With Saddam out of the way, israel throws all its weight into jumpstarting a war with Iran.
In a stark statement published on Saturday Brigadier General Oded Tira observed, "President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors.
We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure."
Because of the dramatic loss of political power of the Bush-Cheney administration, General Tira urges the Israel Lobby to, "turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they support immediate action by Bush against Iran."
In another move designed to strengthen Bush politically, General Tira urges the Israel Lobby to exert its influence on European countries so that, "Bush will not be isolated in the international arena again."
As if all of that Israel-lobbying in America and Europe were not enough, General Tira proposes an even more aggressive political tactic, "We must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran.
For our part, we must prepare an independent military strike by coordinating flights in Iraqi airspace with the US.
We should also coordinate with Azerbaijan the use of airbases in its territory and also enlist the support of the Azeri minority in Iran.
In addition, we must immediately start preparing for an Iranian response to an attack."
Based on the urgency of General Tira's extraordinary pleas, it is immediately apparent that he has been shocked by the turn of political events inside America.
By this time, he has learned from official US sources that the long-anticipated attack against Iran has been shelved because of tectonic shifts in American politics.
Apparently, General Tira did not realize that President Bush has become the most deeply unpopular president in American history and that it was his subservience to the dictates of the Israel Lobby and its demands for wars against Iraq and Iran that led him into the political prison where he now finds himself isolated and impotent.
Neither does General Tira realize that the Republican Party is no longer unified in its support of President Bush's deeply unpopular war in Iraq or his plans for expanding the war by a sustained bombing campaign against Iran. Since General Tira did not publish any remarks about the Iraq Study Group headed by former US Secretary of State, James Baker, he may be oblivious to the political facts now in place in 2007 America.
Instead of the bipartisan commitment to broaden Bush's unpopular war as General Tira proposes, there is now a broadening bipartisan movement to reign in the US losses in Iraq. No major American politician has voiced any enthusiasm for broadening Bush's war into Iran as General Tira beseeches the US to do.
General Tira's outburst suggests that the official channels for news and the analysis of public affairs in Israel are not working as efficiently as they should in the 21st century. Perhaps, someone should provide the General with a subscription to Ha'aretz and the International Herald Tribune for starters.
---------------
Michael Carmichael is Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, The Planetary Movement, Oxford, United Kingdom
Expect a ruthless last ditch attempt by israel to plunge the world headlong into war.
Thanks, Cherifa
Submitted by qrswave on Tue, 2007-01-02 07:32
- qrswave's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 20919 reads
-
...seem to often depend on other people's armies to achieve their goals.
Zion was about to bring America into the war against Egypt in 1967 when it tried to sink the USS Liberty. Since then it's been using political/monetary power in the US to bring about the foreign policies it needs, which includes America invading Iraq, threatening Syria and Iran, and treating Lebanese and Palestinian resistance as terrorism. Not to mention putting sanctions on Iraq and starving the Palestinian people.
(Also, using false flag terror to defame Libya and isolate it internationally til recently, heck, the list goes on and on).
The way I see it, all the cards are in Israel's and Bush's hands, regardless of what Congress says. Israel and / or Bush could easily order a strike on a U.S. ship, blame it on Iran, and launch a full-scale war with a military draft if necessary. No one could stop it. If the result is a global economic depression, the Jewish bankers will buy everything for pennnies on the dollar, as they've done many times in the past. Sorry to be so pessimistic, but I believe we're doomed.
That settles it - I won't be staying at the Marriott anymore.
The party is OVER U.S.A.,Canada,Mexico this unfair and mendacious way of life of the rich and powerful bankers is not going to continue. The killing of SH is a clear signal. 6 billion more or less are on the death list so the rich can win by default. (read DU chem weapons use)
The party is over Mr Richie Rich Bum! we are going to see your house collapse! And the party afterwards is going to be a WHOPPER!!
Palestine IS coming.
General Tira said something involving the idea that, "...an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence." I understand him to be saying Israel is threatened by Iran, but Israel is incapable of protecting itself.
One of the arguments about this is that the United States should not be attacking Iran in order to do Israel any favors. The reason for this is that Iran does not threaten the United States. Instead, we are told, an attack on Iran, as well as our attack on Iraq, is actually hurting the United States.
Apparently, this argument or one along the same vein has been effective. In response the General has added,
"...General Tira urges the Israel Lobby to exert its influence on European countries..."
The idea here, I believe, is that even if the United States would reject attacking Iran because it would not be in America's interest to do so, the Europeans could argue that such an attack would be in their interests.
I am not sure what these Europeans could argue. How could an attack on Iran be in their interest? Perhaps they could be told that they are threatened by Iran no less than Israel. I wonder about this. Does Iran threaten to keep it's oil from European markets? I was under the impression that Iran was dumping petro-dollars in favor of the Euro. That does not seem like threatening behavior.
Maybe something could be made of the idea that Islam is making itself a nuisance in Europe as the number of immigrants increases. Is there some kind of danger being hatched out of Iran using the Islamic populations? I would think Iran would have no interest in undermining the governments of Europe. Perhaps the Iranians would be interested in giving away some oil to poor neighborhoods in strategic countries, much like Chavez in Venezuela has given heating oil to poor neighborhoods in the United States.
The General also says,
"We must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran...."
I wonder if this is related to the recent resignation of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.
I would think Saudi Arabia has no interest in pissing off the Iranians in order to do Israel favors. I'd think both the Saudis and the Iranians would want to avoid the horror of Iraq. You'd think the Saudis would see that Bush kills whatever he touches.
Carmichael goes on to say that Tira has failed to see that the Republican Party has divisions of its own and that the American people have turned against Bush's efforts to do whatever he's doing in Iraq and invade Iran.
If it is obvious now that attacking Iran is not in America's interest, I wonder what the Republicans were thinking when they went into Iraq and contemplated Iran. It would be easy to say that they did not have America's interests at heart.
Should we go on to say they were willing to make Israel's interests their own interests?
I also wonder how much of the religious issue made Republicans so agreeable to these war efforts in Iraq and potentially Iran. That issue, I suspect, is about how large numbers of Republican voters believe that Jesus will return only following the establishment of the state of Israel and during the battle of Armagedon.
I doubt if Tira sees himself as a tool of the Christian Zionists. But, don't the Christians see him that way? Is that why they support or enable the foolishness of these wars?
These days, people have to try pretty hard to ignore what has become painfully obvious.
The question is, what will we DO about it?
The truth is that many people who support israel are in positions of power and Americans have become entirely dependent on the US dollar for their very existence.
The only effective way to change this system is to organize an alternative system by which people can sustain themselves during a fierce protracted political and economic battle.
you have to see this two part video on Google video ( the money masters ), an eye opener, A MUST SEE 3 hour video about the jewish bankers (Ruthchild's, warbrids)and how they have become so powerful to control the USA and the WORLD, just copy and past the link listed, pease to all.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8753934454816686947&q=The+Money...
There is a symbol, a SIX sided circle with SIX triangles and SIX points in all directions, representing world domination.
This is not a "star", it is a hexagram, a symbol of evil.
Now, explain to us all:
If "...salvation is of the Jews."
What happens if you're not a Jew?
I thought Judaism was an exclusive religion - based on being born from a Jewish mother.
That doesn't leave the rest of humanity with much choice for being 'saved' like Jews, does it?
The quotation from John 4:22 was taken out of context by the Zionist.
Jesus was speaking to a non-Jewish Hebrew woman, the good Samaritan. The point of the whole conversation was to let her know that she could have salvation. She asked if she needed to go to Jerusalem to worship God, or if she could worship in the mountains like her ancestors. His answer was that she could worship God anywhere.
The next line John 4:23 "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the TRUE worshippers (non-Jews) shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the father SEEKETH SUCH to worship him."
The Jews are not God's "Chosen Race." People who follow His will are his TRUE follower.
Jesus Himself was not a Jew (Judean), he was a Galilean (different Hebrew tribe). Samaria was between Galilee and Judea.
Many Hebrews became Christian, although very few from the tribe that lived around Jerusalem, the Judeans (Jews). The Judeans considered themselves superior to the other Hebrews, and had their own traditions. Jesus was critical of the Jews for their disobediance to God. They eventually persuaded the Romans to crucify Him.
Centuries later, many Hebrews became Muslim. Todays Palestinians are the descendants of the Hebrews.
you sure are dedicated to your cause!
Too bad, you're on the wrong side of the fence - or, shall I say WALL.
quote:
"What is your problem with us Jews? We take care of ourselves and leave you alone."
.
.
.
Again, and time again, you tot around that lie. Do you really believe you are "Jewish" (Semitic/Arab)?
White Europeans are quite different from Arabs/Semites, quite different from Africans, quite different from Asians, quite different from Orientals, etc...
... but should that matter? Why is it that if you are supposedly 'god's chosen' that you are given a 'free-ticket' to heaven (assuming there is one)? Why?
And how does several differences in chromosomes at the 'Population level' somehow make you better than the rest of humanity? "God's chosen"?
Realistically, you may have more genetic similarity with someone from another 'race' than your own -- so what does that mean? Why all of this posturing, posing and flaunting, when the "best case" is that there were a small handful (say a few thousand) of people who lived in ancient Palestine that "migrated" to Europe, married with the locals, etc ----- even in this "best case" scenario, to claim "jewish supremacy" is foolish.
Was there such a thing so definite as "jewish" 2,000 years ago -- such that people who lived in these "villages" were jewish, but the villages next door were Africans, Egyptians, Arabs, Indians, Mongols, etc????
And I really do wish you 'guys' leave the rest of us alone.
No more wars please!
No more rapes please!
No more 'dollar hegemony' please!
No more assasinations please!
No more 'regime changes' please!
No more chemical warfare please!
No more 'sicing your American dog' at the 3rd world countries please!
No more manimpulation of financial markets and stealing please!
No more 'fiat currency' and all its ills please!
No more nuclear bombs killing people (behind the American, a 'jew' ordered it to happen) please!
No more Bolshevicks please!
No more 'Tet offensive' please!
No more killing Koreans, Hispanics, Natives please!
No more slavery please!
No more Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other countries you want to "purify" please!
>>>>>>>> Don't play us for "fools", we "goyims" have had enough!
...hi Radioscope. I appreciate your civility in arguing your points in the face of quite an anti-Zionist group.
I'm no expert in Biblical verses, so will leave the theological debates between you and others.
I would like to rebut some of your secular polemics. You make a mistake that many Zionist apologists make. The whole 'so what?' defence. You say Arabs have so much land, why are they being stingy over such a tiny slice?
Well, it's quite simnple really. Zionist Jews stole land from Arabs. No matter how small the piece is, it is still stealing, it is still unjust, and it is still morally not allowed. You talked a lot about how Jews should be an example for the world, yet when some of them steal the homes of other people, this is not setting a good example at all. A Palestinian doesn't care that Morocco may have room for immigrants, he was forcefully forced out of his home, put in a refugee camp, and is living under military control, with no rights, no nothing. Sure, some got ISraeli citizenship, but there are many who have yet to have their grievances addressed.
You say: "Jews are indigenous to that land. We may not have had reign over it for roughly two-thousand years; but, we have maintained a continuous presence in it for very much longer. Certainly since long before the Arabs ever came along."
The first part is true, and so you pretty much admit that the problem nowadays has never been about Arabs wanting to kick Jews out. They've lived with each other for centuries. The current conflict isn't about an indigenous Jewish minority being kicked out (which the Arabs never did, even in pre-1967 West Bank, many Palestinian Jews were living with Arabs and have yet not moved to 'Israel-1948'.) The conflict is about a FOREIGN (at least in the eyes of Arabs) Jewish group coming in and kicking the Arabs out of their homes, destroying their villages, ethnically cleansing them, and taking their place. Surely if all the European immigrants just came and lived with the Palestinians, they would have become one country, but this is not what happened, because the Zionists wanted to make a Jewish state with a Jewish majority in a piece of land that had an indigenous Arab majority. THAT is the problem.
And don't cry tears for Jews not being allowed to live in GAza. The ones forced out were living in recently constructed illegal settlements. Jews have lived in Gaza for centuries. One of Zionism's forefathers was a Gazan Jew from the 16th century.
And the second part of what I quoted from you is not true. The Jews were not in Palestine before the Arabs came along. I trust you accept the tribe of Israel are all descendents of Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham. When Abraham moved to Palestine from Iraq, there were already other tribes living there. These tribes were Semitic as well, and are the ancestors of most modern day Arabs. When the tribe of ISrael returned to Palestine, there were already other tribes living there. The Canaanites, etc.
Radioscope may be well-versed in both OT and NT, but in this blog we have had enough of the political use of both religion and history. Especially when coming from self-styled 'Jews'.
Let us remind Radioscope that his 'Jews' are overwhelmingly not semitic - the dominant ashkenazic ethno being descendent of the turkik Khazars, Cumans and Alans.
And, please, enough with the quoting of scriptures - texts written decades or even centuries after events they describe, often, in a legendary fashion.
The non-aligned historian knows that religion has always been an instrument of politics and power. He knows that monotheism as we know it was invented by pharao Amenothep IV (Ekhnaton) in the form of the worship of sunlight, then assumed and transformed by the semitic tribes within the Hyksos invaders of northern Egypt at the time of their expulsion (call it exhodus) from Egypt. Armed with monotheism, the Habiru tribes wrenched for themselves land from the autochtonous polytheistic Caananites. Thus Palestine was already occupied by indo-european Phoenician peoples (including the Philistines, early ancestors of the modern Palestinians) when the semitic Israelites arrived from Egypt. Yet the ephemeral biblical reign was terminated by the Assiro-Babilonians, the Persians, the Macedonian-Greeks and then by the Graeco-Romans, most of the Israelites being scattered away and the true autochtonous peoples continually occupying the land. This continued to be the situation (with the notable Crusaders' time exception) through the islamic occupation by Arabs first and then by the Ottoman Turks. Where were the Israelites during all these two millenia? They were mostly assimilated in all the surrounding mediterranean and west-asian lands, living peacefully and in prosperity within their host populations. With two notable exceptions: the true Jews of moorish Spain and the self-styled 'Jews' of Eastern Europe - Khazars and allied turkik tribes, really, converted to Judaism sometimes round the 8th or 9th century CE. The first group had been the Moors' fifth column in christian Spain, so their fate is known. The second much more numerous group was - not many know this - the Mongols' fifth column in the latters' invasion of eastern Europe and Russia. Racial links are what matter when paving the way to invaders, not religious affinities. Through good and rough times amidst catholic and orthodox Christians, the ashkenazic self-styled 'Jews' attained with their enormous accumulated wealth two great goals in 1917. The promise of Palestine for themselves by the British and the total control of Russia to become the Soviet Union. If the second achievement was the restauration of a 'tatar yoke' of yore over Russia - of a new khazar kingdom of a sort - what was then the achievement of the Israel state in 1948? To the non-aligned historian that was pure colonial land grabbing, attained with deception and brute force from a british administration, with the international consensus and over the heads and rights of the autochtonous populations. For the ashkenazic self-styled 'Jews' bought yes some tiny parcels of land, but grabbed the rest with arms and conflicts. And where is their historical claim to that land, if they ultimately descend from converted Finns, Turks and Mongols from Central Asia? Kazakhstan, not Palestine, might be a fair historical claim. As seen above, not even the coerced middle-eastern Jews of the arab lands, forcibly resettled into Israel by the Ashkenazis, could (or would) hold a claim over biblical lands. So how can the Israelis, the 'Jews', hold a claim over Palestine? Only 'de facto' and by brute force, surely not on any genuine historical basis.
Having said that, let us now quote Radioscope:
"That's it in a nutshell. God is not saying that Jews are better than other people, but that they should aspire to set a good example for the nations by living righteously, and by His commandments".
Ah, that's a well-wishing attitude, but alas the Talmud says something entirely different, proclaiming the supremacy of 'Jews' over Gentiles all the time. So Radioscope will now lecture us about the Talmud as well? Also the notion of the 'chosen people' transpires from all over the OT and the rest of the jewish religious literature. Alas the very same concept of 'chosen people' is flawed, when the 'Jews' have such overwhelming component of ancient turkik converts.
"Remember: If Christianity is the logical continuation of Judaism, why did not the majority of Jews accept it"?
Let's be realistic again. The Christians never knew they were being used. The christian heresy was propagated by zealots like Saul of Tarsus (true inventor of the new faith) and within the Roman Empire as a tool to bring the power of Rome down. The idea was to bring new beliefs within Rome's downtroddens in order to make it a state religion more sympathetic to the Jews. So the question is, rather, why did the Christians not accept the Jews more willingly? A probably universal answer to this is that the Jews always kept for themselves and plotted with their racial kinsmen (Moors, Arabs, ... and Turks, Mongols) to bring more sympathetic rulers for their communities in the host countries.
"Today, "Christianity" by all means ought to be known as "Judaism." But, it isn't; because - unlike most "Bible Believers," most Orthodox Jews can read, speak and write in the Biblical languages of Hebrew and Aramaic. We know what our own scriptures say in ways that you don't. It is not that you can't; its just that you've chosen not to take the initiative to study them as such".
If this isn't a jewish supremacy myth. Christians could not choose, they were also coaxed. Just like the 'useful idiots' of the bolshevik 'revolution' did not realise they were only being used to usher in a new regime: for the 'idiots' much more cruel than the tzarist rule.
"Now, we Jews have always been meticulous keepers of our genealogies".
So how did you conveniently 'forget' the dominant turkik genealogy line, back to the Khazar conversion? Yet, before 1917 jewish historians admitted to that overwhelming contribution to the gene pool of the jewish community of believers. Is that not a political use of history?
"You know, all of this anti-semitism must stem from a feeling of inadequacy on your part".
Please: anti-semitism does not exist except in the minds of the self-styled 'Jews'. It fuels your very same recent history, it is necessary for you to survive together with your own creation myths for Israel. Nobody opposes you because you're sticking to the jewsih traditions; rather, because you are constantly lying about your very same origins and history. Another example: pogroms in Poland and Russia? You hold them as persecutions of impoverished communities, but in reality they issued within uprisings against the jewish 'arenda' tribute-collection system which made your aristocracy so wealthy and the slavic peasants and cossack communities so poor. Or, pogroms were propaganded from incidents against the tzarist repression of assassination and revolutionary attempts. Lying about one's own origins is a turkish trait, so you may at the most call our criticism a form of anti-turanism.
"We, as Jews, aren't doing anything to you. We do not call you. We do not knock on your door trying to convert you while you're trying to enjoy your dinner. We don't have our hand out in front of you at your local supermarket, petitioning you for donations to our charities".
True, you don't need all this. You have the international banking and monetary system already in place to achieve your goals. The control of the media and information systems, the control of energy production and distribution, the control of most post-war political systems. Why indeed should you bother us more than you already do?
"What is your problem with us Jews? We take care of ourselves and leave you alone".
The problem is that you lie all the time. You spread disinformation, and this is why we need websites like this. As for 'leaving us alone' ...
"why is it that you are so singularly focused upon little Israel".
It's because it's the most racist, colonialist and above all expansionist state there is. Because it's supported by an international lobby that has its grips on our very livelihood and survival systems.
"It is but a mere one-sixth of one-percent (1/625) of all of the land of the Arab League Nations combined".
Ah, but it's very strategically positioned and this is why the Zionists wanted it so badly since oil became essential to wage modern wars.
'If Muslims were to take land away from Jews'
That is very unlikely, what, with the hundreds or thousands of nukes stockpiled in Israel? And if it ever happened, the true Jews could return to live amidst the Arabs, the self-styled khazar 'Jews' could always return to Kazakhstan.
"Jews are indigenous to that land".
As exposed above, this is FALSE. Based on total falsification of history, and here is where we have our problem. The autochtonous peoples are the Palestinians, the Druses, the Armenians, the Christians and most of the Moslims. Decendents of Caananites, Phoenicians and Philistines. And yes, some Jews. That land is home of the jewish, christian and islamic faiths, so it should be a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state with the name Palestine. If the self-styled turkik 'Jews' want a land of their own, what about Kazakhstan, which is where they came from before invading Khazaria (southern Russia) in the 5th century CE? Kazakhstan is vast, almost empty and full of mineral resources.
"We may not have had reign over it for roughly two-thousand years; but, we have maintained a continuous presence in it for very much longer. Certainly since long before the Arabs ever came along".
As exposed above, this is pure zionist propaganda and does not correspond to the historic record. Who is 'we'? The descendants of the Habiru tribes who wrenched the land from the Caananites and Philistines? There were very few of them left in Palestine, living in the midst of the other faiths. Or, the decendants of the judaised turkik tribes of Khazaria? They are indigenous of Kazakhstan, or of the Altay region.
"Muslim nations have so much vacant land".
Yes, and it's all desert, and Zionists want to wrench that too when it can be covered with oil and water pipelines.
"Time to study, qrswave, and aspire to take on a more balanced view of life".
Time to study, yes: your real history and origins, to acknowledge them in public. And time to stop spreading disinformation and make political use of religion and history.
To Radioscope:
You write "the genocide that is being committed in Darfur by ethnic Arab Muslims against black African Muslims"
I used to hear about that on the news, and found it hard to believe. Then I watched a detailed documentary on Darfur, with film footage of the men who have being doing the killing. It turns out that it is Black Africans killing Black Africans, inter-tribal warfare, similar to what happened in Rwanda and Zaire.
With further research I found that virtually no Arabs live in southwestern Sudan.
Was the Zionist-controlled news media purposefully spreading lies about Arabs raping and killing Africans to promote hatred against Arabs?
You suggest we interact with Jews. The more interactions people have with Jews, the more they understand some fundamental attitudes and beliefs that most Jews have. For example Michael Rivero (of WhatReallyHappened.com) was married to a Jewish woman. I've known, dated, slept with, lived with, and worked with quite a number of Jews in my life.
I've found most Jews have extreme contempt for Christians and Muslims. Jews promote (as stated in the Protocols) all manner of vices, bad habits, wasteful activities, addictions, and other behaviors among the Gentiles.
What many Jews seem to hate most is the well-adjusted, happy, successful Gentile families. I've found Jews treating homosexual Gentiles with respect, while despising normal, successful heterosexuals. I once knew a Jewish Supremacist woman, a PhD psychologist, who boasted about "rendering men impotent" with her psychology, and in conversations with other Jews she referred to Gentile men as "cockroaches".
Let's face it, the worst and most destructive hatred on earth is the hatred that Jewish Supremacists have for Gentiles.
You say your people want to be the light of the world...why does their behavior indicate the opposite?
Well said justice seeker. Jewish supremacy and contempt for the Gentiles is rooted in the Talmud (alas Radioscope does not seem to know or want to acknowledge this). The Talmud is full of entries against Christians, a good reason why the christian kings routinely ordered the mass burning of such books. With the only result of increasing jewish contempt for the Gentiles. Some, of course, converted to the christian faith (whilst secretly remaining attached to their kin).
This contempt is well explained by centuries of animosity between Jews and Christians and I have explained already how on the christian side this was rooted on Jews acting as fifth columns in undermining christian rule of their host countries. Jews in Spain guided the armies of the Moors and opened city gates to the invaders. Jews (and 'Jews') in the Byzantinian Empire plotted with the Arabs (later with the Turks) to bring christian rule to an end. 'Jews' (in fact converted turkik Khazars) in Poland guided the armies of the Mongols and helped bringing the christian rule to an end. Always these disloyal aliens became the invaders' administrators, tax-collectors and diplomats for their kin rulers. Always the return of christian rule brought persecution and suspicion of the Jews and 'Jews'. Often the attempts to bring christian rule down brought persecutions, expulsions, pogroms.
So what to expect from centuries of betrayal, animosity and mutual suspicion, mutual atrocious behaviour, other than contempt?
... Radioscope. At least we have a reasonable antagonist to play with.
You say:
"Judaism is a system of belief. It is not an ethnicity".
Fair enough, this is also what we say. We also say the 'Jews' are not one people, not one ethno, but a collection of ethnic groups and tribes (like you admit) with the same system of belief. Just like the Christians and the Moslims. Yet, when it comes to Israel, you suddenly become one people, one ethno and so you justify the need for your own state. But you are not one people and one ethno. Your many ethnos don't even have a common history, a common language. Modern Hebrew is a linguistic concoction like Esperanto, ancient Hebrew is used only lithurgically like Latin might be. Your ethnos have spoken Aramaic, Ladino, Chuwash, Yiddish, now English and countless other idioms and languages. Should the Christians also demand a state for themselves? Should the chinese Catholics demand to have a piece of Italy, just because their faith comes originally from Rome? Should the german Evangelists demand a piece of Palestine too, just because their faith goes back to the Essenes? If the 'Jews' needed a state of their own because of christian persecution (granted and explained) why not go back to Kazakhstan where THAT ethno originally came from? Why demand Palestine?
"Though there are many other ethicities involved in the Jewish faith, it is most closely associated with it's originators, the Hebrew people".
So just imagine if the chinese Catholics, german Evangelists and so on had this same perspective! The entire world would be on fire, not just the Middle East. Can you turkik Ashkenazis not comprehend, you cannot ask for Palestine all for yourselves just because you embraced a faith coming from that land! Moreover, since your true holy book is the Talmud, you should recognise that THAT faith came from Baghdad, perhaps, and was perfected by the Khazar converts in the east-european diaspora. Your faith originated in Palestine, but was perfected in Eastern Europe. And ALL these lands were/are not available for grab.
"I know here are those of you reading this who, no doubt, will continue to have your suspicions about Jews, and will never like us, no matter what".
Wrong, we like you, at least I do. But this does not stop us being critical. We shall stop being critical when you will admit your limits. That you are not one people, one ethno, that the great majority of you is turkik and not semitic and that you grabbed another people's land and keep it with the use of brute force, just like european colonialists did (and do). So, please stay with us and argue your case.
"In Judaism, it doesn't matter what you believe, so long as you do good deeds and aspire to bring the world to a state of perfection".
But why does this contrast so vividly with the way you Jews treat the rest of the world? Do you mean that 'good deeds' and 'the world' is your own world, that of your own jewish communities, and good deeds to your own co-believers ONLY? Please don't fool us by saying 'there are bad apples', unless you are the only good apple of your lot.
"This idea of "Jewish supremacy" is coming out of your own imaginings".
Unfortunately it's for everyone to see in the Old Testament, in the Mishna and in the Talmud. It's really like justice seeker said.
"There must certainly have been converts to Judaism".
"It is important for you to understand that one can only be Jewish if he or she was born of a Jewish mother, or converted. There is no other way".
So, what do you tell us about the converted Khazars, Cumans, Alans and other turkik tribes? Their descendency makes up the overwhelming majority of 'Jews'. Did they really have jewish ancestral mothers? Then perhaps we all have! Are we all jewish? Can we all become citizens of Israel?
"Were there Jews two-thousand years ago? Yes".
Granted. Maybe even 3,250 years ago (time ? of Moses, priest of the temple of Heliopolis). Maybe we all descend from those men and women expelled by the pharao, the probability is certainly not zero. Should we all then claim a piece of Palestine and a piece of the Nile delta? Can you not see the absurdity of this attitude in the 'law of return'?
"Show me another country that, after having acquired territories in a war, had just as easily returned them for diplomatic relations and peace".
In recent times: the Soviet Union. It nominally returned countries bound to it in the Warsaw Pact, now mostly independent. It returned Eastern Germany to Germany! The exchange of 'land for peace' is as old as mankind.
I will also explain what the Great Revealer may have meant:
"No more rapes please!"
Now, you've lost me. What "rapes"?
What about the rapes of the german women at the end of WW2? At least 2 million births issued from those systematic rapes, which were theorised (Ilya Eherenburg), encouraged (even performed) by ashkenazi officers.
"No more 'dollar hegemony' please!"
Perhaps the jewish-controlled Federal Reserve?
"No more assasinations please!"
Perhaps he meant Mossad target assassinations, or a little more back in history the assassination of tzars and european monarchs and diplomats?
"No more 'regime changes' please!"
That's what you just did in Afghanistan, Iraq, and plan to do in Iran ...
"No more manimpulation of financial markets and stealing please"!
Favourite jewish passtime, should we recall the origins of the Great Depression? Pre 9-11 stockmarket speculations and so on?
"No more nuclear bombs killing people (behind the American, a 'jew' ordered it to happen) please"!
He's right. The development of the atomic (and hydrogen) bomb carries jewish names. So did the political will to develop these weapons.
"No more Bolshevicks please"!
He's right. The Bolshevik 'revolution' was an ashkenazic coup d'etat, a restauration of the central asian 'tatar yoke' of yore.
etc.etc.
All due to a few bad apples? Let us discuss, please don't leave us.
... just take into account the views of this man. He describes the types of things we complain about. For your consideration and thought:
Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel By SHULAMIT ALONI
Striking Excerpt:
This soldier is one of those Zionists who should be thinking about the wrongs he is committing, rather than accuse those who point it out of anti-Semitism.
... the author I quoted and linked to is:
"Shulamit Aloni is the former Education Minister of Israel. She has been awarded both the Israel Prize and the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel."
I believe it important to bounce off our criticism of Jews with the Jews themselves. We are not Jew-haters - at least I am not - we are only critical of jewish supremacy and ill-doings. Most of the time the reaction of Jews being criticised is aggression followed by victimism and stupid accusations of antisemitism. This Radioscope appears to have civil manners, so his reactions to our criticism is interesting. He appears to take everything in terms of a clash of religions, because religion is where he is best schooled. However this is a political forum, so history and sociology - not religion - are the instruments we should use.
Believe me, the Israel, Middle-East, jewish-lobby issues of this forum have little to do with religion - except where the moral teachings of the Talmud are concerned. We critics too are conditioned by christian morals. We are now critical of jewish/israeli colonialism, but at the time of the european colonialism in Asia, Africa and Oceania we would have witnessed the very same abominations. Who remembers the genocide of the Tasmanians by the British?
This mess in the ME is all to do with racialism, power and the exploitation of natural resources. In that, european and americal neo-colonialism blends in with 'jewish' nationalism, expansionism and supremacy myths in an explosive mix. Though little acknowledged, the 'jewish' lobby was very active in the heyday of the British Empire too, so what we are seeing is the repeat of history with the American Empire in place of the British. Going in the other direction in history, what the judaised Khazars were doing with the British was a continuation of what they were doing with the Mongols. So there is little new now, except for the changing role of the natural resources and the major driving forces of the modern economies.
One component of modern history seems to be a constant though, and that is the grip the judaised Khazars have had on the Western world since the downfall of their own kingdom. This last event has changed completely the history of Asia, Russia, Poland, Eastern and Western Europe, Britain, America and now the Middle East. Had there been no conversion of the Khazars to Judaism, we would live now in a completely different world. The Khazars would have kept their caucasian state and the world would have witnessed - possibly - lesser horrors. Hard to say. But Judaism would have gone, become a quaint old faith like Zoroastrianism.
Now we face an unnecessary clash of civilizations, mainly because of our addiction to fossil energy. Yet there are ways out, the first thing to do would be to launch an all-out search for viable alternatives to oil and gas - resources the West does not have in the measure it consumes. Just like JF Kennedy ushered the space age, we need a wise leader to usher the oil- and gas-free age in the world. Yet the very same 'jewish' scientists so dominant in our academia hamper the birth of a new civilization. They pooh-pooh research in cold-fusion and other alternatives to carbon-burning technologies, but further the financing of esoteric research like the unification of forces and the search for ephemeral particles - or quantum computing and all that can be used (maybe) to secure (their) military supremacy. All with OUR money. So that's not acceptable. Instead of complaining, we should press for changes in the leadership of the West. Bush and his neo-cons must go, but bringing in Clinton-like democrats does not suffice. They serve the interests of the same lobby, in the end, maybe just with a less cruel face. A radical political change is what is needed.
In reply to Radioscope on Sunday: (Sorry for my late response, I only got on the blog today.) In Re: Ezekiel 44:9 "I, the Sovereign Lord, declare that no uncircumcised foreigner, no one who disobeys me, will enter my Temple, not even a foreigner who lives among the people of Isreal."
You must realize that we Christians believe that Jesus talks about the Temple and means Himself. See John 2:19 "Tear down this Temple, and in three days I will build it again."
You referenced John 4:22, "You Samaritans do not really know whom you worship;, because it is from the Jews that salvation comes."
Christians know this verse is in reference to Jesus Christ; He is the salvation that came from the Jews.
Of course you know you are taking this out of context if you think this means that our salvation comes from the Jews who worship at the Temple of Jerusalem, because the verse prior (4:21) states, "Believe me, woman, the time will come when people will not worship the Father either on this mountain or in Jerusalem."
There are thouands of different interpretations of the Bible. There are many different sects within Christianity. I think some of the original meaning has been lost in the many different versions and translations of the Bible.
People often come up with completely different meanings from the exact same verses of scripture. Some people use scripture to reinforce their personal beliefs that originated elsewhere, not in the Bible.
Jewish Supremacists may use quotations from the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) to justify their belief in being the "Chosen Race". Unethical evangelists may quote scripture for the purpose creating guilt in their followers, in order to persuade them to hand over their money.
As a secular Christian, I take it all with a grain of salt. The only parts of the Bible I take literally are the quotations from Christ Himself, while recognizing even He may have been somewhat misquoted. There are slight differences in the four gospels (four accounts of His life), possibly because of the differences in translations (they were written in three different languages, Matthew and John in Hebrew, Luke in Greek and Mark in Latin) and some of the information may have been secondhand (Luke and Mark were not disciples). It is wise to recognize that MEN wrote those gospels and the rest of the Bible, and although Christ was infallible, no human being is perfect.
As for the Old Testament, I don't think it is wise to take it literally, since much of it is just old Hebrew legends, no more valid than old Greek and Norse mythology.
... this last comment by justice seeker!
In a political forum - in order to get somewhere - it is wise to leave religious issues and interpretations aside. The holy books were indeed written by men of the faith, and decades (NT) or even centuries (OT) after the events discussed took place. These men wanted to give a sacred account of the origins of their faith mixed in with the origins and deeds of their own successful ethno.
For example, Abraham and Isaac. There is NO EVIDENCE that these were historical figures. These two characters of the OT, plus Ishmael for the Muslims, serve only the purpose of illustration for the mythical origins of the two main semitic peoples of the Book.
Jacob, instead, seems to have been historical and to have been a Hyksos leader; Moses was a priest of the temple of Heliopolis (see one of my previous posts). Alas, Jesus seems to me NOT to have been historical. The version we have of Flavius Josephus' history book, in which Jesus is mentioned as a historical character, seems to have been part-faked by (St.) Ambrose, one of the fathers of the early Church.
Hi history_worm,
Can you elaborate on the 'jewish scientists' who aren't allowing progress towards renewable energy and are wasting money on quantum research. I don't recall ever seeing that Jews are doing this for any motive, let alone that Jews dominate these fields.
Also, I disagree that if the Khazars never converted to Judaism that Judaism would've become history like Zoroastrianism. Don't forget Sephardi/Arabic/ME Jews lived in parallel to the Ashkenazis in Europe til even now, and they never showed signs of disappearing regardless of what was going on in Europe's Jews (Judaised Khazars).
What I do suspect though, is if there would have been a Zionist movement if the Khazars never converted, since nearly all the pivotal figures of Zionism came from Europe and not the ME.
Hey History Worm, I notice you said that "it is wise to leave religious issues and interpretations aside", and went on to give your opinions on religious texts.
Also, the "About Us" segment states: This site was born from a desire to expose America's fraudulent monetary system and the evil of charging interest on money loaned.
It has since grown into a labor of love and a quest for truth and justice in all aspects of life and human culture with a special focus on political and economic justice - free from racism and oppression.
We welcome you to join us in sharing information, exposing lies, and enlightening each other with personal experiences and observations.
>>>Am I missing the part that says "no discussion of religious text interpretation." Is this your site? I am willing to follow the rules of the site, but it is only fair that the rules should be spelled out and applied to everyone. Note: I did not begin this textual discussion, I only responded to an open challenge posed on the site.
Radioscope mentioned how Jews' education gives them an advantage over others, making them into better people, and how seriously they take the commandment "Thou shalt not kill".
Here's some evidence to support him, some famous Jews:
Jeremy Ripkin, serial killer
Sam Berkowitz, serial killer
Joel Steinberg, child killer
Meyer Lansky, crime boss, ordered many "hits"
The Jewish founders of "Murder, Inc."
Sam Byck, who killed a security guard and two pilots while trying to hijack a plane to fly into the white house and so commit mass murder.
Dr.Goldstein, mass murderer
Olmert and Peretz, who murdered 1000 Lebanese civilians
Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, Kissinger and Feith, who planned the Iraq war which killed 100,000 to 500,000 civilians.
The Mossad operatives who pulled of 911, killing about 3000 people
The assassins of JFK, General Patton, and hundreds of other leaders over the years
What Radioscope didn't mention is that according to the Talmud, "thou shalt not kill" does NOT apply to Gentiles!
... to the last posts.
First of all: I don't intend to veto discussion on religion and religious issues. We must respect ALL religions and religious feelings and acknowledge that religion is part of culture and sociology and has strongly influenced historical development. Religion has had and has still strong influence on politics. However, being a staunch secularist I think that since the Age of Enlightenment humans have realised that religion should belong to a separate sphere of reasoning, a sphere where rationality is not imperant. So my view, plainly, is that religion should not be brought into non-religious discussions. The fact that to this day and everywhere in the world religion interferes with all other spheres of reasoning (including science!) makes me wary, but lenient, towards use of religious argumentations.
As a second point, I did not give 'my' opinion on religious texts. I gave the point of view of lay historians on the historicity of some characters and events mentioned in the Holy Scriptures. No offence to any of the contributors' religious feelings was meant. So if I say that there is no historical evidence for Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael, that's because to the best of my knowledge I know there is no independent archeological and manuscriptal record for these Bible and Quran characters. Likewise, about Jesus' non-historicity, that's what I know from the lay historians. Jesus is mentioned as a historical character only - to the best of my knowledge - in the works of one coeval historian: Flavius Josephus. The only copy and translation of Josephus' history treaty we received from the old scholars is (St.) Ambrose's own and, according to the lay historians, there are strong reasons to believe that Ambrose faked (introduced by his own hand) the passages relating to Jesus. It would be very interesting to hear Radioscope's own views on this subject matter. As I have learnt, a historical character 'like' Jesus did exist and was a zealot belonging to the sect of the Essenes. However, I do not want to insist on this issue and certainly not attack any christian belief. You are all free to believe in Abraham, Jesus as God's Son and the rest; ONLY, when it comes to scientific historical reasoning we should look at the historiographical record, first and foremost. So I am not trying to set any rules in this forum's discussion, I just think it would be wiser to limit religious issues within their historical contexts.
Next, in response to MonkeyZerg. Regarding the fate of Judaism without the historical event of the Khazars' conversion, I theorised - out of a bout of history-fiction - that Judaism would have gradually waned. It's speculative, though interesting, to wonder and I maintain that Jews (the real ones) would have almost all converted to either Christianity or Islam, were it not for the overwhelming numerical and intellectual contribution to Jewry coming from the steppe peoples (not only the Khazars converted!). The steppe peoples' conversion to Judaism reinforced, reinvigorated world Jewry in a fantastic manner when Judaism was already a waning faith. Yes, it was strong in moorish Spain, but there too it received substantial reinforcement from Khazaria when the latter state collapsed. The formidable repression of Judaism after the christian Reconquista would have indeed made that faith obsolete (in historical sense - no offence) in Europe, like Zoraoastrianism was in Asia, were it not for the Ashkenazis' formidable contribution. We can discuss further, maybe with our jewish friend Radioscope?
Now regarding 'jewish' scientists' opposition to renewable-energy research. I must disclose that I'm actually a scientist myself, surrounded by 'jewish' colleagues (some are friends too). So I know that the cold-fusion issue is not a red herring, but official 'jewish' science opposes - for the time being - its scientific and especially commercial development. Mark my word, the cold-fusion phenomen exists but it's very little understood, however the decision is to ignore it for the time being: don't fund research on it. Why? Simple. With an efficient cold-fusion cell in the backyard, anyone of us (even industrial plants) could fabricate all the electric energy we require from (heavy) water in a renewable way. This must not be allowed, not when the DISTRIBUTION of energy - fossil energy right now - is in the hands of the 'jewish' lobby. Can anyone control rainwater? Well, palladium maybe, but the cold-fusion technology is not perfected and who knows what the most efficient metal-alloy catalist would be in the end. But you get the picture now, right? As for hot fusion, you can forget it: it will never work on Earth. But the show must go on and billions get spent on this chimera because it makes many 'jewish' scientists' life so comfortable. So, back to history, it's just like in medieval Poland when ashkenazic 'Jews' controlled (amongst other trades) beer production and distribution, so they had to force their vile brew down the throats of the slavic peasants even when those did not want it (and we can still read about 'jewish' contempt for the drunken serfs). 'Jews' control oil- and gas-distribution and want to ram the stuff down our machines so long as they can. Terminating on the science-funding issue, fact is I keep seeing chimeras like hot-fusion and quantum-computing research being heavily funded, not the potentially truly revolutionary technologies. I have grown a belief that there is a political will behind all this. 'Jews' have dominated and dominate quantum research (think of the development of nuclear science, nuclear weapons), but here quantum computing is a young science where the chimera is to build computers with switches at the atomic scale. Your desktop computer would get reduced to a pin-head with the same computing power or much more, but it will never work in practice. Yet it is heavily funded, just like hot-fusion research, and for the same flimsical reasons. MonkeyZerg observed correctly, the 'Jews' don't get involved in renewable-energy research. Why? Because of the Palestine=Oil equation.
Now I have no time or rights, but I would just love to respond to Radioscope's last post. I will wait till he adresses - as he promised - the Ashkenazis=Khazars equation of ours. My other field is history, eurasian-steppe and east-european history in particular, so I wait for his counterattack. Genetics I understand too, so I will imediately rebutt all recent genetic 'reseach' wanting to disprove Koestler's theory (which actually was not his own at all). So far Radioscope has avoided direct confrontation with my own arguing, that's curious. He must be researching; good, but it's a confrontation with him I want and we shall all benefit from that. I only want to briefly express my disappointment at his last - definitely 'jewish' supremacist - attitudes. Statements like:
"you have to understand that we Jews already have the edge on you"
What a letdown, really Radioscope! Just because you 'Jews' study the Talmud since the moment you can walk, whilst we Gentiles read Winny-the-Pooh or play ball or go to the movies (which YOU make to indoctrinate US, like the beer anecdote above). Well, we do have our own edge on you. Some of us don't get indoctrinated from the young age (when you too are, in the talmudic ways); we are misfits in your ploy and grow up thinking clearly and independently. Where would the world be, now, without Voltaire, Kant? Still in the middle ages. Were they also Jews or 'Jews'? 'Jewish' Enlightenment came very, very late in history and only as a follow-up on the Gentile's.
And many of Radioscope's Israel-making myths I have debunked already!
Well-said justice seeker, fantastic! I only just now read your last post.
It's just like what you say. "Thou shall not kill" does not apply towards the Gentiles. It's all encoded in the evil (sorry) babilonian-Talmud indoctrination they receive from a young age and also in the ways of the steppes, I must add.
Likewise, 'jewish' craving for progress, another of Radioscope's myths, means only progress of their own lot at the expense of the Goyim. In reality their progress is in the end our enslavement and finally the true giant leaps in history are taken by Gentiles in their attempts - not always successfully implemented - to set themselves free (Renaissance, Enlightenment, Fascism, ?).
Yet, we must not despise them. It's the way they are brought up, the millenium-old animosity between the nomadic and the sedentary worlds that we see surfacing in these stark contradictions. I can understand why there are so many bad 'jewish' apples, but I want to see atonement from their side too.
In my last comment, the name "Jeremy Ripkin" should be Joel Rifkin, a Jewish serial killer of women. The crossdressing serial killer character in the Rifkin.
crossdressing serial killer character in the movie The Silence of the Lambs is based on Joel Rifkin.
Ellendra, I must say you've got a helluva lot more 'chutzpa'----- ( don't pronounce that too correctly or you'll get a 'hock spot' on your viewscreen ) than any of these "sneaky little Zionists" sneaking around here. And even better, you have THE FACTS to back it all up ! It looks like you might be getting down to the real nitty gritty already. Your work is very gutsy and relevant. And when your references begin to include such banned and resurrected works as mentioned above, it shows that you are really lunging into your research with a vengeance. Please be reminded that such works are not banned without damned good reason, by certain parties that don't have your better health and welfare at heart, if you know what I mean. May Allah smile on your heartfelt and brutally honest work.
Thanks for expanding on your own attitude towards Gentiles. I actually hold Jews in high respect: you're dedicated to knowledge (as people of the Book), to enterprise (as people who seem to never have enough wealth), but one thing is special about you. Your immense sense of solidarity within your own kin. This is lacking in peoples of european stock, and THIS is what really gives you an edge on us. Just look at the way WW1 and WW2 actually took place, when YOU were in fact the real winners. So, when we Gentiles find prejudice and resistence within you 'Jews' in our struggle to better ourselves, we should not be angry with you, but with our own Gentile lot who do not do for us (hence for themselves) what you Jews do for yourselves. We, meaning the collection of european-stock peoples, are too stupid to realise that we waste our energies hampering each other off because at the end it is you that gain. Just look what the Nazis did to other germanic peoples (British, Danes, Scandinavians, to the French (Franks) too) and especially to the Slavs (still european stock, despite massive turanisation). In their blind racialism they pounded on all their blood cousins when the true atavic enemy was the nation of the steppe and its collection of tribes (including, yes, the Ashkenazis). So I agree the primary fault resides within us, and all other posters in this debate should come to realise this. We should act like Cortez, who with just a small army of his own stock levered on the enmity of the mesoamerican tribes to subdue them all in the end.
But the situation is more hopeless for us Gentiles, because of the tremendous bonding within all your turanic (turkik) tribes - which is where one proof of the equation Ashkenazis=Khazars (to simplify) resides. Ashkenazis and modern Hungarians, Finns, Tatars, Bulgarians, but especially (osman) Turks, Turkomans and Uyghurs form one cohesive turanian block. Essentially you are one nation of the steppes, descendents of Schythians, Huns and Mongols (no offence meant). Hitler was a fool (he and most nazi leaders where ignorant of history) to ally himself with the Hungarians, Bulgarians, Rumenians (Cumans in their midst), Tatars and the Ottoman Turks, a fool in every possible way when he should have allied with the other german-stock and slavic (not soviet) peoples. Like Cortez, he should have exploited the enmity between the slavic and the turanian tribes within the USSR and halt the expansionism of the turkik nation. But enough history. Fact is that this steppe nation has penetrated our societies far too long for european-stock people to realise who the aliens in our midst really are. So you Turanians have easy game with dividing us and winning all the time. When we apply for higher positions to better ourselves, we find your lot and your own european-stock lakeys sitting on the boards. So working hard, being brilliant is never enough, we Gentiles need to work hard on our own people as well in order to get their tribal support.
What you're asking us to do, Radioscope, is superhuman, but is a challenge we must meet in this century. Not only work harder to better ourselves, but free the minds of our own racial lot to make them realise that it is in helping us Gentiles, not your lot, that they will better their own progeny's future. It is an awsome task, since you Turanians have been so successful in the last millenium. And that's why I'm here, to voice my own knowledge of tribal history (the true history) for the Gentiles who want to set themselves free.
To conclude, I still maintain you do have a supremacist attitude, which you reiterate in your new statement:
"I merely elucidated the idea that Jews may appear to enjoy a disproportionately greater advantage in world affairs (in comparisson to their Gentile counterparts) because - educationally - we have had a headstart on you".
Because you study the Talmud as soon as you can walk to the Yeshiva? That closes your mind, in my opinion. And it's supremacism because you believe that having Talmud and Mishna (your own creations) makes you better then people who don't have such books in their cot. In any English dictionary, a 'supremacist' is 'anyone who advocates the supremacy of his own group/race/people', and 'supremacy' means 'the state of being the greatest or most powerful'. So you see, by any of the quoted statements of yours, you are a supremacist because you acknowledge the fact that your lot is better - never mind the justification you give for the greatness of your flock. You don't mean it nastily, but the (supremacist) indoctrination you receive since you can babble the Talmud (a masterpiece of supremacy - that's the point) is still coming out of your paternal-like statements. Getting children to study any one single book at such young age polarises psychological development. Besides look, most 'Jews' are secular nowadays, I know they don't care about the holy books. Did Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich (he's responsible for the death by starvation of some 7 million ukrainian peasants, folks!) care about the holy books? No, these 'Jews' hang to their flock because of the tribal advantages they can get, and THAT is their edge in life.
Finally to elaborate on justice seeker's use of the 'hebrew' word 'Goyim'. It's no (ancient) Hebrew word at all, it's Yiddish and comes from a khazar-cuman word that refers to 'cattle' (steppe nomads lived almost exclusively off cattle grazing in the steppes). If use of that word to indicate Gentiles isn't supremacism ...
To history_worm: you have an excellent understanding of history.
Radioscope: It's not the Zionists' intelligence and their financial success that angers most people, it's their complete lack of regard for Gentile lives, as we saw last year with the bombing of Lebanon and the war crimes against Palestinians in Gaza.
I agree with history_worm that our greatest weakness (Europeans as well as Arabs and other Muslims) is our lack of unity, the fighting with each other. Zionists are aware of this and constantly turn us against each other, either by false flag attacks or more often by more subtle means.
Previously I mentioned some famous murderous Jews like "Son of Sam" and Meyer Lansky. There are also a lot of highly intelligent, very creative Jews. Like all other peoples, Jews have some very talented individuals. One person who comes to mind is William Wyler, who was not only the best movie director ever, he could not have had contempt for Christians since he made the great movie 'Ben Hur'. On the other hand, someone like David Cronenberg gives us perverted and extremely violent films, which are not healthy for human minds to experience.
To be fair, some Jews are not at all racist and really do strive to be a light for the rest of the human race. Some have an excellent sense of justice and ethical behavior. For example, members of the organization 'Jews for a Just Peace' and writers like Noam Chomsky, are in contrast to the evildoers like Olmert and Perle.
I think justice seeker could almost be my dual, but he should be wary of characters like Naom Chomsky. That is a zionist in disguise, a mildly progressive democrat who is only mildly critical of Israel's and of the IL lobby's ill-doings. In fact there are indeed many decent Jews, but very few within world Jewry would attack Israel or the jewish lobby worldwide. I have lived in Israel for a while and became there very aware of how nationalistic and at the same time divided the Israelis are. Yet when it comes to the survival of their jewish state (and its expansionism) they all become one single cohesive block.
Now: I have the feeling this very inspiring blog has lost its momentum. It started off as something completely different to what has become and the long chain of comments has made it marginal within the site itself. Waiting for our civilised Jew's Radioscope response to our challenges, I dare suggest to the blog's administrator to perhaps transfer this debate onto a fresh new blog which would receive more visibility. How could this be done?
This is indeed a very old blog, Radioscope left us long ago in disgust and won't (didn't) challenge us any more.
Now a newcomer asks:
"My understanding of Askenazi Jews is that they settled in the Rhineland as a result of the Jewish diaspora".
Dear friend, that's a huge lie and a gigantic hoax of history!
"But what you are saying is that they are infact Khazars converts with little or no matrilineal descent. Self-styled Jews so to speak".
Indeed that's what we say here, and there is an impressive body of discussions about this issue in this blog site (just google up "wakeupfromyourslumber" and "Khazars" and see how many returns you'll get).
"What do you have to offer as proof this is the case?"
What do you mean by proof? There's a huge body of evidence for that: historical, historiographic, archeological, onomastic, antropological, ... you name it. No, not genetic, least of all statistical-genetic - a pseudo science which has been used by the Khazar descendents to try to prove their claim they're semitic too. They are semitic (the Ashkenazis) just like we goyim are.
Good job of de-railing the thread topic, antisatan.