ANSWERS: 3
  • Why is everyone so against BLM - they're only advocates for the protection of rights of African Americans, aren't they? That's what they claim to be - why should anyone believe otherwise?
    • Hulk70166
      ????? - WOW!!!
    • Creamcrackered
      Do you agree to defunding the police then Army Veteran?
    • Army Veteran
      No, I don't. But when I voice my opinion to that effect, everyone wants to oppose me - and find fault in my Conservative views. It appears that you don't like seeing your own views represented either. Fancy that...
    • Army Veteran
      Also, I wanted to point out the difference between a cultural group and a political movement. It's easy to discern the difference here - and easy to see that political interests don't necessarily represent the needs of the people they claim to advocate for. The same is true about Zionism vs Judaism. But no one wants to talk about that. I have the courage to think for myself and I get condemned for it while the rest of the world is hiding - fearful of saying the wrong thing. "To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: 'Who is it that I'm not allowed to criticize?' " - Kevin Alfred Strom. I know the topic wasn't about Zionism, but it did point out the double standard of how people are allowed to condemn one thing but are too afraid to say anything against the same thing being practiced elsewhere. Maybe someone will develop the guts to ask "why?".
    • Creamcrackered
      BLM core beliefs are marxists they admit that themselves, and the movement is organised, as karl marx said to tear down the capitalist system with violence and looting, and this is just one way. Many of the movements are Marxist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyhy4IvkENg https://www.facebook.com/AmiForAmerica/videos/inside-black-lives-matter-a-blm-exposei-spent-a-year-inside-the-movement-and-the/531094398034977/ Orthodox Jews are against the state of Israel as its not Torah driven, it is a secular state. Do you think that Jews should not be allowed a state or should it not be Israel, what are your thoughts?
    • Army Veteran
      Israel is a political state. I'm not against Jews - but then I know the difference between secular Judaism and political Zionism. When more people understand the difference instead of letting themselves be duped by fear of criticizing the wrong people, there will be more peace in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Jews (both culturally and politically) are trespassing and that's why there's been conflict after conflict there for more than 70 years. Do the Jews deserve their own land? That's not for me to say. I emphasize with their plight, but I also understand how sympathy can be used as a tool to facilitate a political agenda - that's how they got there in the first place. According to Scripture, the Jews will return to the promised land when they are led there by the Messiah. Looking at everything that's going on, it's a safe bet that the Messiah hasn't returned to lead them there. Until that time comes, it's my understanding that they are to stay in exile. Again, I empathize with them, but if I allow my sympathy to be exploited (as everyone else does), it will only allow the political group to further their agenda - which does nobody any good except themselves. Again, consider the difference between "political" and "cultural" movements - they are not the same thing. And this is why I used Black Lives Matter the way I did - to point this out.
    • Creamcrackered
      So do you believe that the Zionists have displaced Palestinians by force and that the state of Israel has no right to exist? Secondly, where should the secular state be situated?
    • Army Veteran
      Britain promised Palestine to the Arabs in 1915 (the McMahon Agreement). The agreement was that the Arabs would go up against Turkey and weaken it to facilitate a British win in WW1. The Arabs agreed and did what they said they were going to. But the outcome didn't satisfy Britain, and so they reneged on the deal. In 1917, the Zionists funded part of the Bolshevik Revolution which effectively took the Soviet Union out of the war. This freed up German troops on the eastern front and allowed them to move to the western front to put more pressure on Britain - and Britain found itself with its back against the wall. This was done to force Britain into handing the rights to Palestine over to the Zionists. The only chance Britain had to win the war was if the United States came into it on their side. The Zionists arranged this in exchange for the Balfour Declaration. So, yes, the Zionists displaced the Palestinians - the land legally belongs to them (Arabs) by contractual agreement. As to the question of where the secular state is to be situated, the answer is nowhere/everywhere. The Jews have been assimilating into the ranks of other countries ever since they were exiled. It's nothing new to them. It isn't "the Jews" who cause the problems. There is not a single problem involving the Jews that hasn't originated in politics. And this is why it's so important to understand the difference between the two. People tend to blame the Jews unjustly for things. The reason is that they're too ignorant to know the difference and even if they did understand the difference, they'd be too scared to speak up. The Jews are victims - Zionism is their persecutors. They use them as tools to justify their own existence.
    • Army Veteran
      You might ask yourself why the Jews stayed locked in the Nazi labor camps when the Zionists had the rights to Palestine. Why didn't the Jews just go there? Hitler wanted them out of Europe, so it was a win-win for both sides. The reason it didn't happen is because of the 2nd part of the Balfour Declaration which explicitly warned the Zionists not to cause trouble for the people of Palestine. The British Mandate enforced Britain's law in the Middle East and the law they enforced was that Palestine was closed to the Jews to prevent them from relocating there. Britain had to do it that way because if they allowed the Jews to go there it would have created friction between the Arabs and Jews over who rightfully owned the land - and Britain already had one war on its hands. It had no way of explaining another one - one that they created, going on at the same time.
    • Creamcrackered
      I have read this somewhere before, you said Zionists wanted America involved how did they do this? It was to my knowledge, that America already had illegal volunteers in the war, but then Pearl Harbour that they had foreknowledge of, was allowed to take place, in order to allow America into the war. I believe Hitler was originally arranging for the transportation of Jews to Palestine, and this is why they so easily boarded the trains. How would transporting the Jews from Germany breach the Balfour Declaration? The Balfour Declaration only stated “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jews. In 1920, Britain assumed responsibility for Palestine under the League of Nations Mandate, as you've said. And during the next two decades, over 100,000 Jews entered the country. The British Army's operations in Palestine during this period were mainly directed against militant Arab groups who were opposed to the mass Jewish immigration. Violence reached a height with the Arab Revolt of 1936-39 in Palestine." The Mandate restricted "European Jews" ie Ashkenazi, escaping from Nazi Germany in order to appease the Egyptians and oil-rich Saudis.. This provoked armed Jewish resistance, and eventually united those who looked to Britain for help in establishing their national homeland (the Haganah) and those who wished to use terrorism to drive the British out, and a number of terrorist groups where formed. The main terrorist groups were Irgun Zvai Leumi (National Military Organisation) - ultimately led by future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin - and an even more militant organisation, Lohamey Heruth Israel (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel) or LHI.. So I agree the British elite where trying to keep their interests, by being deceptive to both parties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haskalah The Haskalah, (its activists, the Maskilim) ,was a pre-cursor to Zionism, but the idea was passed around by many educated scientists prior to this. Theodor Herzl was the father of modern Zionism, defined as a combination of a Jewish Homeland (Nationalists) in response to antisemitism, and the Jewish enlightenment, many places were suggested for this prior to Israel. As for Jews being happy living amongst other's without a state of their own, according to the Encyclopaedia Judaica, there were 700 years of European Jewish persecutions and expulsions prior to this, so it doesn't sound like they were liked very much.
    • Army Veteran
      Who said the Jews were happy in the countries they lived in? (not me). I said, "it was nothing new to them". You: "The British Army's operations in Palestine during this period were mainly directed against militant Arab groups who were opposed to the mass Jewish immigration." And...how does this rebut what I said? If you could clarify your mention of the Arab Revolt, I'd appreciate it. To use it in a rebuttal almost implies that the Arabs were being antisemitic and just didn't want the Jews there. Your whole argument, as interesting as it is, makes little or no impact since everything you brought to the table happened after 1915 and the McMahon Agreement.
    • Army Veteran
      I would like to expand on the first part of your comment, though. You need to understand how powerful the Zionists were. They may have formally established themselves as Zionists in 1895, but they've been around much longer than that - they just went by another name - "Jews" - which they still use to avert attention away from their political activities. They have always been political and, to flirt with the concept of stereotyping, they fit just about every one that you might have heard - especially where money and the media is concerned. Hollywood was founded by Jews - Louis B Mayer (MGM) was Jewish, as was the founder of Warner Brothers. The New York Times and a host of other big-name newspapers are either Jewish-owned or Jewish-controlled. The Federal Reserve was created by Jewish bankers. The Bolshevik Revolution and NAACP were partly financed by a Jewish financier named Jacob Schiff. The Zionists tried to buy Palestine from the Ottoman Empire in 1901 or 1902 by offering to pay off their debts. The Ottoman Empire refused, saying that Palestine was obtained through bloodshed and that's how it would have to be taken. There are some theories that it was this that originally sparked WWI ("Hold my beer."). Looking at the outcome of WWI and seeing how financing the Bolshevik Revolution to increase pressure on Britain after offering to help Britain win the war led to the Zionists' acquisition of Palestine does fit a lot of puzzle pieces together.
    • Creamcrackered
      quote "The Jews have been assimilating into the ranks of other countries ever since they were exiled. It's nothing new to them. It isn't "the Jews" who cause the problems." You say they have been assimilating, but clearly considering they have stated in their own Encyclopaedia Judaica, that they have experienced 700 years of European Jewish persecutions and expulsions, that their assimilating, without problems, has not been the case, or else countries would not wish to do either of these actions. For the rest of what I said, it was not a rebuttal, but a confirmation, but since you mentioned it, the Arabs did not want European Jews there. You said that the British stopped all Jews from going to Palestine, this was untrue, they put a limit on immigration, because the Arabs did not want the numbers there, especially of European Jews, and the Brits wanted to appease the Arabs due to their interests in oil. When you say it makes no impact, you mention the Balfour Declaration, but this was never followed through, and things didn't change to form a state of Israel until after world war 2. Zionist Jews, wanted a homeland, and to liberalise under Jewish enlightenment, which is why the Orthodox Jews oppose it, but as an agreement it was formed as a secular state, When you start referring to Jewish owned Hollywood, papers, and bankers, then you are referring to the fears of Hitler, as in the Last Appeal To Reason, and the FACT that most of these organisations were/are Jewish owned, but then you are speaking also about capitalism, which I thought as a conservative you supported? This is why the far left, do not support the state of Israel, because they see it as a takeover. President Trump supported the state of Israel, even stated that he recognised Jerusalem as the capital. Hitler, was also concerned about the liberal communist German Jews in Germany before world war 2. The Frankfurt School started during the interwar, it's perperspective of critical investigation was based upon Freudian, Marxist and Hegelian premises of idealist philosophy. To fill the omissions of 19th-century classical Marxism, which did not address 20th-century social problems, they applied the methods of antipositivist sociology, of psychoanalysis, and of existentialism. The School's sociologic works derived from syntheses of the thematically pertinent works of Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and Karl Marx, of Sigmund Freud and Max Weber, and of Georg Simmel and Georg Lukács. The School was predominantly led by German Jews. Due to the threat of Nazism, it moved the out of Germany, to New York. Thence began the period of the School's important work in Marxist critical theory; the scholarship and the investigational method gained acceptance among the academy, in the U.S and in the U.K. By the 1950s, the paths of scholarship led Horkheimer, Adorno, and Pollock to return to West Germany, whilst Marcuse, Löwenthal, and Kirchheimer remained in the U.S. In 1953, the Institute for Social Research (Frankfurt School) was formally re-established in Frankfurt, West Germany. So regardless of your opinion on Zionism, it isn't just a movement supported by Jews, Zionist was a Jewish enlightenment, much like other countries enlightenment period, and so if these ideas are similar, or the intent is similar, then it will infiltrate ALL. But don't for a second think this is about capitalism versus Liberalism, this is about both, as that is what the Helgalian theory is, so all this ideology, etc seen in BLM, LGBT, Antifa, etc these are all marxist ideology, but there is no war between capitalists and liberals, they are the same thing, if the elite has decided on a globalised economy, and a reinvention of moral principles and life and society, this has nothing to do with republicans and capitalist, but both since both are required to assimilate. A New World Order for a new aeon. UN supports the Lucis Trust, the New world religion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v
    • Army Veteran
      To begin with, their Encyclopaedia Judaica has less credibility than the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. You're reading material that they themselves wrote and accepting it as accurate. You also fail to grasp the difference between Jews and Zionists. Why do you suppose I am defending Jews in the cultural context but not in the political context? Just calling yourself a Jew doesn't make you one (just ask Joe Biden - he's a self-admitted Zionist). You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist (again, ask Biden). But if you are a Zionist and your sole agenda is to become a powerful political movement, calling yourself a Jew and censoring anyone using accusations of antisemitism who doesn't accept it, the line that separates the two entities stays obliterated and people become afraid to speak out. "Antisemitism" refers to criticism of cultural/religious Jews. It can never apply to a political movement that has the ability to do whatever it wants and then hide behind the protections of the "antisemitism" it claims to advocate. ### "You said that the British stopped all Jews from going to Palestine, this was untrue, they put a limit on immigration because the Arabs did not want the numbers there," Yes, the British did allow immigration to Palestine. The Havaara Agreement ("the Solution to the Jewish Question") was an agreement between the Zionists and Hitler to relocate Jews to Palestine. Britain had no problem with this since the numbers were relatively small and didn't threaten Arab interest (the Arabs didn't see it that way, and once the numbers started increasing, they did something about it - the Arab Revolt). I believe my actual statement was that the British locked the doors to Palestine to prevent Jewish immigration. Any kind of appeasement with the Arabs was to avoid starting another conflict. The oil and other resources were already in Britain's control - that was one of the reasons they gave Palestine to the Zionists. The Zionists were interested in political control of the Middle East and Britain was interested in the resources there - such as the Suez Canal that shortened the distance to India rather than having to navigate around the bottom of Africa. The reason the Zionists waited until after WW2 to declare Israel a state was because of the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate that enforced it. As long as the Mandate was in effect, it tied the hands of the Zionists and they had to abide by the 2nd part of the Balfour Declaration. Britain dumped everything into the lap of the newly created United Nations in 1947. This, in turn, nullified the provisions of the British Mandate - it untied the hands of the Zionists and they declared Israel as theirs the following year. This is when the conflicts started between Israel and Palestine and they haven't stopped. Do you know what "Lebensraum" was? Do you recall how Germany was accused of it and condemned? Look at the geopolitical history of Israel. Take note of how much territory Israel started with and how much they have today. If you can find anything that still carries the name "Palestine" on it, it would be no larger than a neighborhood here and there. Israel has done just what Germany was accused of doing - "Lebensraum" (only there's not a word to describe it - conveniently). Instead of being condemned for it (never condemn the Jews for anything - it's antisemitism), Palestine is being blamed for it. The world supports poor little Palestine (which owns almost all of Palestine) and condemns Palestine that is only trying to protect its existence. ### "When you start referring to Jewish-owned Hollywood, papers, and bankers, then you are referring to the fears of Hitler..." - No, I'm not. The "Big 5 Filmmakers" in Hollywood were established before Hitler came to power - and at least 4 of the 5 (it's difficult to determine RKO due to its diverse beginnings) were started by Jews. The list of "50 Top Influential Jews" compiled by the Jerusalem Post in 2010 included t
    • Creamcrackered
      Of course the Encyclopaedia Judaica was written by Jews, the same as American and English writings of history are written by our countries. It's hard to find an independent site that isn't jewish or anti-Semitic, so I'll leave wikipedia as you can at least check those sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsions_and_exoduses_of_Jews I'm not sure that you are defending Jews in the cultural context, do you believe that they should have a homeland? As this is the basis of zionism? Or do you think that they shouldn't have a homeland because of the Torah? Or that they descended from Judah? Because then are Christian Americans more entitled to be US citizens, than non Christian Americans? Are you deeming Zionists as non Jewish because they wanted a homeland in Israel, and prior to this anywhere? You're right you don't have to be Jewish to be a zionist, you just have to believe that Jews deserve to have a homeland, even if it's secular. The conflict between Israel and Palestine is noted in the bible, where you have two neighbouring states that have different religious beliefs and want the occupancy of their religious buildings you are going to get a clash. The word is annexation. The Zionists began to show interest in buying the Jezreel Valley in 1891, but the Palestine Land Development Company (PLDC), a Zionist land purchasing agency, only made its first purchases in 1910. The PLDC acquired land for the Jewish National Fund (JNF). See Sursock Purchase. So how do you think they can resolve this, evict Jews from Israel or push forward with the two state?
    • Creamcrackered
      I am aware of the ownership of jews, but the trilateral commission, the club of rome, council on foreign relations, the Bilderberg Group, Royal Institute of International affairs, and the UN, are all part and parcel of what is going on today, and smaller organised groups coming off of that. As I've said you can be a Marxist in ideology and a capitalist in methodology, which most of these are.
    • Army Veteran
      "...do you believe that they should have a homeland? As this is the basis of Zionism? Or do you think that they shouldn't have a homeland because of the Torah?" ### Do you believe the Torah to be an out-of-date relic that no longer applies to the Jews? Whether or not they should have a homeland is not for me to say - that opinion is supported by emotional exploitation. The Zionists advocated for a Jewish homeland, they played both sides of WW1 to finagle Britain into a position to hand Palestine over to them, Theodor Herzl was considered the "father of Zionism" and thus, it was by his effort that Israel declared their independence as the "Homeland for the Jews". The world seems happy with this arrangement, and all is well - as long as no one questions it. Wasn't there something said in the Torah about the Jews remaining in exile until the Messiah returns to lead them to the Promised Land? If the Torah no longer applies, then I guess this is a moot point. But if it did apply when the Jews were exiled, then it also has to apply today. And if that is the case - and everyone is happy that Israel became the Jewish homeland, there is a question to be answered: When did the Messiah return? Was Theodor Herzl the Messiah? He was the one who led them back to the Promised Land, after all. The only problem with this is that Theodor Herzl died in 1904. Someone needs to let them know that their Messiah died. So, I ask you - do the Jews deserve their own homeland? Or does the Torah still have any authority? You can't have it both ways. And for the record, I would support the Jews in their own homeland, but I believe that the Torah still has authority. If the Torah says the Jews have to stay in exile until the Messiah returns, then it doesn't matter. When you throw the word "deserve" into the equation, you're eliciting an emotional response. Emotional exploitation is one of the tools used by Zionism. Their "homeland for the Jews" campaign was nothing but emotional exploitation. They published articles in the newspapers as far back as 1900 crying about Jews being persecuted and threatened with extermination - unless people donated money to help them. This went on so often it turned into a theme park (most of it was going on before Hitler became Chancellor - funny coincidence how he got accused of exterminating Jews by the Zionists, isn't it?). When you support something based on emotions, you're on your way to becoming a sheep - you're easily manipulatd.
    • Creamcrackered
      Zionism is formed as a SECULAR state, it was the only way to form a Jewish homeland, hence they can be considered Jewish by way of being from JUDAH, but atheist in belief. Where as Jewish following the Torah would be considered hypocrites for the establishment of a Jewish state, unless their Messiah has already come. Hence, some Orthodox Jews do not believe in the State of Israel and see it as political not spiritual, and it is political. Hence, two sets of Jews, both claiming descent from Judah, but separate in religious belief. You also have many sects of Jews, European Jews (Ashkenazi), which appear to be the most disliked throughout history, and Sephardic from the spanish regions, Mizrahi (oriental), Ethiopian Israelis, the Abayudaya community in Uganda. There are four denominations, Reform, Conservative, Orthodox which includes the Hasidic Jews, Modern Orthodox and Reconstructionist. They also have “nondenominational,” “trans denominational,” “post-denominational” or “just Jewish. “nondenominational,” “transdenominational,” “post-denominational” or “just Jewish. Theodor Herzl did fight for a homeland, although the fight existed prior to him, he did try to take advantage of certain situations like the anti-Armenian Hamidian massacres, showing the Sultan in a bad light, and he went on to try and appeal his cause, some Jews and non Jews supported the idea as a resolve to the Jewish question, since the Jews had been disliked in many countries when they increased in number, including Germany, Russia and England itself had also had in its past expulsion of Jews. The cause was there. There are a total of 96 secular states in the world. Africa and Europe have the highest number of secular states in the world, with 27 and 33 secular states respectively. There are 20 secular states in Asia, while South America has seven secular states. Regardless of how the State of Israel came to be, Jews advocated for it, dedicated their whole lives for one, the Uganda Project was suggested first, and so many Jews wanted one, and many non jews believed this to be the case also. Or otherwise you could state that assimilating Jews, as small as they were in number, were able to make a influence on society in order to gain a state for themselves, and it has resulted in this, they can't do it alone, they needed support. I don't agree with the war crimes of Israel taking areas that are not there's in the agreement, however it appears no one in the West including America are holding them accountable. But as for a Jewish state it is secular, like many states are secular, by definition America is a secular nation, not religious but ruled by laws that benefit its citizens.
    • Army Veteran
      The old (Biblical) form of Zionism is secular - I don't question that. But modern-day Zionism was established as a political movement in 1895. As I stated earlier, "you don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist". Nor do you have to adhere to the old concept of Zionism to be a modern-day Zionist. Today's modern-day Zionists were still practicing their political agenda long before 1895 - but under the guise of "Jews". Even America's founding fathers despised "the Jews" and considered creating a law that barred them from the country. These "Jews" were politically motivated, not secular. Theodor Herzl was the "Father of Modern-Day Zionism" - the political movement that campaigned for a Jewish homeland. But that was all malarkey. The "Jewish homeland" bit was nothing but a selling tool. As mentioned a few times, the Zionists published articles in the newspaper quite frequently between 1900 and 1939 that pleaded for support of the 6,000,000 Jews in Eastern Europe who were being persecuted and threatened with extermination (the exact wording). Pay special attention to the "6,000,000" number, and the terms "persecution" and "extermination". These terms show up again not just after WW2, but the word "extermination" first appears as an accusation against Hitler on Aug 6, 1933 - just 188 days after he becomes Chancellor and 135 days after "Judea" declares war on Germany. When the Zionists were trying to get their hands on Palestine, they couldn't very well say "because we want our own political state". They needed worldwide support - and to get it, they used the "plight of the Jews" to tap into people's emotional response. Good old sympathy - it'll stab a person in the back before they even knew what hit them. I don't doubt that Jews were being persecuted in the Eastern European countries - but after more than 30 years and the millions of donations the Zionists received to help them, why did the number of Jews never change? The only thing that changed was the country they were in. These must have been the same 6,000,000 exterminated by the Nazis, considering the figures come from the same source. Another thing to point out is that the newspaper articles (can be viewed at archive.org) that started appearing around the turn of the century suddenly became associated with Hitler within his first 188 days in office. And why did the Zionists declare war on Germany just 53 days after he took office? (But looking at the history books, it was Germany that wanted war.) Listing so many Jewish sects brings a little too much to the table, doesn't it? We're talking about political vs secular. Every move made by the Zionists to acquire Palestine was political. They used secularism as a tool to get support. And yes, they do have to maintain a certain amount of secularism - after all, had they gotten what they wanted and then thrown out the secular Jews how would it look to the world? How long would it take other countries to realize they'd been duped?
    • Army Veteran
      Dude, I'd love to continue this with you, but it's drifted off-topic and has been dragged out so long that I'm surprised AB hasn't put a stop to it. There is a lot more that you need to understand (and I'd love the opportunity to discuss it with you at length), but this isn't the place to do it. I'll concede to your tenacity for the sake of putting this discussion to bed.
    • Creamcrackered
      I have read much of what you have just said, myself, but it still doesn't answer the questions I have posed to myself, as to "why?" I enjoyed the exchange though, it would be a great opportunity to listen to you, and I appreciate this isn't the place.
    • Army Veteran
      "Who is it that I'm not allowed to criticize?' " - Kevin Alfred Strom ### Unless this changes, your "why" question will never get answered. The narrative of WW2 is a one-sided affair that can never be questioned. Let me conclude with a quote of my own: "When you maintain an immutable narrative with no room to explore facts contrary to its tenant, you don't grow and neither does your knowledge of the truth." Thus, the "4 million" Jews that were said to have been exterminated in Auschwitz - but then reduced to "1.5 million" will, for purposes of debate, always be "6 million". They have been 6 million as far back as the turn of the century (before the war and before anyone ever heard of Hitler) and will always be 6 million because the narrative will never change.
    • Creamcrackered
      Didn't Kevin Alfred Strom plead guilty of having child porn? The "Why?"question referred to specific numbers used such as 6,000,000, and the intent of Zionism beyond forming a homeland, and a secular liberal Jewish society, if there is one. I know the Polish stated 1,000,000, either way the way Jews were treated was diabolical, and the experiments conducted on children, especially the fascination with twins, grosteque, it's no secret that 16,000 Nazi scientists ended up in America where the eugenics programs continued, and that some Nazi SS escaped to Ukraine. As for exploring facts I've always questioned the narrative, maybe other Western countries were happy to support a Jewish State because they are also Secular and to a point embrace the West, and they've been trying to Westernise the Middle East for many years. In the name of their religious beliefs splinter groups of Islamic followers do not want the West, they see it as demonic, I think it was Muhammad Ali who described blond and blue eyed Americans as devils. I remember labour councillor Ken Livingstone said that there was a coin that existed in Germany that had I believe the star of David one side and the German I think it was Fasces on the other, that got him sacked.
    • Creamcrackered
      The one goal towards globalism is infiltration groups, but I believe most are on board, as for numbers the 9th if Av appears very unlucky both temples brought to the ground and other disasters. Is it related to sacred geometry? After all is it a coincidence that world war two ended 11.11.11 = 33, they like their numbers, star of David isn't just Jewish, same as Kabbalah is also practiced by Freemasons etc, as above, so below.
    • Creamcrackered
      https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn517746 Here's the link to coin, it was swastika (the black sun) and the star of David. The Jewish symbol was always the Menorrah (candlestick).
    • Army Veteran
      Richard Nixon was tried for breaking into the Watergate Hotel - but he was the President who ended the Vietnam War. Jesus Christ was crucified as a criminal for healing on the Sabbath - but He was quoted as saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." - Is there a point to your observation about Kevin Alfred Strom? To be honest, I couldn't say what he was involved in - but does it make a difference? A useful quote is valid no matter where it comes from. The coin that you speak of was a Commemorative piece honoring the Haavara Agreement - the 1933 "ORIGINAL" "Solution to the Jewish Question". https://www.kuenker.de/img/00109/02540q00.jpg Its purpose was to relocate German Jews to Palestine in cooperation with the Zionists. Unfortunately, only around 60,000 were transferred before the war started and the program ended. The Germans tried to pick it up again in 1942 with the Wannsee Protocol (the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" - yes, that same one that the narrative claims to be a secret plan to exterminate Jews when there is nothing in it that comes close to that). The Wannsee Protocol was unsuccessful because Britain locked the doors to Palestine, preventing Jewish immigration (this was discussed previously). The Germans had no choice but to put them in camps as they tried to relocate them east. No, the Germans couldn't "just turn them loose" into Germany. With the Zionists declaring war on Germany twice as well as slamming them with hate propaganda, it threw all of the Jews under the bus and they were considered enemies of the state. It didn't start out that way and even the German Jews complained to the US Embassy about it - to no avail.
    • Army Veteran
      I believe you're right about the numbers. The Mogen David (6-pointed star) is also used as a satanic symbol of worship because of all of the "6s" associated with it. That was the star used by the Rothschild family when they started their money-changing business. A 5-pointed star is also commonly used in satanic worship.
    • Creamcrackered
      I believe they think him a white supremacist as well, but yes if the quote is good then all is well despite the source. The boycott on Germany was said to be a response by some Jews to the Nazi violence and harassment included placing and throwing stink bombs, picketing, shopper intimidation, humiliation and assaults. American and British Jews did not take part in the boycott of German goods. The star of David, isn’t in the Torah, not sure of it’s originality, but it is old. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, “the Star of David did not originate with the Jewish people. Many civilizations, perhaps as far as Mesopotamia and Britain, may have used this symbol. The oldest use of the star, dates back to the 7th century where it was found in Sidon.” I know in alchemy it represents As above, so below, the upright triangle as representative of the masculine, the downward triangle as the feminine, becoming interlinked, also representing air, water, earth and fire, or heaven and earth interlinked, or the destructive and creative patterns of nature. In the bible it states that the star of chiun/rephram agreed upon as Saturn. Madam Blavatsky who was the influence for Alice Bailey (married to a 33rd degree freemason), who set up the Lucis Trust, stated on the basis of hermetic text that there is only one god of this planet, Saturn. The Pentagram in of itself isn’t evil, in fact the torah is made up of five books and the OT is referred to as the Pentateuch. The pentagram with the one point up represents the spirit, with two points facing up, it represents the earth over the spirit and is often seen in paganism, or satanism. A pentagram within a circle is often used to summoning. A broken inverted pentagram is said to used in black magic. The Rothchilds are also freemasons and members of the Knights of Malta. Rockefeller also freemason and has Prometheus outside of his foundation. I think that Prometheus and Lucifer are the same, they believe" him to have given "fire," or "mind," to mankind, so they see him as the sacrificial being, which runs alongside gnostic belief. Psychologist R.J. Zwi Werblowsky saw this similarity, quote " he argues that the Satan of John Milton's Paradise Lost became a disproportionately appealing character because of attributes he shares with the Greek Titan Prometheus. It has been called "most illuminating" for its historical and typological perspective on Milton's Satan as embodying both positive and negative values. The book has also been significant in pointing out the essential ambiguity of Prometheus and his dual Christ-like/Satanic nature as developed in the Christian tradition. Werblowsky uses the terminology of Carl Jung and his school in examining "mythological projections of the human psyche", though he emphasizes that he is not interested in the concept of the archetype in the strict Jungian sense. Rather, he sees the myth of figures such as Satan and Prometheus as expressing "the shortcomings … of the world as conceived by the human soul." The relation of power and civilization is explored through the interaction of the concepts of Old Testament sin and Greek hubris. In this analysis, Satan "becomes the sole power-exponent in this sublunar, post-lapsarian but pre-eschatological universe, and thus stands as the prototype of human civilizing effort." Werblowsky sets out to explore "the heroic at its limits", and makes explicit the motivating factor of World War II and its horrors in undertaking this study: Prometheus tortured (Jacob Jordaens, 1640) The apocalyptic beast let loose has become a reality to our generation, and nobody knows what is still ahead of us. It is understandable therefore that books on the devil have been on the increase lately. … If the attempts of this school have not yet borne much fruit, it is because we fear the devil's sight more than his activity, and because of a very understandable reticence to force open our 'whited sepulchres.'" As I understand Jewish Rabbis
    • Army Veteran
      The concept of white supremacy died out around the time the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. Today's "white supremacy" is nothing more than empty accusations that BLM and other racist groups (including Democrats) use to justify their practice of racism. You can't be a racist without someone to oppose. During the so-called "friendly protests" of 2020 when BLM was at its peak, they would demand that people agree with them and proclaim "Black Lives Matter" - and heaven help anyone who said "all lives matter". When you think back, the only ones who were ever accused of white supremacy were Conservatives - that should tell you everything. Since the election of 1933, there had been no Nazi violence against the Jews (except on Krystallnacht - see below). Before Hitler became Chancellor in 1933, the period between 1919 and 1932 was rife with insurrections and the number of political parties involved in the 1932 elections was more than 60 - including Communists. The economy and political landscape of Germany were under Jewish control after the Versailles Treaty took everything away from the Germans through the harsh reparations (Germany made the last payment on the reparations in 1975). Berlin in the 1920s was known as the Sex Capital of Europe. Germans were unemployed, homeless, and starving. Hitler became Chancellor to get the Versailles Treaty repealed so that Germans could have their country back. This meant removing the Jews from their positions of power. The Zionists didn't like this, and just 53 days after Hitler becomes Chancellor, they declare war on Germany - including staging a worldwide boycott of German goods. The Enabling Act of 1933 was the law that allowed the Germans to remove the Jews from their positions of power and relinquish control back to the Germans where it belonged. The Nuremberg Laws didn't come until two years after Zionism declared war on Germany. And Krystallnacht ("Night of the Broken Glass") was a one-night response to one of Germany's Ambassadors being assassinated by a Jewish radical. As you can see, Germany's actions against the Jews didn't happen until the Jews did something to them first. But that's not the way everyone is supposed to believe and you're "antisemitic" if you don't - never mind that antisemitism doesn't even apply in this case.
    • Creamcrackered
      I have read the information you have provided Army Veteran, but to save going round in circles, what do you believe Zionism to be, as you have stated it is not just Jewish? And why do you think Jewish people are at the centre of this creation, and why were they so influential in Germany, ie as you state taking so many prominent positions, someone has to place them there, or accept them there, because the Jewish population isn't very large, so much so they are very tight on immigration law. I read in the Last Appeal To Reason, that Hitler blamed the Jewish bankers, and war profiteers, etc, but people don't get into, or are not overthrown from these positions without the help, or approval of others to be there in the first place.
    • Creamcrackered
      Secondly, as to black lives matter, I agree with the slogan, I don't agree with the organisation, and that simply because they have demonstrated that this is a militant organisation, that cares not to loot and destroy small businesses even in their own neighbourhoods, and including black people, and that's clear, many black people if not before, are waking up to the fact that this is marxism first and foremost, which is to pull down the structure of society, to rebuild a new one, hence getting rid of the police force. The leaders of the movement themselves have admitted this, and also to get rid of the nuclear family unit, which again would be opposed to many black Christian people. There are other interesting things about the black liberation movement, but under BLM, it appears to have morphed into something more Marxist, than anything regarding equality for black people. It's a trojan horse, as was Antifa etc etc. Black slavery was diabolical, to do that to another human being, but as things stand today, we have to move forward, and decide what a country is, if they no longer apply, because we are being forced into a globalist agenda, and so that means the abolition of countries, religion, and race, John Lennon sung about this. Do you believe the system in it's current form to be just? Or do you think it should be overthrown? Do you think whatever we do, there will always be the sharks in the pool organising this type of thing, that there will always be someone else's idea to benefit them, and not the average man. Both capitalism and communism can be Totalitarianism, in capitalism the little man may think, well at least I can compete, at least I can rise above, but unless he is a multi billionaire, he will never rise about his rulers, or captors. And in communism, everyone may be brought down to the same level, equal if you like, but will have to sacrifice the individual for the whole, and in of that he will still be resided over by the State. It's almost a battle between survival of the fittest, and altruism. And how can years of culture, and sovereignty be undone?
    • Army Veteran
      First, a little history on slavery (in the US South). Those who came from Africa were involved in tribal wars. They were being killed and the healthier ones were being sold to other tribes as...you guessed it - slaves. Coming to America was the better of two options for them. Believe it or not, they were treated better here. The idea that slaves were being beaten came from an advertisement that appeared in Harper's Weekly that showed a slave named "Gordon" (sometimes referred to as "Peter". In all likelihood, with it being the same man, his full name was probably "Peter Gorden") who had scars on his back - but you never saw pictures of other slaves who were mistreated in such a way. This picture was published not as an example of how slaves were treated, but as an example of how the new medium "photography" brought the world to life. The pictures were exploited by abolitionists to criticize slavery. to address your acceptance of the concept of Black Lives Matter, you need to keep in mind that any organization that includes a person's race in its name is a racist organization. For example, you're okay saying "Black Lives Matter" which sounds feasible. But in saying so, you exclude everyone else. Is "Black Lives Matter" more acceptable than "All Lives Matter"? Look at the NAACP - who do they serve? One thing you said, though, was that you don't agree with the organization - which is good. You're able to separate the cultural aspect from the political aspect. Now do the same with Zionism. Zionism is also a political movement that feeds off of the cultural realm of Judaism, Just as Black Lives Matter hides behind and feeds off of the African American culture. There's no difference between the "mistreated blacks in history" and the "mistreated Jews in history" when sympathy is used to exploit them for political gain.
    • Creamcrackered
      I know about the slave trade in Africa among tribes, but I disagree with the fact that they had a better life in the US and other countries. Igbos (Nigerian tribe) enslaved other Igbos as punishment for crimes, for the payment of debts, and as prisoners of war. The practice differed from slavery in the US: slaves were permitted to move freely in their communities and to own property, but they were also sometimes sacrificed in religious ceremonies or buried alive with their masters to serve them in the next life. When the transatlantic trade began, in the fifteenth century, the demand for slaves spiked. Igbo traders began kidnapping people from distant villages.” Hence, the system that non blacks crafted which spanned continents and so created an international economic system built on it. So the slavery that started in Africa was expanded upon by non blacks, and was set up purely for "supply and demand." As grotesque as it is, many Africans, being part of the slave trade was a form of personal protection; both financially and physically from the "oppressors." And this type of unity to the oppressor is seen throughout history in enslavement. Slave ships spent several months travelling to different parts of the coast, buying their cargo. The captives were often in poor health from the physical and mental abuse they had suffered. They were taken on board, stripped naked and examined from head to toe by the captain or surgeon. The men were packed together below deck and were secured by leg irons. The space was so cramped they were forced to crouch or lie down. Women and children were kept in separate quarters, sometimes on deck, allowing them limited freedom of movement, but this also exposed them to violence and sexual abuse from the crew. The air in the hold was foul and putrid. Seasickness was common and the heat was oppressive. The lack of sanitation and suffocating conditions meant there was a constant threat of disease. Epidemics of fever, dysentery (the ‘flux’) and smallpox were frequent. Captives endured these conditions for about two months, sometimes longer. Conditions did improve in the 1800's, deaths went from one in five, to one in eighteen, but this was only because they wanted the cargo to make it's destination, so they could make money. I don't believe an organisation is racist if it includes a race that has been enslaved and faces racism. I do not exclude everyone else by saying Black Lives Matter, but the quote comes from the black liberation movement, remember once upon a time black people were forced to labour, they were beaten, hung from trees, treated less than dogs, and were not allowed to drink from the same fountain as white people, they fought for equality and civil rights, the same as women fought, and neither of these peoples are treated the same as a white man, not even in 2022. All lives matter, but not all people face the same trials as each other according to race and gender. Are you saying that because the NAACP serve black people, that what? As for zionism could you explain what you think this is, other than a movement seeking a Jewish homeland, and one based on more of a liberal viewpoint than orthodoxy, the same as most countries today? I can see that BLM is a trojan horse for Marxism, although Marxism is for the elimination of race, sovereignty, religion, etc, but have not commented on how this is good or bad. What exactly are you saying about Zionism? Do you believe BLM to be linked to this?
    • Army Veteran
      There is Zionism, and there is religion/culture, and there is Zionism. I mention Zionism twice for a reason. The "original" concept of Zionism is the one connected to the Bible with its history of helping the Jews return to the Promised Land. I fully acknowledge and support this ideology. The problem is that the second form of Zionism mentioned does not seek to do this, although they make the exact same claim. Biblical Zionism is tied closely to religious/cultural Judaism. The second form of Zionism is political and its only connection to Biblical Zionism is through exploitation. People can't understand this because they've been taught to look in one direction only. But even the US government recognizes a clear separation between church and state. When you get threatened with accusations of "antisemitism" for doing nothing more than exercising your freedom of speech to question the facts, fear pretty well dominates you at this point. And so to blame political events on political Zionism is condemned - even though every international conflict is tied to politics and not religion. In one of his rare lucid moments, Joe Biden explained it clearly and precisely: "You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist. I am a Zionist." (a link to the video can be shared if you like). Modern (political) Zionism was established in 1895 (so much for advocating for the Jews over the past 2000 years) as a political movement (let me repeat that - "as a political movement") - and this is where the comparison with BLM comes in. Both are political movements with no intention of advocating the well-being of the ones they claim to represent except through exploitation to justify their own existence. Prior to 1895 and the formal declaration of "political movement", political Zionism had no other reference to themselves other than simply "Jews". It is because of these people - the political aspect of "Judaism" that the world has come to hate the "Jews". Benjamin Franklin: "I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews. In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated...". "If you do not exclude them from these United States, in their Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives our substance and jeopardized our liberty. If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands." (? also Benjamin Franklin). A link to this can also be provided upon request. I have to reiterate here that I am not condemning Jews in any way, shape, or form here. I highly respect and support cultural and religious Judaism and the form of Zionism associated with the Bible. What I am speaking against is the political parasites that exploit the Jews to justify their own existence. "Antisemitism" refers to the disrespect of the Biblical Jews and the Zionism that supports it. But "antisemitism" cannot refer to a political movement. Accusations of "antisemitism" are thrown out by the political Zionists as a form of censorship against anyone who opposes them. Those who don't understand the difference will use the term out of ignorance (not "stupidity", but in the sense of "never being taught". Many still can't grasp the difference because it creates a condition called "cognitive dissonance", causing them to reject any beliefs they've held onto for most of their lives, no matter how factual the new material is.)
    • Creamcrackered
      I don’t know where the Torah states that people will give Israel to the Jews, I thought it was God given when the messiah comes? So you agree with Zion in the form of Judaism in line with the Torah, (even though Christianity does not see Jerusalem as a kingdom on earth), is this correct? And in this way you believe that the Jews are not permitted a state (homeland) in which to live as political which is secular, and so has no right to exist? If this is the case, then where do secular (ie non religious Jews), live? Do they not have a right to a homeland as we do? If so where? And if not why not? Do you believe that secular Israel has been formed, with a hidden intent, that has nothing to do with a homeland, if so what intent? (this is what I’m trying to get at) I can see why Jewish people would deem criticism over their state as antisemitic, because even if you exclude religious belief, what you are saying is that Jews as a people do not deserve a homeland because they are not religious. And again this brings up, what is a Jew? Is it a person from Judah? Or is it a person who follows the Torah and believes in God? What do you believe it means to be a Jew? So I gather when Biden says you don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, what he is saying is that Jewish people deserve a homeland, regardless of being secular or religious, would that be right? You say political movement, what do you mean by this, if separate to secular? Because the state of Israel was formed on a secular basis, not religious, for all Jews whether religious or secular. This is the same for the US, same as the UK, Canada, Australia etc etc. I can’t see, how BLM are the same, I’ve already stated that BLM are marxist, despite this they are raising awareness of racism, but then I can understand why some black people who are poor and not capitalist, the same as poor white people or those who are looking to equality would be drawn to this, for Karl Marx states things such as “The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.” “The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.” “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, that each time ended, either in the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.” “Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries unite!” “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. “But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.”“Capital is dead labour, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.” continued...
    • Creamcrackered
      Returning solely to Zionism, does not having a State for Jewish people, take into consideration the wellbeing of Jewish people who have not had a homeland, whether atheist or believer, whether secular or orthodox? So in both ways, doesn’t both BLM despite being a marxist trojan, and Zionism; advocate the wellbeing of both poor black people and jewish people? The quote from Benjamin Franklin may be a forgery because they have never been able to determine a legitimate origin for it. But since you have used it as a quote, I’m not sure what it supports? How can that not be antisemitic, it is a blanket statement that is very derogative of Jewish people? It’s also confusing because if it is secular state of israel that is offensive, (which is not mentioned in this quote, this deals with Jews full-stop), then because Jews haven’t had their own state and have had to assimilate in other countries, even though here they are not described as assimilating in the quote by Franklin, then where do you go with this for a solution? Give them a state to live in, or attempt to exterminate them? It doesn’t look like they have much of a choice does it? This quote simply implies they are a lost cause and pretty much a parasite, which is dangerous, it is this kind of thinking, that leads to genocide. The political parasites? Do you mean the people who support a political/secular “homeland” for jewish people whether they are atheist, or religious?
    • Army Veteran
      "I don’t know where the Torah states that people will give Israel to the Jews, I thought it was God given when the messiah comes?" That's a good question - now what's the answer? The Zionists established Israel as an independent Jewish state in 1948 - but (looking around) no Messiah. Where is He? The fact is, the Messiah hasn't returned - and that means that Israel is an illegal state. BUT - and this goes to the heart of it...was the establishment of Israel political or secular? Who made the deal, who did they make it with, why did they make it, and when was it made? Were the secular Jews capable of doing all of this, or was it done through political means? If you said "political", not only do you win a cookie, but you've acknowledged a distinct difference between "political Jews" (Zionism) and "secular Jews" (non-political). You gave an interesting comment on my Benjamin Franklin quote, saying it was a possible forgery. I see a lot of such claims that invalidate opinions and observations, and their invalidation usually benefits Zionism. You've no doubt heard of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. They were invalidated around the turn of the 20th century by none other than the New York Times ("the Paper of Record"). By coincidence, it just so happened that the New York Times was owned by Jews (Zionists). What better way to censor the truth than seeing the most trusted name in the news declare it invalid? ("Move along, people - nothing to see here..."). It was claimed that the Protocols were invalid because they were "forged" or "plagiarized" (both terms have been used over the years). If this was the only proof offered, then the same argument can be made against anyone following a recipe in a cookbook - if you didn't write the cookbook, you can't use the recipes they contain. You ask how Franklin's quote could not be antisemitic - you keep overlooking the line of demarcation between "political" and "secular". You see the word "Jews" and the line disappears. Everything Franklin said about them was political in nature. Thus, it does not pertain to secular Jews. And since "antisemitism" ONLY pertains to secular Jews, political Judaism (as it was referred to back then since it was prior to 1895) has no such protections. But let that word "Jew" enter into the conversation with a negative tone attached to it and it scares the crap out of you (and most other people). It's not your (or anyone else's) fault. That's what conditioning does to people and they've had centuries for this conditioning to take a firm hold.
    • Creamcrackered
      Just because their messiah hasn't returned, doesn't make Israel an illegal state, it is a secular state, as are most, for Jewish people, be they orthodox or atheist, or whatever else. Christians believe that Christ was the messiah, and that any non believers including Jewish will not be saved, since they have not accepted Jesus as the messiah, on top of which Christians do not believe that the earthly Jerusalem is that important, so what does it matter? The deal was originally written up by a Rothchild, as a secular state, again not illegal, just a homeland for Jewish people, be them secular in belief, or orthodox. I read it was the British newspaper The Times that revealed the hoax of the Protocols of the elders of Zion, by Philip Graves an anglo-irish journalist. I'm sorry but I fail to see how Jews can be separated from politics, after all politics affect everyone, as the quote states they were taking prominent positions and this appeared to scare Franklin, but then they didn't have a homeland, and so the land in which they resided was their home, what were they meant to do, not advance their careers, not work together for the best of their families, you see the same with a lot of Asian people, they support each other and as a result they can carve out lucrative businesses for themselves, this is just common sense, and business savvy. Just because white brits or americans don't, then more fool them. I'm actually able to talk about this from emotional unattachment, so it doesn't scare the crap out of me. I've heard the conspiracy (and I don't mean that derogatively, many a conspiracy has come true), but as such I cannot see the premise regarding this one. People of a small number, do not get into prominent positions without the permission of the more dominant numbered peoples, this is why I don't believe this to be a Jewish conspiracy, neither do I find the need for a Jewish state ie a homeland based on secular set up, illegal, why shouldn't they have a homeland? I'm not conditioned if that was the case I wouldn't be familiar with all this, but does it stand up under scrutiny, that's what my aim is? So do you think Jews are intending to dominate worldwide, and if so why? And if so, does it matter? what are you afraid of regarding this secular state, or with their influence?
    • Army Veteran
      I'm not avoiding your comments - I'm just getting tired and am looking for a shortcut to get me out of this conversation. I've answered most of the issues you bring up only to erase it all to say something else. So I'll direct you to a link that might help you further understand the points I've been trying to make. Here's a link that helps explain Zionism. Do notice that although "Jews" are mentioned a number of times, to even consider secular Jews resorting to these kinds of events is ridiculous. https://counter-currents.com/2014/06/background-to-treason-the-balfour-declaration/
    • Creamcrackered
      I had to chuckle at "get me out of this conversation" Army Veteran, it's not good that you feel this way, and you can exit anytime, no problem. Ok, I've read the link, including the texts quoted, the longer text “Background to Treason: A Brief History of U.S. Policy in the Middle East, Part 1: From the Exodus to the Balfour Declaration.” Which makes an argument that the Philistines have a predominant claim to the land, because they conquered it and were there before the Israelites. I'm not sure if this means anything in the light of history, considering most countries have been invaded and the kingdom taken over by those peoples, the UK is a prime example of this, and this is history full-stop, regardless of area. Today take over is much more sinister, take the middle east, the west comes in the guise of freedom and democracy, which actually means the end of their religious reliance, and capitalism of the West economy, and the gradual liberalism in a social philosophy, along with an advantage in oil supplies etc. I noted that the article see the Israelites as the backward, and intrusive enemy with their tribal god, which Christianity comes from, so I'm wondering if those who wrote the article are more atheist. I also note that they prefer the Philistines, seeing them more closely linked to white people, hence a preference for that. I also noted quote "The first is that the Jews of today, even assuming that they are the descendants of the early Israelites (and only the Sephardic Jews, not the Ashkenazim) may even advance a claim to such descent), have no historical precedence over the descendants of the Philistines. So this seems to run in line with a distaste for European Jews throughout history, as they are the ones who have been expelled from most countries, and this article brings their authenticity into question, which other's have also. I acknowledge that Jews, like other races also intermarried, which then begs the question what is it to be a particular race to a particular country, or original ancestry? It goes on to speak that they created two movements, one internationalist, the other class warfare, as per Karl Marx. Now, I believe from what I've read, it's more complicated than this, and I'm not so sure how planned this could of been. Firstly, Karl Marx in of himself was a non-religious Jew, and his influences were from the Enlightenment, such as Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, and this is where transcendental idealism came from. Kant believed in God, but that God was beyond the understanding of man. Kant was a proponent of racism, where he believed in the superiority and inferiority of different races. He was brought up in a Lutheran household, and his father was also a follower of the Enlightenment thinkers. Voltaire was also an influence for Marx, who criticized Christianity mainly the Roman Catholic Church, and slavery and was an advocacy of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and separation of church and state. Friedrich Engels was also a component of Marxism. So Jews did not invent these ideas. cont..
    • Creamcrackered
      As I've read Jews in Russia were influenced by the Bolsheviks and later the Red Army, many leading members became Jews, even though Jewish followers were only small. Far more Jews, though still a relatively small percentage of the population, supported the Bund—the Jewish socialist party whose stance on socialism was all but identical to the Mensheviks, but slowly adopted an idiosyncratic form of Jewish nationalism based on national cultural autonomy for the Jews of the Empire and dedication to Yiddish as the national language of the Jewish people. As for Herzl I know he made every effort he could to get a homeland for Jewish peoples, based on the fact that they had not been able to assimilate into any country without problems, and this was true to an extent, take Russia, the Jews in Russia were subject to the he Pale of Settlement. Even in Germany you have the dislike of communism introduced by mainly German Jews, and the dislike of Jewish Banker Capitalists, which Marx said they were more known for, quoting Moses and the profits. But there were two schools of thought in Zionism, Herzl made every effort to try and get support for a homeland for Jews. I know that he was reprimanded by his rabbi in Vienna for celebrating Christmas with a Christmas tree, he refused to have his son, Hans, circumcised, and that his first solution to ‘the Jewish problem’ was a mass conversion of Austrian Jews to Catholicism. ‘It should be done on a Sunday, in St. Stephen’s Cathedral, in the middle of the day, with music and pride, publicly,’ he wrote. Here is another quote of his, AN EXCELLENT IDEA ENTERS MY MIND?—?TO ATTRACT OUTRIGHT ANTI-SEMITES AND MAKE THEM DESTROYERS OF JEWISH WEALTH. Here is another of his quotes from an article Herzl wrote in the Deutsche Zeitung newspaper? “The wealthy Jews rule the world. In their hands lies the fate of governments and nations. They start wars between countries and, when they wish, governments make peace. When the wealthy Jews sing, the nations and their leaders dance along and meanwhile the Jews get richer.” cont..
    • Creamcrackered
      Herzl was born in Budapest in 1860. His parents were secular, assimilated, German-speaking Jews and he himself admired German culture, philosophy, art, literature as the acme of Western civilisation. As a student at Vienna University, he joined the German nationalist fraternity, Albia, whose motto was Honour, Freedom, Fatherland, though he did later resign in protest at the antisemitism that he encountered. Like many educated, German-speaking Jews, he had nothing but contempt for the mass of religious, Torah-abiding, Yiddish-speaking, shtetl-dwelling Eastern European Jews. There is nothing in his writings to suggest that he had any great attachment to Judaism or much interest in or knowledge of Judaic teaching. Despite this he could not divest himself of this label and so could not be fully accepted. Quote ‘I give praise to every Jewish parent that decides to convert to Christianity,’ he wrote. And again: ‘I have a son and would sooner convert today to Christianity than tomorrow so that he would start being Christian as soon as possible to spare him the injuries and discrimination that I suffered.’ Ultimately, Herzl decided that conversion could not be the answer and that, as he wrote in his diary, it was empty and futile to try and combat antisemitism. In his book, Der Judenstaat, published in 1896, he explains why: ‘The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in perceptible numbers. Where it (i.e. antisemitism) does not exist, it is carried by Jews in the course of their migration. We naturally move to those places where we are not persecuted and there our presence produces persecution…. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of Anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America.’ He argued that the immediate cause of antisemitism is ‘our excessive production of mediocre intellects, who cannot find an outlet downwards or upwards?—?that is to say, no wholesome outlet in either direction. When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of all revolutionary parties; and at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse’. There is almost nothing that is specifically Jewish about Herzl’s vision. Much of the book is concerned with the practical arrangements for transferring Jews to the Jewish state?—?those who remain behind, he argues, will soon disappear altogether?—?and for setting up the structures, physical, legal, constitutional, of the new state. He envisages a state that more or less replicates the advanced class-based capitalist societies of Europe. ‘I think a democratic monarchy and an aristocratic republic are the finest forms of a State’ but the Jewish state will be an improvement because ‘we shall learn from the historic mistakes of others … for we are a modern nation and wish to be the most modern in the world’. cont....
    • Creamcrackered
      Over where the homeland will be, he hovers between Argentina, fertile land, plenty of space, sparse population, mild climate, and Palestine -‘our ever-memorable historic home’. In Palestine, he writes, ‘we should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilisation as opposed to barbarism’. Zionism has always sold its state as an oasis of Western civilisation in a desert of Arab backwardness?—?‘a villa in the jungle’, as Ehud Barak put it. Or a state that would further Britain’s imperial interests in a region of great strategic importance, as Weizmann promised Balfour. Or, as one might put it now, America’s post Six Day War watchdog in the Middle East. Did Herzl know Palestine was already populated? Of course he did. In 1895, he wrote in his diary: ‘We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. But the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.’ Like many early Zionists he thought that the views of the Palestinian population could be discounted and that they had no political rights and should have no say in the matter. Choosing the language of the new state, he dismisses Hebrew as impractical. As for Yiddish: ‘We shall give up using those miserable stunted jargons, those Ghetto languages which we still employ, for these were the stealthy tongues of prisoners.’ Instead, ‘every man can preserve the language in which his thoughts are at home’. There will be a ‘federation of tongues’ until the most useful language wins out. The Jewish religion? In its place and no further. ‘We shall keep our priests within the confines of their temples…. They must not interfere in the administration of the state…’ There is no mention of the Sabbath or of celebrating the Jewish festivals. Even the flag has no Jewish symbolism, no Magen David, only seven golden stars on a white background. Herzl claimed that he was motivated to argue for a Jewish state in order to solve the problem of antisemitism. But his solution was tantamount to removing the Jewish people from the countries where they lived, depositing them in Palestine and erasing as far as possible any expression of their Jewishness. In 1902, Herzl published a novel called Altneuland (Old-Newland). It is set in Palestine where a new Jewish state has been established. He describes this new state as absorbing all the best ideals of every nation.There is no conflict with the indigenous Arab population. One of the heroes is an Arab engineer, Rashid Bey, who says: ‘The Jews have made us prosperous, why should we be angry with them? We live with them as brothers, why should we not love them?’ A Palace of Peace is built in Jerusalem to arbitrate in international disputes. Religion is respected but plays absolutely no part in public affairs. Many languages are spoken, Hebrew is not the main one. Non-Jews have equal rights. A fanatical rabbi named Geyer (a bird that eats carrion in German) forms a party which attempts to disenfranchise non-Jews because ‘this is a Jewish state and only Jews should have the right to citizenship’. In the end, they are defeated by the liberal opposition who argue that ‘it would be immoral to exclude anyone, whatever his origin, his descent or his religion from participating in our achievements …Our motto must be now and ever?—?Man you are my brother.’ cont..
    • Creamcrackered
      Herzl’s utopian fantasy is infinitely preferable to the dystopia that is Israel today. It was, though, heavily criticised for imagining a Jewish state that had nothing Jewish about it. Ahad Ha’am (Asher Ginsberg), the writer and founder of cultural Zionism who opposed Herzl’s political Zionism, denounced the book. ‘Anyone examining this book will find that in their state the Jews have neither renewed nor added anything of their own. Only what they saw fragmented among the enlightened nations of Europe and America, they imitated and put together in their new land.’ He also attacked Herzl’s naivety in portraying the Arab population as welcoming enthusiastically the Jewish colonists. So the 1895 Herzl who, in order to bring about his Jewish state, advocated removing the Arab peasants from their land so that they could be replaced by Jews, seven years later imagined a Jewish state where the relationship between Jew and Arab was harmonious and conflict-free and all were equal citizens. Doesn’t this point to the impossible contradiction at the heart of the Zionist project? The state that Herzl most admired, his model state, was a European liberal democracy like Germany. In order to create that model in the state of the Jews, he had to remove from it anything that was exclusively Jewish. The less Jewish, the more democratic. The more Jewish, the more it would exclude non-Jews and therefore the less democratic it would be. The Zionist parties that fought for and in 1948 succeeded in creating a state were Jewish nationalists. Their state would be not only of the Jews but for the Jews: the nation state of the Jewish people?—?all of them. They were clear that the state could only survive in that form by, as Herzl had explained, driving out the majority of the non-Jews who lived there. Maximum land, minimum Arabs was the political imperative. cont..
    • Creamcrackered
      They were with Herzl also in his contempt for Jewish life in the diaspora and were determined to create the new pioneering Jew, Hebrew-speaking, self-confident, healthy, sturdy, everything that they believed the diaspora Jew was not. Chazak ve-ematz, they said: be strong and courageous. Israel would represent, as Uri Avnery put it, ‘the total repudiation of all forms of Jewish life in exile, their culture and their language, Yiddish’. From Ben-Gurion on the left to Jabotinsky on the right, they expressed a distaste bordering on shame for the ‘ghetto Jew’ and the ‘money Jew’. David Ben-Gurion (born David Grun) said of diaspora Jews: ‘They have no roots. They are rootless cosmopolitans?—?there can be nothing worse than that.’ In Israel’s early years, it was possible to believe that it was a democratic state. Of course, you would have to ignore the fact that the Palestinian minority who had not fled or been driven out in the 1947/48 war were living under military rule, subject to curfews, administrative detentions, expulsions and land theft. Jews were not Jewish and resented their religion and it's strict laws. But when military rule was lifted in 1966, Palestinians began to play more of a part in public life. They began to organise themselves politically. And then there was the Six Day War and the occupation and the settler movement and over the decades the number of Palestinians in Israel grew and they started to protest against land expropriations and house demolitions so that they began to be viewed as a problem and then as the enemy and as a demographic threat. But a demographic threat to what? To Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, of course, and to its Jewish character, whatever that may be. It’s not that this self-definition had ever gone away but now it needed to be asserted. And with the two intifadas, anti-Arab racism grew and religious fanaticism, particularly among West Bank settlers; and the demand that Israel be recognised by the Palestinian leadership as a Jewish state became a deliberate political block on any genuine peace negotiations. Herzl, in Altneuland, solved the contradiction between a Jewish state?—?i.e the nation state of the Jewish people?—?and a liberal democracy by virtually erasing its Jewishness. Israel has solved the same contradiction by erasing its democracy. What would Herzl have made of this manifestation of his solution to antisemitism, this militarised ethnocracy, where the Rabbinate controls the laws pertaining to marriage, divorce and burial, where 50 rabbis from the Orthodox religious establishment declare that Halachic law forbids Jews from renting or selling apartments to non-Jews, where two settler rabbis interpret the commandment Thou shalt not kill as only applying to Jews killing other Jews not to gentiles, where 30% of the Jewish population don’t want to work with ‘Arabs’ and 50% of Israeli Jews would rather not have an ‘Arab’ as a neighbour and 56% of Israeli Jewish high school students believe that ‘Arabs’ should be barred from becoming members of the Knesset. Hence, socialism and nationalism rarely mix.
    • Army Veteran
      So Lebensraum was okay and supported in the Middle East when political Zionism did it, but in Europe, it was justification to start an international war - does that about sum things up? Isn't interesting how the Jews have been hated in so many countries throughout history, but a sympathy campaign will generate so much emotional support for them - along with huge cash donations? Herzl tried to make a deal with the Sultan of Turkey to pay off a lot of Turkey's debts in exchange for tracts of land controlled by Turkey in the Middle East. The Sultan had no problem with this request on the condition that the Jews Hezle brought would assimilate into Turkey. This didn't please Herzl so he withdrew his offer and sought to make a deal with Britain. This strongly suggests that the collaboration between Britain and Herzel culminated in WW1. Unfortunately, Herzl wouldn't live long enough to see the seeds he planted to bear fruit.
    • Creamcrackered
      I think the most telling thing Army Veteran, was Herzl's selling point to the get the West onside quote "we should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilisation as opposed to barbarism’. Zionism has always sold its state as an oasis of Western civilisation in a desert of Arab backwardness?—?‘a villa in the jungle’, as Ehud Barak put it. Or a state that would further Britain’s imperial interests in a region of great strategic importance, as Weizma"nn promised Balfour. Or, as one might put it now, America’s post Six Day War watchdog in the Middle East." His vision didn't see a state for the Jews as Jewish but as European, or Western and a foot in Palestine to keep an eye on things. And I feel this is why Israel is so supported by the West because they have allied themselves, and regarding the Middle East, they have portrayed them as being backwards, and as being "terrorists," So I don't believe that the State of Israel is merely beneficial to Jews, in fact as it states it's original concept was to be non Jewish, however despite that, Israel is not non Jewish or secular, for it has a strict immigration policy in order to keep it's population predominantly Jewish, it's also guilty of war crimes, that to date the West has turned a blind eye to. They've almost conditioned the West into believing that Muslims are terrorists. So you would agree more to a proper Jewish state if they said that their messiah had come? And would that actually make the situation worse because God promised them the land of Canaan, meaning they would seek to conquer more land, and so it would be claimed on their Jewish belief, and could end up an even more Fascist state, than it is now. Either way, it's cleverly been done for such a small group of people's who have spent most of their lives spread out in many different countries, and in the end this may be to their advantage. As Herzl said the West have always put Jewish bankers, or money changers in positions in their countries. I do believe the Jews needed a homeland considering their history, how that solution was to come about would have probably always caused problems, but now it has happened, who is responsible for that situation, who is responsible for the land in order to give it away? And then of course you have the other question, which you brought up, what defines a Jew, and how many there are. I mean I know the Igbo tribe, are one of the oldest tribes, and can trace their genealogy back to the tribes of Israel. Yet you don't see or hear much about African Jews. Even though Herzl wouldn't live long enough, the Israel that is of today, is not Peace, or representative of Palestinian being their "brother." In the UK it is the Labour Party (the more liberal) side, is for Palestine and against Israel's conduct, where the Conservatives have always supported Israel, whenever far left Labour leaders or members have spoken out, they find themselves on the receiving end of accusations of anti-Semitism, criticising or saying the State of Israel shouldn't exist is deemed as a hate crime and anti-Semitic, by law, it is written into law. But as I've said this proves that you cannot have a secular nationalist state, it's a contradiction in terms. The way I seek things in the UK, is that the economy is still capitalist, but the social order is liberal, so those two things in separate topics can exist, but not sure how you will ever be a nationalist, and a liberal, which is why the West no longer has an identity, it cannot in a globalised world. England is the banking system, the best place for money laundering, the US is the army, and the dominant religion resides in Italy, Rome, St Peter's.
    • Army Veteran
      The campaign to "establish a home for the Jews" in Palestine was rubbish. The true goal was to establish a political state in their perceived "ancestral home". They had offers to settle in other parts of Africa and the Germans tried to send them to Madagascar. But they turned all of it down for Palestine. This is what the second part of the Balfour Declaration was about - the part that forbade them from interfering in the lives of the Arabs and Jews already living there. It was already known what their intentions were, and the British Mandate kept them in check until Britain handed everything over to the newly-formed United Nations in 1947. Once the British Mandate was no longer in effect, there was nothing to enforce the second half of the Balfour Declaration. In 1948 Zionism established Israel as an independent state and almost immediately, they started going after the Arabs - just as predicted in the Balfour Declaration. Claiming to advocate for a Jewish homeland, they used the plight of the Jews to justify their ambitions of gaining a political foothold in the Middle East. Britain was okay with it since it created a good arrangement for them as well. They just couldn't allow the Zionists to start an influx of Jews into Palestine because they knew it would cause major friction (due to the raw deal they gave the Arabs in 1915 by reneging on the Mc Mahon Agreement) - and they didn't want to have to explain why they locked the doors to Palestine to prevent Jews from seeking refuge there away from Germany. This would have made them responsible for the millions of deaths suffered by the Jews.
    • Creamcrackered
      The first time Madagascar was proposed, they realised it would only fit 5-7,000 Jews, not enough. The second time it was proposed, it was to European Jews where the SS would reside over them, I don't think either were acceptable solutions, the British didn't agree to the latter either. Fact is some Jews were probably never going to let go of Israel, but the land does have the capacity to hold both peoples, unfortunately Israel wants to take more than it's allocated. A lot of the fighting with Germany was also over it's refusal to want to join the union, this is why the League of Nations fell through, (see the history of the UN), I don't think the Arabs wanted them there in world war 2, no more than they want them there today, and that in part is why Britain limited the numbers to Palestine, to remain in favour with the Arabs. Despite all this Palestine was in the hands of the British after the Ottoman Empire, and so they had the power to put Israel there. As it stands Palestine wants to be recognised as a state, but without negotiations regarding Israel because they want to reclaim the territory, and being a state without negotiations will put them in a stronger position. Have you ever watched ask a Palestinian and ask an Israeli, on youtube, it's interesting? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mnf0w9UuV4s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOFRNGlEB6k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXb1lyehXKw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09VJfGNElYU
    • Army Veteran
      If they can fit all of those Jews into Palestine (at approximately 10,000 sq miles), there would have been no problem fitting them in Madagascar (228,000 sq miles). Yes, Germany was going to preside over the Madagascar settlement, but the Jews would have set up their own government. I think Germany's only interest was to ensure that they stayed out of Europe. This is just a theory. And you have it all wrong about the British - they have a history of starting wars that they can't finish. And Palestine may have been in the hands of the British after WW1, but that doesn't change the fact that they reneged on an agreement they had with the Arabs. It's funny how people who support the "homeland for the Jews" claim disregard the McMahon Agreement. It had all of the prerequisites of a legally binding contract: offer, acceptance, and execution. Palestine legally belonged to the Arabs. Britain also lied to Poland when it offered to help them in the event of an attack by Germany in 1939. Britain never lifted a finger to help them - the reason was that they didn't have the military strength. Weeks before the attack on Poland, the Soviet Union tried to enlist Britain's help to launch an attack against Germany. After learning how weak Britain's forces were, the Soviets withdrew the offer and signed the non-aggression pact with Germany to buy time for Britain to build its strength and open an eastern front which, combined with a Soviet attack from the east, would have split and weakened Germany. Britain never intended to help Poland - they manipulated Poland into pushing Germany to attack. This was done through the so-called "Gleiwitz incident". This was supposedly an attack by Germany on their own radio station dressed in Polish uniforms - to try and framed Poland. In reality, it was Poland who attacked the radio station. They did so because Britain led them to believe they were going to get help - the help never arrived. But Britain used the event to accuse Germany of attacking Poland so they (Britain) could declare war on Germany.
    • Creamcrackered
      They wanted to send four million Jews over four years by force, another reason given was that it wasn't sufficient agriculturally, Madagascar's broad alluvial plains found on the coast are thinly inhabited and in many places covered in swamps of Mangroves, which are tropical trees that thrive in conditions most timber could never tolerate. What they said was that they'd resettle the 25,000 french that were living there, hand it over to a German Mandate. Diégo Suarez Bay and the port of Antsirane, which were strategically important, were to become German naval bases (if the Navy wished, the naval bases would be extended also to the harbors – open road-steads – Tamatave, Andevorante, Mananjara, etc.). In addition to the naval bases, suitable areas of the country would be excluded from the Jewish territory (Judenterritorium) for the construction of air bases. That part of the island not required for military purposes would be placed under the administration of a German Police Governor, who will be under the administration of the Reichsfuehrer SS. The Jews would be allowed to have their own administration in this territory: their own mayors, police, postal and railroad administration, etc. The Jews would be jointly liable for the value of the island. For this purpose their former European financial assets will be transferred for use to a European bank to be established for this purpose. Insofar as the assets are not sufficient to pay for the land which they will receive, and for the purchase of necessary commodities in Europe for the development of the island, the Jews will be able to receive bank credits from the same bank. The Jews deported to Madagascar will lose their citizenship of European countries from the date of deportation. The arrangement made to quote “prevent the possible establishment in Palestine by the Jews of a Vatican State of their own, and the opportunity for them to exploit for their own purposes the symbolic importance which Jerusalem has for the Christian and Mohammedan parts of the world.” Moreover, the Jews will remain in German hands as a pledge for the future good behaviour of the members of their race in America.” It sounds like a dictatorship, the question begs why so much hatred towards the Jewish that they have to all be deported, and given restraints, as they have done again and again in history? What are they doing that they have to have their behaviour watched over, and are unable to have citizenship in European countries? Quote "Use can be made for propaganda purposes of the generosity shown by Germany in permitting cultural, economic, administrative and legal self-administration to the Jews; it can be emphasized at the same time that our German sense of responsibility "towards the world forbids us to make the gift of a sovereign state to a race which has had no independent state for thousands of years:" this would still require the test of history, signed Rademacher Berlin, July 3, 1940. What other race have they done this to? Secondly the argument the British use is that neither the McMahon-Hussein correspondence and the Sykes-Picot agreement, the work of the Asquith Liberal government; or the Balfour Declaration, arose from parliamentary debate, and none constituted any formal public pronouncement. The critical, determining context for all three was the Great War and the closely related issue of imperial security or, rather, imperial insecurity. The War meant that the perspectives were, inevitably, short-term and opportunistic; that the policies were, to varying degrees, secret; and that there was, in consequence, much mutual contradiction and inconsistency – most notably in relation to Palestine. Imperial insecurity affected all colonialist nations, and this was aggravated by the war, especially in relation to the political integrity of the Eastern Empire and access to it, critically, through the Levant, where serious threats were perceived as emanating from France and Germany.
    • Creamcrackered
      cont.. All three proposed settlements, note, pre-dated Britain`s ability to act on them – most of Palestine remaining in Ottoman hands until the end of 1917. Quote "Capt. W. R. Hall of British Naval Intelligence commented on Sykes-Picot that it was `in reality an arrangement for dividing the bear`s skin while the bear is alive.` The War was a matter of national survival; and imperialism, among the great European powers, was the international order of the day. There were no alternative scenarios. Of course the British leaders did go back on all three agreements McMahon-Hussein correspondence and the Sykes-Picot agreement, the work of the Asquith Liberal government; and the Balfour Declaration, the fulfilment of a Jewish state wasn’t carried out until much later, it was all done in secret, tossing up the implications and benefits to the British, and probably carried out in arrogance, regardless of the consequences to Palestine. I’m aware that Britain left Poland out to dry, I wasn’t aware of the other details you mentioned, so I did a search, I can’t find anywhere the alternate viewpoint you have stated here, I did find an alternate view, that states that Britain didn’t know the war would go on so long, and also quote “Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said to U.S. ambassador Joseph Kennedy that the reason why he had made war against Germany was that “America and the World Jews” had pressured him. Kennedy later told this to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, who recorded it in his diary; “neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington,” is how Forrestal summarized Kennedy’s recollection (The Forrestal Diaries, entry of 27 December 1945).” Beneath is the speech for the king with notes on dated 25/08/39. It wouldn’t surprise me, I’ve believed for a long time that the two world wars were pre-planned, world war one ended 11th November(11) at 11am.
    • Army Veteran
      (Quote): "most of Palestine remaining in Ottoman hands until the end of 1917..." - of course it did. That was the year the war ended and Palestine fell into the hands of the British. You should note one thing - the agreement that produced the Balfour Declaration was conditional. It was on the condition that Britain won the war. If Britain didn't win, the agreement was off. One would naturally think that the Zionists were taking a huge risk on something that depended on Britain winning a war that, up to that point, was all but lost to them. But in reality, there was no risk - Zionism already had its bases covered...they had the deck stacked. They helped fund the Bolshevik Revolution which took the Soviet Union out of the war (thereby releasing all of the German troops in the east to move west and putting pressure on Britain to help "convince them"). They had been working with their Zionists comrades in America who already had Woodrow Wilson's attention through his pathetic weakness and a little blackmail. (Quote): "I wasn’t aware of the other details you mentioned, so I did a search, I can’t find anywhere the alternate viewpoint you have stated here...) - and you won't find them. The accusations against Germany came from the testimony of one man at the Nuremberg Trials (7 years later). But the facts don't fit the "crime". Hitler had been trying to acquire easement rights to Danzig through peaceful means. Staging a fake attack just at a time when Britain promised Poland military support was the last thing he would have done. Granted, he didn't know about the agreement, but he wouldn't have done anything to ruin what he'd worked so hard for. What I meant to imply was that the "attack" came at just the right moment when Poland would have felt a surge of confidence that Britain had its back. The attack did accomplish what it was supposed to - it pushed Germany into defending itself. This was the "first strike" that Britain was looking for to justify declaring war on Germany. (Quote): "I did find an alternate view, that states that Britain didn’t know the war would go on so long..." - of course, they didn't. They expected FDR to get in much sooner than he did. But he couldn't - the US had been taking a neutral stance with regards to the war and Congress (which holds the power to declare war) wouldn't give FDR the green light to send American boys halfway around the world to fight in a war which the US had no political interest in. But that didn't stop FDR. He forced their approval by provoking the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. This launched the US into the war through the back door. Your facts about Neville Chamberlain are correct. FDR actually started provoking friction between Germany and Poland around 1935 after his New Deal programs failed. He needed something to jumpstart the economy and war seemed just the ticket. But it wasn't him alone - he relied on his Jewish advisers to direct him. After losing Germany to Hitler, they began a hate campaign against him that makes today's hate campaign against Trump seem like a playground skirmish.
    • Creamcrackered
      So you are talking about the Zionists funding the Bolshevik revolution, you mean the bankers, in London and New York? With regards to the invasion of Poland are you talking about Katyn Manifesto? https://codoh.com/library/document/count-potocki-de-montalk-and-the-katyn-manifesto/en/, ? The US didn't take a neutral stance, American army volunteers had already entered the war, and British soldiers had been turned away, and therefore were put into Germany hands. The Germans seized a mass of documents from the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs when they invaded Warsaw in late September 1939. The documents were seized when a German SS brigade led by Freiherr von Kuensberg captured the center of Warsaw ahead of the regular German army. Von Kuensberg’s men took control of the Polish Foreign Ministry just as Ministry officials were in the process of burning incriminating documents, which were reported by Ambassador Potocki show that Roosevelt not only wanted war, but had helped instigate it....https://codoh.com/library/document/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in/en/ Trump said that the US recognises Jerusalem as the capital as Israel, he does himself no favours.
    • Army Veteran
      No. I'm talking about Jacob Schiff - the one who a decade earlier helped fund the NAACP to divide and weaken America so it could be taken over by Jews. On the invasion of Poland, I'm talking about the "Gleiwitz incident" where Poland accused Germany of attacking their own radio station and then accused Poland of dressing up as Germans to frame them for the attack - when it really was Poland who did it. This was the provocation Britain suckered Poland into doing with false assurances of support. You're right about America not taking a totally neutral stance. They did have neutrality laws that they had to abide by, but each time FDR wanted to do something to aid the war effort (such as sending weapons to Britain or the Soviet Union) he came too close to violating neutrality laws so he had Congress revised them just enough to stay within the limits.
    • Creamcrackered
      Ok, I just took a look at Jacob Schiff and the NAACP, it states that blacks, whites and Jews funded the movement, looked at alternative view, and it also states that Jacob Schiff also financed Hitler, do you believe this also? I've read the Gleiwitz incident was a false flag by the SS, in which they claimed the Polish were attacking them, which then allowed them to invade. The link is about Roosevelt, not FDR, and how not only did he help, but also instigate the war. Potocki’s report quote "There is a feeling now prevalent in the United States marked by growing hatred of Fascism, and above all of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with National Socialism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100% [of the] radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible–above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited–this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe. At the present moment most Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and National Socialism as the greatest evil and greatest peril threatening the world. The situation here provides an excellent platform for public speakers of all kinds, for emigrants from Germany and Czechoslovakia who with a great many words and with most various calumnies incite the public. They praise American liberty which they contrast with the totalitarian states." cont..
    • Creamcrackered
      It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost completely eliminated. Soviet Russia, if mentioned at all, is mentioned in a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way that it would seem that the Soviet Union were cooperating with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the clever propaganda the sympathies of the American public are completely on the side of Red Spain. This propaganda, this war psychosis is being artificially created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging only by a thread and that war is inevitable. At the same time the American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war, America also must take an active part in order to defend the slogans of liberty and democracy in the world. President Roosevelt was the first one to express hatred against Fascism. In doing so he was serving a double purpose; first he wanted to divert the attention of the American people from difficult and intricate domestic problems, especially from the problem of the struggle between capital and labor. Second, by creating a war psychosis and by spreading rumors concerning dangers threatening Europe, he wanted to induce the American people to accept an enormous armament program which far exceeds United States defense requirements. Regarding the first point, it must be said that the internal situation on the labor market is growing worse constantly. The unemployed today already number 12 million. Federal and state expenditures are increasing daily. Only the huge sums, running into billions, which the treasury expends for emergency labor projects, are keeping a certain amount of peace in the country. Thus far only the usual strikes and local unrest have taken place. But how long this government aid can be kept up it is difficult to predict today. The excitement and indignation of public opinion, and the serious conflict between private enterprises and enormous trusts on the one hand, and with labor on the other, have made many enemies for Roosevelt and are causing him many sleepless nights.
    • Creamcrackered
      cont...As to point two, I can only say that President Roosevelt, as a clever player of politics and a connoisseur of American mentality, speedily steered public attention away from the domestic situation in order to fasten it on foreign policy. The way to achieve this was simple. One needed, on the one hand, to enhance the war menace overhanging the world on account of Chancellor Hitler, and, on the other hand, to create a specter by talking about the attack of the totalitarian states on the United States. The Munich pact came to President Roosevelt as a godsend. He described it as the capitulation of France and England to bellicose German militarism. As was said here: Hitler compelled Chamberlain at pistol-point. Hence, France and England had no choice and had to conclude a shameful peace. The prevalent hatred against everything which is in any way connected with German National Socialism is further kindled by the brutal attitude against the Jews in Germany and by the émigré problem. In this action Jewish intellectuals participated; for instance, Bernard Baruch; the Governor of New York State, Lehman; the newly appointed judge of the Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter; Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau, and others who are personal friends of Roosevelt. They want the President to become the champion of human rights, freedom of religion and speech, and the man who in the future will punish trouble-mongers. These groups, people who want to pose as representatives of “Americanism” and “defenders of democracy” in the last analysis, are connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry. For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the interests of its race, to put the President of the United States at this “ideal” post of champion of human rights, was a clever move. In this manner they created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile camps. The entire issue is worked out in a mysterious manner. Roosevelt has been forcing the foundation for vitalizing American foreign policy, and simultaneously has been procuring enormous stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are striving consciously. With regard to domestic policy, it is extremely convenient to divert public attention from anti-Semitism which is ever growing in the United States, by talking about the necessity of defending faith and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism. cont..
    • Creamcrackered
      On January 16, 1939, Potocki reported to the Warsaw Foreign Ministry a conversation he had with American Ambassador to France William Bullitt. Bullitt was in Washington on a leave of absence from Paris. Potocki reported that Bullitt stated the main objectives of the Roosevelt administration were: 1. The vitalizing foreign policy, under the leadership of President Roosevelt, severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian countries. 2. The United States preparation for war on sea, land and air which will be carried out at an accelerated speed and will consume the colossal sum of $1,250 million. 3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain must put [an] end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian countries. They must not let themselves in for any discussions aiming at any kind of territorial changes. 4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will leave the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.” Juliusz (Jules) ?ukasiewicz, the Polish ambassador to France, sent a top-secret report from Paris to the Polish Foreign Ministry at the beginning of February 1939. This report outlined the U.S. policy toward Europe as explained to him by William Bullitt: A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, W. Bullitt, returned to Paris after having spent three months holiday in America. Meanwhile, I had two conversations with him which enable me to inform Monsieur Minister on his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of Washington’s policy…. The international situation is regarded by official quarters as extremely serious and being in danger of armed conflict. Competent quarters are of the opinion that if war should break out between Britain and France on the one hand and Germany and Italy on the other, and Britain and France should be defeated, the Germans would become dangerous to the realistic interests of the United States on the American continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning the participation of the United States in the war on the side of France and Britain, naturally after some time had elapsed after the beginning of the war. Ambassador Bullitt expressed this as follows: “Should war break out we shall certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall end it.”
    • Creamcrackered
      I enclose link here because to much info to copy, the other link I gave doesn't appear to be working. https://alethonews.com/2019/10/13/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/ Also, a link from a Jewish website that claims Roosevelt had Jewish descent https://www.jta.org/archive/nazis-prove-president-and-mrs-roosevelt-of-jewish-descent. So in general VA, do you think Zionism is a global agenda and this is the intent of it? Because it seems the West are intent on utilising the certain Jews in dominant positions to their own advantage, which to me smells more of a infiltration by different means, including freemasonry and other sects such as Zionism in order for a globalised world, what are your thoughts?
    • Army Veteran
      One of the hardest things for people to understand, it seems, is the difference between Zionism and Judaism as a culture. There are actually 2 types of Zionism. One is the Zionism mentioned in the Bible that concerns itself with leading the Jews back to the Promised Land. The other type of Zionism is purely political - and will exploit Biblical Zionism and Judaism to fulfill their agenda of obtaining world power. These political Zionists have been around probably as long as the Biblical form of Zionism but have only been formally organized as a political movement since Theodor Herzl established it in 1895. These are the Zionists that tried to buy Palestine from Turkey. These are the ones who partially funded the NAACP and then the Bolshevik Revolution. These are the ones who manipulated Woodrow Wilson into appointing the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice (Brandies) and blackmailed him into involving the US in WW1 in exchange for the right to Palestine from the British. These are the same ones who were close friends with Churchill and his father, and they're the ones who advised Roosevelt. They're the ones who declared war on Germany and staged a worldwide boycott against them. They are connected with Communism, Socialism, and every other "-ism". They infest every major government in the world including Britain and America. Our very own President Joe Biden is a self-admitted Zionist - and he's nowhere near being Jewish. Every country is in the pockets of the Zionists in one way or another. This is why they declared war on Germany just 53 days after Hitler was appointed Chancellor and why Roosevelt began gearing up to arm America. This is why Britain declared war on Germany and why Roosevelt committed treason against his own country to get involved in the war against Hitler. The Jews in Germany didn't have it any better or worse than Jews in any other country until the Zionists started making threats against Germany. The German Jews ever wrote to the US Embassy and complained about it saying, "To the Embassy of the United States: We became aware of the propaganda in your country about alleged cruelties against the Jews in Germany. We, therefore, consider it our duty, not only in our own interests as German patriots but also for the sake of truth, to comment on these incidents. Mistreatments and excesses have indeed occurred, and we are far from glossing these over. But this is hardly avoidable in any kind of revolution. We attach great significance to the fact that these authorities (Zionists), where it was at all possible to interfere, have done so against outrages that have come to our knowledge. In all cases, these deeds were committed by irresponsible elements who were kept in hiding. We know that the government and all leading authorities most strongly disapprove of the violations that occurred. But we also feel that now is the time to move away from the irresponsible agitation on the part of so-called Jewish intellectuals living abroad. These men, most of whom never considered themselves German nationals, but pretended to be champions for those of their own faith, abandoned them at a critical time and fled the country. They lost, therefore, the right to speak out on German-Jewish affairs. The accusations that they are hurling from their safe hiding places are injurious to Germany and German Jews; their reports are vastly exaggerated. We ask the US Embassy to forward this letter to the US without delay, and we are accepting full responsibility for its content. Since we know that a large-scale propaganda campaign is to be launched next Monday, we would appreciate it if the American public is informed of this letter by this day." -- Reichsbund Judischer Frontsoldaten, e.V (Jewish Association of German ex-Servicemen) These Jewish front-line veterans issued a further declaration: "The atrocity propaganda is lying. The originators are politically and economically motivated. The same Jewish writers who allow themselves to be
    • Creamcrackered
      Thank you AV, so how would you feel if the Jewish said that their messiah had come and that they were entitled to Israel then, would you be ok with that?
    • Army Veteran
      "Their" Messiah? You mean as in "Christ" or "Savior" or "Redeemer" or "Jesus" or the many other references to "the Son of God"? I don't think I would believe them. The Zionists already think they're entitled to Israel - who was the "Messiah" who led them there? It must have been Theodor Herzl since he was the one who established political Zionism for the purpose of obtaining Israel as the Jewish homeland. The next time they're in Jerusalem they can visit his grave and thank him - although someone should tell them that the Messiah doesn't die at the end of the story.
    • Creamcrackered
      I mean in Orthodox views, that hold that the Messiah will be descended from his father through the line of King David, and will gather the Jews back into the Land of Israel, usher in an era of peace, build the Third Temple, father a male heir, and re-institute the Sanhedrin, and so on.
    • Army Veteran
      So my answer would be the same - "Where is He?". If their occupation of Israel is legal and foretold, where is the Messiah? His presence still plays an integral part in all of this. The fact that the Middle East and elsewhere are nowhere close to having "peace" suggests a few obvious conclusions, don't they? But then, we're talking about political Zionism - believing any kind of political entity to be honest and above-board is stretching the realm of logic beyond its limits.
    • Creamcrackered
      From watching those YouTube videos it looks like they believe the peace will come from ruling over Palestine, and so eradicating the Hamas which they believe is terrorising the civilian Palestinians. Judaism doesn't believe their messiah will be anything other than a human, so that could mean anyone. Also, I've read other things such as, they believe the Messiah will come only if everyone is all bad, or all good, and since the latter is not the case then....... Hence, the corruption of society. All I know is that non-Jews are involved, and the symbol on the flag is not the Menorah, and they acknowledge this, possibly Solomon's seal? Rothchilds and Rockfellers were also freemasons, as is every president in office in the US whether only honorary. There are not enough Jews to have infiltrated the globe, they would have to have allies, and I'm certain civilian Jews, Palestinians, and everyone else, has no idea of the intent. But looking back on history, most countries have always morphed into something larger through take over, ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia became Rome and Greece, they became the West, then unions have been made between countries regarding import and export of goods, and now globalisation, which is why the UN used the Tower of Babel in it's posters with the slogan "One tongue many voices," (dictatorship much?), and also their building construction was copied from it.
    • Army Veteran
      My take on it is that most, if not all you said go back to politics. Non-political Jews would naturally migrate to areas where they were most tolerated - something like "the lesser of two evils". For instance, as hard as it may be to believe (given the narrative we've all been fed), the Jews were treated better in Germany before WW1 (during the time they were fleeing the Soviet Union and migrating West) than they had been treated at any other time. They had no reason to oppose Germany during the Hitler days - this is supported in their letter to the US Embassy (above). It wasn't these Jews that Hitler turned against initially - he turned against the political "Jews" - the Zionists. They were the ones who declared war on Germany. The non-political Jews wanted nothing more than to live in peace. But as politics would have it, Zionism threw the non-political Jews under the bus and ignited the wrath of Hitler who then declared all Jews to be the enemy of the state. That's like having one member of your family rob a bank but seeing your entire family charged for it. It's not fair, but sometimes life sucks. Even then, there were no gas chambers. "Gas chambers" was a Soviet lie that the West bought into and perpetuated.
    • Creamcrackered
      So what of all the dead Jews when Russia got to Auschwitz, and the photographs, and what do you think of the SS experiments?
    • Creamcrackered
      How has this affected your religious beliefs AV?
    • Army Veteran
      What SS experiments? The accusations against Dr. Josef Mengele were nothing more than conjecture based on the say-so of Jewish prisoners - one named Eva Kor who claimed to have saved a family diamond by eating then retrieving it from her feces - then eating it again. She said she did this over and over until the end of the war. This is an example of the credibility you run into from persons with so much hate. This isn't to say that their hate wasn't justified (although misdirected), but even hate is no reason to make false claims against someone. Funny you should mention photographs. Someone once said they're worth a thousand words. But when those words are lies, they have no value at all. The ones that show "mountains" of hair, teeth, and other personal belongings are not "mountains" of anything. The floor of the display case they're in is slanted much higher in the back than the front - giving the illusion of being more than there actually is. The photos of the emaciated bodies piled outside claim to be gas chamber victims - but there is nothing in the photo that connects them to gas chambers. They're using sympathy and the power of suggestion to sell their story. There were no gas chambers in Auschwitz or anywhere else. The Soviets made that story up because of the hatred they had for Germany. The curator of Auschwitz even admitted that the holes in the roof (where the Zyklon B was supposedly dropped through) were not there when the camp was liberated. The Soviets remodeled the "gas chambers" (or rather, they created gas chambers where none had previously existed). The Western allies weren't allowed anywhere in Soviet liberated areas so no verification was possible. The Soviets were allies and their word was good enough. The dead Jews found by the Soviets were those who were too weak to leave with the Germans when they evacuated the camp. When the camp was evacuated the prisoners had the opportunity to decide whether they would go with the Germans or stay and wait for the Soviets. The Soviets hated them almost as bad as they hated the Germans - and the Jews knew this. This was why they left with the Germans. It was called "a death march" because even many of these were sick and too weak to make the trip - and thus died along the way. It's almost like all German prisoner camps (Germany and Poland) were called "death camps". Calling them "death camps" became synonymous with "extermination camps" and this is why it is claimed that there were extermination camps in Germany too. The reason they were called "death camps" is that the typhus epidemic was taking such a large toll that people were dying faster than they could be helped. This leads back to the question of why the Germans wasted so much Zyklon B in the supposed "gas chambers" when they didn't have enough to save themselves and their communities. The answer is "they didn't" - and this is why death by disease is rarely mentioned - it doesn't support the gas chamber claims. As stated here, there were no extermination camps in Germany - with this being the case, why would they operate extermination camps in Poland? If their plans were to exterminate Jews, how did a country's borders determine the morality of their actions? Why Poland and not Germany? Weren't they the same Germans with the same hatred for the Jews? Surely, an imaginary line couldn't have made a difference.
    • Army Veteran
      None of this has affected my religious beliefs. Why would it? My part of the debate concerns itself with the political side of the issues, not anything that hovers around religion. I know that the "6,000,000" claims and the "threats of extermination" myth date back to as early as the turn of the 20th century - and have nothing to do with events that occurred after 1933 except as they were used in hate propaganda to make wild accusations and lay the foundation for the most lied-about event in history.
    • Creamcrackered
      So you don't believe the Nazi's conducted experiments and so do you not believe that 1600 Nazi's went to America under Operation Paperclip?
    • Army Veteran
      I can't speak for all Nazis but because of the massive hate propaganda against them by "the usual suspects", I seriously have my doubts about any of the negative claims. I do know that they did do research in the field of cancer - who gives them credit for that? The "experiments" that are usually mentioned refer to Dr. Josef Mengele. Not long before he died, he sat down and opened up to his son about them and told him that he had never done any such things. I wasn't there, of course, and his son never supported his father. But at a time in his life when he had nothing to gain or lose, his statements could have been viewed as a deathbed "confession" - only he had nothing to confess. Continuing the lie (if that's what it was) would have served no purpose. As to the 1600 Nazis and "Operation Paperclip", I never heard of it. But I've come to notice that the word "Operation" has been attached to a lot of things to add dramatization to otherwise insignificant events. "Operation Barbarossa" was claimed to be Hitler's surprise attack on the Soviets - it was no such thing. If you recall earlier in the conversation, I told about how the Soviet Union tried to enlist the aid of Britain to attack Germany in August of 1939 but Britain couldn't participate because they weren't militarily strong enough. This was the reason Stalin signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler - to buy time for Britain to become stronger. During this time, Stalin had been slowly building his forces along the Soviet/German line of demarcation in preparation for launching an attack at the right time. Hitler found out about it and launched a pre-emptive attack against the Soviets. The only "surprise" the Soviets received was the one that demonstrated how their asses had been caught. But, the purveyors of history have assigned the name "Operation" to it and blamed it on Germany - like everything else. These are the kinds of things they leave out when the stories are re-told around campfires at night. The stories reflect the "good guys against the bad guys" with the "bad guys" unable to defend themselves. WW2 will always be one-sided - you're only allowed to know the "facts" from one perspective and you're not allowed to ask questions, though a million questions beg to be answered. There's nothing about it that sets right, but when people ask for answers, they're called "revisionists" and accused of antisemitism. It's when you're not allowed to ask questions that answers must be demanded.
    • Creamcrackered
      Operations are just CIA acts. I came across some of this stuff you've said here, many years ago, so I have seen some of it, not all. The internet changed drastically during the Obama administration, I remember going to my saved pages one morning and them not existing and being something completely different. Still since people don't read books anymore, it is so much easier to change history now after a 100 years than it was prior the internet, that's why I like antique book stores. So do you think this is just a wider spread of secularism, do you think Israel in the Middle east is a chess piece to bring Western secularism, capitalism and socialist Marxism to the area? Have you ever listened to any of the Jewish deniers, some of whom were imprisoned? There's so much propaganda, it's hard to even believe what you've been taught, or what you hear on the news is even true anymore, It makes you look at alternatives in order to get a different view point. If what you say is true and both sides were funded, by the same people, then what was the ultimate goal?
    • Army Veteran
      Read the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion". This appears to be the agenda they are following. It has, of course, been officially "discredited" as nonsense - claiming them to be plagiarized or a forgery, but when you see who it was that declared them to be a forgery, you'd see that it was the same group that the Protocols expose. Thus, it's in their own interest to declare anything that exposes them as a forgery so that the world will turn a blind eye to them. Many people don't understand the difference between Zionism and Judaism and thus are afraid to speak out against it for fear of being labeled "antisemitic" (and perhaps being thrown in prison in some countries). But Zionism, as a political movement is as strong as ever. Look at the way the United States has degraded itself during the current administration. People ridicule Joe Biden as a boob. Most don't know, however, that he is an admitted Zionist - and he's in the position right now as the world's most powerful man. That should scare the bejeebers out of anyone. Personally, I'm counting down the days when we'll have a power shift in Congress again. On November 8, we can resume draining the swamp again. One of the best quotes I've found that exposes Zionism is, "At the time, the world was sold on the idea that the Allies were the "good guys" who were justified in everything they did - their Jewish "masters" controlled the media, so their place in the history books gave assurance that their crimes would stay buried. But the truth always has a way of finding its way to the surface, and now they're in a frenzy to avoid being exposed. The "antisemitism" label is nothing more than censorship which is upheld and condemned as "hate speech" by none other than themselves.? "We implore and beseech our Jewish brethren to realize that the Zionists are not the saviors of the Jewish People and guarantors of their safety, but rather the instigators and original cause of Jewish suffering in the Holy Land and worldwide. The idea that Zionism and the State of "Israel" is the protector of Jews is probably the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the Jewish people... It has been the age-old intention of Zionism to intentionally stir up anti-Semitism anywhere possible, and even more commonly, to take advantage of any Jewish suffering anywhere in order to enhance its cause. Indeed, hatred of Jews and Jewish suffering is the oxygen of the Zionist movement, and from the very beginning has been used to deliberately incite hatred of the Jew and then, in feigned horror, used to justify the existence of the Zionist state. This is, of course, Machiavellianism raised to the highest degree." - Jews Against Zionism
    • Creamcrackered
      I've read that AV, also agenda 2030, but I remain sceptical in all things in an effort to stay free from any one idea. This has got to be a worldly effort, as far as I'm concerned these things don't happen because of one peoples, even though it appears everyone in predominant positions of power are Jewish, or at least European Jewish and secular). The freemasons also follow the Kabbalah, and those repetitive numbers keep raising their heads, the nines, elevens, sevens, and thirty-threes, and of course the 6 million. I don't believe there is such a thing as draining the swamp, there is no separation of idea, the idea is a capitalist social marxist agenda, and this is where the conservatives get confused, they think it's one or the other, but even those who speak out, such as who I've mentioned say that it is a capitalist, AND social marxist agenda. In the UK they are still selling everything off, and privatising it, while socially bringing in liberalism, or madness to the extent it is now. Looks like there intent is to bankrupt everyone and then everyone will have to rent and hire, giving them full control over the money and the social.
  • The budgets will reflect more money into the local communities and less on other things/perks for the police.
    • Creamcrackered
      Sorry Murzy could you elaborate?
  • I feel it should never happen to defund the police
    • Creamcrackered
      Thanks DWW

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy