 25: England declares war.

    July 26: Germany promises not to annex Belgium.

    July 27: England withdraws from the war.

    July 28: Germany annexes Belgium, England declares war.

    July 29: Germany promises not to annex France, England withdraws from the war.

    July 30: Germany annexes France, England declares war.

    July 31: Germany promises not to annex England.

    Aug. 1: England withdraws from the war. Germany invades England.

    How long is anybody expected to go on with that sort of game; or keep peace at that illimitable price? How long must we pursue a road in which promises are all fetishes in front of us; and all fragments behind us?

    No; upon the cold facts of the final negotiations, as told by any of the diplomatists in any of the documents, there is no doubt about the story. And no doubt about the villain of the story.

    And then, of course, there was Mein Kampf.

    Shouldn’t good citizens, armed with knowledge, cry out while the sword is still in air?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Suspicious Sam, that sword was not meant to slash, but rather to confer knighthood, so might the benighted think. :)
    , @Art

    I hesitate, responding to the eternal charges levelled atbankers and moneychangers; a topic at least as old as Yehoshua ben Yosef who failed to find vocation as one.
     
    I am guessing that is a slap at Jesus – and a kudo for Jew bankers – the total wrongness of the Jew mindset is flabbergasting.

    The Jew central banking model is failing everywhere. Enterprise works – it is the money system that fails entrepreneurial activity and humanity. Somehow the majority of disposable money ends up in the hands of the Jews.

    There is nothing written in stone that says that an interest banking system is the only way an economy can function.

    The Rothschild Jew bankers have more blood on their hands than any other group in human history.

    On the other hand, the legacy of Jesus is what human freedom we have. (i.e., The Bill of Rights – something you Jews are trashing.)

    Peace --- Art

    p.s. Poor Little Jew – you must face the fact that your brain has been corrupted by your upbringing.
  92. @Sam Shama
    To paraphrase a sage: The cleverest thing on earth is to cry out before one is hurt. It's of no use screaming after you are hurt, certainly not when the blow might be mortal. Sound historians will agree that most tyrannies and tyrants have tyrannised since good men did not move. It is not a profitable attitude to speak with distant optimism of schemes merely up in the air; for the cut from a sword can scarcely be parried if not while it is in the air.

    That was Chesterton. And he was writing about Eugenics. It may as well have been written for the war-weary, common European - Jew and Gentile - sufferers of a long tradition of Prussian cloddishness, mendacity and wickedry.

    I hesitate, responding to the eternal charges levelled atbankers and moneychangers; a topic at least as old as Yehoshua ben Yosef who failed to find vocation as one. It is the topic broached by the natives of Germania, so this, therefore, is wholly premised on a misdemeanour previously committed.

    Liaquat Ahmad's book is a worthy read for both economists and non-economists. It is the chronology of events which snowballed into the Great Depression and the failure of central banks to respond in a manner as the wont of a lender of last resort ought to be. In this context, J.M. Keynes wrote at length, decrying the ongoing failures of central banks' acting procyclically, precisely in contradiction to Keynes' policy prescriptions. So blame Benjamin Strong, Emile Moreau, Montagu Norman, and Hjalmar Schacht.

    Modern central banking is the child which learnt a great deal from the folly of it parents.

    Liaquat is equally scathing of politicians, btw. He summons no soft words for Hoover and his Berkely economist who instituted the most misguided set of policy rules apparently in aid of curbing "excessive speculation in the stock markets".

    Keynes’ economic observations go to the very heart of the matter, which is that Germany should have never gotten herself into a position where, when feeding her population required significant external inflows of grain, her basest instincts compelled the first strike. And the second. It was Germany’s many actions which precipitated the civilian food shortage precariously waiting in the wings. No leadership worth its salt should’ve brought the nation to this condition. Britain and her allies did nothing more than what any powerful alliance would’ve done under the circumstances, which is to gain every advantage in a war.

    Returning to the simple notion that it is only useful to cry out before the hatchet lands on the head, Chesterton's own account of the reasons for the WWI, stands undisputed not only in its rapier insight but for the present context, a reason based on recent experience for all concerned to "cry out".

    Here is Chesterton:


    Before we go on to the deeper things which make this war the most sincere war of human history, it is as easy to answer the question of why England came to be in it at all, as it is to ask how a man fell down a coal-hole, or failed to keep an appointment. Facts are not the whole truth. But facts are facts, and in this case the facts are few and simple. Prussia, France, and England had all promised not to invade Belgium.

    Prussia proposed to invade Belgium, because it was the safest way of invading France. But Prussia promised that if she might break in, through her own broken promise and ours, she would break in and not steal. In other words, we were offered at the same instant a promise of faith in the future and a proposal of perjury in the present.

    Those interested in human origins may refer to an old Victorian writer of English, who, in the last and most restrained of his historical essays, wrote of Frederick the Great, the founder of this unchanging Prussian policy. After describing how Frederick broke the guarantee he had signed on behalf of Maria Theresa, he then describes how Frederick sought to put things straight by a promise that was an insult.

    “If she would but let him have Silesia, he would, he said, stand by her against any power which should try to deprive her of her other dominions, as if he was not already bound to stand by her, or as if his new promise could be of more value than the old one."

    That passage was written by Macaulay, but so far as the mere contemporary facts are concerned it might have been written by me. Upon the immediate logical and legal origin of the English interest there can be no rational debate.

    There are some things so simple that one can almost prove them with plans and diagrams, as in Euclid. One could make a kind of comic calendar of what would have happened to the English diplomatist, if he had been silenced every time by Prussian diplomacy. Suppose we arrange it in the form of a kind of diary:

    July 24: Germany invades Belgium.

    July 25: England declares war.

    July 26: Germany promises not to annex Belgium.

    July 27: England withdraws from the war.

    July 28: Germany annexes Belgium, England declares war.

    July 29: Germany promises not to annex France, England withdraws from the war.

    July 30: Germany annexes France, England declares war.

    July 31: Germany promises not to annex England.

    Aug. 1: England withdraws from the war. Germany invades England.

    How long is anybody expected to go on with that sort of game; or keep peace at that illimitable price? How long must we pursue a road in which promises are all fetishes in front of us; and all fragments behind us?

    No; upon the cold facts of the final negotiations, as told by any of the diplomatists in any of the documents, there is no doubt about the story. And no doubt about the villain of the story.


     

    And then, of course, there was Mein Kampf.

    Shouldn't good citizens, armed with knowledge, cry out while the sword is still in air?

    Suspicious Sam, that sword was not meant to slash, but rather to confer knighthood, so might the benighted think. :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Hello Iffen,

    A clear thesis for the benighted, one which disentangles the gordian knot for Germania! You are to be applauded!

    Welcome back.
    , @Ronald Thomas West
    :D

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR4mSkshCA8

    Keith Richards on Mick Jagger's knighthood:

    "I wouldn't let that family near me with a sharp stick, let alone a sword"
  93. @Anon
    You are totally delusional.

    Delusional or mysterious? The cheering bunch were on the news for a day and then mysteriously disappeared, together with their half brothers, the Bin Ladens. All sent back in private jets. No follow-up…..
    See some footage including Fox (fix) News

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwie-OGr7OXTAhVK6mMKHXz0CzUQtwIILTAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dxv5s_VEmZd0&usg=AFQjCNGNOh47M9VC6dQb366ujZCHAGfonA

    Read More
  94. @geokat62
    A bit OT, but just had to share my thoughts after reading two interesting articles posted on Forward online,

    The first, Armed And Dangerous: After Firing James Comey, Trump Will Weaponize The FBI, bemoans the fact that Trump has committed to making "the largest increase in military spending in history."

    http://forward.com/opinion/371495/firing-james-comey-trump-weaponize-the-fbi/?attribution=home-hero-item-text-1

    Now, rather than pointing out that the Israel Lobby has been pushing for these increases, as Irving Kristol has previously made crystal clear:

    Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel... Jews don't like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States... American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don't want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.
     
    these purported bleeding heart liberals denounce this spending as wasteful, especially against the backdrop of his recently announced budget cuts:

    The budget released today by President Donald Trump's administration makes clear that he assigns no value to the human cost of his policy choices.

    The egregiousness of the cuts he proposes can best be understood through the impact they would have on the access that millions of people would have to such a basic need: food. Here are the 10 worst cuts in Trump's "skinny budget":

    Meals on Wheels
    Aid for poor college students
    Heating assistance for low-income people
    After school and summer programs
    Nutrition for pregnant and nursing women
    Nutrition for kids in developing countries
    Emergency food assistance
    Efforts to revitalize public housing
    Legal services
    Community service
     
    Which brings me to the second article:

    In First, Florida State Budget Includes Money For Jewish School Security

    Florida lawmakers passed a budget that allocates $645,000 to increase security at Jewish day schools.
    The fiscal year 2018 budget approved on Monday night marked the first time that the state’s Legislature has allocated security funds to Jewish day schools, according to the Orthodox Union.

    An O.U. program, Teach Florida, helped draft the legislation for the security grants and advocated for its passage, the O.U. said in a statement.

    Teach Florida also advocated for expanding tax credit scholarships for nonpublic school students. The new budget will increase elementary school scholarships by nearly $500 per student and high school scholarships by more than $1,000 per student.

    “Security is a public good, and we appreciate that Florida’s elected officials have stepped up to help safeguard our students,” Mimi Jankovits, executive director of Teach Florida, said in a statement.

    Last month, New York state allocated $40 million in security funds for nonpublic schools in its fiscal year 2018 budget after lobbying from the O.U.’s Teach NYS.

    http://forward.com/fast-forward/371457/in-first-florida-state-budget-includes-money-for-jewish-school-security/
     
    So not only are The Dumb Goy expected to pay the exorbitant price tab ($6 trillion... and counting) to keep the villa in the jungle secure, they are also expected to pay the tab to keep the community that lobbies for these policies that lead to this massive redirection of expenditure secure, as well.

    What's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah, chutzpah!

    Let’s not forget the town of Kiryas Joel, in New York State, the Jewish town in which Goyim are not allowed to purchase real estate or send their children to the “public schools”. You see, this town is a Jewish town. Federal “civil-rights” laws do not apply to the Jews of Kiryas Joel as civil-rights laws are only for goyim…NOT Jews.
    There are many other “Jews only” towns that are run the same way…

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Kiryat Joel, NY: According to 2008 census figures, the village has the highest poverty rate in the nation. More than two-thirds of residents live below the federal poverty line and 40% receive food stamps.
    , @Weaver
    anarchyst,

    they also live in poverty. You could do the same, producing a similar number of children, living off welfare, so forth. But you'd have to endure living in poverty.

    And you'd have to endure religious rule.

    How many Anglo-Americans do you know who'd tolerant such a life? I suspect around zero. Anglos wants to be wealthy, respectable, straightforward, optimistic. And lately they all want to be secular.

    The same options are there for Anglos. Anglos just aren't currently willing to put up with such a life.

    I've seen complaints from Kiryas Joel by mothers there who are tired of having children. They want permission to stop having to have children. I doubt it's a pleasant life there.

    Anglos today want liberty even at the cost of survival.

  95. @Lot

    Anyone familiar with the history of zionism knows that zionists are of the opinion that they rightfully own Palestine, despite the fact that from say 300 CE to 1850 hardly any jews lived there.
     
    And there have been millions since 1945. In most European legal traditions, adverse possession gives you title to property you occupy openly for 20 years.

    Zionist operative detected!

    Read More
    • Replies: @truthtellerAryan
    It's all in the open, and bragging too. That's the power of the cabal
  96. @iffen
    Suspicious Sam, that sword was not meant to slash, but rather to confer knighthood, so might the benighted think. :)

    Hello Iffen,

    A clear thesis for the benighted, one which disentangles the gordian knot for Germania! You are to be applauded!

    Welcome back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    So cute! Zionist operative and sad little liar, sam the sham, heartily welcomes back Zio imbecile & village Idiot, iffen-iffen!
  97. @iffen
    Suspicious Sam, that sword was not meant to slash, but rather to confer knighthood, so might the benighted think. :)

    :D

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR4mSkshCA8

    Keith Richards on Mick Jagger’s knighthood:

    “I wouldn’t let that family near me with a sharp stick, let alone a sword”

    Read More
  98. @Anon
    But Hitler didn't use the term "ausrotten" in the January 1939 speech. Here's the line:

    Wenn es dem internationalen Finanzjudentum in und außerhalb Europas gelingen sollte, die Völker noch einmal in einen Weltkrieg zu stürzen, dann wird das Ergebnis nicht die Bolschewisierung der Erde und damit der Sieg des Judentums sein, sondern die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa.
     
    Vernichten is defined by Duden thus: "völlig zerstören, gänzlich zunichtemachen," i.e., "fully destroy, completely negate."

    Gern geschehen.

    This nonsense has long been debunked by various revisionist authors, you known, those who are persecuted for their views, fined and even thrown in jail…
    Say, why didn’t you cite the rest of what Hitler said? Bc if you did we would have the proper context, right?

    Denn die Zeit der propagandistischen Wehrlosigkeit der nicht-jüdischen Völker ist zu Ende. Das nationalsozialistische Deutschland und das faschistische Italien besitzen jene Einrichtungen, die es gestatten, wenn notwendig, die Welt über das Wesen einer Frage aufzuklären, die vielen Völkern instinktiv bewußt und nur wissenschaftlich unklar ist.
    […] Wenn es diesem [jüdischen] Volke aber noch einmal gelingen sollte, die Millionenmassen der Völker in einen für diese gänzlich sinnlosen und nur jüdischen Interessen dienenden Kampf zu hetzen, dann wird sich die Wirksamkeit einer Aufklärung äußern, der in Deutschland allein schon in wenigen Jahren das Judentum restlos erlegen ist.
    Die Völker wollen nicht mehr auf den Schlachtfeldern sterben, damit diese wurzellose internationale Rasse an den Geschäften des Krieges verdient und ihre alttestamentarische Rachsucht befriedigt.

    In English: ““for the time when the non-Jewish nations had no propaganda is at an end. National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy have institutions which enable them when necessary to enlighten the world about the nature of a question of which many nations are instinctively conscious, but which they have not yet clearly thought out.
    […] If this [Jewish] nation should once more succeed in inciting the millions which compose the nations into a conflict which is utterly senseless and only serves Jewish interests, then there will be revealed the effectiveness of an enlightenment which has completely routed the Jews in Germany in the space of a few years. The nations are no longer willing to die on the battlefield so
    that this unstable international race may profiteer from a war or satisfy its Old Testament vengeance.”
    As holocaust revisionist Germar Rudolf put it :

    So here you have it: Hitler will annihilate the Jews by enlightening the world about their alleged evil plans and deeds, which has already led to their routing(=annihilation) in Germany within a few years.

    He adds that “During the 1920s and early 1930s, the leaders of National Socialism, who later became Germany’s leading politicians, evolved politically in an atmosphere of permanent civil war. The language used by the more radical parties involved in this struggle was quite often inflammatory and violent. Words said in the heat of the moment were not always considered to be taken literally. This, too, needs to be kept in mind.”
    This sort of crap reminds me of the Zionist campaign against Iranian president Ahmadinejad, by quoting him out of context and outright mis-translation of what the man said; the whole ‘he said Iran will wipe Israel off the map’ BS.

    As for Hitler and the NS, that is the sad result of the propagandist’s failure to produce documents, blueprints, forensic reports, mass graves, etc. The hoaxters are left with distorting the meaning of words given in speeches… PATHETIC.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    In fact, even Joseph Billig, former researcher at the Paris Center for Contemporary Jewish Documentation, has debunked this old canard in 'La solution finale de la question juive', Klarsfeld, Paris 1977, p. 51.

    “The term ‘Vernichtung’ (annihilation, destruction) referred to the absolutely negative attitude towards a Jewish presence in the Reich. Being absolute, this attitude embraced the readiness, if necessary, to go to extreme ends. The term in question did not mean that one had already reached the stage of an extermination nor did it signify that there was a deliberate intention to arrive there.
    A few days before the speech quoted [the speech of January 30, 1939], Hitler received the Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia. He reproached his guest for the lack of energy on the part of the Prague government in its efforts to reach an understanding with the Reich and recommended to him, in particular, energetic measures against the Jews.
    In this regard, he declared for example: ‘Over here, they are being annihilated’ (bei uns werden sie vernichtet). Are we to believe that, during a diplomatic conversation, which would be recorded in the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hitler would have confidentially alluded to a massacre in the Third Reich – which, moreover, would have been incorrect for that moment in time?
    Two years later, on January 30, 1941, Hitler returned to his ‘prophecy’ of 1939. But this time, he explained the meaning as follows: ‘… and I do not wish to forget the indication I have given once before in the Reichstag, namely that if the rest of the world (die andere Welt) is driven into a war, Judaism will have completely ended its role in Europe…’
    In his conversation with the Czechoslovak minister, Hitler mentioned England and the United States which, in his opinion, would be in a position to offer regions suitable for Jewish settlers.
    In January of 1941 he stated that the role of the Jews in Europe would come to an end and added that this would come about because the other European peoples would understand this need for their own countries. At that time, one believed in the creation of a Jewish reserve. But for Hitler such a reserve was acceptable only outside of Europe. [Thus] we have just noted that, on January 30, 1941, Hitler did nothing but announce the liqui­dation of the role of the Jews in Europe.”
     
    , @Anon

    Say, why didn’t you cite the rest of what Hitler said? Bc if you did we would have the proper context, right?
     
    You're citing not only a different part of the speech but also ignoring that the speech itself runs 27 pages in length in transcript.

    Nice try though.
  99. @L.K
    This nonsense has long been debunked by various revisionist authors, you known, those who are persecuted for their views, fined and even thrown in jail...
    Say, why didn't you cite the rest of what Hitler said? Bc if you did we would have the proper context, right?

    Denn die Zeit der propagandistischen Wehrlosigkeit der nicht-jüdischen Völker ist zu Ende. Das nationalsozialistische Deutschland und das faschistische Italien besitzen jene Einrichtungen, die es gestatten, wenn notwendig, die Welt über das Wesen einer Frage aufzuklären, die vielen Völkern instinktiv bewußt und nur wissenschaftlich unklar ist.
    […] Wenn es diesem [jüdischen] Volke aber noch einmal gelingen sollte, die Millionenmassen der Völker in einen für diese gänzlich sinnlosen und nur jüdischen Interessen dienenden Kampf zu hetzen, dann wird sich die Wirksamkeit einer Aufklärung äußern, der in Deutschland allein schon in wenigen Jahren das Judentum restlos erlegen ist.
    Die Völker wollen nicht mehr auf den Schlachtfeldern sterben, damit diese wurzellose internationale Rasse an den Geschäften des Krieges verdient und ihre alttestamentarische Rachsucht befriedigt.
     
    In English: "“for the time when the non-Jewish nations had no propaganda is at an end. National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy have institutions which enable them when necessary to enlighten the world about the nature of a question of which many nations are instinctively conscious, but which they have not yet clearly thought out.
    […] If this [Jewish] nation should once more succeed in inciting the millions which compose the nations into a conflict which is utterly senseless and only serves Jewish interests, then there will be revealed the effectiveness of an enlightenment which has completely routed the Jews in Germany in the space of a few years. The nations are no longer willing to die on the battlefield so
    that this unstable international race may profiteer from a war or satisfy its Old Testament vengeance.”
    As holocaust revisionist Germar Rudolf put it :

    So here you have it: Hitler will annihilate the Jews by enlightening the world about their alleged evil plans and deeds, which has already led to their routing(=annihilation) in Germany within a few years.
     
    He adds that "During the 1920s and early 1930s, the leaders of National Socialism, who later became Germany’s leading politicians, evolved politically in an atmosphere of permanent civil war. The language used by the more radical parties involved in this struggle was quite often inflammatory and violent. Words said in the heat of the moment were not always considered to be taken literally. This, too, needs to be kept in mind."
    This sort of crap reminds me of the Zionist campaign against Iranian president Ahmadinejad, by quoting him out of context and outright mis-translation of what the man said; the whole 'he said Iran will wipe Israel off the map' BS.

    As for Hitler and the NS, that is the sad result of the propagandist's failure to produce documents, blueprints, forensic reports, mass graves, etc. The hoaxters are left with distorting the meaning of words given in speeches... PATHETIC.

    In fact, even Joseph Billig, former researcher at the Paris Center for Contemporary Jewish Documentation, has debunked this old canard in ‘La solution finale de la question juive’, Klarsfeld, Paris 1977, p. 51.

    “The term ‘Vernichtung’ (annihilation, destruction) referred to the absolutely negative attitude towards a Jewish presence in the Reich. Being absolute, this attitude embraced the readiness, if necessary, to go to extreme ends. The term in question did not mean that one had already reached the stage of an extermination nor did it signify that there was a deliberate intention to arrive there.
    A few days before the speech quoted [the speech of January 30, 1939], Hitler received the Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia. He reproached his guest for the lack of energy on the part of the Prague government in its efforts to reach an understanding with the Reich and recommended to him, in particular, energetic measures against the Jews.
    In this regard, he declared for example: ‘Over here, they are being annihilated’ (bei uns werden sie vernichtet). Are we to believe that, during a diplomatic conversation, which would be recorded in the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hitler would have confidentially alluded to a massacre in the Third Reich – which, moreover, would have been incorrect for that moment in time?
    Two years later, on January 30, 1941, Hitler returned to his ‘prophecy’ of 1939. But this time, he explained the meaning as follows: ‘… and I do not wish to forget the indication I have given once before in the Reichstag, namely that if the rest of the world (die andere Welt) is driven into a war, Judaism will have completely ended its role in Europe…’
    In his conversation with the Czechoslovak minister, Hitler mentioned England and the United States which, in his opinion, would be in a position to offer regions suitable for Jewish settlers.
    In January of 1941 he stated that the role of the Jews in Europe would come to an end and added that this would come about because the other European peoples would understand this need for their own countries. At that time, one believed in the creation of a Jewish reserve. But for Hitler such a reserve was acceptable only outside of Europe. [Thus] we have just noted that, on January 30, 1941, Hitler did nothing but announce the liqui­dation of the role of the Jews in Europe.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Here's a little homework assignment for you.

    The rest of the page in Billig reads thus:


    Deux ans plus tôt était prononcé le mot « Vernichtung ». A cette époque, les autoriés nazies proclamaient que la solution de la question juive était en train de se réaliser par l'émigration. Pendant la guerre, la solution par l'émigration devenait pratiquement impossible. On était réduit à se contenter vagues projets (réserve juive à Madagascar). Mais, dans la deuxième moitié de 1941, fut entreprise l'extermination des Juifs dans les régions soviétiques occupées, et cette méthode commença bientôt à être appliquée aux Juifs du Reich déportés à l'Est et aux Juifs des territoires polonais.
     
    Why would Mattogno omit these sentences? Could it be because he was lying?

    Apologies for not translating -- I assume you can read French since you quoted a French author.
  100. @Sam Shama
    Hello Iffen,

    A clear thesis for the benighted, one which disentangles the gordian knot for Germania! You are to be applauded!

    Welcome back.

    So cute! Zionist operative and sad little liar, sam the sham, heartily welcomes back Zio imbecile & village Idiot, iffen-iffen!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Hello reptile,
    Tell us, how did the human branch of your ancestors escape Aktion T-4, used by your dear fuehrer to murder German ‘useless eaters’?
  101. British journalist Jonathan Cook has a good piece re Mahmoud Abbas;
    Abbas fears the growing influence of Marwan Barghouti/ 30 April 2017
    http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2017-04-30/abbas-fears-influence-marwan-barghouti/

    Jonathan Cook is an award-winning British journalist based in Nazareth, Israel, since 2001.
    He is the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

    * Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish State (2006)
    * Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (2008)
    * Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (2008)

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    Thanks for the references. From Amazon:

    Journalist Jonathan Cook explores Israel’s key role in persuading the Bush administration to invade Iraq, as part of a plan to remake the Middle East, and their joint determination to isolate Iran and prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons that might rival Israel’s own.

    This concise and clearly argued book makes the case that Israel's desire to be the sole regional power in the Middle East neatly chimed with Bush’s objectives in the “war on terror”.

    Examining a host of related issues, from the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to the role of Big Oil and the demonisation of the Arab world, Cook argues that the current chaos in the Middle East is the objective of the Bush administration – a policy that is equally beneficial to Israel.
     
    https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Clash-Civilisations-Remake-Middle/dp/0745327540
  102. @L.K
    Zionist operative detected!

    It’s all in the open, and bragging too. That’s the power of the cabal

    Read More
  103. @L.K
    So cute! Zionist operative and sad little liar, sam the sham, heartily welcomes back Zio imbecile & village Idiot, iffen-iffen!

    Hello reptile,
    Tell us, how did the human branch of your ancestors escape Aktion T-4, used by your dear fuehrer to murder German ‘useless eaters’?

    Read More
  104. @anarchyst
    Let's not forget the town of Kiryas Joel, in New York State, the Jewish town in which Goyim are not allowed to purchase real estate or send their children to the "public schools". You see, this town is a Jewish town. Federal "civil-rights" laws do not apply to the Jews of Kiryas Joel as civil-rights laws are only for goyim...NOT Jews.
    There are many other "Jews only" towns that are run the same way...

    Kiryat Joel, NY: According to 2008 census figures, the village has the highest poverty rate in the nation. More than two-thirds of residents live below the federal poverty line and 40% receive food stamps.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
    Orthodox Jews who spend their lives studying the Talmud do so at the expense of the taxpayer both in Israel and here in the U.S. - they are are on welfare and get food stamps since they do not work and have large families. They also take over school boards such as in Kiryat Joel and starve the local schools of funds while funding activities in support of their own private schools. They are truly scumbags. They repeat this type of behavior wherever they choose to settle, driving out the goyim and milking the benefits, recently in Lakewood New Jersey, a town I used to know well when I was growing up.
  105. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @L.K
    In fact, even Joseph Billig, former researcher at the Paris Center for Contemporary Jewish Documentation, has debunked this old canard in 'La solution finale de la question juive', Klarsfeld, Paris 1977, p. 51.

    “The term ‘Vernichtung’ (annihilation, destruction) referred to the absolutely negative attitude towards a Jewish presence in the Reich. Being absolute, this attitude embraced the readiness, if necessary, to go to extreme ends. The term in question did not mean that one had already reached the stage of an extermination nor did it signify that there was a deliberate intention to arrive there.
    A few days before the speech quoted [the speech of January 30, 1939], Hitler received the Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia. He reproached his guest for the lack of energy on the part of the Prague government in its efforts to reach an understanding with the Reich and recommended to him, in particular, energetic measures against the Jews.
    In this regard, he declared for example: ‘Over here, they are being annihilated’ (bei uns werden sie vernichtet). Are we to believe that, during a diplomatic conversation, which would be recorded in the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hitler would have confidentially alluded to a massacre in the Third Reich – which, moreover, would have been incorrect for that moment in time?
    Two years later, on January 30, 1941, Hitler returned to his ‘prophecy’ of 1939. But this time, he explained the meaning as follows: ‘… and I do not wish to forget the indication I have given once before in the Reichstag, namely that if the rest of the world (die andere Welt) is driven into a war, Judaism will have completely ended its role in Europe…’
    In his conversation with the Czechoslovak minister, Hitler mentioned England and the United States which, in his opinion, would be in a position to offer regions suitable for Jewish settlers.
    In January of 1941 he stated that the role of the Jews in Europe would come to an end and added that this would come about because the other European peoples would understand this need for their own countries. At that time, one believed in the creation of a Jewish reserve. But for Hitler such a reserve was acceptable only outside of Europe. [Thus] we have just noted that, on January 30, 1941, Hitler did nothing but announce the liqui­dation of the role of the Jews in Europe.”
     

    Here’s a little homework assignment for you.

    The rest of the page in Billig reads thus:

    Deux ans plus tôt était prononcé le mot « Vernichtung ». A cette époque, les autoriés nazies proclamaient que la solution de la question juive était en train de se réaliser par l’émigration. Pendant la guerre, la solution par l’émigration devenait pratiquement impossible. On était réduit à se contenter vagues projets (réserve juive à Madagascar). Mais, dans la deuxième moitié de 1941, fut entreprise l’extermination des Juifs dans les régions soviétiques occupées, et cette méthode commença bientôt à être appliquée aux Juifs du Reich déportés à l’Est et aux Juifs des territoires polonais.

    Why would Mattogno omit these sentences? Could it be because he was lying?

    Apologies for not translating — I assume you can read French since you quoted a French author.

    Read More
  106. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @L.K
    This nonsense has long been debunked by various revisionist authors, you known, those who are persecuted for their views, fined and even thrown in jail...
    Say, why didn't you cite the rest of what Hitler said? Bc if you did we would have the proper context, right?

    Denn die Zeit der propagandistischen Wehrlosigkeit der nicht-jüdischen Völker ist zu Ende. Das nationalsozialistische Deutschland und das faschistische Italien besitzen jene Einrichtungen, die es gestatten, wenn notwendig, die Welt über das Wesen einer Frage aufzuklären, die vielen Völkern instinktiv bewußt und nur wissenschaftlich unklar ist.
    […] Wenn es diesem [jüdischen] Volke aber noch einmal gelingen sollte, die Millionenmassen der Völker in einen für diese gänzlich sinnlosen und nur jüdischen Interessen dienenden Kampf zu hetzen, dann wird sich die Wirksamkeit einer Aufklärung äußern, der in Deutschland allein schon in wenigen Jahren das Judentum restlos erlegen ist.
    Die Völker wollen nicht mehr auf den Schlachtfeldern sterben, damit diese wurzellose internationale Rasse an den Geschäften des Krieges verdient und ihre alttestamentarische Rachsucht befriedigt.
     
    In English: "“for the time when the non-Jewish nations had no propaganda is at an end. National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy have institutions which enable them when necessary to enlighten the world about the nature of a question of which many nations are instinctively conscious, but which they have not yet clearly thought out.
    […] If this [Jewish] nation should once more succeed in inciting the millions which compose the nations into a conflict which is utterly senseless and only serves Jewish interests, then there will be revealed the effectiveness of an enlightenment which has completely routed the Jews in Germany in the space of a few years. The nations are no longer willing to die on the battlefield so
    that this unstable international race may profiteer from a war or satisfy its Old Testament vengeance.”
    As holocaust revisionist Germar Rudolf put it :

    So here you have it: Hitler will annihilate the Jews by enlightening the world about their alleged evil plans and deeds, which has already led to their routing(=annihilation) in Germany within a few years.
     
    He adds that "During the 1920s and early 1930s, the leaders of National Socialism, who later became Germany’s leading politicians, evolved politically in an atmosphere of permanent civil war. The language used by the more radical parties involved in this struggle was quite often inflammatory and violent. Words said in the heat of the moment were not always considered to be taken literally. This, too, needs to be kept in mind."
    This sort of crap reminds me of the Zionist campaign against Iranian president Ahmadinejad, by quoting him out of context and outright mis-translation of what the man said; the whole 'he said Iran will wipe Israel off the map' BS.

    As for Hitler and the NS, that is the sad result of the propagandist's failure to produce documents, blueprints, forensic reports, mass graves, etc. The hoaxters are left with distorting the meaning of words given in speeches... PATHETIC.

    Say, why didn’t you cite the rest of what Hitler said? Bc if you did we would have the proper context, right?

    You’re citing not only a different part of the speech but also ignoring that the speech itself runs 27 pages in length in transcript.

    Nice try though.

    Read More
  107. @utu
    Kiryat Joel, NY: According to 2008 census figures, the village has the highest poverty rate in the nation. More than two-thirds of residents live below the federal poverty line and 40% receive food stamps.

    Orthodox Jews who spend their lives studying the Talmud do so at the expense of the taxpayer both in Israel and here in the U.S. – they are are on welfare and get food stamps since they do not work and have large families. They also take over school boards such as in Kiryat Joel and starve the local schools of funds while funding activities in support of their own private schools. They are truly scumbags. They repeat this type of behavior wherever they choose to settle, driving out the goyim and milking the benefits, recently in Lakewood New Jersey, a town I used to know well when I was growing up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man
    I almost bought a '66 Le Mans from an old car dealer in Lakewood. I ended up getting one, without power steering (geesh) but from the original owner, closer to home. LOL
    This was probably before the takeover of the town by 'the curly side burned ones'. LOL
    , @utu
    In Postvilla, IA locals with some help of federal authorities managed to hit back. But apparently money from outside started to pouring in and it seems they are not going away despite the fact that the leaders were sentenced to prison.

    Orthodox billionaire: Why I bought scandal-plagued kosher giant Agriprocessors
    http://www.jta.org/2016/01/21/news-opinion/united-states/orthodox-billionaire-hershey-friedman-why-i-bought-scandal-plagued-kosher-meat-giant-agriprocessers

    Years after raid, Postville, Iowa’s Jewish community is smaller, more self-reliant
    http://www.jta.org/2016/02/02/news-opinion/united-states/years-after-raid-postville-iowas-jewish-community-is-smaller-more-self-reliant

    Postville: A Clash of Cultures in Heartland America by Stephen G. Bloom
  108. @Philip Giraldi
    Orthodox Jews who spend their lives studying the Talmud do so at the expense of the taxpayer both in Israel and here in the U.S. - they are are on welfare and get food stamps since they do not work and have large families. They also take over school boards such as in Kiryat Joel and starve the local schools of funds while funding activities in support of their own private schools. They are truly scumbags. They repeat this type of behavior wherever they choose to settle, driving out the goyim and milking the benefits, recently in Lakewood New Jersey, a town I used to know well when I was growing up.

    I almost bought a ’66 Le Mans from an old car dealer in Lakewood. I ended up getting one, without power steering (geesh) but from the original owner, closer to home. LOL
    This was probably before the takeover of the town by ‘the curly side burned ones’. LOL

    Read More
  109. @Philip Giraldi
    Orthodox Jews who spend their lives studying the Talmud do so at the expense of the taxpayer both in Israel and here in the U.S. - they are are on welfare and get food stamps since they do not work and have large families. They also take over school boards such as in Kiryat Joel and starve the local schools of funds while funding activities in support of their own private schools. They are truly scumbags. They repeat this type of behavior wherever they choose to settle, driving out the goyim and milking the benefits, recently in Lakewood New Jersey, a town I used to know well when I was growing up.

    In Postvilla, IA locals with some help of federal authorities managed to hit back. But apparently money from outside started to pouring in and it seems they are not going away despite the fact that the leaders were sentenced to prison.

    Orthodox billionaire: Why I bought scandal-plagued kosher giant Agriprocessors
    http://www.jta.org/2016/01/21/news-opinion/united-states/orthodox-billionaire-hershey-friedman-why-i-bought-scandal-plagued-kosher-meat-giant-agriprocessers

    Years after raid, Postville, Iowa’s Jewish community is smaller, more self-reliant
    http://www.jta.org/2016/02/02/news-opinion/united-states/years-after-raid-postville-iowas-jewish-community-is-smaller-more-self-reliant

    Postville: A Clash of Cultures in Heartland America by Stephen G. Bloom

    Read More
  110. @Ronald Thomas West
    I don't subscribe to the idea Jews are special, either especially evil or especially good. They're just people with all of the typical human foibles that, inclusive of other things, often see killer-sociopaths rise to the top and rule; circumstantially in a particularly world threatening (nearly necrotic) situation at the moment. If we all die for the fact, blame can be spread around, and not least, proportionally pinned on the apocalyptic world-view of Christian Zionists backing Israel.

    It is not a case of all Jews are awful, it is a case of a Zionist regime appearing quite clearly at the top of the Israeli/western power structure and the majority or moves of this power structure benefitting first and foremost the Zionists and their agenda.

    Read More
  111. @SolontoCroesus

    when Hitler called the first boycott of Jewish business, lawyers and doctors?
     
    How long did it last, Inci?
    One day?


    Here's a trick question:
    Which came first, the March 24, 1933 publication of "International Jewry's" determination to strangle Germany economically -- to "deprive it of its export business, which is essential to its survival" [i.e. an existential threat] , or the April 1, 1933, one-day German boycott of Jewish businesses?

    “Here’s a trick question:
    Which came first, the March 24, 1933 publication of “International Jewry’s” determination to strangle Germany economically — to “deprive it of its export business, which is essential to its survival” [i.e. an existential threat] , or the April 1, 1933, one-day German boycott of Jewish businesses?”

    Two issues. The ‘Who started it’ defense and, second, the fiction that a boycott could inhibit rearmament.

    Imagine yourself a bystander in Potempa (Upper Silesia) the evening of 9 Aug ‘32. Nine drunk men brake into miner Konrad Pietrzuch’s apartment on the night of 9 Aug ‘32, drag him out of bed, and kick him to death in front of his mother and brother. They’re apprehended and put on trial in Beuthen for their notorious crime. The court publishes a verdict 22 Aug ‘32: Five men are sentenced to death, one receives two years in prison, and three are acquited.

    All nine are uniformed SA. Dolf’s reaction? He sends the following telegram: “I feel connected to you in boundless loyalty. From this moment on, your freedom is a matter of honour for us, and the fight against a government, under which this judgement was possible, is our duty.”

    Is kicking a man (outnumbered 9 to 1) to death in front of his family members a heartwarming Teutonic ritual? Hitler’s intentions to make his own law were never clearer. Why should this concern us in the question of who started the grudge-match between Nazis and German Jews?

    On 24 Aug ‘32 Göbbels publishes the headline “The Jews Are to Blame” and goes on to say “Never forget it comrades! Repeat it out loud a hundred times a day until the words follow you into your deepest dreams: The Jews are to blame! And they will not evade the criminal tribunal that they deserve.”

    I don’t know. Sounds like a declaration of war to me. Would you patronize someone who blamed Italian-Americans for the Mafia and all other worldly ills S2C?

    Which came first : 24 Aug ‘32 or 24 Mar ‘33?

    But wait! How about numerous Dolf quotes from the pre-Putsch years or ‘Mein Kampf’ (vol I: ‘25, vol 2: ‘26)? Tell us, if you were a Jew how would you feel reading this:

    “And so I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord…Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate? On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light.”
    -Adolf Hitler ‘Mein Kampf’ Vol 1 Chapter 2 1925

    How did Dolf gain the trust of the Wilhemine crowd (ultimately being put illegally in power by them in ‘33):

    “But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists…by placing responsibility for the loss of the World War on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.”
    -Adolf Hitler ‘Mein Kampf’ Vol 1 Chapter 10 1925

    Thus was nitwit/coconspirator Ludendorff relieved of any responsibility (with blockheads von Moltke, von Falkenhaynn, von Hindenburg, Willie II, Bethmann-Hollweg, Conrad von Hötzendorf, etc ) for eagerly launching WW1 – a war they knew they’d lost when Helmuth resigned Sep ‘14. Nonetheless they kept feeding their own men into the abattoir (with many, many others). Why? Dolf (Paul, Eric, Helmuth, Willie and most Germans) wanted a rematch! After all, none of them personally suffered (except for bruised egos. It was the making of stateless Austrian Dolf. The General Staff? Swanning around in absurd feathered helmets with ugly cast eagles and tunics festooned with pounds of medals would never command the respect given in 1871. Only another war would do!

    Solution? The Jews were all to blame! What’s not to like (as long as you’re not Jewish)?

    Which came first S2C: ‘Mein Kampf’ 1925 or 24 Mar ‘33?

    I’ll spare you many, many other quotes (some much worse). Anyone (Jew or Gentile) in Germany would have been aware of them. Dolf wasn’t shy, after all. He was a ‘sleepwalker guided by providence’ with a big mouth to the day he poisoned his wife and blew his brains out in a grand ‘Teutonic’ gesture (leaving all who believed in him to take the blame). What a guy!

    Second Issue: “International Jewry’s” determination to strangle Germany economically — to “deprive it of its export business, which is essential to its survival”

    Please! You know better. Or should.

    Hitler replaced Reichsbank President Hans Luther with Hjalmar Schacht in Mar ‘33. Why? Dolf thought “the future of Germany depends solely and alone on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht.” Think “survival.” What did Hjalmar do? He formed dummy Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschafgt (Mefo – Metallurgic Research Society) with the purpose of financing four large weapons concerns (Gutehoffnungschütte, Krupp, Rheinstahl, and Seimens) for that purpose. Mefo issued bills of exchange, “guaranteed by the state and discounted by the Reichsbank” to the weapons firms. The lag between issuance and payments (autumn ‘33- Apr ’34) was key: it was a ponzi scheme. Nothing to do with any “export business…essential to its [Germany’s] survival.” In fact, it was another reason to go to war early (before the curtain could fall on paying debts).

    You’ll have do better S2C!

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Is kicking a man (outnumbered 9 to 1) to death in front of his family members a heartwarming Teutonic ritual?
     
    Obviously not:

    Five men are sentenced to death, one receives two years in prison, and three are acquited.
     
    ---
    July 23, 2011:

    "Darioush Rezaie, 35, a university teacher who held a PhD in physics . . .was assassinated in front of his child's nursery in Bani Hashem street, in Tehran" . . . "His wife, who was wounded in the attack, has been hospitalized."
     
    January 2012:

    "35 year old nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, was killed by a magnetic bomb placed on his car by two assailants in northern Tehran, Iranian media reported.
    The attack strongly resembles earlier killings of scientists working on the country's controversial nuclear programme." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/16/iran-scientists-state-sponsored-murder
     
    In response to the accusation that Israel was behind these assassinations, Ronen Bergman told NBC's Brian Williams that "Israel has used assassination more than any other state, even the cruelest tyrant," and that it was "morally justified" to kill someone who was claimed to be the equivalent of Hitler and who posed "an existential threat to your people."

    http://www.nbcnews.com/video/rock-center/46318982#46318982

    Regarding the killing of Roshan, father of a then-4 year old son,


    Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, a spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), said on his Facebook page Wednesday: "I have no idea who targeted the Iranian scientist but I certainly don't shed a tear."
     
    How many Jews have been sentenced to death, or have been imprisoned, or even faced a court of law, for the murders of Iranian scientists Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan and Darioush Rezaie, and others?

    Would you patronize a state that pursues a policy of assassination "more than any other state, even the worst tyrant, like Stalin," or that is represented by Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai who expresses a corollary sentiment, apparently from his official capacity?

    On balance, it appears the Germans did better than the Israelis: the drunken Germans were tried and the majority of them lost their lives. Not so for the Jews.

    Incitatus wrote:


    Hitler’s intentions to make his own law were never clearer.
     
    Breitman & Lichtman stated similar outrage at National Socialism's "semi-legal revolution." We are impressed by their -- and your-- concern over legalities. Perhaps you can join forces, form a PAC and demand that AIPAC register as foreign agents, or that Israel sign the NPT, or that Israel bring itself into compliance with the dozens of United Nations resolutions it has ignored or violated over the decades.

    Why should this concern us in the question of who started the grudge-match between Nazis and German Jews?
     
    You raise an intriguing question: the example of villainy on the part of drunken SS troops took place in Silesia; that's in Poland, correct?

    But the Mar 24, 1933 publication states:


    "ALL Israel is uniting in wrath against the Nazi onslaught on the Jews in Germany."

     


    [Jews throughout the world are united in ] one common aim - to stand by the 600,000 Jews of Germany who are terrorised by Hitlerist anti-Semitism
     

    . . .to compel Fascist Germany to end its campaign of violence and suppression directed against its [German] Jewish minority.
     

    "World-wide preparations are being made to organise great Jewish demonstrations of protest to call attention to the sufferings of the German Jews at the hands of the Hitlerites,"
     

    "The Board of Deputies of British Jews, representing the entire Jewish community in Great Britain, is meeting . . .to discuss the German situation and decide on what action is to be taken to counteract the attacks on their German fellow Jews."
     

    "Representative Jewish organisations in the European capitals are understood in to be making representations to their respective Governments to use influence with the Hitler Cabinet to induce it to call a halt in the oppression of the German Jews." [note the contorted phrasing; not "asking governments," but "making representations . . ."]
     
    These six calls to action on behalf of German Jews are consistent with Louis Brandeis's earlier directive to Rabbi Stephen Wise, that "all Jews must leave Germany."

    My question is, IF, as you cited,
    --> In 1932, Polish Jews were killed by (drunken) Germans; and

    --> if it is true, as Breitman & Lichtman wrote, that "once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence against Jews . . . Only in late 1938 . . . for the first time [did] Gestapo imprison . . . German Jews in concentration camps,"

    THEN why were "14 million Jews worldwide;" "international Jewry" and Louis Brandeis, the head of zionist Jews, not concerned about Polish Jews, who were being beaten and killed, but instead pulled out all the stops on behalf of German Jews, who were not being similarly oppressed?

    ---
    re:


    Which came first : 24 Aug ‘32 or 24 Mar ‘33?
     

    Which came first S2C: ‘Mein Kampf’ 1925 or 24 Mar ‘33?
     
    By opening your argument with the case of the nine drunken SS troops who killed a Jewish man in Silesia in 1932; then relating Goebbels's propaganda to that case, it appears you're claim is that that incident in 1932 was the basis for the National Socialist/Goebbels meme that "Jews were to blame."

    Or, as Sam Shama implied in an earlier comment, that 'Mein Kampf' contains the seeds of the meme that "Jews are to blame."

    It seems reasonable, then, to figure out what came before Mein Kampf.

    C Paul Vincent provides a clue: In "The Politics of Hunger," Vincent reports on the impact of the starvation-blockade on (mostly) German women and children.

    Imagine yourself a bystander in Hamburg, or Munich, or Aachen, the months of November 1918 to June 1919. Half of the children in your town had already died of starvation during the war; relying on the promises of Woodrow Wilson that induced the armistice, you anticipated relief, but the starvation continued: in addition to the estimated 700,000 German civilians who succumbed to starvation during the war, another 70,000 to 100,000 German women and children died while the victors negotiated a treaty.
    No one was "put on trial" much less executed or imprisoned for the "notorious" crime against humanity of sustaining a starvation-blockade for the purpose of forcing a nation to sign an onerous peace treaty.

    Woodrow Wilson was heavily influenced by Bernard Baruch, present at Wilson's side throughout the negotiations, and the dozens of other representatives of Jewish and zionist entities also present and making demands at the treaty negotiations. Britain was represented by Lloyd George, who had been legal counsel to zionist leader Chaim Weizmann. Weizmann had assisted the British in sustaining the blockade; in exchange, he acquired the Balfour Declaration.

    The use of the word, "victors," above, is, perhaps, inappropriate: most of the Allies sustained losses in their elite class as well as their financial status that would not be recompensed by the punishment meted to Germany.
    Based on comments by Edwin Black in "The Transfer Agreement," only Jews "returned from Versailles with a dual triumph: they acquired a homeland for Jews in Palestine, and guarantees of their rights as minorities in European states."

    As a member of the audience insisted to Jeffrey Herf in a bookstore in Washington, DC,
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?192852-1/jewish-enemy-nazi-propaganda
    German soldiers returned from the battlefield maimed, gassed, suffering brain trauma and as-yet unidentified PTSD, to homes where their wives and children were dead of starvation or so malnourished as to be "life unworthy of life." Orphanages dotted the landscape; children begged and young girls prostituted themselves to survive.

    You knew that Wilson betrayed his promise.

    You knew that "the Jews returned in triumph from Versailles." At the expense of your families and your home and your government.

    Polish and Russian Jews fleeing Bolshevik upheavals in Russia poured into Germany, straining to the breaking point an already chaotic and overstretched political, social, and economic fabric. Bolsheviks sent Jewish agents into Germany to stir up turmoil with the goal of capturing Germany for the Communist cause, setting off numerous riots and mobs.

    It was not "Arabs" or "Muslims" to blame: they, too, had been betrayed, by the British, French, and Americans (as well as Jews: Aaron Aaronsohn acted as a double-agent, working for the Turkish leader while spying for the British -- ironically, Chaim Weizmann's sister, Fannie Weizmann, spied on the British for the Germans).

    qui bono?

    Who walked away with the goodies and who got left holding the bag?

    Blame the Jews because highly influential zionist Jews played a major role in keeping the war rolling past a date when (as Niall Ferguson has argued) the only reasonable course for Britain was to agree to a peace, as the German people knew.

    --
    This has gone too long already -- another time, we'll address the matter of Italians and Mafia.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks. He hasn't done better. Just trying to slide wordily past your point now. Still it's not mad abusive ranting like L.K's.
  112. @SolontoCroesus

    In most European legal traditions, adverse possession gives you title to property you occupy openly for 20 years.
     
    Similar tradition in US law.
    There are numerous ways to frustrate adverse possession, some of which the Palestinians have employed, i.e. taking legal action against the trespasser; posting No Trespassing signs or barriers against trespass.
    Actions such as offering to lease part of the trespassed-upon property to the trespasser vitiate the requirement that the trespass be "hostile." It could be construed that Palestinian offers such as Oslo, etc. comprise such an offer to the trespasser (Israel) of non-hostile use of the land, therefore Israeli trespass on Palestinian land fails to meet the requirement that possession be "hostile" therefore the requirements for adverse possession are not met.

    No soup for you.

    There are numerous ways to frustrate adverse possession, some of which the Palestinians have employed, i.e. taking legal action against the trespasser;

    Legal action must be taken within the relevant statute of limitations. Even giving them 20 years, that would be 1969 for most of Israel and 1987 for the West Bank. If a case was filed by then, it would be resolved by now 3+ decades later. No such binding judgment exists against Israel, QED.

    posting No Trespassing signs or barriers against trespass.

    LOL what? That is not the law anywhere in the USA. Unless you mean a situation where the adverse possessor is not actually in full control of the land because he can’t stop the title holder from putting up signs and barriers. But that is not remotely the case with Israel.

    Actions such as offering to lease part of the trespassed-upon property to the trespasser vitiate the requirement that the trespass be “hostile.”

    “Offering” to lease land in the process of being adversely possessed means nothing. An actual lease both parties agree to is what would destroy the “hostile” or “adverse” possession. Think about it, saying “Hey bro do you want to pay me rent for that land I say I own you are own” and getting a “No this is my land I am not paying you” is just about the definition of hostile possession.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    The principle underlying statutes of limitation (and the equitable doctrine of laches) is that there is a public interest in not having legal disputes drag on endlessly as well as the requirement of justice that a party shouldn't be able to take advantage of loss of witnesses, memory, documents and other physical evidence by passage of time. But the availability of a remedy is presupposed. Otherwise it can't be said that the plaintiff's conduct offended against those principles. How many Palestinian claims would be precluded by applying those principles? And is it clear what the relevant law and courts would be (have been)? Is there some relevance in the Australian cases (notably Mabo) in which native title was recognised - in contrast to 200 years of legal assumption of terra nullius - though extinction was also acknowledged where the Crown had granted freehold titles (Cf. perhaps some of the few Ottoman freeholds; in which connection I note that Bedouin, even today, are being denied rights to the land they are on because it is state land neither held as freehold nor formally leased to them).
  113. @L.K
    British journalist Jonathan Cook has a good piece re Mahmoud Abbas;
    Abbas fears the growing influence of Marwan Barghouti/ 30 April 2017
    http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2017-04-30/abbas-fears-influence-marwan-barghouti/

    Jonathan Cook is an award-winning British journalist based in Nazareth, Israel, since 2001.
    He is the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

    * Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish State (2006)
    * Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (2008)
    * Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (2008)

    Thanks for the references. From Amazon:

    Journalist Jonathan Cook explores Israel’s key role in persuading the Bush administration to invade Iraq, as part of a plan to remake the Middle East, and their joint determination to isolate Iran and prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons that might rival Israel’s own.

    This concise and clearly argued book makes the case that Israel’s desire to be the sole regional power in the Middle East neatly chimed with Bush’s objectives in the “war on terror”.

    Examining a host of related issues, from the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to the role of Big Oil and the demonisation of the Arab world, Cook argues that the current chaos in the Middle East is the objective of the Bush administration – a policy that is equally beneficial to Israel.

    https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Clash-Civilisations-Remake-Middle/dp/0745327540

    Read More
  114. @geokat62
    A bit OT, but just had to share my thoughts after reading two interesting articles posted on Forward online,

    The first, Armed And Dangerous: After Firing James Comey, Trump Will Weaponize The FBI, bemoans the fact that Trump has committed to making "the largest increase in military spending in history."

    http://forward.com/opinion/371495/firing-james-comey-trump-weaponize-the-fbi/?attribution=home-hero-item-text-1

    Now, rather than pointing out that the Israel Lobby has been pushing for these increases, as Irving Kristol has previously made crystal clear:

    Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel... Jews don't like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States... American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don't want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.
     
    these purported bleeding heart liberals denounce this spending as wasteful, especially against the backdrop of his recently announced budget cuts:

    The budget released today by President Donald Trump's administration makes clear that he assigns no value to the human cost of his policy choices.

    The egregiousness of the cuts he proposes can best be understood through the impact they would have on the access that millions of people would have to such a basic need: food. Here are the 10 worst cuts in Trump's "skinny budget":

    Meals on Wheels
    Aid for poor college students
    Heating assistance for low-income people
    After school and summer programs
    Nutrition for pregnant and nursing women
    Nutrition for kids in developing countries
    Emergency food assistance
    Efforts to revitalize public housing
    Legal services
    Community service
     
    Which brings me to the second article:

    In First, Florida State Budget Includes Money For Jewish School Security

    Florida lawmakers passed a budget that allocates $645,000 to increase security at Jewish day schools.
    The fiscal year 2018 budget approved on Monday night marked the first time that the state’s Legislature has allocated security funds to Jewish day schools, according to the Orthodox Union.

    An O.U. program, Teach Florida, helped draft the legislation for the security grants and advocated for its passage, the O.U. said in a statement.

    Teach Florida also advocated for expanding tax credit scholarships for nonpublic school students. The new budget will increase elementary school scholarships by nearly $500 per student and high school scholarships by more than $1,000 per student.

    “Security is a public good, and we appreciate that Florida’s elected officials have stepped up to help safeguard our students,” Mimi Jankovits, executive director of Teach Florida, said in a statement.

    Last month, New York state allocated $40 million in security funds for nonpublic schools in its fiscal year 2018 budget after lobbying from the O.U.’s Teach NYS.

    http://forward.com/fast-forward/371457/in-first-florida-state-budget-includes-money-for-jewish-school-security/
     
    So not only are The Dumb Goy expected to pay the exorbitant price tab ($6 trillion... and counting) to keep the villa in the jungle secure, they are also expected to pay the tab to keep the community that lobbies for these policies that lead to this massive redirection of expenditure secure, as well.

    What's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah, chutzpah!

    Posted by L.K. today:

    Journalist Jonathan Cook explores Israel’s key role in persuading the Bush administration to invade Iraq, as part of a plan to remake the Middle East…
    Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East,
    Jonathan Cook , author
    https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Clash-Civilisations-Remake-Middle/dp/0745327540

    American-Israeli relations have intrigued, occupied and preoccupied two generations of scholars and of politicians around the world. Which of the two is the contemporary Rome and which is the belligerent Sparta in the Middle East? Jonathan Cook’s book undeniably enriches and elevates the debate. — Afif Safieh, Palestinian Ambassador in Washington

    This book might be on the web as a pdf.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Hey RobinG,

    That's the one I read. It's pretty good, his website is recommended too.

    You probably already know the following material but most people don't. The real story about how Israel was created, refuting the brainwashing propaganda we are subjected to. Share with those you know! Both authors have published books and articles on the subject.

    The Real Story of How Israel Was Created
    by Alison Weir
    http://original.antiwar.com/alison-weir/2011/10/10/the-real-story-of-how-israel-was-created/

    The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel
    By Jeremy R. Hammond
    https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel/



  115. @jilles dykstra
    Anyone familiar with the history of zionism knows that zionists are of the opinion that they rightfully own Palestine, despite the fact that from say 300 CE to 1850 hardly any jews lived there.

    As long as jewish power in the USA remains as it is, and the USA is the one and only true world power, Palestinians will remain refugees.

    It is quite simple, all talk about peace etc. is hogwash.

    Zionists that created the modern state of Israel were a secular, socialist bunch. That’s one reason for the kibbutzes. They certainly weren’t trying to emulate the apostles’ model in Acts 2 and 4.

    Deir Yassin will haunt future history forevforever.

    Read More
  116. @Incitatus
    “Here’s a trick question:
    Which came first, the March 24, 1933 publication of “International Jewry’s” determination to strangle Germany economically — to “deprive it of its export business, which is essential to its survival” [i.e. an existential threat] , or the April 1, 1933, one-day German boycott of Jewish businesses?”


    Two issues. The ‘Who started it’ defense and, second, the fiction that a boycott could inhibit rearmament.

    Imagine yourself a bystander in Potempa (Upper Silesia) the evening of 9 Aug ‘32. Nine drunk men brake into miner Konrad Pietrzuch’s apartment on the night of 9 Aug ‘32, drag him out of bed, and kick him to death in front of his mother and brother. They’re apprehended and put on trial in Beuthen for their notorious crime. The court publishes a verdict 22 Aug ‘32: Five men are sentenced to death, one receives two years in prison, and three are acquited.

    All nine are uniformed SA. Dolf’s reaction? He sends the following telegram: “I feel connected to you in boundless loyalty. From this moment on, your freedom is a matter of honour for us, and the fight against a government, under which this judgement was possible, is our duty.”

    Is kicking a man (outnumbered 9 to 1) to death in front of his family members a heartwarming Teutonic ritual? Hitler’s intentions to make his own law were never clearer. Why should this concern us in the question of who started the grudge-match between Nazis and German Jews?

    On 24 Aug ‘32 Göbbels publishes the headline “The Jews Are to Blame” and goes on to say “Never forget it comrades! Repeat it out loud a hundred times a day until the words follow you into your deepest dreams: The Jews are to blame! And they will not evade the criminal tribunal that they deserve.”

    I don’t know. Sounds like a declaration of war to me. Would you patronize someone who blamed Italian-Americans for the Mafia and all other worldly ills S2C?

    Which came first : 24 Aug ‘32 or 24 Mar ‘33?

    But wait! How about numerous Dolf quotes from the pre-Putsch years or ‘Mein Kampf’ (vol I: ‘25, vol 2: ‘26)? Tell us, if you were a Jew how would you feel reading this:

    “And so I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord...Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate? On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light.”
    -Adolf Hitler ‘Mein Kampf’ Vol 1 Chapter 2 1925

    How did Dolf gain the trust of the Wilhemine crowd (ultimately being put illegally in power by them in ‘33):

    “But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists...by placing responsibility for the loss of the World War on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.”
    -Adolf Hitler ‘Mein Kampf’ Vol 1 Chapter 10 1925

    Thus was nitwit/coconspirator Ludendorff relieved of any responsibility (with blockheads von Moltke, von Falkenhaynn, von Hindenburg, Willie II, Bethmann-Hollweg, Conrad von Hötzendorf, etc ) for eagerly launching WW1 - a war they knew they’d lost when Helmuth resigned Sep ‘14. Nonetheless they kept feeding their own men into the abattoir (with many, many others). Why? Dolf (Paul, Eric, Helmuth, Willie and most Germans) wanted a rematch! After all, none of them personally suffered (except for bruised egos. It was the making of stateless Austrian Dolf. The General Staff? Swanning around in absurd feathered helmets with ugly cast eagles and tunics festooned with pounds of medals would never command the respect given in 1871. Only another war would do!

    Solution? The Jews were all to blame! What’s not to like (as long as you’re not Jewish)?

    Which came first S2C: ‘Mein Kampf’ 1925 or 24 Mar ‘33?

    I’ll spare you many, many other quotes (some much worse). Anyone (Jew or Gentile) in Germany would have been aware of them. Dolf wasn’t shy, after all. He was a ‘sleepwalker guided by providence’ with a big mouth to the day he poisoned his wife and blew his brains out in a grand ‘Teutonic’ gesture (leaving all who believed in him to take the blame). What a guy!

    Second Issue: “International Jewry’s” determination to strangle Germany economically — to “deprive it of its export business, which is essential to its survival”

    Please! You know better. Or should.

    Hitler replaced Reichsbank President Hans Luther with Hjalmar Schacht in Mar ‘33. Why? Dolf thought “the future of Germany depends solely and alone on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht.” Think “survival.” What did Hjalmar do? He formed dummy Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschafgt (Mefo - Metallurgic Research Society) with the purpose of financing four large weapons concerns (Gutehoffnungschütte, Krupp, Rheinstahl, and Seimens) for that purpose. Mefo issued bills of exchange, “guaranteed by the state and discounted by the Reichsbank” to the weapons firms. The lag between issuance and payments (autumn ‘33- Apr ’34) was key: it was a ponzi scheme. Nothing to do with any “export business...essential to its [Germany’s] survival.” In fact, it was another reason to go to war early (before the curtain could fall on paying debts).

    You'll have do better S2C!

    Is kicking a man (outnumbered 9 to 1) to death in front of his family members a heartwarming Teutonic ritual?

    Obviously not:

    Five men are sentenced to death, one receives two years in prison, and three are acquited.


    July 23, 2011:

    “Darioush Rezaie, 35, a university teacher who held a PhD in physics . . .was assassinated in front of his child’s nursery in Bani Hashem street, in Tehran” . . . “His wife, who was wounded in the attack, has been hospitalized.”

    January 2012:

    “35 year old nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, was killed by a magnetic bomb placed on his car by two assailants in northern Tehran, Iranian media reported.
    The attack strongly resembles earlier killings of scientists working on the country’s controversial nuclear programme.” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/16/iran-scientists-state-sponsored-murder

    In response to the accusation that Israel was behind these assassinations, Ronen Bergman told NBC’s Brian Williams that “Israel has used assassination more than any other state, even the cruelest tyrant,” and that it was “morally justified” to kill someone who was claimed to be the equivalent of Hitler and who posed “an existential threat to your people.”

    http://www.nbcnews.com/video/rock-center/46318982#46318982

    Regarding the killing of Roshan, father of a then-4 year old son,

    Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, a spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), said on his Facebook page Wednesday: “I have no idea who targeted the Iranian scientist but I certainly don’t shed a tear.”

    How many Jews have been sentenced to death, or have been imprisoned, or even faced a court of law, for the murders of Iranian scientists Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan and Darioush Rezaie, and others?

    Would you patronize a state that pursues a policy of assassination “more than any other state, even the worst tyrant, like Stalin,” or that is represented by Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai who expresses a corollary sentiment, apparently from his official capacity?

    On balance, it appears the Germans did better than the Israelis: the drunken Germans were tried and the majority of them lost their lives. Not so for the Jews.

    Incitatus wrote:

    Hitler’s intentions to make his own law were never clearer.

    Breitman & Lichtman stated similar outrage at National Socialism’s “semi-legal revolution.” We are impressed by their — and your– concern over legalities. Perhaps you can join forces, form a PAC and demand that AIPAC register as foreign agents, or that Israel sign the NPT, or that Israel bring itself into compliance with the dozens of United Nations resolutions it has ignored or violated over the decades.

    Why should this concern us in the question of who started the grudge-match between Nazis and German Jews?

    You raise an intriguing question: the example of villainy on the part of drunken SS troops took place in Silesia; that’s in Poland, correct?

    But the Mar 24, 1933 publication states:

    “ALL Israel is uniting in wrath against the Nazi onslaught on the Jews in Germany.

    [Jews throughout the world are united in ] one common aim – to stand by the 600,000 Jews of Germany who are terrorised by Hitlerist anti-Semitism

    . . .to compel Fascist Germany to end its campaign of violence and suppression directed against its [German] Jewish minority.

    “World-wide preparations are being made to organise great Jewish demonstrations of protest to call attention to the sufferings of the German Jews at the hands of the Hitlerites,”

    “The Board of Deputies of British Jews, representing the entire Jewish community in Great Britain, is meeting . . .to discuss the German situation and decide on what action is to be taken to counteract the attacks on their German fellow Jews.

    “Representative Jewish organisations in the European capitals are understood in to be making representations to their respective Governments to use influence with the Hitler Cabinet to induce it to call a halt in the oppression of the German Jews.[note the contorted phrasing; not "asking governments," but "making representations . . ."]

    These six calls to action on behalf of German Jews are consistent with Louis Brandeis’s earlier directive to Rabbi Stephen Wise, that “all Jews must leave Germany.

    My question is, IF, as you cited,
    –> In 1932, Polish Jews were killed by (drunken) Germans; and

    –> if it is true, as Breitman & Lichtman wrote, that “once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence against Jews . . . Only in late 1938 . . . for the first time [did] Gestapo imprison . . . German Jews in concentration camps,”

    THEN why were “14 million Jews worldwide;” “international Jewry” and Louis Brandeis, the head of zionist Jews, not concerned about Polish Jews, who were being beaten and killed, but instead pulled out all the stops on behalf of German Jews, who were not being similarly oppressed?


    re:

    Which came first : 24 Aug ‘32 or 24 Mar ‘33?

    Which came first S2C: ‘Mein Kampf’ 1925 or 24 Mar ‘33?

    By opening your argument with the case of the nine drunken SS troops who killed a Jewish man in Silesia in 1932; then relating Goebbels’s propaganda to that case, it appears you’re claim is that that incident in 1932 was the basis for the National Socialist/Goebbels meme that “Jews were to blame.”

    Or, as Sam Shama implied in an earlier comment, that ‘Mein Kampf’ contains the seeds of the meme that “Jews are to blame.”

    It seems reasonable, then, to figure out what came before Mein Kampf.

    C Paul Vincent provides a clue: In “The Politics of Hunger,” Vincent reports on the impact of the starvation-blockade on (mostly) German women and children.

    Imagine yourself a bystander in Hamburg, or Munich, or Aachen, the months of November 1918 to June 1919. Half of the children in your town had already died of starvation during the war; relying on the promises of Woodrow Wilson that induced the armistice, you anticipated relief, but the starvation continued: in addition to the estimated 700,000 German civilians who succumbed to starvation during the war, another 70,000 to 100,000 German women and children died while the victors negotiated a treaty.
    No one was “put on trial” much less executed or imprisoned for the “notorious” crime against humanity of sustaining a starvation-blockade for the purpose of forcing a nation to sign an onerous peace treaty.

    Woodrow Wilson was heavily influenced by Bernard Baruch, present at Wilson’s side throughout the negotiations, and the dozens of other representatives of Jewish and zionist entities also present and making demands at the treaty negotiations. Britain was represented by Lloyd George, who had been legal counsel to zionist leader Chaim Weizmann. Weizmann had assisted the British in sustaining the blockade; in exchange, he acquired the Balfour Declaration.

    The use of the word, “victors,” above, is, perhaps, inappropriate: most of the Allies sustained losses in their elite class as well as their financial status that would not be recompensed by the punishment meted to Germany.
    Based on comments by Edwin Black in “The Transfer Agreement,” only Jews “returned from Versailles with a dual triumph: they acquired a homeland for Jews in Palestine, and guarantees of their rights as minorities in European states.”

    As a member of the audience insisted to Jeffrey Herf in a bookstore in Washington, DC,
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?192852-1/jewish-enemy-nazi-propaganda
    German soldiers returned from the battlefield maimed, gassed, suffering brain trauma and as-yet unidentified PTSD, to homes where their wives and children were dead of starvation or so malnourished as to be “life unworthy of life.” Orphanages dotted the landscape; children begged and young girls prostituted themselves to survive.

    You knew that Wilson betrayed his promise.

    You knew that “the Jews returned in triumph from Versailles.” At the expense of your families and your home and your government.

    Polish and Russian Jews fleeing Bolshevik upheavals in Russia poured into Germany, straining to the breaking point an already chaotic and overstretched political, social, and economic fabric. Bolsheviks sent Jewish agents into Germany to stir up turmoil with the goal of capturing Germany for the Communist cause, setting off numerous riots and mobs.

    It was not “Arabs” or “Muslims” to blame: they, too, had been betrayed, by the British, French, and Americans (as well as Jews: Aaron Aaronsohn acted as a double-agent, working for the Turkish leader while spying for the British — ironically, Chaim Weizmann’s sister, Fannie Weizmann, spied on the British for the Germans).

    qui bono?

    Who walked away with the goodies and who got left holding the bag?

    Blame the Jews because highly influential zionist Jews played a major role in keeping the war rolling past a date when (as Niall Ferguson has argued) the only reasonable course for Britain was to agree to a peace, as the German people knew.


    This has gone too long already — another time, we’ll address the matter of Italians and Mafia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Well, SC, do you think this imbecile, inZitatus, cares about international law and crimes against peace/ humanity??
    Let me enlighten you; this virulent German hater cares very much about those things indeed...
    IF, and only IF, such violations, real or INVENTED - and in the case of sovereign Germany(1871-1945) there is no shortage of never ending propaganda/ lies - involve Germans.

    Think about it for a sec; the Nuremberg show trials were a bunch of kangaroo courts, but as illegal and unjust as they were, they set certain precedents, did they not?

    Ok then, after those show trials, the Zionist scum, through terrorism/massacres, ethnic cleansing and wars of conquest, took nearly ALL Palestinian land. These are absolutely well documented facts. One can see disappearing Palestine through the maps in the following article:
    http://ifamericaknew.org/history/

    Does inZitatus condemn the Zio scum for their actions? For creating their artificial religious/ethno state through clear VIOLATIONS of the Nuremberg show trials, which inZi certainly approves of, as long of course, as those punished and executed were Germans...

    Every zionist occupation regime since the beginning has been in violation of the Nuremberg "principles". By the standards set, a lot of zio officials should be tried and executed.
    The same is true for ZUSA, BTW.
    Would inZitatus support such a notion? I don't think so, based on his comments, his friendly relations with zio trolls Sam the Sham, iffen and others. In a reply to Rurik, inZi even said he had some fondness or something for ... John McCain!!
    Bottom line, the guy is slime. I have noticed that in every article here discussing Palestine, this creep pops up talking about Hitler, natzee cannibals, nieh, nieh.

    Anyway, why the hell should there even be an Israel as a Jew supremacist ethno state?
    Currently, there are no real threats to Jews in the West, where, in fact, a majority of Jews choose to live.
    Israel is an abomination ... should be dismantled, Palestine restored and the Jews who wish to stay, should stay, the ones who don't want to live as equals with the indigenous population, can all get the hell out... most would probably choose ZUSA, their preferred destination, and why not, they really do largely run the damn thing anyway. Isn't that enough? Being the masters of the only, if declining, superpower?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Your defence of the idea that the Jews had it coming is weakening as you tackle Incitatus's point based on the murder by thugs by elaborately avoiding his key point. The thugs were SA and Hitler supported them. While clearly Himmler was a more direct and unsubtle enemy of the Jews than Hitler who, rightly as leader, had to balance mulfiple objectives, Jews everywhere were wise to anticipate persecution and react accordingly.

    It is interesting to be reminded of the breadth and depth of German anti-Semitism of which Jewish leaders everywhere would have been more than aware. In a recent docudrama on the life of Einstein there is no doubt realism in showing Einstein's mother objecting to his marrying Mileva Maric because she was a Slav (German of Swiss non Jew would have been OK) but also in having the later Nobel Prize winning physicist Philipp Lenard utter the most violent anti-Semitic sentiments. As a check I Googled for Philipp Lenard quotes and it is clear that, even before he and other scientists wrote in adulatory terms of the still little known Adolf Hitler (and Ludendorf) , he had blamed Jews for almost everything (including "Jewish physics" e.g. relativity) and said they should be sunk under the sea**. Clearly Jews who feared what was to come in 30s Germany weren't just being paranoid.

    **He remained in good standing while being famously recalcitrant over instructions or guidance not to give lectures on the day of (the murdered Jewish) Walther Rathenau's funeral.

    , @Incitatus
    “On balance, it appears the Germans did better than the Israelis: the drunken Germans were tried and the majority of them lost their lives. Not so for the Jews.”

    The six SA convicted in the brutal murder of miner Konrad Pietrzuch? Hitler’s objection and Göbbel’s smear campaign were effective. The five death sentences were commuted to life in prison early September ‘32 by spineless Papen. All six were pardoned March ‘33 by the new Chancellor. None of them “lost their lives.” Does that spoil your ‘Nazis were more just than Israelis’ lesson? Sorry.

    Konrad Pietrzuch? Have no idea if he was Jewish. The point was Nazis voided just (Weimar) verdicts on SA criminals by blaming Jews and demonized them to get it reversed. “The Jews are to blame! And they will not evade the criminal tribunal that they deserve” was a declaration of war that predates the boycott (24 Mar ‘33) you imply caused the Nazi boycott 1 Apr ‘33.

    “Villainy on the part of drunken SS” is embarrassing. The SS, unlike the SA, never allowed routine drunkness. Except, of course much later in ‘41. When dedicated SS super-patriots were encouraged to round out a day of murdering unarmed men, women, and children in the East with as many nightcaps as might be needed to afford them guilt-free slumber. After all, they had to be fit to kill another batch the next day. But you knew that, didn’t you S2C?

    “Darioush Rezaie...assassinated... (23 Jul 2011); .Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan...killed...(Jan 2012)”
    As expected, when you want to evade rebuttals it’s ‘drag in Israel’ time. Change the subject anyone? Scroll though my record. I’m against extra-judicial assasinations in any venue, by anyone. Israel, the US, whoever. I’ve often said it.

    But we were discussing Germany and the Jews in the 30s, as well as the economic threat of boycott. What’s the connection? Jews are like Nazis? No that can’t be it. Far from being critical of Wilhelmine or Nazi Germany, you usually try to justify their behavior. But never seem to be able to do so when confronted with the brutal facts (then it’s change the subject, drag in Israel time).

    So are you saying Jews are worse than Nazis, that old favorite? Nazis were forced to resort to murder, torture, aggresive war and extermination because of Jews? Is that what you’re saying S2C?

    “My question is, IF, as you cited,
    –> In 1932, Polish Jews were killed by (drunken) Germans; and
    –> if it is true, as Breitman & Lichtman wrote, that “once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence against Jews . . . Only in late 1938 . . . for the first time [did] Gestapo imprison . . . German Jews in concentration camps,”


    Once again, I have no idea if Konrad Pietrzuch was Jewish. He was a German citizen. Upper Silesia was obviously in the Weimar Republic with it’s very own local SA thugs. You somehow morph this into the killing of a “Polish Jew” by “drunken Germans (not mentioning SA or Nazis?). My, you're quite desperate aren’t you?

    “...once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence against Jews . . . Only in late 1938 . . . for the first time [did] Gestapo imprison . . . German Jews in concentration camps...”

    I’ve not read your source, but I find little surprising in your quote. Violence against Jews was not institutionalized top-down at this point. It was bottom-up (spontanious and local). There was no need to crowd the camps. Local thugs were doing a good job.

    Besides, camps like Dachau (#1 - created 20 Mar ‘33) were crowded with higher priority NSDAP enemies: political rivals. KPD, SPD, etc. Thus were Dachau inmates Gustav Ritter von Kahr (Hitler critic) and Fritz Gerlich (critical editor in chief of the Catholic magazine ‘Der Gerade Weg) executed at Dachau in Operation ‘Hummingbird’ (the Röhm purge) mid ‘34. They weren't Jewish S2C. And they weren’t alone. Across Germany Hitler rival Gregor Strassor, former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and his wife (?), General Ferdinand von Bredow (Schleicher associate), Otto Ballerstedt (his crime- he had Hitler arrested after being assaulted by him in ‘22), Father Bernhard Stempfle (his crime - he was an early confidant of Hitler who probably knew too much about the Führer’s early life), Erich Klausener (leader of The religious lay ‘Catholic Action’ and Transport Ministry director), Edgar Julius Jung (Papen’s aide - he made the mistake of authoring a speech mildly critical of Hitler, a capital offense), Herbert von Bose (Papen associate, a capital offense), etc. Those not yet in camps? No problem, murder them in their home (like Schleicher and his wife) or take them outside and shoot them (like von Bredow). Naturally all of these murders were retroactively declared legal by the cabinet. Another triumph of Third Reich justice.

    S2C, take heart. Your heroes were doing everything in their power to free up space in the camps. Patience. Here’s a tidbit that might interest you. It relates directly to your proposition of Nazi innocence in the boycott. Hitler’s reaction late September ‘33 in a conference with Reich governors:

    “He as Reich chancellor would have preferred a gradually stricter treatment of Jews in Germany by creating a new citizenship law and then increasingly cracking down on Jews, But the Jewish-organised international boycott demanded the most vigorous response possible. Abroad people complained that Jews were being treated legally as second-class citizens...Since Jews had considerable influence abroad, it was prudent not to give them any material they could use as propaganda against Germany.”
    -Volker Ullrich, ‘Hitler: Ascent 1889-1939’ p.547-8

    After all, Dolf had to kill his rivals (and former priest) and quietly rearm before he took on the Jews. Meantime civil laws were enough to deprive them of a living and their property, humiliate them, and use them as convenient scapegoats. Not to mention allowing the rich ones to exit German after extorting their wealth. When Dolf was ready for the remaining Jews, they were sent East (wouldn’t want to trouble the few Aryan friends they had left, after all).

    “Imagine yourself a bystander in Hamburg, or Munich, or Aachen, the months of November 1918 to June 1919...”

    Indeed, Germans suffered greatly under Wilhelm II. It’s tragic, as I’ve said many times. Tell us, S2C: when Willie launched WW1 by invading Luxembourg 2 Aug ‘14 and neutral Belgium 4 Aug ‘14 - should he have taken the welfare of his own people into account? It was quite a risk.

    When his chief of staff resigned in Sep ‘14 it was clear they failed. Yet Willie kept on happily killing his own men in a lost war. Why? Pride? Given arrogant incompetence and aggression, were German civilian deaths a self-inflicted wound? Nobody invaded Germany, after all. Why should the Allies have cared more about German civilians than Willie, von Moltke, Ludendorff, Hindenburg, and the other nitwits?

    How about Belgium? The same percentage of civilians died (1.16%). A third (unlike Germany) by direct, random execution. The rest by famine and exposure (Germans loved burning dwellings and expelling civilians). How about the Serbians? 28% of their population died. Any tears for them?

    Wilson? I agree with Clemenceau: "What do you expect when I'm between two men- one of whom (Lloyd George) thinks he is Napoleon and the other (Wilson) thinks he's Jesus Christ? ("Que voulez vous que je fasse entre deux hommes dont un se criot Napoléan et l'autre Jésus Crist?”).

    So what? Does that exonerate Willie and his rotten General Staff for starting WW1, raping Belgium and northern France, and exposing his own people to famine due to incompetence? Let alone denying responsibility to ensure another even more ruinous conflict?

    Shameless celebrity Naill Ferguson? Give us a break!

    Tell us, S2C. Did the Jews cause WW1 & WW2? You dance around it like a firefly. Put it all on the table.

    PS. The most interesting recent thing I’ve read. Dolf - who never worked out and couldn’t swim - intentionally exercised his arm to be able to hold the ‘Hitler-Gruß’ salute for all those tedious hours of pompous Nazi pageants (especially Nüremberg party rallies). What an athlete!
  117. @Lot

    There are numerous ways to frustrate adverse possession, some of which the Palestinians have employed, i.e. taking legal action against the trespasser;
     
    Legal action must be taken within the relevant statute of limitations. Even giving them 20 years, that would be 1969 for most of Israel and 1987 for the West Bank. If a case was filed by then, it would be resolved by now 3+ decades later. No such binding judgment exists against Israel, QED.

    posting No Trespassing signs or barriers against trespass.
     
    LOL what? That is not the law anywhere in the USA. Unless you mean a situation where the adverse possessor is not actually in full control of the land because he can't stop the title holder from putting up signs and barriers. But that is not remotely the case with Israel.

    Actions such as offering to lease part of the trespassed-upon property to the trespasser vitiate the requirement that the trespass be “hostile.”
     
    "Offering" to lease land in the process of being adversely possessed means nothing. An actual lease both parties agree to is what would destroy the "hostile" or "adverse" possession. Think about it, saying "Hey bro do you want to pay me rent for that land I say I own you are own" and getting a "No this is my land I am not paying you" is just about the definition of hostile possession.

    The principle underlying statutes of limitation (and the equitable doctrine of laches) is that there is a public interest in not having legal disputes drag on endlessly as well as the requirement of justice that a party shouldn’t be able to take advantage of loss of witnesses, memory, documents and other physical evidence by passage of time. But the availability of a remedy is presupposed. Otherwise it can’t be said that the plaintiff’s conduct offended against those principles. How many Palestinian claims would be precluded by applying those principles? And is it clear what the relevant law and courts would be (have been)? Is there some relevance in the Australian cases (notably Mabo) in which native title was recognised – in contrast to 200 years of legal assumption of terra nullius – though extinction was also acknowledged where the Crown had granted freehold titles (Cf. perhaps some of the few Ottoman freeholds; in which connection I note that Bedouin, even today, are being denied rights to the land they are on because it is state land neither held as freehold nor formally leased to them).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    These are all valid points as to why Israeli title to its territory is not a pure application of adverse possession.

    However, the lesson from the principles behind adverse possession is still valid: at some point a long period of continuous and hostile possession trumps all other claims to title. Israel is almost 70 years old, and has controlled the West Bank for 50 years. The passage of time has rendered claims by an Arab to part of Israel that might have been just in 1950 no longer just on behalf of his grandchildren.
  118. @SolontoCroesus

    Is kicking a man (outnumbered 9 to 1) to death in front of his family members a heartwarming Teutonic ritual?
     
    Obviously not:

    Five men are sentenced to death, one receives two years in prison, and three are acquited.
     
    ---
    July 23, 2011:

    "Darioush Rezaie, 35, a university teacher who held a PhD in physics . . .was assassinated in front of his child's nursery in Bani Hashem street, in Tehran" . . . "His wife, who was wounded in the attack, has been hospitalized."
     
    January 2012:

    "35 year old nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, was killed by a magnetic bomb placed on his car by two assailants in northern Tehran, Iranian media reported.
    The attack strongly resembles earlier killings of scientists working on the country's controversial nuclear programme." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/16/iran-scientists-state-sponsored-murder
     
    In response to the accusation that Israel was behind these assassinations, Ronen Bergman told NBC's Brian Williams that "Israel has used assassination more than any other state, even the cruelest tyrant," and that it was "morally justified" to kill someone who was claimed to be the equivalent of Hitler and who posed "an existential threat to your people."

    http://www.nbcnews.com/video/rock-center/46318982#46318982

    Regarding the killing of Roshan, father of a then-4 year old son,


    Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, a spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), said on his Facebook page Wednesday: "I have no idea who targeted the Iranian scientist but I certainly don't shed a tear."
     
    How many Jews have been sentenced to death, or have been imprisoned, or even faced a court of law, for the murders of Iranian scientists Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan and Darioush Rezaie, and others?

    Would you patronize a state that pursues a policy of assassination "more than any other state, even the worst tyrant, like Stalin," or that is represented by Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai who expresses a corollary sentiment, apparently from his official capacity?

    On balance, it appears the Germans did better than the Israelis: the drunken Germans were tried and the majority of them lost their lives. Not so for the Jews.

    Incitatus wrote:


    Hitler’s intentions to make his own law were never clearer.
     
    Breitman & Lichtman stated similar outrage at National Socialism's "semi-legal revolution." We are impressed by their -- and your-- concern over legalities. Perhaps you can join forces, form a PAC and demand that AIPAC register as foreign agents, or that Israel sign the NPT, or that Israel bring itself into compliance with the dozens of United Nations resolutions it has ignored or violated over the decades.

    Why should this concern us in the question of who started the grudge-match between Nazis and German Jews?
     
    You raise an intriguing question: the example of villainy on the part of drunken SS troops took place in Silesia; that's in Poland, correct?

    But the Mar 24, 1933 publication states:


    "ALL Israel is uniting in wrath against the Nazi onslaught on the Jews in Germany."

     


    [Jews throughout the world are united in ] one common aim - to stand by the 600,000 Jews of Germany who are terrorised by Hitlerist anti-Semitism
     

    . . .to compel Fascist Germany to end its campaign of violence and suppression directed against its [German] Jewish minority.
     

    "World-wide preparations are being made to organise great Jewish demonstrations of protest to call attention to the sufferings of the German Jews at the hands of the Hitlerites,"
     

    "The Board of Deputies of British Jews, representing the entire Jewish community in Great Britain, is meeting . . .to discuss the German situation and decide on what action is to be taken to counteract the attacks on their German fellow Jews."
     

    "Representative Jewish organisations in the European capitals are understood in to be making representations to their respective Governments to use influence with the Hitler Cabinet to induce it to call a halt in the oppression of the German Jews." [note the contorted phrasing; not "asking governments," but "making representations . . ."]
     
    These six calls to action on behalf of German Jews are consistent with Louis Brandeis's earlier directive to Rabbi Stephen Wise, that "all Jews must leave Germany."

    My question is, IF, as you cited,
    --> In 1932, Polish Jews were killed by (drunken) Germans; and

    --> if it is true, as Breitman & Lichtman wrote, that "once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence against Jews . . . Only in late 1938 . . . for the first time [did] Gestapo imprison . . . German Jews in concentration camps,"

    THEN why were "14 million Jews worldwide;" "international Jewry" and Louis Brandeis, the head of zionist Jews, not concerned about Polish Jews, who were being beaten and killed, but instead pulled out all the stops on behalf of German Jews, who were not being similarly oppressed?

    ---
    re:


    Which came first : 24 Aug ‘32 or 24 Mar ‘33?
     

    Which came first S2C: ‘Mein Kampf’ 1925 or 24 Mar ‘33?
     
    By opening your argument with the case of the nine drunken SS troops who killed a Jewish man in Silesia in 1932; then relating Goebbels's propaganda to that case, it appears you're claim is that that incident in 1932 was the basis for the National Socialist/Goebbels meme that "Jews were to blame."

    Or, as Sam Shama implied in an earlier comment, that 'Mein Kampf' contains the seeds of the meme that "Jews are to blame."

    It seems reasonable, then, to figure out what came before Mein Kampf.

    C Paul Vincent provides a clue: In "The Politics of Hunger," Vincent reports on the impact of the starvation-blockade on (mostly) German women and children.

    Imagine yourself a bystander in Hamburg, or Munich, or Aachen, the months of November 1918 to June 1919. Half of the children in your town had already died of starvation during the war; relying on the promises of Woodrow Wilson that induced the armistice, you anticipated relief, but the starvation continued: in addition to the estimated 700,000 German civilians who succumbed to starvation during the war, another 70,000 to 100,000 German women and children died while the victors negotiated a treaty.
    No one was "put on trial" much less executed or imprisoned for the "notorious" crime against humanity of sustaining a starvation-blockade for the purpose of forcing a nation to sign an onerous peace treaty.

    Woodrow Wilson was heavily influenced by Bernard Baruch, present at Wilson's side throughout the negotiations, and the dozens of other representatives of Jewish and zionist entities also present and making demands at the treaty negotiations. Britain was represented by Lloyd George, who had been legal counsel to zionist leader Chaim Weizmann. Weizmann had assisted the British in sustaining the blockade; in exchange, he acquired the Balfour Declaration.

    The use of the word, "victors," above, is, perhaps, inappropriate: most of the Allies sustained losses in their elite class as well as their financial status that would not be recompensed by the punishment meted to Germany.
    Based on comments by Edwin Black in "The Transfer Agreement," only Jews "returned from Versailles with a dual triumph: they acquired a homeland for Jews in Palestine, and guarantees of their rights as minorities in European states."

    As a member of the audience insisted to Jeffrey Herf in a bookstore in Washington, DC,
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?192852-1/jewish-enemy-nazi-propaganda
    German soldiers returned from the battlefield maimed, gassed, suffering brain trauma and as-yet unidentified PTSD, to homes where their wives and children were dead of starvation or so malnourished as to be "life unworthy of life." Orphanages dotted the landscape; children begged and young girls prostituted themselves to survive.

    You knew that Wilson betrayed his promise.

    You knew that "the Jews returned in triumph from Versailles." At the expense of your families and your home and your government.

    Polish and Russian Jews fleeing Bolshevik upheavals in Russia poured into Germany, straining to the breaking point an already chaotic and overstretched political, social, and economic fabric. Bolsheviks sent Jewish agents into Germany to stir up turmoil with the goal of capturing Germany for the Communist cause, setting off numerous riots and mobs.

    It was not "Arabs" or "Muslims" to blame: they, too, had been betrayed, by the British, French, and Americans (as well as Jews: Aaron Aaronsohn acted as a double-agent, working for the Turkish leader while spying for the British -- ironically, Chaim Weizmann's sister, Fannie Weizmann, spied on the British for the Germans).

    qui bono?

    Who walked away with the goodies and who got left holding the bag?

    Blame the Jews because highly influential zionist Jews played a major role in keeping the war rolling past a date when (as Niall Ferguson has argued) the only reasonable course for Britain was to agree to a peace, as the German people knew.

    --
    This has gone too long already -- another time, we'll address the matter of Italians and Mafia.

    Well, SC, do you think this imbecile, inZitatus, cares about international law and crimes against peace/ humanity??
    Let me enlighten you; this virulent German hater cares very much about those things indeed…
    IF, and only IF, such violations, real or INVENTED – and in the case of sovereign Germany(1871-1945) there is no shortage of never ending propaganda/ lies – involve Germans.

    Think about it for a sec; the Nuremberg show trials were a bunch of kangaroo courts, but as illegal and unjust as they were, they set certain precedents, did they not?

    Ok then, after those show trials, the Zionist scum, through terrorism/massacres, ethnic cleansing and wars of conquest, took nearly ALL Palestinian land. These are absolutely well documented facts. One can see disappearing Palestine through the maps in the following article:
    http://ifamericaknew.org/history/

    Does inZitatus condemn the Zio scum for their actions? For creating their artificial religious/ethno state through clear VIOLATIONS of the Nuremberg show trials, which inZi certainly approves of, as long of course, as those punished and executed were Germans…

    Every zionist occupation regime since the beginning has been in violation of the Nuremberg “principles”. By the standards set, a lot of zio officials should be tried and executed.
    The same is true for ZUSA, BTW.
    Would inZitatus support such a notion? I don’t think so, based on his comments, his friendly relations with zio trolls Sam the Sham, iffen and others. In a reply to Rurik, inZi even said he had some fondness or something for … John McCain!!
    Bottom line, the guy is slime. I have noticed that in every article here discussing Palestine, this creep pops up talking about Hitler, natzee cannibals, nieh, nieh.

    Anyway, why the hell should there even be an Israel as a Jew supremacist ethno state?
    Currently, there are no real threats to Jews in the West, where, in fact, a majority of Jews choose to live.
    Israel is an abomination … should be dismantled, Palestine restored and the Jews who wish to stay, should stay, the ones who don’t want to live as equals with the indigenous population, can all get the hell out… most would probably choose ZUSA, their preferred destination, and why not, they really do largely run the damn thing anyway. Isn’t that enough? Being the masters of the only, if declining, superpower?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    “imbecile, Zio scum, virulent German hater, Zionist scum, ziotroll, slime, creep, shill, abomination, simpleton, miserable propagandist & shill, just another shit eater, sucker, zionist liar, scumbag, sham, village Idiot.”

    I sense there's something frustrating you L.K.

    Torchlight parade lose it’s way? Mercedes Cabriolet repossessed? Rain ruin your book-burning?

    I know. Life can be so cruel, can't it? Take a deep breath. Count to ten. Tomorrow, no doubt, will be better. Trust in Dolf (and Eva)!

    BTW no need to woo me with such flattery. I respect you for your intellect. Honest.

    Remember, Wötan loves you.

  119. @RobinG
    Posted by L.K. today:

    Journalist Jonathan Cook explores Israel’s key role in persuading the Bush administration to invade Iraq, as part of a plan to remake the Middle East...
    Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East,
    Jonathan Cook , author
    https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Clash-Civilisations-Remake-Middle/dp/0745327540

    American-Israeli relations have intrigued, occupied and preoccupied two generations of scholars and of politicians around the world. Which of the two is the contemporary Rome and which is the belligerent Sparta in the Middle East? Jonathan Cook's book undeniably enriches and elevates the debate. -- Afif Safieh, Palestinian Ambassador in Washington
     
    This book might be on the web as a pdf.

    Hey RobinG,

    That’s the one I read. It’s pretty good, his website is recommended too.

    You probably already know the following material but most people don’t. The real story about how Israel was created, refuting the brainwashing propaganda we are subjected to. Share with those you know! Both authors have published books and articles on the subject.

    The Real Story of How Israel Was Created
    by Alison Weir
    http://original.antiwar.com/alison-weir/2011/10/10/the-real-story-of-how-israel-was-created/

    The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel
    By Jeremy R. Hammond
    https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel/

    Read More
  120. @SolontoCroesus

    Is kicking a man (outnumbered 9 to 1) to death in front of his family members a heartwarming Teutonic ritual?
     
    Obviously not:

    Five men are sentenced to death, one receives two years in prison, and three are acquited.
     
    ---
    July 23, 2011:

    "Darioush Rezaie, 35, a university teacher who held a PhD in physics . . .was assassinated in front of his child's nursery in Bani Hashem street, in Tehran" . . . "His wife, who was wounded in the attack, has been hospitalized."
     
    January 2012:

    "35 year old nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, was killed by a magnetic bomb placed on his car by two assailants in northern Tehran, Iranian media reported.
    The attack strongly resembles earlier killings of scientists working on the country's controversial nuclear programme." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/16/iran-scientists-state-sponsored-murder
     
    In response to the accusation that Israel was behind these assassinations, Ronen Bergman told NBC's Brian Williams that "Israel has used assassination more than any other state, even the cruelest tyrant," and that it was "morally justified" to kill someone who was claimed to be the equivalent of Hitler and who posed "an existential threat to your people."

    http://www.nbcnews.com/video/rock-center/46318982#46318982

    Regarding the killing of Roshan, father of a then-4 year old son,


    Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, a spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), said on his Facebook page Wednesday: "I have no idea who targeted the Iranian scientist but I certainly don't shed a tear."
     
    How many Jews have been sentenced to death, or have been imprisoned, or even faced a court of law, for the murders of Iranian scientists Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan and Darioush Rezaie, and others?

    Would you patronize a state that pursues a policy of assassination "more than any other state, even the worst tyrant, like Stalin," or that is represented by Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai who expresses a corollary sentiment, apparently from his official capacity?

    On balance, it appears the Germans did better than the Israelis: the drunken Germans were tried and the majority of them lost their lives. Not so for the Jews.

    Incitatus wrote:


    Hitler’s intentions to make his own law were never clearer.
     
    Breitman & Lichtman stated similar outrage at National Socialism's "semi-legal revolution." We are impressed by their -- and your-- concern over legalities. Perhaps you can join forces, form a PAC and demand that AIPAC register as foreign agents, or that Israel sign the NPT, or that Israel bring itself into compliance with the dozens of United Nations resolutions it has ignored or violated over the decades.

    Why should this concern us in the question of who started the grudge-match between Nazis and German Jews?
     
    You raise an intriguing question: the example of villainy on the part of drunken SS troops took place in Silesia; that's in Poland, correct?

    But the Mar 24, 1933 publication states:


    "ALL Israel is uniting in wrath against the Nazi onslaught on the Jews in Germany."

     


    [Jews throughout the world are united in ] one common aim - to stand by the 600,000 Jews of Germany who are terrorised by Hitlerist anti-Semitism
     

    . . .to compel Fascist Germany to end its campaign of violence and suppression directed against its [German] Jewish minority.
     

    "World-wide preparations are being made to organise great Jewish demonstrations of protest to call attention to the sufferings of the German Jews at the hands of the Hitlerites,"
     

    "The Board of Deputies of British Jews, representing the entire Jewish community in Great Britain, is meeting . . .to discuss the German situation and decide on what action is to be taken to counteract the attacks on their German fellow Jews."
     

    "Representative Jewish organisations in the European capitals are understood in to be making representations to their respective Governments to use influence with the Hitler Cabinet to induce it to call a halt in the oppression of the German Jews." [note the contorted phrasing; not "asking governments," but "making representations . . ."]
     
    These six calls to action on behalf of German Jews are consistent with Louis Brandeis's earlier directive to Rabbi Stephen Wise, that "all Jews must leave Germany."

    My question is, IF, as you cited,
    --> In 1932, Polish Jews were killed by (drunken) Germans; and

    --> if it is true, as Breitman & Lichtman wrote, that "once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence against Jews . . . Only in late 1938 . . . for the first time [did] Gestapo imprison . . . German Jews in concentration camps,"

    THEN why were "14 million Jews worldwide;" "international Jewry" and Louis Brandeis, the head of zionist Jews, not concerned about Polish Jews, who were being beaten and killed, but instead pulled out all the stops on behalf of German Jews, who were not being similarly oppressed?

    ---
    re:


    Which came first : 24 Aug ‘32 or 24 Mar ‘33?
     

    Which came first S2C: ‘Mein Kampf’ 1925 or 24 Mar ‘33?
     
    By opening your argument with the case of the nine drunken SS troops who killed a Jewish man in Silesia in 1932; then relating Goebbels's propaganda to that case, it appears you're claim is that that incident in 1932 was the basis for the National Socialist/Goebbels meme that "Jews were to blame."

    Or, as Sam Shama implied in an earlier comment, that 'Mein Kampf' contains the seeds of the meme that "Jews are to blame."

    It seems reasonable, then, to figure out what came before Mein Kampf.

    C Paul Vincent provides a clue: In "The Politics of Hunger," Vincent reports on the impact of the starvation-blockade on (mostly) German women and children.

    Imagine yourself a bystander in Hamburg, or Munich, or Aachen, the months of November 1918 to June 1919. Half of the children in your town had already died of starvation during the war; relying on the promises of Woodrow Wilson that induced the armistice, you anticipated relief, but the starvation continued: in addition to the estimated 700,000 German civilians who succumbed to starvation during the war, another 70,000 to 100,000 German women and children died while the victors negotiated a treaty.
    No one was "put on trial" much less executed or imprisoned for the "notorious" crime against humanity of sustaining a starvation-blockade for the purpose of forcing a nation to sign an onerous peace treaty.

    Woodrow Wilson was heavily influenced by Bernard Baruch, present at Wilson's side throughout the negotiations, and the dozens of other representatives of Jewish and zionist entities also present and making demands at the treaty negotiations. Britain was represented by Lloyd George, who had been legal counsel to zionist leader Chaim Weizmann. Weizmann had assisted the British in sustaining the blockade; in exchange, he acquired the Balfour Declaration.

    The use of the word, "victors," above, is, perhaps, inappropriate: most of the Allies sustained losses in their elite class as well as their financial status that would not be recompensed by the punishment meted to Germany.
    Based on comments by Edwin Black in "The Transfer Agreement," only Jews "returned from Versailles with a dual triumph: they acquired a homeland for Jews in Palestine, and guarantees of their rights as minorities in European states."

    As a member of the audience insisted to Jeffrey Herf in a bookstore in Washington, DC,
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?192852-1/jewish-enemy-nazi-propaganda
    German soldiers returned from the battlefield maimed, gassed, suffering brain trauma and as-yet unidentified PTSD, to homes where their wives and children were dead of starvation or so malnourished as to be "life unworthy of life." Orphanages dotted the landscape; children begged and young girls prostituted themselves to survive.

    You knew that Wilson betrayed his promise.

    You knew that "the Jews returned in triumph from Versailles." At the expense of your families and your home and your government.

    Polish and Russian Jews fleeing Bolshevik upheavals in Russia poured into Germany, straining to the breaking point an already chaotic and overstretched political, social, and economic fabric. Bolsheviks sent Jewish agents into Germany to stir up turmoil with the goal of capturing Germany for the Communist cause, setting off numerous riots and mobs.

    It was not "Arabs" or "Muslims" to blame: they, too, had been betrayed, by the British, French, and Americans (as well as Jews: Aaron Aaronsohn acted as a double-agent, working for the Turkish leader while spying for the British -- ironically, Chaim Weizmann's sister, Fannie Weizmann, spied on the British for the Germans).

    qui bono?

    Who walked away with the goodies and who got left holding the bag?

    Blame the Jews because highly influential zionist Jews played a major role in keeping the war rolling past a date when (as Niall Ferguson has argued) the only reasonable course for Britain was to agree to a peace, as the German people knew.

    --
    This has gone too long already -- another time, we'll address the matter of Italians and Mafia.

    Your defence of the idea that the Jews had it coming is weakening as you tackle Incitatus’s point based on the murder by thugs by elaborately avoiding his key point. The thugs were SA and Hitler supported them. While clearly Himmler was a more direct and unsubtle enemy of the Jews than Hitler who, rightly as leader, had to balance mulfiple objectives, Jews everywhere were wise to anticipate persecution and react accordingly.

    It is interesting to be reminded of the breadth and depth of German anti-Semitism of which Jewish leaders everywhere would have been more than aware. In a recent docudrama on the life of Einstein there is no doubt realism in showing Einstein’s mother objecting to his marrying Mileva Maric because she was a Slav (German of Swiss non Jew would have been OK) but also in having the later Nobel Prize winning physicist Philipp Lenard utter the most violent anti-Semitic sentiments. As a check I Googled for Philipp Lenard quotes and it is clear that, even before he and other scientists wrote in adulatory terms of the still little known Adolf Hitler (and Ludendorf) , he had blamed Jews for almost everything (including “Jewish physics” e.g. relativity) and said they should be sunk under the sea**. Clearly Jews who feared what was to come in 30s Germany weren’t just being paranoid.

    **He remained in good standing while being famously recalcitrant over instructions or guidance not to give lectures on the day of (the murdered Jewish) Walther Rathenau’s funeral.

    Read More
  121. @Incitatus
    “Here’s a trick question:
    Which came first, the March 24, 1933 publication of “International Jewry’s” determination to strangle Germany economically — to “deprive it of its export business, which is essential to its survival” [i.e. an existential threat] , or the April 1, 1933, one-day German boycott of Jewish businesses?”


    Two issues. The ‘Who started it’ defense and, second, the fiction that a boycott could inhibit rearmament.

    Imagine yourself a bystander in Potempa (Upper Silesia) the evening of 9 Aug ‘32. Nine drunk men brake into miner Konrad Pietrzuch’s apartment on the night of 9 Aug ‘32, drag him out of bed, and kick him to death in front of his mother and brother. They’re apprehended and put on trial in Beuthen for their notorious crime. The court publishes a verdict 22 Aug ‘32: Five men are sentenced to death, one receives two years in prison, and three are acquited.

    All nine are uniformed SA. Dolf’s reaction? He sends the following telegram: “I feel connected to you in boundless loyalty. From this moment on, your freedom is a matter of honour for us, and the fight against a government, under which this judgement was possible, is our duty.”

    Is kicking a man (outnumbered 9 to 1) to death in front of his family members a heartwarming Teutonic ritual? Hitler’s intentions to make his own law were never clearer. Why should this concern us in the question of who started the grudge-match between Nazis and German Jews?

    On 24 Aug ‘32 Göbbels publishes the headline “The Jews Are to Blame” and goes on to say “Never forget it comrades! Repeat it out loud a hundred times a day until the words follow you into your deepest dreams: The Jews are to blame! And they will not evade the criminal tribunal that they deserve.”

    I don’t know. Sounds like a declaration of war to me. Would you patronize someone who blamed Italian-Americans for the Mafia and all other worldly ills S2C?

    Which came first : 24 Aug ‘32 or 24 Mar ‘33?

    But wait! How about numerous Dolf quotes from the pre-Putsch years or ‘Mein Kampf’ (vol I: ‘25, vol 2: ‘26)? Tell us, if you were a Jew how would you feel reading this:

    “And so I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord...Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate? On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light.”
    -Adolf Hitler ‘Mein Kampf’ Vol 1 Chapter 2 1925

    How did Dolf gain the trust of the Wilhemine crowd (ultimately being put illegally in power by them in ‘33):

    “But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists...by placing responsibility for the loss of the World War on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.”
    -Adolf Hitler ‘Mein Kampf’ Vol 1 Chapter 10 1925

    Thus was nitwit/coconspirator Ludendorff relieved of any responsibility (with blockheads von Moltke, von Falkenhaynn, von Hindenburg, Willie II, Bethmann-Hollweg, Conrad von Hötzendorf, etc ) for eagerly launching WW1 - a war they knew they’d lost when Helmuth resigned Sep ‘14. Nonetheless they kept feeding their own men into the abattoir (with many, many others). Why? Dolf (Paul, Eric, Helmuth, Willie and most Germans) wanted a rematch! After all, none of them personally suffered (except for bruised egos. It was the making of stateless Austrian Dolf. The General Staff? Swanning around in absurd feathered helmets with ugly cast eagles and tunics festooned with pounds of medals would never command the respect given in 1871. Only another war would do!

    Solution? The Jews were all to blame! What’s not to like (as long as you’re not Jewish)?

    Which came first S2C: ‘Mein Kampf’ 1925 or 24 Mar ‘33?

    I’ll spare you many, many other quotes (some much worse). Anyone (Jew or Gentile) in Germany would have been aware of them. Dolf wasn’t shy, after all. He was a ‘sleepwalker guided by providence’ with a big mouth to the day he poisoned his wife and blew his brains out in a grand ‘Teutonic’ gesture (leaving all who believed in him to take the blame). What a guy!

    Second Issue: “International Jewry’s” determination to strangle Germany economically — to “deprive it of its export business, which is essential to its survival”

    Please! You know better. Or should.

    Hitler replaced Reichsbank President Hans Luther with Hjalmar Schacht in Mar ‘33. Why? Dolf thought “the future of Germany depends solely and alone on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht.” Think “survival.” What did Hjalmar do? He formed dummy Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschafgt (Mefo - Metallurgic Research Society) with the purpose of financing four large weapons concerns (Gutehoffnungschütte, Krupp, Rheinstahl, and Seimens) for that purpose. Mefo issued bills of exchange, “guaranteed by the state and discounted by the Reichsbank” to the weapons firms. The lag between issuance and payments (autumn ‘33- Apr ’34) was key: it was a ponzi scheme. Nothing to do with any “export business...essential to its [Germany’s] survival.” In fact, it was another reason to go to war early (before the curtain could fall on paying debts).

    You'll have do better S2C!

    Thanks. He hasn’t done better. Just trying to slide wordily past your point now. Still it’s not mad abusive ranting like L.K’s.

    Read More
  122. @Wizard of Oz
    The principle underlying statutes of limitation (and the equitable doctrine of laches) is that there is a public interest in not having legal disputes drag on endlessly as well as the requirement of justice that a party shouldn't be able to take advantage of loss of witnesses, memory, documents and other physical evidence by passage of time. But the availability of a remedy is presupposed. Otherwise it can't be said that the plaintiff's conduct offended against those principles. How many Palestinian claims would be precluded by applying those principles? And is it clear what the relevant law and courts would be (have been)? Is there some relevance in the Australian cases (notably Mabo) in which native title was recognised - in contrast to 200 years of legal assumption of terra nullius - though extinction was also acknowledged where the Crown had granted freehold titles (Cf. perhaps some of the few Ottoman freeholds; in which connection I note that Bedouin, even today, are being denied rights to the land they are on because it is state land neither held as freehold nor formally leased to them).

    These are all valid points as to why Israeli title to its territory is not a pure application of adverse possession.

    However, the lesson from the principles behind adverse possession is still valid: at some point a long period of continuous and hostile possession trumps all other claims to title. Israel is almost 70 years old, and has controlled the West Bank for 50 years. The passage of time has rendered claims by an Arab to part of Israel that might have been just in 1950 no longer just on behalf of his grandchildren.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man
    You know what Shakespeare
    , @Z-man
    This is what I meant to say; You know what Shakespeare said about lawyers...I would add Jew-ish lawyers! LOL!!
  123. @Bill Jones
    And what the fuck do the yids have to do with European tradition?

    And what the fuck do the yids have to do with European tradition?

    Yiddish is primarily a Germanic language, and Jews have been in Europe for more than 2000 years. Their special talent and understanding of the law has been recognized by all of the other civilized European peoples.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Zio shill 'lot': 'Their special talent and understanding of the law has been recognized by all of the other civilized European peoples'.

    Yeah, Alan Dershowitz comes to mind! LOL
    Thanks for the laugh though!
  124. Unfortunately, there will never be any peace for the Palestinians. The State of Israel needs something it can point to as a convenient “existential threat” whenever necessary.

    North Korea plays a similar role for the US government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Are ypu suggesting the US wouldn't grab a deal with China that allowed the reunification of Korea?
  125. @Lot
    These are all valid points as to why Israeli title to its territory is not a pure application of adverse possession.

    However, the lesson from the principles behind adverse possession is still valid: at some point a long period of continuous and hostile possession trumps all other claims to title. Israel is almost 70 years old, and has controlled the West Bank for 50 years. The passage of time has rendered claims by an Arab to part of Israel that might have been just in 1950 no longer just on behalf of his grandchildren.

    You know what Shakespeare

    Read More
  126. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Is it appropriate to apply adverse possession to situations outside of — way beyond, in fact — civil law?

    The I/P situation involves international law — under which terms, by the way, a Jewish jurist advised the Knesset that Israel did NOT have the right to take as its own territory that it conquered in 1967 — Nuremberg made that addition to the laws handed down to protect “civilization.”
    Furthermore, I/P involves war/occupation/monopoly of use of force, etc., all issues on a category above, and more in the realm of life-and-death, than civil law/adverse possession.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    The Israeli "Six-day war" of 1967 was not a response to Arab aggression, but was a pre-emptive strike by Israel.
    The USS Liberty (GTR-5) was supposed to be the "sacrificial lamb" in order to justify a U S war with Egypt, as well as to cover up an Israeli massacre of an Egyptian city.
    When the USS Liberty (GTR-5) refused to sink because of our brave American sailors, the "jig was up". This "false flag" operation should have resulted in President Lyndon Johnson and his jewish handlers being tried and convicted of treason.
    Of course, the whole "incident" was covered up...at the request of the highest levels of government.
    It might interest some to know that Admiral McCain (John McCain's daddy) was instrumental in whitewashing the attack on the USS Liberty (GTR-5).
  127. @FredtheFirst
    "Israeli Victory Caucus"

    And they call Snowden a traitor.

    Snowden’s a great man compared to the scumbags of the “Israeli Victory Caucus.”

    Giraldi mentions that all 100 U.S. Senators sent a letter to the UN Secretary General criticizing the UN’s alleged anti-Israeli bias. I live in Minnesota, so that includes Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken.

    Thanks for nothing, Klobuchar and Franken, you grovel-to-AIPAC hacks.

    Read More
  128. @Lot

    And what the fuck do the yids have to do with European tradition?
     
    Yiddish is primarily a Germanic language, and Jews have been in Europe for more than 2000 years. Their special talent and understanding of the law has been recognized by all of the other civilized European peoples.

    Zio shill ‘lot’: ‘Their special talent and understanding of the law has been recognized by all of the other civilized European peoples’.

    Yeah, Alan Dershowitz comes to mind! LOL
    Thanks for the laugh though!

    Read More
  129. 92 Sam Shama
    You write Yehoshua ben Yosuf failed to find vocation as a banker or moneylender. What is your source for such a statement?
    Are you really trolling the readers to imply that Jesus, son of Joseph failed to find vocation a banker or moneylender?
    Who are you?

    Read More
  130. @Lot
    These are all valid points as to why Israeli title to its territory is not a pure application of adverse possession.

    However, the lesson from the principles behind adverse possession is still valid: at some point a long period of continuous and hostile possession trumps all other claims to title. Israel is almost 70 years old, and has controlled the West Bank for 50 years. The passage of time has rendered claims by an Arab to part of Israel that might have been just in 1950 no longer just on behalf of his grandchildren.

    This is what I meant to say; You know what Shakespeare said about lawyers…I would add Jew-ish lawyers! LOL!!

    Read More
  131. @anonymous
    Is it appropriate to apply adverse possession to situations outside of -- way beyond, in fact -- civil law?

    The I/P situation involves international law -- under which terms, by the way, a Jewish jurist advised the Knesset that Israel did NOT have the right to take as its own territory that it conquered in 1967 -- Nuremberg made that addition to the laws handed down to protect "civilization."
    Furthermore, I/P involves war/occupation/monopoly of use of force, etc., all issues on a category above, and more in the realm of life-and-death, than civil law/adverse possession.

    The Israeli “Six-day war” of 1967 was not a response to Arab aggression, but was a pre-emptive strike by Israel.
    The USS Liberty (GTR-5) was supposed to be the “sacrificial lamb” in order to justify a U S war with Egypt, as well as to cover up an Israeli massacre of an Egyptian city.
    When the USS Liberty (GTR-5) refused to sink because of our brave American sailors, the “jig was up”. This “false flag” operation should have resulted in President Lyndon Johnson and his jewish handlers being tried and convicted of treason.
    Of course, the whole “incident” was covered up…at the request of the highest levels of government.
    It might interest some to know that Admiral McCain (John McCain’s daddy) was instrumental in whitewashing the attack on the USS Liberty (GTR-5).

    Read More
  132. @Wizard of Oz
    I have trouble understanding any suggestions of a deal or even speculation about it without discussion of what is to become of the Israeli settlements (or "Israeli towns" in Daniel Pipes's terminology).

    Could some or all of them be left within the Palestinian state? The terms of the safeguards built in for them at least need an early airing. Is it possible to have most of them move to Israel proper? Does PG think that could or would be negotiated? (Maybe it is not as impossible as one might at first suppose. Enormous ingenuity using solsr power and desalination is going into developing the Negev????).

    Given the certainty that any settlement would have to be lubricated with vast amounts of money what about financing 3, 4 or 5 mini Hong Kongs on the West Bank, realistically accepting that Palestinians basing their economy and employment on farming is a lost cause?

    Re-sent with typos fixes. It was #3 but with no editing facility.

    Jordan is doing quite well with horticulture. Of course, there may not be enough water to go round.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I think the relevance of this to my comment at least includes its reminder that Palestinians would be no less affected by advances in agricultural productivity than anyone else so it isn't going to be an adequate basis for employing Palestinians in a modern Palestinian state.
  133. @SolontoCroesus

    Is kicking a man (outnumbered 9 to 1) to death in front of his family members a heartwarming Teutonic ritual?
     
    Obviously not:

    Five men are sentenced to death, one receives two years in prison, and three are acquited.
     
    ---
    July 23, 2011:

    "Darioush Rezaie, 35, a university teacher who held a PhD in physics . . .was assassinated in front of his child's nursery in Bani Hashem street, in Tehran" . . . "His wife, who was wounded in the attack, has been hospitalized."
     
    January 2012:

    "35 year old nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, was killed by a magnetic bomb placed on his car by two assailants in northern Tehran, Iranian media reported.
    The attack strongly resembles earlier killings of scientists working on the country's controversial nuclear programme." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/16/iran-scientists-state-sponsored-murder
     
    In response to the accusation that Israel was behind these assassinations, Ronen Bergman told NBC's Brian Williams that "Israel has used assassination more than any other state, even the cruelest tyrant," and that it was "morally justified" to kill someone who was claimed to be the equivalent of Hitler and who posed "an existential threat to your people."

    http://www.nbcnews.com/video/rock-center/46318982#46318982

    Regarding the killing of Roshan, father of a then-4 year old son,


    Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, a spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), said on his Facebook page Wednesday: "I have no idea who targeted the Iranian scientist but I certainly don't shed a tear."
     
    How many Jews have been sentenced to death, or have been imprisoned, or even faced a court of law, for the murders of Iranian scientists Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan and Darioush Rezaie, and others?

    Would you patronize a state that pursues a policy of assassination "more than any other state, even the worst tyrant, like Stalin," or that is represented by Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai who expresses a corollary sentiment, apparently from his official capacity?

    On balance, it appears the Germans did better than the Israelis: the drunken Germans were tried and the majority of them lost their lives. Not so for the Jews.

    Incitatus wrote:


    Hitler’s intentions to make his own law were never clearer.
     
    Breitman & Lichtman stated similar outrage at National Socialism's "semi-legal revolution." We are impressed by their -- and your-- concern over legalities. Perhaps you can join forces, form a PAC and demand that AIPAC register as foreign agents, or that Israel sign the NPT, or that Israel bring itself into compliance with the dozens of United Nations resolutions it has ignored or violated over the decades.

    Why should this concern us in the question of who started the grudge-match between Nazis and German Jews?
     
    You raise an intriguing question: the example of villainy on the part of drunken SS troops took place in Silesia; that's in Poland, correct?

    But the Mar 24, 1933 publication states:


    "ALL Israel is uniting in wrath against the Nazi onslaught on the Jews in Germany."

     


    [Jews throughout the world are united in ] one common aim - to stand by the 600,000 Jews of Germany who are terrorised by Hitlerist anti-Semitism
     

    . . .to compel Fascist Germany to end its campaign of violence and suppression directed against its [German] Jewish minority.
     

    "World-wide preparations are being made to organise great Jewish demonstrations of protest to call attention to the sufferings of the German Jews at the hands of the Hitlerites,"
     

    "The Board of Deputies of British Jews, representing the entire Jewish community in Great Britain, is meeting . . .to discuss the German situation and decide on what action is to be taken to counteract the attacks on their German fellow Jews."
     

    "Representative Jewish organisations in the European capitals are understood in to be making representations to their respective Governments to use influence with the Hitler Cabinet to induce it to call a halt in the oppression of the German Jews." [note the contorted phrasing; not "asking governments," but "making representations . . ."]
     
    These six calls to action on behalf of German Jews are consistent with Louis Brandeis's earlier directive to Rabbi Stephen Wise, that "all Jews must leave Germany."

    My question is, IF, as you cited,
    --> In 1932, Polish Jews were killed by (drunken) Germans; and

    --> if it is true, as Breitman & Lichtman wrote, that "once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence against Jews . . . Only in late 1938 . . . for the first time [did] Gestapo imprison . . . German Jews in concentration camps,"

    THEN why were "14 million Jews worldwide;" "international Jewry" and Louis Brandeis, the head of zionist Jews, not concerned about Polish Jews, who were being beaten and killed, but instead pulled out all the stops on behalf of German Jews, who were not being similarly oppressed?

    ---
    re:


    Which came first : 24 Aug ‘32 or 24 Mar ‘33?
     

    Which came first S2C: ‘Mein Kampf’ 1925 or 24 Mar ‘33?
     
    By opening your argument with the case of the nine drunken SS troops who killed a Jewish man in Silesia in 1932; then relating Goebbels's propaganda to that case, it appears you're claim is that that incident in 1932 was the basis for the National Socialist/Goebbels meme that "Jews were to blame."

    Or, as Sam Shama implied in an earlier comment, that 'Mein Kampf' contains the seeds of the meme that "Jews are to blame."

    It seems reasonable, then, to figure out what came before Mein Kampf.

    C Paul Vincent provides a clue: In "The Politics of Hunger," Vincent reports on the impact of the starvation-blockade on (mostly) German women and children.

    Imagine yourself a bystander in Hamburg, or Munich, or Aachen, the months of November 1918 to June 1919. Half of the children in your town had already died of starvation during the war; relying on the promises of Woodrow Wilson that induced the armistice, you anticipated relief, but the starvation continued: in addition to the estimated 700,000 German civilians who succumbed to starvation during the war, another 70,000 to 100,000 German women and children died while the victors negotiated a treaty.
    No one was "put on trial" much less executed or imprisoned for the "notorious" crime against humanity of sustaining a starvation-blockade for the purpose of forcing a nation to sign an onerous peace treaty.

    Woodrow Wilson was heavily influenced by Bernard Baruch, present at Wilson's side throughout the negotiations, and the dozens of other representatives of Jewish and zionist entities also present and making demands at the treaty negotiations. Britain was represented by Lloyd George, who had been legal counsel to zionist leader Chaim Weizmann. Weizmann had assisted the British in sustaining the blockade; in exchange, he acquired the Balfour Declaration.

    The use of the word, "victors," above, is, perhaps, inappropriate: most of the Allies sustained losses in their elite class as well as their financial status that would not be recompensed by the punishment meted to Germany.
    Based on comments by Edwin Black in "The Transfer Agreement," only Jews "returned from Versailles with a dual triumph: they acquired a homeland for Jews in Palestine, and guarantees of their rights as minorities in European states."

    As a member of the audience insisted to Jeffrey Herf in a bookstore in Washington, DC,
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?192852-1/jewish-enemy-nazi-propaganda
    German soldiers returned from the battlefield maimed, gassed, suffering brain trauma and as-yet unidentified PTSD, to homes where their wives and children were dead of starvation or so malnourished as to be "life unworthy of life." Orphanages dotted the landscape; children begged and young girls prostituted themselves to survive.

    You knew that Wilson betrayed his promise.

    You knew that "the Jews returned in triumph from Versailles." At the expense of your families and your home and your government.

    Polish and Russian Jews fleeing Bolshevik upheavals in Russia poured into Germany, straining to the breaking point an already chaotic and overstretched political, social, and economic fabric. Bolsheviks sent Jewish agents into Germany to stir up turmoil with the goal of capturing Germany for the Communist cause, setting off numerous riots and mobs.

    It was not "Arabs" or "Muslims" to blame: they, too, had been betrayed, by the British, French, and Americans (as well as Jews: Aaron Aaronsohn acted as a double-agent, working for the Turkish leader while spying for the British -- ironically, Chaim Weizmann's sister, Fannie Weizmann, spied on the British for the Germans).

    qui bono?

    Who walked away with the goodies and who got left holding the bag?

    Blame the Jews because highly influential zionist Jews played a major role in keeping the war rolling past a date when (as Niall Ferguson has argued) the only reasonable course for Britain was to agree to a peace, as the German people knew.

    --
    This has gone too long already -- another time, we'll address the matter of Italians and Mafia.

    “On balance, it appears the Germans did better than the Israelis: the drunken Germans were tried and the majority of them lost their lives. Not so for the Jews.”

    The six SA convicted in the brutal murder of miner Konrad Pietrzuch? Hitler’s objection and Göbbel’s smear campaign were effective. The five death sentences were commuted to life in prison early September ‘32 by spineless Papen. All six were pardoned March ‘33 by the new Chancellor. None of them “lost their lives.” Does that spoil your ‘Nazis were more just than Israelis’ lesson? Sorry.

    Konrad Pietrzuch? Have no idea if he was Jewish. The point was Nazis voided just (Weimar) verdicts on SA criminals by blaming Jews and demonized them to get it reversed. “The Jews are to blame! And they will not evade the criminal tribunal that they deserve” was a declaration of war that predates the boycott (24 Mar ‘33) you imply caused the Nazi boycott 1 Apr ‘33.

    “Villainy on the part of drunken SS” is embarrassing. The SS, unlike the SA, never allowed routine drunkness. Except, of course much later in ‘41. When dedicated SS super-patriots were encouraged to round out a day of murdering unarmed men, women, and children in the East with as many nightcaps as might be needed to afford them guilt-free slumber. After all, they had to be fit to kill another batch the next day. But you knew that, didn’t you S2C?

    “Darioush Rezaie…assassinated… (23 Jul 2011); .Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan…killed…(Jan 2012)”
    As expected, when you want to evade rebuttals it’s ‘drag in Israel’ time. Change the subject anyone? Scroll though my record. I’m against extra-judicial assasinations in any venue, by anyone. Israel, the US, whoever. I’ve often said it.

    But we were discussing Germany and the Jews in the 30s, as well as the economic threat of boycott. What’s the connection? Jews are like Nazis? No that can’t be it. Far from being critical of Wilhelmine or Nazi Germany, you usually try to justify their behavior. But never seem to be able to do so when confronted with the brutal facts (then it’s change the subject, drag in Israel time).

    So are you saying Jews are worse than Nazis, that old favorite? Nazis were forced to resort to murder, torture, aggresive war and extermination because of Jews? Is that what you’re saying S2C?

    “My question is, IF, as you cited,
    –> In 1932, Polish Jews were killed by (drunken) Germans; and
    –> if it is true, as Breitman & Lichtman wrote, that “once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence against Jews . . . Only in late 1938 . . . for the first time [did] Gestapo imprison . . . German Jews in concentration camps,”

    Once again, I have no idea if Konrad Pietrzuch was Jewish. He was a German citizen. Upper Silesia was obviously in the Weimar Republic with it’s very own local SA thugs. You somehow morph this into the killing of a “Polish Jew” by “drunken Germans (not mentioning SA or Nazis?). My, you’re quite desperate aren’t you?

    “…once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence against Jews . . . Only in late 1938 . . . for the first time [did] Gestapo imprison . . . German Jews in concentration camps…”

    I’ve not read your source, but I find little surprising in your quote. Violence against Jews was not institutionalized top-down at this point. It was bottom-up (spontanious and local). There was no need to crowd the camps. Local thugs were doing a good job.

    Besides, camps like Dachau (#1 – created 20 Mar ‘33) were crowded with higher priority NSDAP enemies: political rivals. KPD, SPD, etc. Thus were Dachau inmates Gustav Ritter von Kahr (Hitler critic) and Fritz Gerlich (critical editor in chief of the Catholic magazine ‘Der Gerade Weg) executed at Dachau in Operation ‘Hummingbird’ (the Röhm purge) mid ‘34. They weren’t Jewish S2C. And they weren’t alone. Across Germany Hitler rival Gregor Strassor, former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and his wife (?), General Ferdinand von Bredow (Schleicher associate), Otto Ballerstedt (his crime- he had Hitler arrested after being assaulted by him in ‘22), Father Bernhard Stempfle (his crime – he was an early confidant of Hitler who probably knew too much about the Führer’s early life), Erich Klausener (leader of The religious lay ‘Catholic Action’ and Transport Ministry director), Edgar Julius Jung (Papen’s aide – he made the mistake of authoring a speech mildly critical of Hitler, a capital offense), Herbert von Bose (Papen associate, a capital offense), etc. Those not yet in camps? No problem, murder them in their home (like Schleicher and his wife) or take them outside and shoot them (like von Bredow). Naturally all of these murders were retroactively declared legal by the cabinet. Another triumph of Third Reich justice.

    S2C, take heart. Your heroes were doing everything in their power to free up space in the camps. Patience. Here’s a tidbit that might interest you. It relates directly to your proposition of Nazi innocence in the boycott. Hitler’s reaction late September ‘33 in a conference with Reich governors:

    “He as Reich chancellor would have preferred a gradually stricter treatment of Jews in Germany by creating a new citizenship law and then increasingly cracking down on Jews, But the Jewish-organised international boycott demanded the most vigorous response possible. Abroad people complained that Jews were being treated legally as second-class citizens…Since Jews had considerable influence abroad, it was prudent not to give them any material they could use as propaganda against Germany.”
    -Volker Ullrich, ‘Hitler: Ascent 1889-1939’ p.547-8

    After all, Dolf had to kill his rivals (and former priest) and quietly rearm before he took on the Jews. Meantime civil laws were enough to deprive them of a living and their property, humiliate them, and use them as convenient scapegoats. Not to mention allowing the rich ones to exit German after extorting their wealth. When Dolf was ready for the remaining Jews, they were sent East (wouldn’t want to trouble the few Aryan friends they had left, after all).

    “Imagine yourself a bystander in Hamburg, or Munich, or Aachen, the months of November 1918 to June 1919…”

    Indeed, Germans suffered greatly under Wilhelm II. It’s tragic, as I’ve said many times. Tell us, S2C: when Willie launched WW1 by invading Luxembourg 2 Aug ‘14 and neutral Belgium 4 Aug ‘14 – should he have taken the welfare of his own people into account? It was quite a risk.

    When his chief of staff resigned in Sep ‘14 it was clear they failed. Yet Willie kept on happily killing his own men in a lost war. Why? Pride? Given arrogant incompetence and aggression, were German civilian deaths a self-inflicted wound? Nobody invaded Germany, after all. Why should the Allies have cared more about German civilians than Willie, von Moltke, Ludendorff, Hindenburg, and the other nitwits?

    How about Belgium? The same percentage of civilians died (1.16%). A third (unlike Germany) by direct, random execution. The rest by famine and exposure (Germans loved burning dwellings and expelling civilians). How about the Serbians? 28% of their population died. Any tears for them?

    Wilson? I agree with Clemenceau: “What do you expect when I’m between two men- one of whom (Lloyd George) thinks he is Napoleon and the other (Wilson) thinks he’s Jesus Christ? (“Que voulez vous que je fasse entre deux hommes dont un se criot Napoléan et l’autre Jésus Crist?”).

    So what? Does that exonerate Willie and his rotten General Staff for starting WW1, raping Belgium and northern France, and exposing his own people to famine due to incompetence? Let alone denying responsibility to ensure another even more ruinous conflict?

    Shameless celebrity Naill Ferguson? Give us a break!

    Tell us, S2C. Did the Jews cause WW1 & WW2? You dance around it like a firefly. Put it all on the table.

    PS. The most interesting recent thing I’ve read. Dolf – who never worked out and couldn’t swim – intentionally exercised his arm to be able to hold the ‘Hitler-Gruß’ salute for all those tedious hours of pompous Nazi pageants (especially Nüremberg party rallies). What an athlete!

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    tl;dr
    , @Art
    But we were discussing Germany and the Jews in the 30s, as well as the economic threat of boycott.

    Why are we talking about then - and not now?

    We can be sure that the Jews wanted a boycott of 30's Germany. Why not now to protect the Palestinians. (Oh - I know, the Israelis are victims of the Palestinians.)

    One hundred billion words about the 30's can justify, ignoring a drop of Palestinian blood today.

    The immorality of the Jew mind is astounding.

    Peace --- Art

    , @Wizard of Oz
    Bravo! I'm not sure what StoC's cryptic reply signifies but I'ld like to think it is expressing that he is succeeding in drawing out the crushing arguments against tbe mad Hitlerites. (There was a hint of that on the latest Bacevic related thread where he calmly concedes (by elaboration) my point that Mussolin's Italy engaged in invasions of other countries).
  134. @Philip Owen
    Jordan is doing quite well with horticulture. Of course, there may not be enough water to go round.

    I think the relevance of this to my comment at least includes its reminder that Palestinians would be no less affected by advances in agricultural productivity than anyone else so it isn’t going to be an adequate basis for employing Palestinians in a modern Palestinian state.

    Read More
  135. @jacques sheete
    Unfortunately, there will never be any peace for the Palestinians. The State of Israel needs something it can point to as a convenient "existential threat" whenever necessary.

    North Korea plays a similar role for the US government.

    Are ypu suggesting the US wouldn’t grab a deal with China that allowed the reunification of Korea?

    Read More
  136. @Sam Shama
    To paraphrase a sage: The cleverest thing on earth is to cry out before one is hurt. It's of no use screaming after you are hurt, certainly not when the blow might be mortal. Sound historians will agree that most tyrannies and tyrants have tyrannised since good men did not move. It is not a profitable attitude to speak with distant optimism of schemes merely up in the air; for the cut from a sword can scarcely be parried if not while it is in the air.

    That was Chesterton. And he was writing about Eugenics. It may as well have been written for the war-weary, common European - Jew and Gentile - sufferers of a long tradition of Prussian cloddishness, mendacity and wickedry.

    I hesitate, responding to the eternal charges levelled atbankers and moneychangers; a topic at least as old as Yehoshua ben Yosef who failed to find vocation as one. It is the topic broached by the natives of Germania, so this, therefore, is wholly premised on a misdemeanour previously committed.

    Liaquat Ahmad's book is a worthy read for both economists and non-economists. It is the chronology of events which snowballed into the Great Depression and the failure of central banks to respond in a manner as the wont of a lender of last resort ought to be. In this context, J.M. Keynes wrote at length, decrying the ongoing failures of central banks' acting procyclically, precisely in contradiction to Keynes' policy prescriptions. So blame Benjamin Strong, Emile Moreau, Montagu Norman, and Hjalmar Schacht.

    Modern central banking is the child which learnt a great deal from the folly of it parents.

    Liaquat is equally scathing of politicians, btw. He summons no soft words for Hoover and his Berkely economist who instituted the most misguided set of policy rules apparently in aid of curbing "excessive speculation in the stock markets".

    Keynes’ economic observations go to the very heart of the matter, which is that Germany should have never gotten herself into a position where, when feeding her population required significant external inflows of grain, her basest instincts compelled the first strike. And the second. It was Germany’s many actions which precipitated the civilian food shortage precariously waiting in the wings. No leadership worth its salt should’ve brought the nation to this condition. Britain and her allies did nothing more than what any powerful alliance would’ve done under the circumstances, which is to gain every advantage in a war.

    Returning to the simple notion that it is only useful to cry out before the hatchet lands on the head, Chesterton's own account of the reasons for the WWI, stands undisputed not only in its rapier insight but for the present context, a reason based on recent experience for all concerned to "cry out".

    Here is Chesterton:


    Before we go on to the deeper things which make this war the most sincere war of human history, it is as easy to answer the question of why England came to be in it at all, as it is to ask how a man fell down a coal-hole, or failed to keep an appointment. Facts are not the whole truth. But facts are facts, and in this case the facts are few and simple. Prussia, France, and England had all promised not to invade Belgium.

    Prussia proposed to invade Belgium, because it was the safest way of invading France. But Prussia promised that if she might break in, through her own broken promise and ours, she would break in and not steal. In other words, we were offered at the same instant a promise of faith in the future and a proposal of perjury in the present.

    Those interested in human origins may refer to an old Victorian writer of English, who, in the last and most restrained of his historical essays, wrote of Frederick the Great, the founder of this unchanging Prussian policy. After describing how Frederick broke the guarantee he had signed on behalf of Maria Theresa, he then describes how Frederick sought to put things straight by a promise that was an insult.

    “If she would but let him have Silesia, he would, he said, stand by her against any power which should try to deprive her of her other dominions, as if he was not already bound to stand by her, or as if his new promise could be of more value than the old one."

    That passage was written by Macaulay, but so far as the mere contemporary facts are concerned it might have been written by me. Upon the immediate logical and legal origin of the English interest there can be no rational debate.

    There are some things so simple that one can almost prove them with plans and diagrams, as in Euclid. One could make a kind of comic calendar of what would have happened to the English diplomatist, if he had been silenced every time by Prussian diplomacy. Suppose we arrange it in the form of a kind of diary:

    July 24: Germany invades Belgium.

    July 25: England declares war.

    July 26: Germany promises not to annex Belgium.

    July 27: England withdraws from the war.

    July 28: Germany annexes Belgium, England declares war.

    July 29: Germany promises not to annex France, England withdraws from the war.

    July 30: Germany annexes France, England declares war.

    July 31: Germany promises not to annex England.

    Aug. 1: England withdraws from the war. Germany invades England.

    How long is anybody expected to go on with that sort of game; or keep peace at that illimitable price? How long must we pursue a road in which promises are all fetishes in front of us; and all fragments behind us?

    No; upon the cold facts of the final negotiations, as told by any of the diplomatists in any of the documents, there is no doubt about the story. And no doubt about the villain of the story.


     

    And then, of course, there was Mein Kampf.

    Shouldn't good citizens, armed with knowledge, cry out while the sword is still in air?

    I hesitate, responding to the eternal charges levelled atbankers and moneychangers; a topic at least as old as Yehoshua ben Yosef who failed to find vocation as one.

    I am guessing that is a slap at Jesus – and a kudo for Jew bankers – the total wrongness of the Jew mindset is flabbergasting.

    The Jew central banking model is failing everywhere. Enterprise works – it is the money system that fails entrepreneurial activity and humanity. Somehow the majority of disposable money ends up in the hands of the Jews.

    There is nothing written in stone that says that an interest banking system is the only way an economy can function.

    The Rothschild Jew bankers have more blood on their hands than any other group in human history.

    On the other hand, the legacy of Jesus is what human freedom we have. (i.e., The Bill of Rights – something you Jews are trashing.)

    Peace — Art

    p.s. Poor Little Jew – you must face the fact that your brain has been corrupted by your upbringing.

    Read More
  137. @Uebersetzer
    Netanyahu on TV throwing a Hamas offer into a rubbish bin confirmed my suspicion, entertained for quite some time now, that Israelis are not particularly intelligent. Or at any rate he was trying to appeal to a demographic that isn't.

    At least there is something to celebrate. The obnoxious half-wit, Bernard-Henri Lévy, a shameless murderous zionist, has received a pie to his ugly visage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRMEVnvfVuY

    Read More
  138. @Incitatus
    “On balance, it appears the Germans did better than the Israelis: the drunken Germans were tried and the majority of them lost their lives. Not so for the Jews.”

    The six SA convicted in the brutal murder of miner Konrad Pietrzuch? Hitler’s objection and Göbbel’s smear campaign were effective. The five death sentences were commuted to life in prison early September ‘32 by spineless Papen. All six were pardoned March ‘33 by the new Chancellor. None of them “lost their lives.” Does that spoil your ‘Nazis were more just than Israelis’ lesson? Sorry.

    Konrad Pietrzuch? Have no idea if he was Jewish. The point was Nazis voided just (Weimar) verdicts on SA criminals by blaming Jews and demonized them to get it reversed. “The Jews are to blame! And they will not evade the criminal tribunal that they deserve” was a declaration of war that predates the boycott (24 Mar ‘33) you imply caused the Nazi boycott 1 Apr ‘33.

    “Villainy on the part of drunken SS” is embarrassing. The SS, unlike the SA, never allowed routine drunkness. Except, of course much later in ‘41. When dedicated SS super-patriots were encouraged to round out a day of murdering unarmed men, women, and children in the East with as many nightcaps as might be needed to afford them guilt-free slumber. After all, they had to be fit to kill another batch the next day. But you knew that, didn’t you S2C?

    “Darioush Rezaie...assassinated... (23 Jul 2011); .Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan...killed...(Jan 2012)”
    As expected, when you want to evade rebuttals it’s ‘drag in Israel’ time. Change the subject anyone? Scroll though my record. I’m against extra-judicial assasinations in any venue, by anyone. Israel, the US, whoever. I’ve often said it.

    But we were discussing Germany and the Jews in the 30s, as well as the economic threat of boycott. What’s the connection? Jews are like Nazis? No that can’t be it. Far from being critical of Wilhelmine or Nazi Germany, you usually try to justify their behavior. But never seem to be able to do so when confronted with the brutal facts (then it’s change the subject, drag in Israel time).

    So are you saying Jews are worse than Nazis, that old favorite? Nazis were forced to resort to murder, torture, aggresive war and extermination because of Jews? Is that what you’re saying S2C?

    “My question is, IF, as you cited,
    –> In 1932, Polish Jews were killed by (drunken) Germans; and
    –> if it is true, as Breitman & Lichtman wrote, that “once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence against Jews . . . Only in late 1938 . . . for the first time [did] Gestapo imprison . . . German Jews in concentration camps,”


    Once again, I have no idea if Konrad Pietrzuch was Jewish. He was a German citizen. Upper Silesia was obviously in the Weimar Republic with it’s very own local SA thugs. You somehow morph this into the killing of a “Polish Jew” by “drunken Germans (not mentioning SA or Nazis?). My, you're quite desperate aren’t you?

    “...once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence against Jews . . . Only in late 1938 . . . for the first time [did] Gestapo imprison . . . German Jews in concentration camps...”

    I’ve not read your source, but I find little surprising in your quote. Violence against Jews was not institutionalized top-down at this point. It was bottom-up (spontanious and local). There was no need to crowd the camps. Local thugs were doing a good job.

    Besides, camps like Dachau (#1 - created 20 Mar ‘33) were crowded with higher priority NSDAP enemies: political rivals. KPD, SPD, etc. Thus were Dachau inmates Gustav Ritter von Kahr (Hitler critic) and Fritz Gerlich (critical editor in chief of the Catholic magazine ‘Der Gerade Weg) executed at Dachau in Operation ‘Hummingbird’ (the Röhm purge) mid ‘34. They weren't Jewish S2C. And they weren’t alone. Across Germany Hitler rival Gregor Strassor, former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and his wife (?), General Ferdinand von Bredow (Schleicher associate), Otto Ballerstedt (his crime- he had Hitler arrested after being assaulted by him in ‘22), Father Bernhard Stempfle (his crime - he was an early confidant of Hitler who probably knew too much about the Führer’s early life), Erich Klausener (leader of The religious lay ‘Catholic Action’ and Transport Ministry director), Edgar Julius Jung (Papen’s aide - he made the mistake of authoring a speech mildly critical of Hitler, a capital offense), Herbert von Bose (Papen associate, a capital offense), etc. Those not yet in camps? No problem, murder them in their home (like Schleicher and his wife) or take them outside and shoot them (like von Bredow). Naturally all of these murders were retroactively declared legal by the cabinet. Another triumph of Third Reich justice.

    S2C, take heart. Your heroes were doing everything in their power to free up space in the camps. Patience. Here’s a tidbit that might interest you. It relates directly to your proposition of Nazi innocence in the boycott. Hitler’s reaction late September ‘33 in a conference with Reich governors:

    “He as Reich chancellor would have preferred a gradually stricter treatment of Jews in Germany by creating a new citizenship law and then increasingly cracking down on Jews, But the Jewish-organised international boycott demanded the most vigorous response possible. Abroad people complained that Jews were being treated legally as second-class citizens...Since Jews had considerable influence abroad, it was prudent not to give them any material they could use as propaganda against Germany.”
    -Volker Ullrich, ‘Hitler: Ascent 1889-1939’ p.547-8

    After all, Dolf had to kill his rivals (and former priest) and quietly rearm before he took on the Jews. Meantime civil laws were enough to deprive them of a living and their property, humiliate them, and use them as convenient scapegoats. Not to mention allowing the rich ones to exit German after extorting their wealth. When Dolf was ready for the remaining Jews, they were sent East (wouldn’t want to trouble the few Aryan friends they had left, after all).

    “Imagine yourself a bystander in Hamburg, or Munich, or Aachen, the months of November 1918 to June 1919...”

    Indeed, Germans suffered greatly under Wilhelm II. It’s tragic, as I’ve said many times. Tell us, S2C: when Willie launched WW1 by invading Luxembourg 2 Aug ‘14 and neutral Belgium 4 Aug ‘14 - should he have taken the welfare of his own people into account? It was quite a risk.

    When his chief of staff resigned in Sep ‘14 it was clear they failed. Yet Willie kept on happily killing his own men in a lost war. Why? Pride? Given arrogant incompetence and aggression, were German civilian deaths a self-inflicted wound? Nobody invaded Germany, after all. Why should the Allies have cared more about German civilians than Willie, von Moltke, Ludendorff, Hindenburg, and the other nitwits?

    How about Belgium? The same percentage of civilians died (1.16%). A third (unlike Germany) by direct, random execution. The rest by famine and exposure (Germans loved burning dwellings and expelling civilians). How about the Serbians? 28% of their population died. Any tears for them?

    Wilson? I agree with Clemenceau: "What do you expect when I'm between two men- one of whom (Lloyd George) thinks he is Napoleon and the other (Wilson) thinks he's Jesus Christ? ("Que voulez vous que je fasse entre deux hommes dont un se criot Napoléan et l'autre Jésus Crist?”).

    So what? Does that exonerate Willie and his rotten General Staff for starting WW1, raping Belgium and northern France, and exposing his own people to famine due to incompetence? Let alone denying responsibility to ensure another even more ruinous conflict?

    Shameless celebrity Naill Ferguson? Give us a break!

    Tell us, S2C. Did the Jews cause WW1 & WW2? You dance around it like a firefly. Put it all on the table.

    PS. The most interesting recent thing I’ve read. Dolf - who never worked out and couldn’t swim - intentionally exercised his arm to be able to hold the ‘Hitler-Gruß’ salute for all those tedious hours of pompous Nazi pageants (especially Nüremberg party rallies). What an athlete!

    tl;dr

    Read More
    • LOL: L.K
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    “tl;dr”

    ‘Too long; didn't read?’ My 1,400 word reply (#135) to your 1,400 word post (#118)?

    Is it possible you read the first paragraph, realized you’d been exposed in odious bias, and stuck your head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich? That sounds more likely.
    , @RobinG
    Are you familiar with Steele?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXaMNelDNE
    Nobel Prize Nominee Robert David Steele discusses Trump, Comey, Rebuilding Integrity
    "NATO is a pimp for the whores of war."
  139. @Incitatus
    “On balance, it appears the Germans did better than the Israelis: the drunken Germans were tried and the majority of them lost their lives. Not so for the Jews.”

    The six SA convicted in the brutal murder of miner Konrad Pietrzuch? Hitler’s objection and Göbbel’s smear campaign were effective. The five death sentences were commuted to life in prison early September ‘32 by spineless Papen. All six were pardoned March ‘33 by the new Chancellor. None of them “lost their lives.” Does that spoil your ‘Nazis were more just than Israelis’ lesson? Sorry.

    Konrad Pietrzuch? Have no idea if he was Jewish. The point was Nazis voided just (Weimar) verdicts on SA criminals by blaming Jews and demonized them to get it reversed. “The Jews are to blame! And they will not evade the criminal tribunal that they deserve” was a declaration of war that predates the boycott (24 Mar ‘33) you imply caused the Nazi boycott 1 Apr ‘33.

    “Villainy on the part of drunken SS” is embarrassing. The SS, unlike the SA, never allowed routine drunkness. Except, of course much later in ‘41. When dedicated SS super-patriots were encouraged to round out a day of murdering unarmed men, women, and children in the East with as many nightcaps as might be needed to afford them guilt-free slumber. After all, they had to be fit to kill another batch the next day. But you knew that, didn’t you S2C?

    “Darioush Rezaie...assassinated... (23 Jul 2011); .Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan...killed...(Jan 2012)”
    As expected, when you want to evade rebuttals it’s ‘drag in Israel’ time. Change the subject anyone? Scroll though my record. I’m against extra-judicial assasinations in any venue, by anyone. Israel, the US, whoever. I’ve often said it.

    But we were discussing Germany and the Jews in the 30s, as well as the economic threat of boycott. What’s the connection? Jews are like Nazis? No that can’t be it. Far from being critical of Wilhelmine or Nazi Germany, you usually try to justify their behavior. But never seem to be able to do so when confronted with the brutal facts (then it’s change the subject, drag in Israel time).

    So are you saying Jews are worse than Nazis, that old favorite? Nazis were forced to resort to murder, torture, aggresive war and extermination because of Jews? Is that what you’re saying S2C?

    “My question is, IF, as you cited,
    –> In 1932, Polish Jews were killed by (drunken) Germans; and
    –> if it is true, as Breitman & Lichtman wrote, that “once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence against Jews . . . Only in late 1938 . . . for the first time [did] Gestapo imprison . . . German Jews in concentration camps,”


    Once again, I have no idea if Konrad Pietrzuch was Jewish. He was a German citizen. Upper Silesia was obviously in the Weimar Republic with it’s very own local SA thugs. You somehow morph this into the killing of a “Polish Jew” by “drunken Germans (not mentioning SA or Nazis?). My, you're quite desperate aren’t you?

    “...once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence against Jews . . . Only in late 1938 . . . for the first time [did] Gestapo imprison . . . German Jews in concentration camps...”

    I’ve not read your source, but I find little surprising in your quote. Violence against Jews was not institutionalized top-down at this point. It was bottom-up (spontanious and local). There was no need to crowd the camps. Local thugs were doing a good job.

    Besides, camps like Dachau (#1 - created 20 Mar ‘33) were crowded with higher priority NSDAP enemies: political rivals. KPD, SPD, etc. Thus were Dachau inmates Gustav Ritter von Kahr (Hitler critic) and Fritz Gerlich (critical editor in chief of the Catholic magazine ‘Der Gerade Weg) executed at Dachau in Operation ‘Hummingbird’ (the Röhm purge) mid ‘34. They weren't Jewish S2C. And they weren’t alone. Across Germany Hitler rival Gregor Strassor, former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and his wife (?), General Ferdinand von Bredow (Schleicher associate), Otto Ballerstedt (his crime- he had Hitler arrested after being assaulted by him in ‘22), Father Bernhard Stempfle (his crime - he was an early confidant of Hitler who probably knew too much about the Führer’s early life), Erich Klausener (leader of The religious lay ‘Catholic Action’ and Transport Ministry director), Edgar Julius Jung (Papen’s aide - he made the mistake of authoring a speech mildly critical of Hitler, a capital offense), Herbert von Bose (Papen associate, a capital offense), etc. Those not yet in camps? No problem, murder them in their home (like Schleicher and his wife) or take them outside and shoot them (like von Bredow). Naturally all of these murders were retroactively declared legal by the cabinet. Another triumph of Third Reich justice.

    S2C, take heart. Your heroes were doing everything in their power to free up space in the camps. Patience. Here’s a tidbit that might interest you. It relates directly to your proposition of Nazi innocence in the boycott. Hitler’s reaction late September ‘33 in a conference with Reich governors:

    “He as Reich chancellor would have preferred a gradually stricter treatment of Jews in Germany by creating a new citizenship law and then increasingly cracking down on Jews, But the Jewish-organised international boycott demanded the most vigorous response possible. Abroad people complained that Jews were being treated legally as second-class citizens...Since Jews had considerable influence abroad, it was prudent not to give them any material they could use as propaganda against Germany.”
    -Volker Ullrich, ‘Hitler: Ascent 1889-1939’ p.547-8

    After all, Dolf had to kill his rivals (and former priest) and quietly rearm before he took on the Jews. Meantime civil laws were enough to deprive them of a living and their property, humiliate them, and use them as convenient scapegoats. Not to mention allowing the rich ones to exit German after extorting their wealth. When Dolf was ready for the remaining Jews, they were sent East (wouldn’t want to trouble the few Aryan friends they had left, after all).

    “Imagine yourself a bystander in Hamburg, or Munich, or Aachen, the months of November 1918 to June 1919...”

    Indeed, Germans suffered greatly under Wilhelm II. It’s tragic, as I’ve said many times. Tell us, S2C: when Willie launched WW1 by invading Luxembourg 2 Aug ‘14 and neutral Belgium 4 Aug ‘14 - should he have taken the welfare of his own people into account? It was quite a risk.

    When his chief of staff resigned in Sep ‘14 it was clear they failed. Yet Willie kept on happily killing his own men in a lost war. Why? Pride? Given arrogant incompetence and aggression, were German civilian deaths a self-inflicted wound? Nobody invaded Germany, after all. Why should the Allies have cared more about German civilians than Willie, von Moltke, Ludendorff, Hindenburg, and the other nitwits?

    How about Belgium? The same percentage of civilians died (1.16%). A third (unlike Germany) by direct, random execution. The rest by famine and exposure (Germans loved burning dwellings and expelling civilians). How about the Serbians? 28% of their population died. Any tears for them?

    Wilson? I agree with Clemenceau: "What do you expect when I'm between two men- one of whom (Lloyd George) thinks he is Napoleon and the other (Wilson) thinks he's Jesus Christ? ("Que voulez vous que je fasse entre deux hommes dont un se criot Napoléan et l'autre Jésus Crist?”).

    So what? Does that exonerate Willie and his rotten General Staff for starting WW1, raping Belgium and northern France, and exposing his own people to famine due to incompetence? Let alone denying responsibility to ensure another even more ruinous conflict?

    Shameless celebrity Naill Ferguson? Give us a break!

    Tell us, S2C. Did the Jews cause WW1 & WW2? You dance around it like a firefly. Put it all on the table.

    PS. The most interesting recent thing I’ve read. Dolf - who never worked out and couldn’t swim - intentionally exercised his arm to be able to hold the ‘Hitler-Gruß’ salute for all those tedious hours of pompous Nazi pageants (especially Nüremberg party rallies). What an athlete!

    But we were discussing Germany and the Jews in the 30s, as well as the economic threat of boycott.

    Why are we talking about then – and not now?

    We can be sure that the Jews wanted a boycott of 30′s Germany. Why not now to protect the Palestinians. (Oh – I know, the Israelis are victims of the Palestinians.)

    One hundred billion words about the 30′s can justify, ignoring a drop of Palestinian blood today.

    The immorality of the Jew mind is astounding.

    Peace — Art

    Read More
  140. @Incitatus
    “On balance, it appears the Germans did better than the Israelis: the drunken Germans were tried and the majority of them lost their lives. Not so for the Jews.”

    The six SA convicted in the brutal murder of miner Konrad Pietrzuch? Hitler’s objection and Göbbel’s smear campaign were effective. The five death sentences were commuted to life in prison early September ‘32 by spineless Papen. All six were pardoned March ‘33 by the new Chancellor. None of them “lost their lives.” Does that spoil your ‘Nazis were more just than Israelis’ lesson? Sorry.

    Konrad Pietrzuch? Have no idea if he was Jewish. The point was Nazis voided just (Weimar) verdicts on SA criminals by blaming Jews and demonized them to get it reversed. “The Jews are to blame! And they will not evade the criminal tribunal that they deserve” was a declaration of war that predates the boycott (24 Mar ‘33) you imply caused the Nazi boycott 1 Apr ‘33.

    “Villainy on the part of drunken SS” is embarrassing. The SS, unlike the SA, never allowed routine drunkness. Except, of course much later in ‘41. When dedicated SS super-patriots were encouraged to round out a day of murdering unarmed men, women, and children in the East with as many nightcaps as might be needed to afford them guilt-free slumber. After all, they had to be fit to kill another batch the next day. But you knew that, didn’t you S2C?

    “Darioush Rezaie...assassinated... (23 Jul 2011); .Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan...killed...(Jan 2012)”
    As expected, when you want to evade rebuttals it’s ‘drag in Israel’ time. Change the subject anyone? Scroll though my record. I’m against extra-judicial assasinations in any venue, by anyone. Israel, the US, whoever. I’ve often said it.

    But we were discussing Germany and the Jews in the 30s, as well as the economic threat of boycott. What’s the connection? Jews are like Nazis? No that can’t be it. Far from being critical of Wilhelmine or Nazi Germany, you usually try to justify their behavior. But never seem to be able to do so when confronted with the brutal facts (then it’s change the subject, drag in Israel time).

    So are you saying Jews are worse than Nazis, that old favorite? Nazis were forced to resort to murder, torture, aggresive war and extermination because of Jews? Is that what you’re saying S2C?

    “My question is, IF, as you cited,
    –> In 1932, Polish Jews were killed by (drunken) Germans; and
    –> if it is true, as Breitman & Lichtman wrote, that “once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence against Jews . . . Only in late 1938 . . . for the first time [did] Gestapo imprison . . . German Jews in concentration camps,”


    Once again, I have no idea if Konrad Pietrzuch was Jewish. He was a German citizen. Upper Silesia was obviously in the Weimar Republic with it’s very own local SA thugs. You somehow morph this into the killing of a “Polish Jew” by “drunken Germans (not mentioning SA or Nazis?). My, you're quite desperate aren’t you?

    “...once secure in their authority, Nazi officials curbed personal violence against Jews . . . Only in late 1938 . . . for the first time [did] Gestapo imprison . . . German Jews in concentration camps...”

    I’ve not read your source, but I find little surprising in your quote. Violence against Jews was not institutionalized top-down at this point. It was bottom-up (spontanious and local). There was no need to crowd the camps. Local thugs were doing a good job.

    Besides, camps like Dachau (#1 - created 20 Mar ‘33) were crowded with higher priority NSDAP enemies: political rivals. KPD, SPD, etc. Thus were Dachau inmates Gustav Ritter von Kahr (Hitler critic) and Fritz Gerlich (critical editor in chief of the Catholic magazine ‘Der Gerade Weg) executed at Dachau in Operation ‘Hummingbird’ (the Röhm purge) mid ‘34. They weren't Jewish S2C. And they weren’t alone. Across Germany Hitler rival Gregor Strassor, former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and his wife (?), General Ferdinand von Bredow (Schleicher associate), Otto Ballerstedt (his crime- he had Hitler arrested after being assaulted by him in ‘22), Father Bernhard Stempfle (his crime - he was an early confidant of Hitler who probably knew too much about the Führer’s early life), Erich Klausener (leader of The religious lay ‘Catholic Action’ and Transport Ministry director), Edgar Julius Jung (Papen’s aide - he made the mistake of authoring a speech mildly critical of Hitler, a capital offense), Herbert von Bose (Papen associate, a capital offense), etc. Those not yet in camps? No problem, murder them in their home (like Schleicher and his wife) or take them outside and shoot them (like von Bredow). Naturally all of these murders were retroactively declared legal by the cabinet. Another triumph of Third Reich justice.

    S2C, take heart. Your heroes were doing everything in their power to free up space in the camps. Patience. Here’s a tidbit that might interest you. It relates directly to your proposition of Nazi innocence in the boycott. Hitler’s reaction late September ‘33 in a conference with Reich governors:

    “He as Reich chancellor would have preferred a gradually stricter treatment of Jews in Germany by creating a new citizenship law and then increasingly cracking down on Jews, But the Jewish-organised international boycott demanded the most vigorous response possible. Abroad people complained that Jews were being treated legally as second-class citizens...Since Jews had considerable influence abroad, it was prudent not to give them any material they could use as propaganda against Germany.”
    -Volker Ullrich, ‘Hitler: Ascent 1889-1939’ p.547-8

    After all, Dolf had to kill his rivals (and former priest) and quietly rearm before he took on the Jews. Meantime civil laws were enough to deprive them of a living and their property, humiliate them, and use them as convenient scapegoats. Not to mention allowing the rich ones to exit German after extorting their wealth. When Dolf was ready for the remaining Jews, they were sent East (wouldn’t want to trouble the few Aryan friends they had left, after all).

    “Imagine yourself a bystander in Hamburg, or Munich, or Aachen, the months of November 1918 to June 1919...”

    Indeed, Germans suffered greatly under Wilhelm II. It’s tragic, as I’ve said many times. Tell us, S2C: when Willie launched WW1 by invading Luxembourg 2 Aug ‘14 and neutral Belgium 4 Aug ‘14 - should he have taken the welfare of his own people into account? It was quite a risk.

    When his chief of staff resigned in Sep ‘14 it was clear they failed. Yet Willie kept on happily killing his own men in a lost war. Why? Pride? Given arrogant incompetence and aggression, were German civilian deaths a self-inflicted wound? Nobody invaded Germany, after all. Why should the Allies have cared more about German civilians than Willie, von Moltke, Ludendorff, Hindenburg, and the other nitwits?

    How about Belgium? The same percentage of civilians died (1.16%). A third (unlike Germany) by direct, random execution. The rest by famine and exposure (Germans loved burning dwellings and expelling civilians). How about the Serbians? 28% of their population died. Any tears for them?

    Wilson? I agree with Clemenceau: "What do you expect when I'm between two men- one of whom (Lloyd George) thinks he is Napoleon and the other (Wilson) thinks he's Jesus Christ? ("Que voulez vous que je fasse entre deux hommes dont un se criot Napoléan et l'autre Jésus Crist?”).

    So what? Does that exonerate Willie and his rotten General Staff for starting WW1, raping Belgium and northern France, and exposing his own people to famine due to incompetence? Let alone denying responsibility to ensure another even more ruinous conflict?

    Shameless celebrity Naill Ferguson? Give us a break!

    Tell us, S2C. Did the Jews cause WW1 & WW2? You dance around it like a firefly. Put it all on the table.

    PS. The most interesting recent thing I’ve read. Dolf - who never worked out and couldn’t swim - intentionally exercised his arm to be able to hold the ‘Hitler-Gruß’ salute for all those tedious hours of pompous Nazi pageants (especially Nüremberg party rallies). What an athlete!

    Bravo! I’m not sure what StoC’s cryptic reply signifies but I’ld like to think it is expressing that he is succeeding in drawing out the crushing arguments against tbe mad Hitlerites. (There was a hint of that on the latest Bacevic related thread where he calmly concedes (by elaboration) my point that Mussolin’s Italy engaged in invasions of other countries).

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Wizard of Imbecility,
    Since you "care" so much about Italy's invasions in the 30s, 40s, we'd like to hear from you about the British Empire, ya know, the largest Empire in human history? Yeah, that one.

    By 1920, it covered 35,500,000 km2 (13,700,000 sq mi),[3] 24% of the Earth's total land area.
     
    War monger and war criminal, Winston Churchill, said;

    "We have got all we want in territory, and our claim to be left unmolested in the enjoyment of our vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us."
     
    Just in the past 15 plus years, Britain, now as ZUSA's sidekick, has invaded without provocation several countries, and has been helping destroy others; Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen...
    As I write, ZUK has been helping Saudi Barbaria and friends - which includes Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula - starve Yemen, the poorest country in the region. War against civilians, including through starvation blockades, is a long Brit tradition after all!
    BTW, the above article is about the situation in Palestine...
    Being the miserable shill for zionism, zamerican and brit imperialism, you, much like inZitatus, feel the need to spam the comment section with the usual misdirection crap.
    , @Incitatus
    Hi WoZ,

    S2C seems to have been caught in flagrante delicto and had a brain freeze. Happens to the best of us.

    I see you’ve attracted the sputtering ire of erudite L.K: Congratulations! Never fear. The ‘British Empire’ routine means he really likes you.

    Keep a running count of his endearing epithets. No more reliable gauge of vacuous frustration exists. Don’t want to brag, but you have a way to go before you reach the same level of affection I enjoy.

    Salute!
  141. @Wizard of Oz
    Bravo! I'm not sure what StoC's cryptic reply signifies but I'ld like to think it is expressing that he is succeeding in drawing out the crushing arguments against tbe mad Hitlerites. (There was a hint of that on the latest Bacevic related thread where he calmly concedes (by elaboration) my point that Mussolin's Italy engaged in invasions of other countries).

    Wizard of Imbecility,
    Since you “care” so much about Italy’s invasions in the 30s, 40s, we’d like to hear from you about the British Empire, ya know, the largest Empire in human history? Yeah, that one.

    By 1920, it covered 35,500,000 km2 (13,700,000 sq mi),[3] 24% of the Earth’s total land area.

    War monger and war criminal, Winston Churchill, said;

    “We have got all we want in territory, and our claim to be left unmolested in the enjoyment of our vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us.”

    Just in the past 15 plus years, Britain, now as ZUSA’s sidekick, has invaded without provocation several countries, and has been helping destroy others; Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen…
    As I write, ZUK has been helping Saudi Barbaria and friends – which includes Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula – starve Yemen, the poorest country in the region. War against civilians, including through starvation blockades, is a long Brit tradition after all!
    BTW, the above article is about the situation in Palestine…
    Being the miserable shill for zionism, zamerican and brit imperialism, you, much like inZitatus, feel the need to spam the comment section with the usual misdirection crap.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Sam Shama

    ....feel the need to spam the comment section with the usual misdirection crap.
     
    spittle-face, the topic was introduced by your fellow pit-creature Wally with encouragement from jilles dykstra.

    The British Empire, as empires went, was the envy of all other European states, including your favourite popinjays, the Prussians.

  142. The dividing up of jerusalem is non negotiable regardless of a Palestinian state.one state, one capital in jerusalem.any attempt to divide jerusalem will fail.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    The dividing up of jerusalem is non negotiable regardless of a Palestinian state.one state, one capital in jerusalem.any attempt to divide jerusalem will fail.

    Imposing Israeli rule over all of Jerusalem would cause great trouble for the world.

    A divided Jerusalem would be a small price to pay for world peace.

    Peace --- Art

    p.s. Squatters get to dictate NOTHING!
  143. @SolontoCroesus
    tl;dr

    “tl;dr”

    ‘Too long; didn’t read?’ My 1,400 word reply (#135) to your 1,400 word post (#118)?

    Is it possible you read the first paragraph, realized you’d been exposed in odious bias, and stuck your head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich? That sounds more likely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama

    tl;dr
     
    Or, "I run with the tail between my legs!", closely accompanied by a reptile in the wings.

    Pathetic is the word which captures your moment. You did read his post, found no riposte, and, responded as only a man left with no escape nor grace in defeat proposes to vacate the premises.

    Incitatus' deeply informative and witty posts are for all of us, even the Germaniacs and itinerant reptiles; to glean knowledge and understanding. He is consistent, logical and even-handed to a point where partisans on my side of the debate often shift in our seats with a bit of discomfort ( ;) )

    The Nazi/SA/SS brutality which Incitatus writes of, are specific examples of high hubris, indeed the deep malaise which infected Berlin, a condition which Chesterton captured with customary brilliance in his essay The Barbarism of Berlin, (1914).



    It is essential to emphasise this consciousness of the thing under discussion in connection with two or three words that are, as it were, the key-words of this war. One of them is the word “barbarian.” The Prussians apply it to the Russians: the Russians apply it to the Prussians. Both, I think, really mean something that really exists, name or no name. Both mean different things. And if we ask what these different things are, we shall understand why England and France prefer Russia; and consider Prussia the really dangerous barbarian of the two. To begin with, it goes so much deeper even than atrocities; of which, in the past at least, all the three Empires of Central Europe have partaken pretty equally, as they partook of Poland. An English writer, seeking to avert the war by warnings against Russian influence, said that the flogged backs of Polish women stood between us and the Alliance. But not long before, the flogging of women by an Austrian general led to that officer being thrashed in the streets of London by Barclay and Perkins’ draymen.

    And as for the third power, the Prussians, it seems clear that they have treated Belgian women in a style compared with which flogging might be called an official formality. But, as I say, something much deeper than any such recrimination lies behind the use of the word on either side. When the German Emperor complains of our allying ourselves with a barbaric and half-oriental power, he is not (I assure you) shedding tears over the grave of Kosciusko. And when I say (as I do most heartily) that the German Emperor is a barbarian, I am not merely expressing any prejudices I may have against the profanation of churches or of children. My countrymen and I mean a certain and intelligible thing when we call the Prussians barbarians. It is quite different from the thing attributed to Russians; and it could not possibly be attributed to Russians. It is very important that the neutral world should understand what this thing is.

    If the German calls the Russian barbarous, he presumably means imperfectly civilised. There is a certain path along which Western nations have proceeded in recent times, and it is tenable that Russia has not proceeded so far as the others: that she has less of the special modern system in science, commerce, machinery, travel, or political constitution. The Russ ploughs with an old plough; he wears a wild beard; he adores relics; his life is as rude and hard as that of a subject of Alfred the Great. Therefore he is, in the German sense, a barbarian.

    Poor fellows like Gorky and Dostoieffsky have to form their own reflections on the scenery without the assistance of large quotations from Schiller on garden seats, or inscriptions directing them to pause and thank the All-Father for the finest view in Hesse-Pumpernickel. The Russians, having nothing but their faith, their fields, their great courage, and their self-governing communes, are quite cut off from what is called (in the fashionable street in Frankfort) The True, The Beautiful and The Good. There is a real sense in which one can call such backwardness barbaric, by comparison with the Kaiserstrasse; and in that sense it is true of Russia.

    Now we, the French and English, do not mean this when we call the Prussians barbarians. If their cities soared higher than their flying ships, if their trains travelled faster than their bullets, we should still call them barbarians. We should know exactly what we meant by it; and we should know that it is true. For we do not mean anything that is an imperfect civilisation by accident. We mean something that is the enemy of civilisation by design. We mean something that is wilfully at war with the principles by which human society has been made possible hitherto. Of course it must be partly civilised even to destroy civilisation.

    Such ruin could not be wrought by the savages that are merely undeveloped or inert. You could not have even Huns without horses; or horses without horsemanship. You could not have even Danish pirates without ships, or ships without seamanship. This person, whom I may call the Positive Barbarian, must be rather more superficially up-to-date than what I may call the Negative Barbarian. Alaric was an officer in the Roman legions: but for all that he destroyed Rome. Nobody supposes that Eskimos could have done it at all neatly. But (in our meaning) barbarism is not a matter of methods, but of aims. We say that these veneered vandals have the perfectly serious aim of destroying certain ideas, which, as they think, the world has outgrown; without which, as we think, the world will die.

    It is essential that this perilous peculiarity in the Pruss, or Positive Barbarian, should be seized. He has what he fancies is a new idea; and he is going to apply it to everybody. As a fact it is simply a false generalisation; but he is really trying to make it general. This does not apply to the Negative Barbarian: it does not apply to the Russian or the Servian, even if they are barbarians. If a Russian peasant does beat his wife, he does it because his fathers did it before him: he is likely to beat less rather than more, as the past fades away.

    He does not think, as the Prussian would, that he has made a new discovery in physiology in finding that a woman is weaker than a man. If a Servian does knife his rival without a word, he does it because other Servians have done it. He may regard it even as piety, but certainly not as progress. He does not think, as the Prussian does, that he founds a new school of horology by starting before the word “Go.” He does not think he is in advance of the world in militarism merely because he is behind it in morals. No; the danger of the Pruss is that he is prepared to fight for old errors as if they were new truths. He has somehow heard of certain shallow simplifications, and imagines that we have never heard of them. And, as I have said, his limited, but very sincere lunacy concentrates chiefly in a desire to destroy two ideas, the twin root ideas of rational society. The first is the idea of record and promise: the second is the idea of reciprocity.

    It is plain that the promise, or extension of responsibility through time, is what chiefly distinguishes us, I will not say from savages, but from brutes and reptiles. This was noted by the shrewdness of the Old Testament, when it summed up the dark irresponsible enormity of Leviathan in the words, “Will he make a pact with thee?” The promise, like the wheel, is unknown in Nature: and is the first mark of man.

    Referring only to human civilisation, it may be said with seriousness that in the beginning was the Word. The vow is to the man what the song is to the bird, or the bark to the dog; his voice, whereby he is known. Just as a man who cannot keep an appointment is not fit even to fight a duel, so the man who cannot keep an appointment with himself is not sane enough even for suicide. It is not easy to mention anything on which the enormous apparatus of human life can be said to depend. But if it depends on anything, it is on this frail cord flung from the forgotten hills of yesterday to the invisible mountains of to-morrow. On that solitary string hangs everything from Armageddon to an almanac, from a successful revolution to a return ticket.

    On that solitary string the Barbarian is hacking heavily, with a sabre which is fortunately blunt.
    Anyone can see this well enough, merely by reading the last negotiations between London and Berlin.

    The Prussians had made a new discovery in international politics: that it may often be convenient to make a promise; and yet curiously inconvenient to keep it. They were charmed, in their simple way, with this scientific discovery, and desired to communicate it to the world. They therefore promised England a promise, on condition that she broke a promise, and on the implied condition that the new promise might be broken as easily as the old one. To the profound astonishment of Prussia, this reasonable offer was refused! I believe that the astonishment of Prussia was quite sincere. That is what I mean when I say thatthe Barbarian is trying to cut away that cord of honesty and clear record on which hangs all that men have made.
     
  144. @Wizard of Oz
    Bravo! I'm not sure what StoC's cryptic reply signifies but I'ld like to think it is expressing that he is succeeding in drawing out the crushing arguments against tbe mad Hitlerites. (There was a hint of that on the latest Bacevic related thread where he calmly concedes (by elaboration) my point that Mussolin's Italy engaged in invasions of other countries).

    Hi WoZ,

    S2C seems to have been caught in flagrante delicto and had a brain freeze. Happens to the best of us.

    I see you’ve attracted the sputtering ire of erudite L.K: Congratulations! Never fear. The ‘British Empire’ routine means he really likes you.

    Keep a running count of his endearing epithets. No more reliable gauge of vacuous frustration exists. Don’t want to brag, but you have a way to go before you reach the same level of affection I enjoy.

    Salute!

    Read More
  145. @Incitatus
    “tl;dr”

    ‘Too long; didn't read?’ My 1,400 word reply (#135) to your 1,400 word post (#118)?

    Is it possible you read the first paragraph, realized you’d been exposed in odious bias, and stuck your head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich? That sounds more likely.

    tl;dr

    Or, “I run with the tail between my legs!“, closely accompanied by a reptile in the wings.

    Pathetic is the word which captures your moment. You did read his post, found no riposte, and, responded as only a man left with no escape nor grace in defeat proposes to vacate the premises.

    Incitatus’ deeply informative and witty posts are for all of us, even the Germaniacs and itinerant reptiles; to glean knowledge and understanding. He is consistent, logical and even-handed to a point where partisans on my side of the debate often shift in our seats with a bit of discomfort ( ;) )

    The Nazi/SA/SS brutality which Incitatus writes of, are specific examples of high hubris, indeed the deep malaise which infected Berlin, a condition which Chesterton captured with customary brilliance in his essay The Barbarism of Berlin, (1914).

    [MORE]

    It is essential to emphasise this consciousness of the thing under discussion in connection with two or three words that are, as it were, the key-words of this war. One of them is the word “barbarian.” The Prussians apply it to the Russians: the Russians apply it to the Prussians. Both, I think, really mean something that really exists, name or no name. Both mean different things. And if we ask what these different things are, we shall understand why England and France prefer Russia; and consider Prussia the really dangerous barbarian of the two. To begin with, it goes so much deeper even than atrocities; of which, in the past at least, all the three Empires of Central Europe have partaken pretty equally, as they partook of Poland. An English writer, seeking to avert the war by warnings against Russian influence, said that the flogged backs of Polish women stood between us and the Alliance. But not long before, the flogging of women by an Austrian general led to that officer being thrashed in the streets of London by Barclay and Perkins’ draymen.

    And as for the third power, the Prussians, it seems clear that they have treated Belgian women in a style compared with which flogging might be called an official formality. But, as I say, something much deeper than any such recrimination lies behind the use of the word on either side. When the German Emperor complains of our allying ourselves with a barbaric and half-oriental power, he is not (I assure you) shedding tears over the grave of Kosciusko. And when I say (as I do most heartily) that the German Emperor is a barbarian, I am not merely expressing any prejudices I may have against the profanation of churches or of children. My countrymen and I mean a certain and intelligible thing when we call the Prussians barbarians. It is quite different from the thing attributed to Russians; and it could not possibly be attributed to Russians. It is very important that the neutral world should understand what this thing is.

    If the German calls the Russian barbarous, he presumably means imperfectly civilised. There is a certain path along which Western nations have proceeded in recent times, and it is tenable that Russia has not proceeded so far as the others: that she has less of the special modern system in science, commerce, machinery, travel, or political constitution. The Russ ploughs with an old plough; he wears a wild beard; he adores relics; his life is as rude and hard as that of a subject of Alfred the Great. Therefore he is, in the German sense, a barbarian.

    Poor fellows like Gorky and Dostoieffsky have to form their own reflections on the scenery without the assistance of large quotations from Schiller on garden seats, or inscriptions directing them to pause and thank the All-Father for the finest view in Hesse-Pumpernickel. The Russians, having nothing but their faith, their fields, their great courage, and their self-governing communes, are quite cut off from what is called (in the fashionable street in Frankfort) The True, The Beautiful and The Good. There is a real sense in which one can call such backwardness barbaric, by comparison with the Kaiserstrasse; and in that sense it is true of Russia.

    Now we, the French and English, do not mean this when we call the Prussians barbarians. If their cities soared higher than their flying ships, if their trains travelled faster than their bullets, we should still call them barbarians. We should know exactly what we meant by it; and we should know that it is true. For we do not mean anything that is an imperfect civilisation by accident. We mean something that is the enemy of civilisation by design. We mean something that is wilfully at war with the principles by which human society has been made possible hitherto. Of course it must be partly civilised even to destroy civilisation.

    Such ruin could not be wrought by the savages that are merely undeveloped or inert. You could not have even Huns without horses; or horses without horsemanship. You could not have even Danish pirates without ships, or ships without seamanship. This person, whom I may call the Positive Barbarian, must be rather more superficially up-to-date than what I may call the Negative Barbarian. Alaric was an officer in the Roman legions: but for all that he destroyed Rome. Nobody supposes that Eskimos could have done it at all neatly. But (in our meaning) barbarism is not a matter of methods, but of aims. We say that these veneered vandals have the perfectly serious aim of destroying certain ideas, which, as they think, the world has outgrown; without which, as we think, the world will die.

    It is essential that this perilous peculiarity in the Pruss, or Positive Barbarian, should be seized. He has what he fancies is a new idea; and he is going to apply it to everybody. As a fact it is simply a false generalisation; but he is really trying to make it general. This does not apply to the Negative Barbarian: it does not apply to the Russian or the Servian, even if they are barbarians. If a Russian peasant does beat his wife, he does it because his fathers did it before him: he is likely to beat less rather than more, as the past fades away.

    He does not think, as the Prussian would, that he has made a new discovery in physiology in finding that a woman is weaker than a man. If a Servian does knife his rival without a word, he does it because other Servians have done it. He may regard it even as piety, but certainly not as progress. He does not think, as the Prussian does, that he founds a new school of horology by starting before the word “Go.” He does not think he is in advance of the world in militarism merely because he is behind it in morals. No; the danger of the Pruss is that he is prepared to fight for old errors as if they were new truths. He has somehow heard of certain shallow simplifications, and imagines that we have never heard of them. And, as I have said, his limited, but very sincere lunacy concentrates chiefly in a desire to destroy two ideas, the twin root ideas of rational society. The first is the idea of record and promise: the second is the idea of reciprocity.

    It is plain that the promise, or extension of responsibility through time, is what chiefly distinguishes us, I will not say from savages, but from brutes and reptiles. This was noted by the shrewdness of the Old Testament, when it summed up the dark irresponsible enormity of Leviathan in the words, “Will he make a pact with thee?” The promise, like the wheel, is unknown in Nature: and is the first mark of man.

    Referring only to human civilisation, it may be said with seriousness that in the beginning was the Word. The vow is to the man what the song is to the bird, or the bark to the dog; his voice, whereby he is known. Just as a man who cannot keep an appointment is not fit even to fight a duel, so the man who cannot keep an appointment with himself is not sane enough even for suicide. It is not easy to mention anything on which the enormous apparatus of human life can be said to depend. But if it depends on anything, it is on this frail cord flung from the forgotten hills of yesterday to the invisible mountains of to-morrow. On that solitary string hangs everything from Armageddon to an almanac, from a successful revolution to a return ticket.

    On that solitary string the Barbarian is hacking heavily, with a sabre which is fortunately blunt.
    Anyone can see this well enough, merely by reading the last negotiations between London and Berlin.

    The Prussians had made a new discovery in international politics: that it may often be convenient to make a promise; and yet curiously inconvenient to keep it. They were charmed, in their simple way, with this scientific discovery, and desired to communicate it to the world. They therefore promised England a promise, on condition that she broke a promise, and on the implied condition that the new promise might be broken as easily as the old one. To the profound astonishment of Prussia, this reasonable offer was refused! I believe that the astonishment of Prussia was quite sincere. That is what I mean when I say thatthe Barbarian is trying to cut away that cord of honesty and clear record on which hangs all that men have made.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Meant as a reply to S2C at #140, obviously.
    , @Incitatus
    Hello Sam!

    It seems S2C is taking a time out (can't really blame him).

    Came across some interesting statistics on the NSDAP ‘economic miracle’ that might interest you.

    By January ‘33 it seems the depressed economy had stabilized with the abysmal unemployment rate of 6%. A year later (January ‘34) where did it stand? A miraculous 3.8%! Ah, that clever Dolf - really knew what he was about! Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Führer, don’t ya know!

    Seems the late May ‘33 ‘Law for the Reduction of Unemployment’ was remarkably effective. It set aside RM 1 billion for new jobs (an additional RM 500 million was added Sep ‘33). An important part of the original bill was the ‘marriage loan’: a RM 1000 interest free loan granted to each women who dropped out of the work force to marry. Add to that the party’s concurrent campaign against “Double Earner Syndrome” designed to drive women back to aprons, kitchens, and nurseries. We all knew Dolf was clever, but that’s true genius!

    RM 1.5 billion for unemployment was but a small token of NSDAP largess for the average German. It had already (Mar ‘33) dedicated RM 35 billion to rearmament over an eight year period. It seems the cannon fodder had to be indulged (into producing children) while Dolf got the new abattoir ready.

    Stay well Sam!

    PS. Unemployment of 6% was a crisis? How far we have fallen!
  146. @Sam Shama

    tl;dr
     
    Or, "I run with the tail between my legs!", closely accompanied by a reptile in the wings.

    Pathetic is the word which captures your moment. You did read his post, found no riposte, and, responded as only a man left with no escape nor grace in defeat proposes to vacate the premises.

    Incitatus' deeply informative and witty posts are for all of us, even the Germaniacs and itinerant reptiles; to glean knowledge and understanding. He is consistent, logical and even-handed to a point where partisans on my side of the debate often shift in our seats with a bit of discomfort ( ;) )

    The Nazi/SA/SS brutality which Incitatus writes of, are specific examples of high hubris, indeed the deep malaise which infected Berlin, a condition which Chesterton captured with customary brilliance in his essay The Barbarism of Berlin, (1914).



    It is essential to emphasise this consciousness of the thing under discussion in connection with two or three words that are, as it were, the key-words of this war. One of them is the word “barbarian.” The Prussians apply it to the Russians: the Russians apply it to the Prussians. Both, I think, really mean something that really exists, name or no name. Both mean different things. And if we ask what these different things are, we shall understand why England and France prefer Russia; and consider Prussia the really dangerous barbarian of the two. To begin with, it goes so much deeper even than atrocities; of which, in the past at least, all the three Empires of Central Europe have partaken pretty equally, as they partook of Poland. An English writer, seeking to avert the war by warnings against Russian influence, said that the flogged backs of Polish women stood between us and the Alliance. But not long before, the flogging of women by an Austrian general led to that officer being thrashed in the streets of London by Barclay and Perkins’ draymen.

    And as for the third power, the Prussians, it seems clear that they have treated Belgian women in a style compared with which flogging might be called an official formality. But, as I say, something much deeper than any such recrimination lies behind the use of the word on either side. When the German Emperor complains of our allying ourselves with a barbaric and half-oriental power, he is not (I assure you) shedding tears over the grave of Kosciusko. And when I say (as I do most heartily) that the German Emperor is a barbarian, I am not merely expressing any prejudices I may have against the profanation of churches or of children. My countrymen and I mean a certain and intelligible thing when we call the Prussians barbarians. It is quite different from the thing attributed to Russians; and it could not possibly be attributed to Russians. It is very important that the neutral world should understand what this thing is.

    If the German calls the Russian barbarous, he presumably means imperfectly civilised. There is a certain path along which Western nations have proceeded in recent times, and it is tenable that Russia has not proceeded so far as the others: that she has less of the special modern system in science, commerce, machinery, travel, or political constitution. The Russ ploughs with an old plough; he wears a wild beard; he adores relics; his life is as rude and hard as that of a subject of Alfred the Great. Therefore he is, in the German sense, a barbarian.

    Poor fellows like Gorky and Dostoieffsky have to form their own reflections on the scenery without the assistance of large quotations from Schiller on garden seats, or inscriptions directing them to pause and thank the All-Father for the finest view in Hesse-Pumpernickel. The Russians, having nothing but their faith, their fields, their great courage, and their self-governing communes, are quite cut off from what is called (in the fashionable street in Frankfort) The True, The Beautiful and The Good. There is a real sense in which one can call such backwardness barbaric, by comparison with the Kaiserstrasse; and in that sense it is true of Russia.

    Now we, the French and English, do not mean this when we call the Prussians barbarians. If their cities soared higher than their flying ships, if their trains travelled faster than their bullets, we should still call them barbarians. We should know exactly what we meant by it; and we should know that it is true. For we do not mean anything that is an imperfect civilisation by accident. We mean something that is the enemy of civilisation by design. We mean something that is wilfully at war with the principles by which human society has been made possible hitherto. Of course it must be partly civilised even to destroy civilisation.

    Such ruin could not be wrought by the savages that are merely undeveloped or inert. You could not have even Huns without horses; or horses without horsemanship. You could not have even Danish pirates without ships, or ships without seamanship. This person, whom I may call the Positive Barbarian, must be rather more superficially up-to-date than what I may call the Negative Barbarian. Alaric was an officer in the Roman legions: but for all that he destroyed Rome. Nobody supposes that Eskimos could have done it at all neatly. But (in our meaning) barbarism is not a matter of methods, but of aims. We say that these veneered vandals have the perfectly serious aim of destroying certain ideas, which, as they think, the world has outgrown; without which, as we think, the world will die.

    It is essential that this perilous peculiarity in the Pruss, or Positive Barbarian, should be seized. He has what he fancies is a new idea; and he is going to apply it to everybody. As a fact it is simply a false generalisation; but he is really trying to make it general. This does not apply to the Negative Barbarian: it does not apply to the Russian or the Servian, even if they are barbarians. If a Russian peasant does beat his wife, he does it because his fathers did it before him: he is likely to beat less rather than more, as the past fades away.

    He does not think, as the Prussian would, that he has made a new discovery in physiology in finding that a woman is weaker than a man. If a Servian does knife his rival without a word, he does it because other Servians have done it. He may regard it even as piety, but certainly not as progress. He does not think, as the Prussian does, that he founds a new school of horology by starting before the word “Go.” He does not think he is in advance of the world in militarism merely because he is behind it in morals. No; the danger of the Pruss is that he is prepared to fight for old errors as if they were new truths. He has somehow heard of certain shallow simplifications, and imagines that we have never heard of them. And, as I have said, his limited, but very sincere lunacy concentrates chiefly in a desire to destroy two ideas, the twin root ideas of rational society. The first is the idea of record and promise: the second is the idea of reciprocity.

    It is plain that the promise, or extension of responsibility through time, is what chiefly distinguishes us, I will not say from savages, but from brutes and reptiles. This was noted by the shrewdness of the Old Testament, when it summed up the dark irresponsible enormity of Leviathan in the words, “Will he make a pact with thee?” The promise, like the wheel, is unknown in Nature: and is the first mark of man.

    Referring only to human civilisation, it may be said with seriousness that in the beginning was the Word. The vow is to the man what the song is to the bird, or the bark to the dog; his voice, whereby he is known. Just as a man who cannot keep an appointment is not fit even to fight a duel, so the man who cannot keep an appointment with himself is not sane enough even for suicide. It is not easy to mention anything on which the enormous apparatus of human life can be said to depend. But if it depends on anything, it is on this frail cord flung from the forgotten hills of yesterday to the invisible mountains of to-morrow. On that solitary string hangs everything from Armageddon to an almanac, from a successful revolution to a return ticket.

    On that solitary string the Barbarian is hacking heavily, with a sabre which is fortunately blunt.
    Anyone can see this well enough, merely by reading the last negotiations between London and Berlin.

    The Prussians had made a new discovery in international politics: that it may often be convenient to make a promise; and yet curiously inconvenient to keep it. They were charmed, in their simple way, with this scientific discovery, and desired to communicate it to the world. They therefore promised England a promise, on condition that she broke a promise, and on the implied condition that the new promise might be broken as easily as the old one. To the profound astonishment of Prussia, this reasonable offer was refused! I believe that the astonishment of Prussia was quite sincere. That is what I mean when I say thatthe Barbarian is trying to cut away that cord of honesty and clear record on which hangs all that men have made.
     

    Meant as a reply to S2C at #140, obviously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    What a different world Chesterton lived in. So unsophisticated! Imagine how the hard nuts in a 2017 political campaign office would react to GKC as one of their volunteer press secretaies and speechwriters. Howver I am reminded of the words of Australia's great Chief Justice Dixon (born 1886) on 4th August 1962 when he noted "48 years since the end of civilisation".

    It has only been quite recently that I have learned how dangerously barbaric too many Prussians were (just as the Japanese had a long history of not quite seeing non Japanese as humans I suspect that their view of the Slavs as primitives may have helped form the less admirable dides of the Prussian character). But I still remember a German working for the World Bank speaking in a patronising and rather derogatory way of the Bundesrepublik's civil service, deprived as it was of the old Prussian backbone.

    On another topic I am surprised that not enough of American mores have rubbed off on you from contiguity to stop you risking not only irony but teasing on serious subjects. Jesus the failed banker is a nice conceit. As it happens I have recently come across a couple of interpretative ideas. One is that the money changers, taking coins from all over to exchange them for the half shekel needed to purchase the Passover sacrificial offering, very likely cheated some of the simple folk from the country, and thatvit was observing this that sent Jesus into a rage when he observed it and the cheat was recalcitrant. But then, independently, the question is posed as to why Jesus was not arrested. The interesting theory advanced is that up till then Jesus was well in with Herod's court and the event yhat changed all his prospects, the arrest and death of Sejanus, hadn't yet become known in Jerusalem.

  147. @L.K
    Wizard of Imbecility,
    Since you "care" so much about Italy's invasions in the 30s, 40s, we'd like to hear from you about the British Empire, ya know, the largest Empire in human history? Yeah, that one.

    By 1920, it covered 35,500,000 km2 (13,700,000 sq mi),[3] 24% of the Earth's total land area.
     
    War monger and war criminal, Winston Churchill, said;

    "We have got all we want in territory, and our claim to be left unmolested in the enjoyment of our vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us."
     
    Just in the past 15 plus years, Britain, now as ZUSA's sidekick, has invaded without provocation several countries, and has been helping destroy others; Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen...
    As I write, ZUK has been helping Saudi Barbaria and friends - which includes Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula - starve Yemen, the poorest country in the region. War against civilians, including through starvation blockades, is a long Brit tradition after all!
    BTW, the above article is about the situation in Palestine...
    Being the miserable shill for zionism, zamerican and brit imperialism, you, much like inZitatus, feel the need to spam the comment section with the usual misdirection crap.

    ….feel the need to spam the comment section with the usual misdirection crap.

    spittle-face, the topic was introduced by your fellow pit-creature Wally with encouragement from jilles dykstra.

    The British Empire, as empires went, was the envy of all other European states, including your favourite popinjays, the Prussians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hyperbola
    On the other hand, we might remember that the American war for independence was against the corrupt jewish bankers of the "city of london" and their abusive corporation (East India Co). Americans should recover that spirit.
  148. @Sam Shama
    Meant as a reply to S2C at #140, obviously.

    What a different world Chesterton lived in. So unsophisticated! Imagine how the hard nuts in a 2017 political campaign office would react to GKC as one of their volunteer press secretaies and speechwriters. Howver I am reminded of the words of Australia’s great Chief Justice Dixon (born 1886) on 4th August 1962 when he noted “48 years since the end of civilisation”.

    It has only been quite recently that I have learned how dangerously barbaric too many Prussians were (just as the Japanese had a long history of not quite seeing non Japanese as humans I suspect that their view of the Slavs as primitives may have helped form the less admirable dides of the Prussian character). But I still remember a German working for the World Bank speaking in a patronising and rather derogatory way of the Bundesrepublik’s civil service, deprived as it was of the old Prussian backbone.

    On another topic I am surprised that not enough of American mores have rubbed off on you from contiguity to stop you risking not only irony but teasing on serious subjects. Jesus the failed banker is a nice conceit. As it happens I have recently come across a couple of interpretative ideas. One is that the money changers, taking coins from all over to exchange them for the half shekel needed to purchase the Passover sacrificial offering, very likely cheated some of the simple folk from the country, and thatvit was observing this that sent Jesus into a rage when he observed it and the cheat was recalcitrant. But then, independently, the question is posed as to why Jesus was not arrested. The interesting theory advanced is that up till then Jesus was well in with Herod’s court and the event yhat changed all his prospects, the arrest and death of Sejanus, hadn’t yet become known in Jerusalem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Ah! To have a GKC (even one, half as blessed with the pen and brain) as a speechwriter would be a delectable rare dream come true.

    Prussians/Germans, then as now, are a people which can boast of producing great souls and greater achievements, perhaps more than any other peoples. But it is also a people of whom Goethe wrote: I have often felt a bitter sorrow at the thought of the German people, which is so estimable in the individual and so wretched in the generality....

    On the other topic of American mores, I admit on most, such as they are, I observe mainly in the breach than in the observance. Can't help it. Likewise, never got most of American "humor", and thus find myself typically at the receiving end of withering looks. So I suppose in keeping with my flawed temperament, that obscure little story about Jesus in Herod's circle was just that: a bit of obscurantism meant to get a rise from the 'Arts' and crafts, which as you will notice, succeeded in its object.
    , @hyperbola
    Chesterton sounds like a typical narrow-minded product of an incestuous sect. Lets let some Hindus reflect on the "barbarism" of those who controlled their Brit slaves in the 19th century. Up to Prussian standards?

    Controller Houses Of The East India Company: EIC Series Part IV
    http://greatgameindia.com/controller-houses-east-india-company-eic-series-part-iv/
  149. @anarchyst
    Let's not forget the town of Kiryas Joel, in New York State, the Jewish town in which Goyim are not allowed to purchase real estate or send their children to the "public schools". You see, this town is a Jewish town. Federal "civil-rights" laws do not apply to the Jews of Kiryas Joel as civil-rights laws are only for goyim...NOT Jews.
    There are many other "Jews only" towns that are run the same way...

    anarchyst,

    they also live in poverty. You could do the same, producing a similar number of children, living off welfare, so forth. But you’d have to endure living in poverty.

    And you’d have to endure religious rule.

    How many Anglo-Americans do you know who’d tolerant such a life? I suspect around zero. Anglos wants to be wealthy, respectable, straightforward, optimistic. And lately they all want to be secular.

    The same options are there for Anglos. Anglos just aren’t currently willing to put up with such a life.

    I’ve seen complaints from Kiryas Joel by mothers there who are tired of having children. They want permission to stop having to have children. I doubt it’s a pleasant life there.

    Anglos today want liberty even at the cost of survival.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    They don't live in poverty because they pool their resources. The poverty act is just to keep the tax man at bay. You would be surprised at the number of diamond and gold merchants who reside in Kiryas Joel who make MILLIONS of dollars, yet pay no taxes--working "under the table". You see, it's like the Ferengi in Star Trek...it's about "acquisition"...
    Regards,
  150. Well. Israel feels psychonazi. Palestine, next, wll feel psychozion unlimited coz their civilization beeing completely robbed and their thousands of unarmed civil people being killed.

    Read More
  151. @Wizard of Oz
    What a different world Chesterton lived in. So unsophisticated! Imagine how the hard nuts in a 2017 political campaign office would react to GKC as one of their volunteer press secretaies and speechwriters. Howver I am reminded of the words of Australia's great Chief Justice Dixon (born 1886) on 4th August 1962 when he noted "48 years since the end of civilisation".

    It has only been quite recently that I have learned how dangerously barbaric too many Prussians were (just as the Japanese had a long history of not quite seeing non Japanese as humans I suspect that their view of the Slavs as primitives may have helped form the less admirable dides of the Prussian character). But I still remember a German working for the World Bank speaking in a patronising and rather derogatory way of the Bundesrepublik's civil service, deprived as it was of the old Prussian backbone.

    On another topic I am surprised that not enough of American mores have rubbed off on you from contiguity to stop you risking not only irony but teasing on serious subjects. Jesus the failed banker is a nice conceit. As it happens I have recently come across a couple of interpretative ideas. One is that the money changers, taking coins from all over to exchange them for the half shekel needed to purchase the Passover sacrificial offering, very likely cheated some of the simple folk from the country, and thatvit was observing this that sent Jesus into a rage when he observed it and the cheat was recalcitrant. But then, independently, the question is posed as to why Jesus was not arrested. The interesting theory advanced is that up till then Jesus was well in with Herod's court and the event yhat changed all his prospects, the arrest and death of Sejanus, hadn't yet become known in Jerusalem.

    Ah! To have a GKC (even one, half as blessed with the pen and brain) as a speechwriter would be a delectable rare dream come true.

    Prussians/Germans, then as now, are a people which can boast of producing great souls and greater achievements, perhaps more than any other peoples. But it is also a people of whom Goethe wrote: I have often felt a bitter sorrow at the thought of the German people, which is so estimable in the individual and so wretched in the generality….

    On the other topic of American mores, I admit on most, such as they are, I observe mainly in the breach than in the observance. Can’t help it. Likewise, never got most of American “humor”, and thus find myself typically at the receiving end of withering looks. So I suppose in keeping with my flawed temperament, that obscure little story about Jesus in Herod’s circle was just that: a bit of obscurantism meant to get a rise from the ‘Arts’ and crafts, which as you will notice, succeeded in its object.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Is your last paragraph referring to the fact that I mentioned the Jesus-as-having-supporters-at-Herod's-court hypothesis elsewhere and raised objection from conventional Christians like Seraphim? I was rather impressed by the to-me novel version, not least by considerations of timing. To wit that narrative pushing all the events from being welcomed with palm fronds and hosannas to crucifixion and resurrection into a few days was totally implausible and that the Festival of Tabrrnacles some months earlier would have been the occasion for the palm fronds. The idea that Jesus took up his cousin John the Baptist's cause when he sas killed but, also, that Herod snd Caiaphas were decidely not on the same team seemed to me plausible and important.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Oops! Re-read and I see that you were referring to your own little tease about Jesus the failed wannabe money man but I interpreted it as referring to what I had said because you somewhat misleadingly made reference to Herod whose name hadn't been mentioned by ýou before but had been introduced by me.....
  152. @Weaver
    anarchyst,

    they also live in poverty. You could do the same, producing a similar number of children, living off welfare, so forth. But you'd have to endure living in poverty.

    And you'd have to endure religious rule.

    How many Anglo-Americans do you know who'd tolerant such a life? I suspect around zero. Anglos wants to be wealthy, respectable, straightforward, optimistic. And lately they all want to be secular.

    The same options are there for Anglos. Anglos just aren't currently willing to put up with such a life.

    I've seen complaints from Kiryas Joel by mothers there who are tired of having children. They want permission to stop having to have children. I doubt it's a pleasant life there.

    Anglos today want liberty even at the cost of survival.

    They don’t live in poverty because they pool their resources. The poverty act is just to keep the tax man at bay. You would be surprised at the number of diamond and gold merchants who reside in Kiryas Joel who make MILLIONS of dollars, yet pay no taxes–working “under the table”. You see, it’s like the Ferengi in Star Trek…it’s about “acquisition”…
    Regards,

    Read More
  153. Here is the maximum what the government of Israel might accept with Trump’s blessing. All of the former British Mandate except Gaza will become the State of Israel with Jerusalem its capital. The Golan Heights remain in Israel forever. There will be small snippets of Palestinian semi-autonomous enclaves in the West Bank. Gaza could be the State of Palestine. Anything more favorable for the Palestinians might trigger dangerous violence by the settlers hence is unacceptable for Netanyahu.
    Nothing spectacular will happen.

    Read More
  154. @Wizard of Oz
    I have trouble understanding any suggestions of a deal or even speculation about it without discussion of what is to become of the Israeli settlements (or "Israeli towns" in Daniel Pipes's terminology).

    Could some or all of them be left within the Palestinian state? The terms of the safeguards built in for them at least need an early airing. Is it possible to have most of them move to Israel proper? Does PG think that could or would be negotiated? (Maybe it is not as impossible as one might at first suppose. Enormous ingenuity using solsr power and desalination is going into developing the Negev????).

    Given the certainty that any settlement would have to be lubricated with vast amounts of money what about financing 3, 4 or 5 mini Hong Kongs on the West Bank, realistically accepting that Palestinians basing their economy and employment on farming is a lost cause?

    Re-sent with typos fixes. It was #3 but with no editing facility.

    Sure, the Israeli settlers could remain on their stolen Palestinian land – provided 1. they become Palestinian citizens, subject to Palestinian taxes and military conscription, 2. they compensate the Palestinian citizens who land was stolen. But if those two conditions are imposed, it is advised that you protect your hearing as the screams of outrage and perceived suffering would be ear-splitting and constant.

    Read More
  155. @jilles dykstra
    Bill Gates is not a jew ?
    I wonder what your definition of a jew is, I prefer the definition of the atheistic jews about themselves 'people who feel associated to the jewish culture'.
    In this definition there are more than four times as much jews as normally assumed.

    Sarkozy, officially catholic, is seen as one of them, antisemitic words were painted in France when he was president, Israeli newspapers were jubilant 'he was from an old Greek jewish dynasty'.
    A Spanish bishop long ago on his deathbed stated 'I've always been a jew'.

    I corresponded with a christian historian, whose great grandfather in 1870 converted from judaism to christianity.
    In my view this historian still was a jew, he twisted history to the advantage of jewry.
    His statement about the Palestinians was 'both jews and Palestinians suffered a lot'.
    What is true, but far more true is that it was just jews that made, and still make, Palestinians suffer.

    That here are fine people among jews is true, we here in the Netherlands have Hamburger and the psychologist Frijda, both members of 'Een Ander Joods Geluid', 'another statement from jews', the jewish anti Israel, or pro Palestinian organisation.

    Alas, for the majority of Dutch jews Hamburger is a traitor, as is Finkelstein in the USA, and Ilian Pappe, now living in GB, as far as I know.
    Both Finkelstein and Pappe were not allowed to speak in Germany, recently.

    Nico Frijda was a classmate of mine in the Eerste Openbare Montessori School in the Corellistraat in Amsterdam. His father was murdered in a German concentration camp.

    Read More
  156. @Wally
    Given that Jews were in fact not 'destroyed' the use of the word could not mean 'exterminate'

    That speech and the alleged meaning is debunked here:
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10278&p=77453&hilit=Vernichtung+der+rasse#p77453

    Also Hitler spoke of solving the Jewish problem AFTER the war, the Schlegelberger Document, which read:

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Schlegelberger/Schlegelberger42.JPG

    "Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party."
     
    In support of the Schlegelberger Document see the Luther Memorandum:
    http://www.codoh.com/library/document/154/
    Hitler, the 'Final Solution,' and the Luther Memorandum
    A Response to Evans and Longerich
    excerpt:

    "On the occasion of a reception by the Reich Foreign Minister on 26 November 1941 the Bulgarian Foreign Minister Popoff touched on the problem of according like treatment to the Jews of European nationalities and pointed out the difficulties that the Bulgarians had in the application of their Jewish laws to Jews of foreign nationality."

    "The Reich Foreign Minister answered that he thought this question brought by Mr. Popoff not uninteresting. Even now he could say one thing to him, that at the end of the war all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was the unalterable decision of the Fuehrer and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much."
     

    One cannot discuss Hitler and the Jews without noticing that Hitler’s definition of who was and who was not a Jew as codified in the Nuernberg laws differs from the Judaic definition. Hitler classified Jews strictly according to the number of Jewish grandparents. If you had four or three you were in great danger of arrest and shipment to an extermination camp. If you had two and were a male you had to serve in his armed forces until the Wehrmacht was stalled before Moscow in 1941 when all such males were placed in the reserves. Even then Hitler made exceptions for “Halbjuden” which he needed such as General Milch. Several highly placed “Halbjuden” in his armed forces were “Aryanized” or declared to be “Deutschbluetig”. A rough estimate would be that one-half of these “Halbjuden” might be considered Jews according to halakha law.

    Read More
  157. @Sam Shama

    tl;dr
     
    Or, "I run with the tail between my legs!", closely accompanied by a reptile in the wings.

    Pathetic is the word which captures your moment. You did read his post, found no riposte, and, responded as only a man left with no escape nor grace in defeat proposes to vacate the premises.

    Incitatus' deeply informative and witty posts are for all of us, even the Germaniacs and itinerant reptiles; to glean knowledge and understanding. He is consistent, logical and even-handed to a point where partisans on my side of the debate often shift in our seats with a bit of discomfort ( ;) )

    The Nazi/SA/SS brutality which Incitatus writes of, are specific examples of high hubris, indeed the deep malaise which infected Berlin, a condition which Chesterton captured with customary brilliance in his essay The Barbarism of Berlin, (1914).



    It is essential to emphasise this consciousness of the thing under discussion in connection with two or three words that are, as it were, the key-words of this war. One of them is the word “barbarian.” The Prussians apply it to the Russians: the Russians apply it to the Prussians. Both, I think, really mean something that really exists, name or no name. Both mean different things. And if we ask what these different things are, we shall understand why England and France prefer Russia; and consider Prussia the really dangerous barbarian of the two. To begin with, it goes so much deeper even than atrocities; of which, in the past at least, all the three Empires of Central Europe have partaken pretty equally, as they partook of Poland. An English writer, seeking to avert the war by warnings against Russian influence, said that the flogged backs of Polish women stood between us and the Alliance. But not long before, the flogging of women by an Austrian general led to that officer being thrashed in the streets of London by Barclay and Perkins’ draymen.

    And as for the third power, the Prussians, it seems clear that they have treated Belgian women in a style compared with which flogging might be called an official formality. But, as I say, something much deeper than any such recrimination lies behind the use of the word on either side. When the German Emperor complains of our allying ourselves with a barbaric and half-oriental power, he is not (I assure you) shedding tears over the grave of Kosciusko. And when I say (as I do most heartily) that the German Emperor is a barbarian, I am not merely expressing any prejudices I may have against the profanation of churches or of children. My countrymen and I mean a certain and intelligible thing when we call the Prussians barbarians. It is quite different from the thing attributed to Russians; and it could not possibly be attributed to Russians. It is very important that the neutral world should understand what this thing is.

    If the German calls the Russian barbarous, he presumably means imperfectly civilised. There is a certain path along which Western nations have proceeded in recent times, and it is tenable that Russia has not proceeded so far as the others: that she has less of the special modern system in science, commerce, machinery, travel, or political constitution. The Russ ploughs with an old plough; he wears a wild beard; he adores relics; his life is as rude and hard as that of a subject of Alfred the Great. Therefore he is, in the German sense, a barbarian.

    Poor fellows like Gorky and Dostoieffsky have to form their own reflections on the scenery without the assistance of large quotations from Schiller on garden seats, or inscriptions directing them to pause and thank the All-Father for the finest view in Hesse-Pumpernickel. The Russians, having nothing but their faith, their fields, their great courage, and their self-governing communes, are quite cut off from what is called (in the fashionable street in Frankfort) The True, The Beautiful and The Good. There is a real sense in which one can call such backwardness barbaric, by comparison with the Kaiserstrasse; and in that sense it is true of Russia.

    Now we, the French and English, do not mean this when we call the Prussians barbarians. If their cities soared higher than their flying ships, if their trains travelled faster than their bullets, we should still call them barbarians. We should know exactly what we meant by it; and we should know that it is true. For we do not mean anything that is an imperfect civilisation by accident. We mean something that is the enemy of civilisation by design. We mean something that is wilfully at war with the principles by which human society has been made possible hitherto. Of course it must be partly civilised even to destroy civilisation.

    Such ruin could not be wrought by the savages that are merely undeveloped or inert. You could not have even Huns without horses; or horses without horsemanship. You could not have even Danish pirates without ships, or ships without seamanship. This person, whom I may call the Positive Barbarian, must be rather more superficially up-to-date than what I may call the Negative Barbarian. Alaric was an officer in the Roman legions: but for all that he destroyed Rome. Nobody supposes that Eskimos could have done it at all neatly. But (in our meaning) barbarism is not a matter of methods, but of aims. We say that these veneered vandals have the perfectly serious aim of destroying certain ideas, which, as they think, the world has outgrown; without which, as we think, the world will die.

    It is essential that this perilous peculiarity in the Pruss, or Positive Barbarian, should be seized. He has what he fancies is a new idea; and he is going to apply it to everybody. As a fact it is simply a false generalisation; but he is really trying to make it general. This does not apply to the Negative Barbarian: it does not apply to the Russian or the Servian, even if they are barbarians. If a Russian peasant does beat his wife, he does it because his fathers did it before him: he is likely to beat less rather than more, as the past fades away.

    He does not think, as the Prussian would, that he has made a new discovery in physiology in finding that a woman is weaker than a man. If a Servian does knife his rival without a word, he does it because other Servians have done it. He may regard it even as piety, but certainly not as progress. He does not think, as the Prussian does, that he founds a new school of horology by starting before the word “Go.” He does not think he is in advance of the world in militarism merely because he is behind it in morals. No; the danger of the Pruss is that he is prepared to fight for old errors as if they were new truths. He has somehow heard of certain shallow simplifications, and imagines that we have never heard of them. And, as I have said, his limited, but very sincere lunacy concentrates chiefly in a desire to destroy two ideas, the twin root ideas of rational society. The first is the idea of record and promise: the second is the idea of reciprocity.

    It is plain that the promise, or extension of responsibility through time, is what chiefly distinguishes us, I will not say from savages, but from brutes and reptiles. This was noted by the shrewdness of the Old Testament, when it summed up the dark irresponsible enormity of Leviathan in the words, “Will he make a pact with thee?” The promise, like the wheel, is unknown in Nature: and is the first mark of man.

    Referring only to human civilisation, it may be said with seriousness that in the beginning was the Word. The vow is to the man what the song is to the bird, or the bark to the dog; his voice, whereby he is known. Just as a man who cannot keep an appointment is not fit even to fight a duel, so the man who cannot keep an appointment with himself is not sane enough even for suicide. It is not easy to mention anything on which the enormous apparatus of human life can be said to depend. But if it depends on anything, it is on this frail cord flung from the forgotten hills of yesterday to the invisible mountains of to-morrow. On that solitary string hangs everything from Armageddon to an almanac, from a successful revolution to a return ticket.

    On that solitary string the Barbarian is hacking heavily, with a sabre which is fortunately blunt.
    Anyone can see this well enough, merely by reading the last negotiations between London and Berlin.

    The Prussians had made a new discovery in international politics: that it may often be convenient to make a promise; and yet curiously inconvenient to keep it. They were charmed, in their simple way, with this scientific discovery, and desired to communicate it to the world. They therefore promised England a promise, on condition that she broke a promise, and on the implied condition that the new promise might be broken as easily as the old one. To the profound astonishment of Prussia, this reasonable offer was refused! I believe that the astonishment of Prussia was quite sincere. That is what I mean when I say thatthe Barbarian is trying to cut away that cord of honesty and clear record on which hangs all that men have made.
     

    Hello Sam!

    It seems S2C is taking a time out (can’t really blame him).

    Came across some interesting statistics on the NSDAP ‘economic miracle’ that might interest you.

    By January ‘33 it seems the depressed economy had stabilized with the abysmal unemployment rate of 6%. A year later (January ‘34) where did it stand? A miraculous 3.8%! Ah, that clever Dolf – really knew what he was about! Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Führer, don’t ya know!

    Seems the late May ‘33 ‘Law for the Reduction of Unemployment’ was remarkably effective. It set aside RM 1 billion for new jobs (an additional RM 500 million was added Sep ‘33). An important part of the original bill was the ‘marriage loan’: a RM 1000 interest free loan granted to each women who dropped out of the work force to marry. Add to that the party’s concurrent campaign against “Double Earner Syndrome” designed to drive women back to aprons, kitchens, and nurseries. We all knew Dolf was clever, but that’s true genius!

    RM 1.5 billion for unemployment was but a small token of NSDAP largess for the average German. It had already (Mar ‘33) dedicated RM 35 billion to rearmament over an eight year period. It seems the cannon fodder had to be indulged (into producing children) while Dolf got the new abattoir ready.

    Stay well Sam!

    PS. Unemployment of 6% was a crisis? How far we have fallen!

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Hitler Ascent

    V. Ullrich

    ?

    The type of book that puts me in awe of what a scholarly historian can produce.
    , @Clyde
    Many educational posts. Thanks!
  158. @Incitatus
    Hello Sam!

    It seems S2C is taking a time out (can't really blame him).

    Came across some interesting statistics on the NSDAP ‘economic miracle’ that might interest you.

    By January ‘33 it seems the depressed economy had stabilized with the abysmal unemployment rate of 6%. A year later (January ‘34) where did it stand? A miraculous 3.8%! Ah, that clever Dolf - really knew what he was about! Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Führer, don’t ya know!

    Seems the late May ‘33 ‘Law for the Reduction of Unemployment’ was remarkably effective. It set aside RM 1 billion for new jobs (an additional RM 500 million was added Sep ‘33). An important part of the original bill was the ‘marriage loan’: a RM 1000 interest free loan granted to each women who dropped out of the work force to marry. Add to that the party’s concurrent campaign against “Double Earner Syndrome” designed to drive women back to aprons, kitchens, and nurseries. We all knew Dolf was clever, but that’s true genius!

    RM 1.5 billion for unemployment was but a small token of NSDAP largess for the average German. It had already (Mar ‘33) dedicated RM 35 billion to rearmament over an eight year period. It seems the cannon fodder had to be indulged (into producing children) while Dolf got the new abattoir ready.

    Stay well Sam!

    PS. Unemployment of 6% was a crisis? How far we have fallen!

    Hitler Ascent

    V. Ullrich

    ?

    The type of book that puts me in awe of what a scholarly historian can produce.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    Hi iffen!

    Shirer, Bulloch, Kershaw, Fest? Ullrich is an able and most worthy, unique addition. More than that. I worry about the sequel (decline 1939-45?) and only hope it’s issued in the near future.

    Best iffen.
  159. @Lot

    A Jew is not capable of giving an honest deal to a gentile let alone a Palestinian.
     
    Andy Bechtolsheim's $100,000 investment in Google, given to Brin and Page after a short meeting before Google was even incorporated, is now worth about $5 billion. With Jews you win!

    The most profitable for Andy Bechtolsheim was his initial $100,000 investment in Google, which, in March 2010, was worth approximately $1.7 billion. His net worth was estimated at $2 billion. —from Wikipedia

    This makes his Google investment worth 5.61 billion today. This one of the best investments I have ever heard of. The best in fact.

    Read More
  160. @Incitatus
    Hello Sam!

    It seems S2C is taking a time out (can't really blame him).

    Came across some interesting statistics on the NSDAP ‘economic miracle’ that might interest you.

    By January ‘33 it seems the depressed economy had stabilized with the abysmal unemployment rate of 6%. A year later (January ‘34) where did it stand? A miraculous 3.8%! Ah, that clever Dolf - really knew what he was about! Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Führer, don’t ya know!

    Seems the late May ‘33 ‘Law for the Reduction of Unemployment’ was remarkably effective. It set aside RM 1 billion for new jobs (an additional RM 500 million was added Sep ‘33). An important part of the original bill was the ‘marriage loan’: a RM 1000 interest free loan granted to each women who dropped out of the work force to marry. Add to that the party’s concurrent campaign against “Double Earner Syndrome” designed to drive women back to aprons, kitchens, and nurseries. We all knew Dolf was clever, but that’s true genius!

    RM 1.5 billion for unemployment was but a small token of NSDAP largess for the average German. It had already (Mar ‘33) dedicated RM 35 billion to rearmament over an eight year period. It seems the cannon fodder had to be indulged (into producing children) while Dolf got the new abattoir ready.

    Stay well Sam!

    PS. Unemployment of 6% was a crisis? How far we have fallen!

    Many educational posts. Thanks!

    Read More
  161. @L.K
    Well, SC, do you think this imbecile, inZitatus, cares about international law and crimes against peace/ humanity??
    Let me enlighten you; this virulent German hater cares very much about those things indeed...
    IF, and only IF, such violations, real or INVENTED - and in the case of sovereign Germany(1871-1945) there is no shortage of never ending propaganda/ lies - involve Germans.

    Think about it for a sec; the Nuremberg show trials were a bunch of kangaroo courts, but as illegal and unjust as they were, they set certain precedents, did they not?

    Ok then, after those show trials, the Zionist scum, through terrorism/massacres, ethnic cleansing and wars of conquest, took nearly ALL Palestinian land. These are absolutely well documented facts. One can see disappearing Palestine through the maps in the following article:
    http://ifamericaknew.org/history/

    Does inZitatus condemn the Zio scum for their actions? For creating their artificial religious/ethno state through clear VIOLATIONS of the Nuremberg show trials, which inZi certainly approves of, as long of course, as those punished and executed were Germans...

    Every zionist occupation regime since the beginning has been in violation of the Nuremberg "principles". By the standards set, a lot of zio officials should be tried and executed.
    The same is true for ZUSA, BTW.
    Would inZitatus support such a notion? I don't think so, based on his comments, his friendly relations with zio trolls Sam the Sham, iffen and others. In a reply to Rurik, inZi even said he had some fondness or something for ... John McCain!!
    Bottom line, the guy is slime. I have noticed that in every article here discussing Palestine, this creep pops up talking about Hitler, natzee cannibals, nieh, nieh.

    Anyway, why the hell should there even be an Israel as a Jew supremacist ethno state?
    Currently, there are no real threats to Jews in the West, where, in fact, a majority of Jews choose to live.
    Israel is an abomination ... should be dismantled, Palestine restored and the Jews who wish to stay, should stay, the ones who don't want to live as equals with the indigenous population, can all get the hell out... most would probably choose ZUSA, their preferred destination, and why not, they really do largely run the damn thing anyway. Isn't that enough? Being the masters of the only, if declining, superpower?

    “imbecile, Zio scum, virulent German hater, Zionist scum, ziotroll, slime, creep, shill, abomination, simpleton, miserable propagandist & shill, just another shit eater, sucker, zionist liar, scumbag, sham, village Idiot.”

    I sense there’s something frustrating you L.K.

    Torchlight parade lose it’s way? Mercedes Cabriolet repossessed? Rain ruin your book-burning?

    I know. Life can be so cruel, can’t it? Take a deep breath. Count to ten. Tomorrow, no doubt, will be better. Trust in Dolf (and Eva)!

    BTW no need to woo me with such flattery. I respect you for your intellect. Honest.

    Remember, Wötan loves you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    Rain ruin your book-burning?

    Oh my --- the Jew parasite attacks the Gentile host.

    What gonads, the Little Jew jokes about book burning, when his Big Jews have effectively shut down free speech in the Western world. We all know that it is he who kills free speech.

    The Little Jew chortles under the protection of his Big Jews. He smears and insults good people with his words. He goes on and on without a thought of recourse.

    Poor Little Jew - stupid Little Jew!

    Peace --- Art
  162. @iffen
    Hitler Ascent

    V. Ullrich

    ?

    The type of book that puts me in awe of what a scholarly historian can produce.

    Hi iffen!

    Shirer, Bulloch, Kershaw, Fest? Ullrich is an able and most worthy, unique addition. More than that. I worry about the sequel (decline 1939-45?) and only hope it’s issued in the near future.

    Best iffen.

    Read More
  163. @mcohen
    The dividing up of jerusalem is non negotiable regardless of a Palestinian state.one state, one capital in jerusalem.any attempt to divide jerusalem will fail.

    The dividing up of jerusalem is non negotiable regardless of a Palestinian state.one state, one capital in jerusalem.any attempt to divide jerusalem will fail.

    Imposing Israeli rule over all of Jerusalem would cause great trouble for the world.

    A divided Jerusalem would be a small price to pay for world peace.

    Peace — Art

    p.s. Squatters get to dictate NOTHING!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man
    There is a simple solution, though The Zionist State has complicated it even more in the last 50 years of theft of Arab property in east Jerusalem. Make Jerusalem one united city, capital of the Palestinians and the Zionists and have a UN headquarters there also, with an international peacekeeping force. The Arabs would agree to that but not the Zionazis! Not so simple when you're dealing with 'them'.
  164. @Sam Shama
    Ah! To have a GKC (even one, half as blessed with the pen and brain) as a speechwriter would be a delectable rare dream come true.

    Prussians/Germans, then as now, are a people which can boast of producing great souls and greater achievements, perhaps more than any other peoples. But it is also a people of whom Goethe wrote: I have often felt a bitter sorrow at the thought of the German people, which is so estimable in the individual and so wretched in the generality....

    On the other topic of American mores, I admit on most, such as they are, I observe mainly in the breach than in the observance. Can't help it. Likewise, never got most of American "humor", and thus find myself typically at the receiving end of withering looks. So I suppose in keeping with my flawed temperament, that obscure little story about Jesus in Herod's circle was just that: a bit of obscurantism meant to get a rise from the 'Arts' and crafts, which as you will notice, succeeded in its object.

    Is your last paragraph referring to the fact that I mentioned the Jesus-as-having-supporters-at-Herod’s-court hypothesis elsewhere and raised objection from conventional Christians like Seraphim? I was rather impressed by the to-me novel version, not least by considerations of timing. To wit that narrative pushing all the events from being welcomed with palm fronds and hosannas to crucifixion and resurrection into a few days was totally implausible and that the Festival of Tabrrnacles some months earlier would have been the occasion for the palm fronds. The idea that Jesus took up his cousin John the Baptist’s cause when he sas killed but, also, that Herod snd Caiaphas were decidely not on the same team seemed to me plausible and important.

    Read More
  165. @Sam Shama

    ....feel the need to spam the comment section with the usual misdirection crap.
     
    spittle-face, the topic was introduced by your fellow pit-creature Wally with encouragement from jilles dykstra.

    The British Empire, as empires went, was the envy of all other European states, including your favourite popinjays, the Prussians.

    On the other hand, we might remember that the American war for independence was against the corrupt jewish bankers of the “city of london” and their abusive corporation (East India Co). Americans should recover that spirit.

    Read More
  166. @Wizard of Oz
    What a different world Chesterton lived in. So unsophisticated! Imagine how the hard nuts in a 2017 political campaign office would react to GKC as one of their volunteer press secretaies and speechwriters. Howver I am reminded of the words of Australia's great Chief Justice Dixon (born 1886) on 4th August 1962 when he noted "48 years since the end of civilisation".

    It has only been quite recently that I have learned how dangerously barbaric too many Prussians were (just as the Japanese had a long history of not quite seeing non Japanese as humans I suspect that their view of the Slavs as primitives may have helped form the less admirable dides of the Prussian character). But I still remember a German working for the World Bank speaking in a patronising and rather derogatory way of the Bundesrepublik's civil service, deprived as it was of the old Prussian backbone.

    On another topic I am surprised that not enough of American mores have rubbed off on you from contiguity to stop you risking not only irony but teasing on serious subjects. Jesus the failed banker is a nice conceit. As it happens I have recently come across a couple of interpretative ideas. One is that the money changers, taking coins from all over to exchange them for the half shekel needed to purchase the Passover sacrificial offering, very likely cheated some of the simple folk from the country, and thatvit was observing this that sent Jesus into a rage when he observed it and the cheat was recalcitrant. But then, independently, the question is posed as to why Jesus was not arrested. The interesting theory advanced is that up till then Jesus was well in with Herod's court and the event yhat changed all his prospects, the arrest and death of Sejanus, hadn't yet become known in Jerusalem.

    Chesterton sounds like a typical narrow-minded product of an incestuous sect. Lets let some Hindus reflect on the “barbarism” of those who controlled their Brit slaves in the 19th century. Up to Prussian standards?

    Controller Houses Of The East India Company: EIC Series Part IV
    http://greatgameindia.com/controller-houses-east-india-company-eic-series-part-iv/

    Read More
  167. @Art
    The dividing up of jerusalem is non negotiable regardless of a Palestinian state.one state, one capital in jerusalem.any attempt to divide jerusalem will fail.

    Imposing Israeli rule over all of Jerusalem would cause great trouble for the world.

    A divided Jerusalem would be a small price to pay for world peace.

    Peace --- Art

    p.s. Squatters get to dictate NOTHING!

    There is a simple solution, though The Zionist State has complicated it even more in the last 50 years of theft of Arab property in east Jerusalem. Make Jerusalem one united city, capital of the Palestinians and the Zionists and have a UN headquarters there also, with an international peacekeeping force. The Arabs would agree to that but not the Zionazis! Not so simple when you’re dealing with ‘them’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art

    Make Jerusalem one united city, capital of the Palestinians and the Zionists and have a UN headquarters there also, with an international peacekeeping force. The Arabs would agree to that but not the Zionazis! Not so simple when you’re dealing with ‘them’.
     
    Clearly the Jews would rather spill blood than seek peace.

    The Jews oppose every peace overture – they use words like bullets – they build lies with the power of nukes. They are parasites – they take over and destroy their hosts. Long-term, everything they touch turns ugly.

    The Big Jews are evil – the Little Jews perpetual children – followers without morals.

    Israel mirrors what they are. This will end – it is written.

    Peace --- Art
  168. @Z-man
    There is a simple solution, though The Zionist State has complicated it even more in the last 50 years of theft of Arab property in east Jerusalem. Make Jerusalem one united city, capital of the Palestinians and the Zionists and have a UN headquarters there also, with an international peacekeeping force. The Arabs would agree to that but not the Zionazis! Not so simple when you're dealing with 'them'.

    Make Jerusalem one united city, capital of the Palestinians and the Zionists and have a UN headquarters there also, with an international peacekeeping force. The Arabs would agree to that but not the Zionazis! Not so simple when you’re dealing with ‘them’.

    Clearly the Jews would rather spill blood than seek peace.

    The Jews oppose every peace overture – they use words like bullets – they build lies with the power of nukes. They are parasites – they take over and destroy their hosts. Long-term, everything they touch turns ugly.

    The Big Jews are evil – the Little Jews perpetual children – followers without morals.

    Israel mirrors what they are. This will end – it is written.

    Peace — Art

    Read More
  169. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Wizard of Oz
    I'm not sure you have understood my point when I read "how many citizens protested against the Afghan and Iraq war [sic]...." But it is perhaps the unexplored idea that some people set up 9/11 so they could get the Patriot Act enacted that really boggles the mind.

    For the rest, just too many conspiracies for me, including ones I had never heard of.

    That a thing boggles your mind is no guarantee that it is false, and the charge is difficult to dispute without the use of ad hominem (which temptation I have resisted), being itself an example of what might be called argumentum ad se ipsum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Yes but would you not agree that some brief but forceful way of drawing attention to one of the more ridiculous lums found in his word pudding was justified? Of course I could have said "Really mate!!?? Are you seriously saying that.....?". No different when judged as argument.
  170. @Incitatus
    “imbecile, Zio scum, virulent German hater, Zionist scum, ziotroll, slime, creep, shill, abomination, simpleton, miserable propagandist & shill, just another shit eater, sucker, zionist liar, scumbag, sham, village Idiot.”

    I sense there's something frustrating you L.K.

    Torchlight parade lose it’s way? Mercedes Cabriolet repossessed? Rain ruin your book-burning?

    I know. Life can be so cruel, can't it? Take a deep breath. Count to ten. Tomorrow, no doubt, will be better. Trust in Dolf (and Eva)!

    BTW no need to woo me with such flattery. I respect you for your intellect. Honest.

    Remember, Wötan loves you.

    Rain ruin your book-burning?

    Oh my — the Jew parasite attacks the Gentile host.

    What gonads, the Little Jew jokes about book burning, when his Big Jews have effectively shut down free speech in the Western world. We all know that it is he who kills free speech.

    The Little Jew chortles under the protection of his Big Jews. He smears and insults good people with his words. He goes on and on without a thought of recourse.

    Poor Little Jew – stupid Little Jew!

    Peace — Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    “The immorality of the Jew mind is astounding....Oh my — the Jew parasite attacks the Gentile host...What gonads, the Little Jew jokes about book burning, when his Big Jews have effectively shut down free speech in the Western world...The Little Jew chortles under the protection of his Big Jews. He smears and insults good people with his words. He goes on and on without a thought of recourse...Poor Little Jew – stupid Little Jew!

    Art, how wonderful to hear from you! I always bask in your articulate praise and feel no less enervated now. Thank you! I have to be honest. I liked the “Mercedes Cabriolet repossessed” part. Go figure!

    I hesitate to repeat that I’m not Jewish, but what’s the use? It seems, like Anon/Keith, you’ve taken up dry-humping table legs. I hope it brings you some satisfaction.

    But be careful Art. You’re beginning to excite the jealousy of Julius Streicher in your scholarly discourse. Especially with the “Jew mind, Little Jew, Big Jews, Poor Little Jew – stupid Little Jew” routine. Been reading back issues of ‘Der Stürmer’? Or did L.K help?

    The best part? Your passive-aggressive “Peace — Art” sign off. You’re a real Mahatma Gandhi, aren’t you? Does this mean you’ve given up pulling the wings off of captive flies, or only that you do it less frequently?

    Don’t be a stranger.
    , @RobinG
    How right thou art....

    "....Big Jews have effectively shut down free speech in the Western world."

    http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/40477-campus-activists-fight-fordham-university-s-ban-on-students-for-justice-in-Palestine

    "Fordham University has recently been awarded the dubious distinction of being named one of the 10 worst campuses in the United States when it comes to free speech and academic freedom. Its sin? To have, in an unprecedented move, overturned its own process for approving student groups and unilaterally denied recognition to one student organization alone -- Students for Justice in Palestine."
     
  171. @Art
    Rain ruin your book-burning?

    Oh my --- the Jew parasite attacks the Gentile host.

    What gonads, the Little Jew jokes about book burning, when his Big Jews have effectively shut down free speech in the Western world. We all know that it is he who kills free speech.

    The Little Jew chortles under the protection of his Big Jews. He smears and insults good people with his words. He goes on and on without a thought of recourse.

    Poor Little Jew - stupid Little Jew!

    Peace --- Art

    “The immorality of the Jew mind is astounding….Oh my — the Jew parasite attacks the Gentile host…What gonads, the Little Jew jokes about book burning, when his Big Jews have effectively shut down free speech in the Western world…The Little Jew chortles under the protection of his Big Jews. He smears and insults good people with his words. He goes on and on without a thought of recourse…Poor Little Jew – stupid Little Jew!

    Art, how wonderful to hear from you! I always bask in your articulate praise and feel no less enervated now. Thank you! I have to be honest. I liked the “Mercedes Cabriolet repossessed” part. Go figure!

    I hesitate to repeat that I’m not Jewish, but what’s the use? It seems, like Anon/Keith, you’ve taken up dry-humping table legs. I hope it brings you some satisfaction.

    But be careful Art. You’re beginning to excite the jealousy of Julius Streicher in your scholarly discourse. Especially with the “Jew mind, Little Jew, Big Jews, Poor Little Jew – stupid Little Jew” routine. Been reading back issues of ‘Der Stürmer’? Or did L.K help?

    The best part? Your passive-aggressive “Peace — Art” sign off. You’re a real Mahatma Gandhi, aren’t you? Does this mean you’ve given up pulling the wings off of captive flies, or only that you do it less frequently?

    Don’t be a stranger.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    I hesitate to repeat that I’m not Jewish

    So funny - you and Wiz and iffen make thousands of comments favoring Judaic culture - yet you’ll claim not to be Jews. Clearly you three are among the most active pro-Jew commenters on this site.

    None of you are crazed Christian Old Testament bible pounders. Without some lemming like personal ideology, no rational person would do what you do.

    Thus – we must assume the obvious – that you’ll are in your face liars.

    Peace --- Art

    p.s. Do all three of you little lemmings wear the same brown shirts when you make comments?

    p.s. I bet you’ll are really cute. (smile)

    p.s. Please – please stay away from the cliffs little ones.(We Christians are pro-life.)

  172. @Art
    Rain ruin your book-burning?

    Oh my --- the Jew parasite attacks the Gentile host.

    What gonads, the Little Jew jokes about book burning, when his Big Jews have effectively shut down free speech in the Western world. We all know that it is he who kills free speech.

    The Little Jew chortles under the protection of his Big Jews. He smears and insults good people with his words. He goes on and on without a thought of recourse.

    Poor Little Jew - stupid Little Jew!

    Peace --- Art

    How right thou art….

    “….Big Jews have effectively shut down free speech in the Western world.”