Feel the Jewish Power

How so? Every word of that was true.

My point was this. Jewish Supremacy is huge, bigger than White, or Black Supremacy by far. Yet there are considerably fewer Jews than Whites or Blacks. This raises the question: Are Jews simply a bigoted, intolerant, cruel people?

Is my opinion biased? Of course it is. My people were slaughtered and then enslaved by the Jews for decades, the German people have been demonized and taught to hate themselves since then end of the war. Atrocities against our folk are never spoken of.

In Dresden 500,000 of our folk were killed in a single night. The Red Army raped more than 200,000 women dorung the occupation of Berlin. Even on the other side of the ocean we, along with people of every race from African to Arab to Asian suffers in a Judeo-Fascist Police State.

Bilderberg

Here is a cabal to worry about. This is the group with all the power and manages to do it all behind closed doors.

Bilderberg: The ultimate conspiracy theory

By Jonathan Duffy
BBC News Online Magazine

The Bilderberg group, an elite coterie of Western thinkers and power-brokers, has been accused of fixing the fate of the world behind closed doors. As the organisation marks its 50th anniversary, rumours are more rife than ever.
Given its reputation as perhaps the most powerful organisation in the world, the Bilderberg group doesn’t go a bundle on its switchboard operations.

Telephone inquiries are met with an impersonal female voice - the Dutch equivalent of the BT Callminder woman - reciting back the number and inviting callers to “leave a message after the tone”.

Anyone who accidentally dialled the number would probably think they had stumbled on just another residential answer machine.

Leiden in Holland, the inauspicious base of the Bilderberg group
But behind this ultra-modest façade lies one of the most controversial and hotly-debated alliances of our times.

On Thursday the Bilderberg group marks its 50th anniversary with the start of its yearly meeting.

For four days some of the West’s chief political movers, business leaders, bankers, industrialists and strategic thinkers will hunker down in a five-star hotel in northern Italy to talk about global issues.

What sets Bilderberg apart from other high-powered get-togethers, such as the annual World Economic Forum (WEF), is its mystique.

Not a word of what is said at Bilderberg meetings can be breathed outside. No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted.

The shadowy aura extends further - the anonymous answerphone message, for example; the fact that conference venues are kept secret. The group, which includes luminaries such as Henry Kissinger and former UK chancellor Kenneth Clarke, does not even have a website.

DISCREET AND ELITE
This year Bilderberg has announced a list of attendees
They include BP chief John Browne, US Senator John Edwards, World Bank president James Wolfensohn and Mrs Bill Gates

In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg.

In Yugoslavia, leading Serbs have blamed Bilderberg for triggering the war which led to the downfall of Slobodan Milosevic. The Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, the London nail-bomber David Copeland and Osama Bin Laden are all said to have bought into the theory that Bilderberg pulls the strings with which national governments dance.

And while hardline right-wingers and libertarians accuse Bilderberg of being a liberal Zionist plot, leftists such as activist Tony Gosling are equally critical.

A former journalist, Mr Gosling runs a campaign against the group from his home in Bristol, UK.

"My main problem is the secrecy. When so many people with so much power get together in one place I think we are owed an explanation of what is going on.

Timothy McVeigh was among those who believed the conspiracy theory
Mr Gosling seizes on a quote from Will Hutton, the British economist and a former Bilderberg delegate, who likened it to the annual WEF gathering where “the consensus established is the backdrop against which policy is made worldwide”.

“One of the first places I heard about the determination of US forces to attack Iraq was from leaks that came out of the 2002 Bilderberg meeting,” says Mr Gosling.

But “privacy, rather than secrecy”, is key to such a meeting says Financial Times journalist Martin Wolf, who has been invited several times in a non-reporting role.

“The idea that such meetings cannot be held in private is fundamentally totalitarian,” he says. “It’s not an executive body; no decisions are taken there.”

As an up-and-coming statesmen in the 1950s, Denis Healey, who went on to become a Labour chancellor, was one of the four founding members of Bilderberg (which was named after the hotel in Holland where the first meeting was held in 1954).

The alternative - the WEF welcomes journalists
His response to claims that Bilderberg exerts a shadowy hand on the global tiller is met with characteristic bluntness. “Crap!”

“There’s absolutely nothing in it. We never sought to reach a consensus on the big issues at Bilderberg. It’s simply a place for discussion,” says Lord Healey.

Formed in the spirit of post-war trans-Atlantic co-operation, the idea behind Bilderberg was that future wars could be prevented by bringing power-brokers together in an informal setting away from prying eyes.

"Bilderberg is the most useful international group I ever attended. The confidentiality enabled people to speak honestly without fear of repercussions.

“In my experience the most useful meetings are those when one is free to speak openly and honestly. It’s not unusual at all. Cabinet meetings in all countries are held behind closed doors and the minutes are not published.”

That activists have seized on Bilderberg is no surprise to Alasdair Spark, an expert in conspiracy theories.

"The idea that a shadowy clique is running the world is nothing new. For hundreds of years people have believed the world is governed by a cabal of Jews.

“Shouldn’t we expect that the rich and powerful organise things in their own interests. It’s called capitalism.”

Why anti-semitism, and why in this forum?

What is it about antisemitism, a unique form of “race-hatred” that makes it acceptable, or even embraced but extremists of the Left and RIght?

Those subterranean scumbags who have vented their irrational filth on this forum–the despicable JTF, cath, Lixy and now a clear genius, AngryCelt–cannot be answered because they have a disease of the mind–an irrationality that does not respond to facts, history or discussion, because there is no reality to their paranoia.

So I do not choose to participate, because doing so lends my credibility to their own psychosis. Why does anyone on this forum continue to contribute to this thread?

Instead, I will quote, at some length, Paul Johnson, a notable Christian historian, for the sake of those who read this thread and wonder, or recoil in horror:

"… if anti-Semitism is a variety of racism, it is a
most peculiar variety, with many unique characteristics.
In my view as a historian, it is so peculiar
that it deserves to be placed in a quite different category.
I would call it an intellectual disease, a disease
of the mind, extremely infectious and massively
destructive. It is a disease to which both
human individuals and entire human societies are
prone…

"The historical evidence suggests that racism, in
varying degrees, is ubiquitous in human societies,
so much so that it might even be termed natural
and inevitable (though not irremediable: its behavioral
consequences can be mitigated by education,
political arrangements, and intermarriage)…

"By contrast, anti-Semitism is very ancient, has
never been associated with frontiers, and, although
it has had its ups and downs, seems impervious to
change…
"What strikes the historian surveying anti-
Semitism worldwide over more than two
millennia is its fundamental irrationality. It seems
to make no sense, any more than malaria or
meningitis makes sense. In the whole of history, it
is hard to point to a single occasion when a wave
of anti-Semitism was provoked by a real Jewish
threat (as opposed to an imaginary one). In Japan,
anti-Semitism was and remains common even
though there has never been a Jewish community
there of any size.

"Asked to explain why they hate Jews, anti-Semites
contradict themselves. Jews are always showing
off; they are hermetic and secretive. They will
not assimilate; they assimilate only too well. They
are too religious; they are too materialistic, and a
threat to religion. They are uncultured; they have
too much culture. They avoid manual work; they
work too hard. They are miserly; they are ostentatious
spenders. They are inveterate capitalists;
they are born Communists. And so on. In all its
myriad manifestations, the language of anti-Semitism
through the ages is a dictionary of non-sequiturs
and antonyms, a thesaurus of illogic and
inconsistency. "

And so it goes on and on, imbecilic posters believing they have discovered a monolithic Judeocentric conspiracy of diabolic proportions, all encompassing; or morons posing “questions,” which do nothing but project hatred and dissimulation.

None of this is legitimate, however sold, packaged or posted. This is not free speech any more than is the rant of a psychotic. Why listen and why respond?

“An irrationality that does not respond to facts, history…”

I guess it isn’t history that The Red Army raped 200,000 women. It isn’t a fact that 6 million German civilians were murdered AFTER the war was won. It isn’t a fact that Ariel Sharon said “A million Arab lives aren’t worth one Jewish toenail.”

Pick up a history book. These ARE facts and they ARE history, the fact that the Jews don’t like them doesn’t change their truth.

And a quote by some obscure Judeo-Christian is supposed to change anybodys mind? Get real. Read some of the quotes by Henry Ford, he is much more credible than some rabid preacher.

If, as you say “antisemitism” is such a problem that has lasted thousands of years then maybe you should take a look at the factors that created antisemitism. Perhaps people distrust the Jews for a reason.

Antisemitism doesn’t mean a person that hates the Jews. If this were the case nobody would even consider calling me an anti-Semite. I don’t hate anybody.

Antisemitism is a word for anyone who questions the Jews.

I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but the real reason you aren’t discussing this with us is because there is no logic to back up the views that your television pumped into you.

Since when did Henry Ford become someone to cling to as a philosophy guru?

He was an unabashed antisemite.

"Ford’s eccentricities are as legendary as his business achievements and he cuts a controversial historical figure, a reputation marred by accusations of anti-Semitism and proNazi sympathies.

He bankrolled a newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, that printed virulently anti-Semitic views and published the discredited Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a forgery that suggested the sort of Jewish conspiracies that Ford saw everywhere in banking and business. “The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on,” he said later.

Historians like the juries of defamation and libel trials for the Dearborn Independent are split on the extent to which Ford influenced the paper’s contents. But the notorious anti-Semite Gerald Smith, who met Ford in the 1930s, came away saying “I am less anti-Semitic than Ford”. Smith, a white supremacist and Holocaust denier, also remarked that in 1940 Ford showed “no regret” for the Independent’s anti-Semitic views, and “hoped to publish The International Jew again some time”. In the same year Ford told the Manchester Guardian that “international Jewish bankers” were responsible for the Second World War. He was namechecked mMeinKampfjm which Hitler praised Ford for what he said was his lone independence from international Jewry. In 1938, he was given the highest medal Nazi Germany could bestow on a foreigner. "

Hitler gave Ford a MEDAL.

[quote]AngryImbecile wrote:

As I said, every line a lie, every assertion a distortion, all without even an imitation of logical connection that might commend reading a single syllable of this hateful filth.

This is not a mind–if we bend the definition of the word–which can be approached with the truth, since the truth is so undermining of his paranoid delusions, that it cannot ever be incorporated.

As for the the comments of the Cretin (who defiles Celtic heritage) regarding Paul Johnson, do we need any further demonstration of the depth of ignorance from which such crap emerges?

I will not address this madman’s rant again in this thread, since I do not engage in a battle of wits with someone who is only half-armed.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
AngryCelt wrote:

I guess it isn’t history that The Red Army raped 200,000 women. It isn’t a fact that 6 million German civilians were murdered AFTER the war was won.

Pray tell, if indeed this is true, WHY did this happen, do you think? Did anything happen BEFORE this that may have lead to it? Are you describing the Chinese as aggressors, who acted for no good reason? How did the war get started, anyway?

If you pull on a tiger’s tail, you have no right to bitch and moan when he bites you.[/quote]

Ironic, coming from a Japanese person. Does the fact that Japan was a part of the Axis justify the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Does it justify the gang rapes of Japanese women during the duration of America’s occupation? This is pretty much the same thing.

It is debatable, but Germany had no intention of starting a war. Germany was simply reclaiming land that was stolen from it after WWI. The attack on Russia was preemptive, it was only a matter of time before the Russians invaded. Germany simply was trying to take back the lands that belonged to Germany, then France and Britain had to get involved.

This doesn’t justify the rape and murder of innocent civilians.

Think about it this way. If you stole property from someone and they beat you up and took it back would you be justified to come back with your friends and rape and murder his family? Obviously not. So why should this differ on a larger scale?

[quote]AngryCelt wrote:
Chushin wrote:
AngryCelt wrote:

I guess it isn’t history that The Red Army raped 200,000 women. It isn’t a fact that 6 million German civilians were murdered AFTER the war was won.

Pray tell, if indeed this is true, WHY did this happen, do you think? Did anything happen BEFORE this that may have lead to it? Are you describing the Chinese as aggressors, who acted for no good reason? How did the war get started, anyway?

If you pull on a tiger’s tail, you have no right to bitch and moan when he bites you.

Ironic, coming from a Japanese person. Does the fact that Japan was a part of the Axis justify the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Does it justify the gang rapes of Japanese women during the duration of America’s occupation? This is pretty much the same thing.

It is debatable, but Germany had no intention of starting a war. Germany was simply reclaiming land that was stolen from it after WWI. The attack on Russia was preemptive, it was only a matter of time before the Russians invaded. Germany simply was trying to take back the lands that belonged to Germany, then France and Britain had to get involved.

This doesn’t justify the rape and murder of innocent civilians.

Think about it this way. If you stole property from someone and they beat you up and took it back would you be justified to come back with your friends and rape and murder his family? Obviously not. So why should this differ on a larger scale?
[/quote]

Right on man. The Italians needed to attack Greece and Yugoslavia and North Africa preemptively too. They were building nukes or something.

[quote]lixy wrote:
AngryCelt wrote:

Listen here pal, I hate Zionism as much as the next guy, but your post reeks of anger and gratuitous hatred. It’s textbook anti-Semitism.

I’ll tell you what I know: Some of the most influential lobbies in Washington are Jewish lobbies. A great deal of the Soviet “forefathers” were Jewish. Israel’s presence in the middle east brought nothing but death, pain, and misery to the region. The Holocaust has been abused for political gain and evidently isn’t given due weight. A lot of major media outlet are owned/run by Jews, giving them significant means of controlling policy and public opinion. Criminalizing research on the Holocaust is wrong. Nazism (WWII) is the most recurring argument on this forum.

That much is uncontroversial. But to lump an entire religion/race and hold them responsible for Hitler and Stalin’s actions is simply unacceptable. Some Jews do conspire to take over the world and erase cultures. So what? Christians and Muslims have been very effective at it too. I’m sure that, as we speak, there are people in a cave in Waziristan and others in some think-tank in washington doing just the same. Jews are no different than everyone else. There are bad people among them, and those should be fought. But the way you present things makes it sound as if you held people responsible for the actions of those solely because they share the same faith as Ariel Sharon. This is about as insane as saying that since Bush is evil, everyone with the same passport should be bad.

Reread your post and you might see that you stepped waaaay over the line. Your speech was nothing but an anti-Semitic rant.[/quote]

Spot on Lixy. Very admirable post.

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Bilderberg

Here is a cabal to worry about. This is the group with all the power and manages to do it all behind closed doors.

DISCREET AND ELITE
This year Bilderberg has announced a list of attendees
They include BP chief John Browne, US Senator John Edwards, World Bank president James Wolfensohn and Mrs Bill Gates

[/quote]

This tells me that John Edwards is our next president.

It may be possible that the Bilderberg Group is using the Jews as a diversion. Let’s face it: anti-semitism is rampant. So, diverting attention to this group of influential Jews would be a good cover.

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Since when did Henry Ford become someone to cling to as a philosophy guru?

He was an unabashed antisemite.

"Ford’s eccentricities are as legendary as his business achievements and he cuts a controversial historical figure, a reputation marred by accusations of anti-Semitism and proNazi sympathies.

He bankrolled a newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, that printed virulently anti-Semitic views and published the discredited Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a forgery that suggested the sort of Jewish conspiracies that Ford saw everywhere in banking and business. “The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on,” he said later.

Historians like the juries of defamation and libel trials for the Dearborn Independent are split on the extent to which Ford influenced the paper’s contents. But the notorious anti-Semite Gerald Smith, who met Ford in the 1930s, came away saying “I am less anti-Semitic than Ford”. Smith, a white supremacist and Holocaust denier, also remarked that in 1940 Ford showed “no regret” for the Independent’s anti-Semitic views, and “hoped to publish The International Jew again some time”. In the same year Ford told the Manchester Guardian that “international Jewish bankers” were responsible for the Second World War. He was namechecked mMeinKampfjm which Hitler praised Ford for what he said was his lone independence from international Jewry. In 1938, he was given the highest medal Nazi Germany could bestow on a foreigner. "

Hitler gave Ford a MEDAL.

[/quote]

Its also known that Ford was visited by one of Hitler’s henchmen when the Wagners (of Richard Wagner fame) were touring the US. He made a plea for money, with Hitler as a bulwark against Bolshevism in Germany. The dude later presented Der Fuhrer with 250,000 gold Reichmarks which is rumored to have come from Ford. Ford possibly rescued the floundering Nazi party.

[quote]AngryCelt wrote:
It is debatable, but Germany had no intention of starting a war. Germany was simply reclaiming land that was stolen from it after WWI. The attack on Russia was preemptive, it was only a matter of time before the Russians invaded. Germany simply was trying to take back the lands that belonged to Germany, then France and Britain had to get involved.

[/quote]

I never knew that Poland belonged to Germany. Or Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Greece, Tunisia, Libya,…

Have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler himself says he wanted to restore Germany to borders from 600 years ago, when the Teutonic Knights were in flower.

You are a fucking nut. Usually I like to argue with fellow lunatics but you are too far over the edge. Go back under your rock.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Ridiculous amount of power the Jews have? Some Jewish people made it big and because of that it’s ridiculous? Why does it matter if they are Jewish?

Why would it matter if they were Scientologists? Clearly your not too bright.

Can’t they be successful people with power or does it have to be jews.

Again, proving your not very bright. They don’t HAVE TO BE Jews – the majority ARE Jews.

JTF has made a mission out of his irrational hatred of Jews. Yes, he is a bigot of the highest order. He is an asshole. Actually, you to seem to have quite the disdain for our Jewish brethren. You have said as much in previous posts. You two should get a room; then you can screw and bash Jews all you want.

Pointing out facts is not “irrational hatred”. As Dustin correctly noted, I didn’t write any of those articles and most of them are directly from Jewish publications. Obviously you aren’t capable of rational thought – you immediately launch into an emotional tirade at any mention of Jews outside of “poor victims”.

The bulk of my original post includes very little of my own opinion on the matter. Before, any mention of overwhelming Jewish influence was a “conspiracy theory” – when confronted with the facts, now it’s “yeah, so what”.

By questioning things like Israel’s MASSIVE spy operation uncovered in the US and their possible involvement in 9/11, this makes me a Jew hater?

As Henry Ford asked, "What rights have Americans that Jews in America do not possess? Against whom are the Jews organized and against what? What basis is there for the cry of “persecution”?

It’s the JEWS who choose to label and separate themselves by attaching Jew or Jewish to everything. So what, you say…

JINSA stands for “JEWISH Institute For National Security Affairs”

In response to the attack on September 11, 2001 JINSA calls on the United States to:
#1 - Halt all US purchases of Iraqi oil under the UN Oil for Food Program and to provide all necessary support to the Iraq National Congress, including direct American military support, to effect a regime change in Iraq.
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/print.html/documentid/1262

How’d that turn out, asshole…

“The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could total $2.4 trillion through the next decade, or nearly $8,000 per man, woman and child in the country, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate scheduled for release today.”

Paul Wolfowitz: The Jerusalem Post’s “MAN OF THE YEAR”
“What’s not in dispute is that Wolfowitz is the principal author of the doctrine of preemption, which framed the war in Iraq and which, when it comes to it, will underpin US action against other rogue states.”
http://info.jpost.com/C003/Supplements/MOTY/art.01.html

“Just at the present time, when the light which was shed by the fires of war has revealed so many matters formerly hidden in shadow, the awakening of world attention is called “anti-Semitism,” and the explanation is given that “after every war the Jew becomes the scapegoat” - a curious admission which would lead a less self-centered people to inquire, Why?”
–Henry Ford

WHY, indeed…

Stu Bykofsky: “To save America, we need another 9/11”
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/stu_bykofsky/20070809_Stu_Bykofsky___To_save_America__we_need_another_9_11.html

Top White House posts go to Jews

David Wurmser: US ‘must break Iran and Syria regimes’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/05/wiran105.xml

Elliott Abrams: Bush’s frightening Middle East appointment
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/12/10/abrams/index.html

Lieberman Begs Petraeus to Invade Iran

Lieberman: US will back Israeli strike on Iran

Lieberman-Kyl’s Iran amendment passes
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=024323&From=News

Joe Lieberman: Resolution Authorizing Use of Military Force Against Iraq
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=208117

Douglas Feith: Pentagon Office Produced ‘Alternative’ Intelligence on Iraq
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0209-03.htm

Bill Kristol: Suggests People of Iran Would Embrace U.S. Attack, Triggering Regime Change
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/19/kristol-iran/

Pro-‘surge’ group is almost all Jewish
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/103795.html

Michael Ledeen: The Iranian Time Bomb
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2Y5YzI1YmM4ZDhkMWQxNzg4MDVjZDdjM2VhNDhhMTA=

Joshua Muravchik: Bomb Iran
“Diplomacy is doing nothing to stop the Iranian nuclear threat; a show of force is the only answer”

Israel To U.S.: Don’t Delay Iraq Attack
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/18/world/main519037.shtml

Attack Iran the day Iraq war ends, demands Israel

Norman Podhoretz: Neocon ‘godfather’ tells Bush - bomb Iran

Norman Podhoretz: The Case for Bombing Iran
“As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he [Bush] will”

Norman Podhoretz: “Well, if we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will,” Podhoretz says, “we’ll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/20/podhoretz-bomb/

“Zionism is challenging the attention of the world today because it is creating a situation out of which many believe the next war will come”
–Henry Ford, 1921

There is ONE and ONLY ONE group of people lobbying politicians and manipulating public opinion for endless war – your peabrain can’t seem to handle these obvious FACTS.

David Horowitz: ‘Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week’ College Campus Tour
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/23/horowitz-islamofacism/[/quote]

You’d be pitiable if you weren’t such an asshole.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Why anti-semitism, and why in this forum?

What is it about antisemitism, a unique form of “race-hatred” that makes it acceptable, or even embraced but extremists of the Left and RIght?

Those subterranean scumbags who have vented their irrational filth on this forum–the despicable JTF, cath, Lixy and now a clear genius, AngryCelt–cannot be answered because they have a disease of the mind–an irrationality that does not respond to facts, history or discussion, because there is no reality to their paranoia.

So I do not choose to participate, because doing so lends my credibility to their own psychosis. Why does anyone on this forum continue to contribute to this thread?

Instead, I will quote, at some length, Paul Johnson, a notable Christian historian, for the sake of those who read this thread and wonder, or recoil in horror:

"… if anti-Semitism is a variety of racism, it is a
most peculiar variety, with many unique characteristics.
In my view as a historian, it is so peculiar
that it deserves to be placed in a quite different category.
I would call it an intellectual disease, a disease
of the mind, extremely infectious and massively
destructive. It is a disease to which both
human individuals and entire human societies are
prone…

"The historical evidence suggests that racism, in
varying degrees, is ubiquitous in human societies,
so much so that it might even be termed natural
and inevitable (though not irremediable: its behavioral
consequences can be mitigated by education,
political arrangements, and intermarriage)…

"By contrast, anti-Semitism is very ancient, has
never been associated with frontiers, and, although
it has had its ups and downs, seems impervious to
change…
"What strikes the historian surveying anti-
Semitism worldwide over more than two
millennia is its fundamental irrationality. It seems
to make no sense, any more than malaria or
meningitis makes sense. In the whole of history, it
is hard to point to a single occasion when a wave
of anti-Semitism was provoked by a real Jewish
threat (as opposed to an imaginary one). In Japan,
anti-Semitism was and remains common even
though there has never been a Jewish community
there of any size.

"Asked to explain why they hate Jews, anti-Semites
contradict themselves. Jews are always showing
off; they are hermetic and secretive. They will
not assimilate; they assimilate only too well. They
are too religious; they are too materialistic, and a
threat to religion. They are uncultured; they have
too much culture. They avoid manual work; they
work too hard. They are miserly; they are ostentatious
spenders. They are inveterate capitalists;
they are born Communists. And so on. In all its
myriad manifestations, the language of anti-Semitism
through the ages is a dictionary of non-sequiturs
and antonyms, a thesaurus of illogic and
inconsistency. "

And so it goes on and on, imbecilic posters believing they have discovered a monolithic Judeocentric conspiracy of diabolic proportions, all encompassing; or morons posing “questions,” which do nothing but project hatred and dissimulation.

None of this is legitimate, however sold, packaged or posted. This is not free speech any more than is the rant of a psychotic. Why listen and why respond?[/quote]

Word up!

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Since when did Henry Ford become someone to cling to as a philosophy guru?

He was an unabashed antisemite.

"Ford’s eccentricities are as legendary as his business achievements and he cuts a controversial historical figure, a reputation marred by accusations of anti-Semitism and proNazi sympathies.

He bankrolled a newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, that printed virulently anti-Semitic views and published the discredited Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a forgery that suggested the sort of Jewish conspiracies that Ford saw everywhere in banking and business. “The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on,” he said later.

Historians like the juries of defamation and libel trials for the Dearborn Independent are split on the extent to which Ford influenced the paper’s contents. But the notorious anti-Semite Gerald Smith, who met Ford in the 1930s, came away saying “I am less anti-Semitic than Ford”. Smith, a white supremacist and Holocaust denier, also remarked that in 1940 Ford showed “no regret” for the Independent’s anti-Semitic views, and “hoped to publish The International Jew again some time”. In the same year Ford told the Manchester Guardian that “international Jewish bankers” were responsible for the Second World War. He was namechecked mMeinKampfjm which Hitler praised Ford for what he said was his lone independence from international Jewry. In 1938, he was given the highest medal Nazi Germany could bestow on a foreigner. "

Hitler gave Ford a MEDAL.

[/quote]

Here’s an unrelated anechdote. It seems most antisemites are also non-drinkers. Places in the world where alchohol is banned are also the most violent.
Liquer for peace!

[quote]AngryCelt wrote:
Think about it this way. If you stole property from someone and they beat you up and took it back would you be justified to come back with your friends and rape and murder his family? Obviously not. So why should this differ on a larger scale? [/quote]

As illustrated by Germany trailing this list. Oh wait…

[quote]AngryCelt wrote:
It is debatable, but Germany had no intention of starting a war. Germany was simply reclaiming land that was stolen from it after WWI. The attack on Russia was preemptive, it was only a matter of time before the Russians invaded. Germany simply was trying to take back the lands that belonged to Germany, then France and Britain had to get involved.[/quote]

Then why did Germany take over Czechoslovakia? If they had a right to annex the Sudetenland, that did not give them the right to annex all of Czechoslovakia.

If Russia was preparing to attack, why did they get caught off guard when the Germans attacked? They signed a peace treaty with Germany prior to the invasion of Poland (another country Germany had no reason to invade) and did not expect the attack.

If Germany had no intention of starting a war, why re-arm at all?