David Irving speaks on Mainstream Norwegian TV

[chattanova]

This was just aired on Norwegian TV2, seen by a big audience this have caused quiet a stir over here.
He was on a visit here to speak at a festival but due to safety issues he choosed to go back to UK and said he's mission was done as he has reached million of viewers.

part1 TV2 Tabloid Interview with historian David Irving 2009 05 26 Part 1 - YouTube

part2 TV2 Tabloid Interview with historian David Irving 2009 05 26 Part 2 - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkizDpl7x_E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=369WqEJ6ChA

[nirvana]

Interesting:)

[chattanova]

Absolutly, I just can't believe how this got through the censor :confused:

[decim]

Good find chatta.

[shodan]

very interesting, cheers for posting.

'Innocenticide', what a great way of putting it.

[triotec]

Nice input by chatta. Very interesting

[jolinemaria]

Very interesting.
Really like the quiteness and inner security of this man.
I'll look into his books.

[hagbard_celine]

Thanks for this, Chat.:) David Irving is an interesting man. He's also very brave to stand up to all the slander and abuse he's suffered. He's been treated worse than some mass-murderers!:eek: He's an admirable and knowledgeable historian who's askingh legitimate questions about history.

Here's what happened to him when he went to the Oxford Union: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14839

[nofuture]

I've met Irving and seen him speak. I don't think he is a Nazi, he actually said that a Germany ruled by the NPD wouldn't be one he'd want to visit. He didn't have anything positive to say about the BNP either.

My own feeling is that he just likes attention and notoriety and winding up Jews is a simple way for him to achieve this.

[hagbard_celine]

I've met Irving and seen him speak. I don't think he is a Nazi, he actually said that a Germany ruled by the NPD wouldn't be one he'd want to visit. He didn't have anything positive to say about the BNP either.

My own feeling is that he just likes attention and notoriety and winding up Jews is a simple way for him to achieve this.

I think he's made some discoveries about history and wants to tell people about them regardless of the consequences. There may be other historians who have leanbred the same things, but keep quiet about them because of all the shit that gets thrown at you if you speak out.

[mynameis]

He just told another lie and that is liable. Paid witnesses? I hope each one sues him.

[between hills]

Alot has happend to him while in norway, it is sad that people dont respect freedom of speech.
It was TV2 that aired this interju, and now coca-cola want answers on why he was alowed on TV.

http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-coca-cola.html for more info about coca-cola and there freinds...

[blondina1]

Lol TV2 never had as many viewers as they did for this.. I doubt very much that coca-cola will be allowed to sue. This is just another way to get people to watch the show. Tv2 probably ran it past their lawyers way ahead of time, before the interview.. as they were the ones who asked for the it (the interview).

I did find it interesting that in the media he was quoted as saying; Those who critisise me have never read one of my books. For if they did they would not be making these accusations..

[deany]

nice one chatt,

i don't feel negative vibes from Irving at all, he definitely believes he is working to find truth.

good on him

[tyler]

I too have met Irving and he is somewhat racist but his resarch is on the button. He is the best historian on the second world war and knows more about Hitler and the senior Nazis than anyone else.
He has had access to documents that no one else has because he speaks perfect German and is also able to read the documents from the Nazi era in the original.

[danceswithbunnies]

Okay let me get this straight..and put it in a little perspective here..

David Irving is voicing an opinion about History and people
are up in arms that he is "lying"...and are violent with him.

Bush actually lied about WMD , we can prove it, he commited war crimes and genocide in Iraq...but NO ONE is holding him accountable for his lies and crimes.

What is wrong with this picture?

If you want to know where the power lies, ask you cannot criticize.

It is very very suspicious that there is such a firestorm over what this LONE researcher is saying,but actual war criminals walk off scott free..mindboggling

(edited: i am getting deja vu wicked bad...i seem to recall saying the exact same thing about the same researcher several years ago)

[phantom]

mynameis

He just told another lie and that is liable. Paid witnesses? I hope each one sues him.

You don't know what you are talking about mynameis.

According to the times online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article1003560.ece) - A recent libel case between David Irving, the right-wing historian, and Penguin books is said to have generated £500,000 in fees to expert witnesses.

And here is a breakdown of who got what for being a paid witness - Total Expert/Researcher Fees (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/payments.html) = £543,240.49

Also, read the David Irving comments in a letter to The Times, dispatched on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/expert_witnesses.html) -

So I guess Irving was telling the truth about there being paid witnesses at his trial.

[yozhik]

I like him.

He is a historian wanting to record history ... unlike other historians wanting to author a politically correct, populist version of history or a commercially viable, book selling interpretation of history.

We need more like him.
Historians willing to see facts as facts.
Men (and women) prepared to tell it how it really happened and damn the consequences.

The truth will set you free ...


Respect.

[nofuture]

He is presently doing a biography of Himmler.

As Himmler was a major figure in the Holocaust it will make interesting reading.

[breezinreezin]

We all want to read about real history and not the concocted history that we were fed since children. But there are many out there that want to keep the truth from us and create a version of history that serves their own agenda. And the have many workers to assist them (Mynameis has just popped up, predictably, to do just that).

[Ian2day]

History is written by the victors.

[killerzzs]

Okay let me get this straight..and put it in a little perspective here..

David Irving is voicing an opinion about History and people
are up in arms that he is "lying"...and are violent with him.

Bush actually lied about WMD , we can prove it, he commited war crimes and genocide in Iraq...but NO ONE is holding him accountable for his lies and crimes.

What is wrong with this picture?

If you want to know where the power lies, ask you cannot criticize.

It is very very suspicious that there is such a firestorm over what this LONE researcher is saying,but actual war criminals walk off scott free..mindboggling

(edited: i am getting deja vu wicked bad...i seem to recall saying the exact same thing about the same researcher several years ago)



exactly

the same cabal of jewish zionist war mongers who have the blood of thousands of iraq's and americans on their hands pretending to defend freedom do everything in their power to stop freedom of speech when they are threatened

[flickflack]

David Irving says so much rubbish... He has also said that Hitler "wanted a little war"... How can someone proclaiming war against Jews all over the world want just a little war? It makes no sense.

[element]

Bush actually lied about WMD , we can prove it, he commited war crimes and genocide in Iraq...but NO ONE is holding him accountable for his lies and crimes.


Good point.

''This is the Hollywood view of Adolf Hitler, the omniscience omnipotent Adolf Hitler''

L0L:D:D

[tintin]

I see it everywhere.....

All those journalists still afraid of those

JOOOOSSSZZZ

I am so sick of those JOOZ that KILL MY FAMILY, that WANT TO KILL ME,
GODDAMMMEDD!!
that CREATE WORLD WARS and....PREACH HATE........

And it goes on and on...
people so......aaah....jews.......be careful.....jews.......

http://www.steveklotz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/jews.jpg

GANGSTERS!!

[yozhik]

David Irving says so much rubbish... He has also said that Hitler "wanted a little war"... How can someone proclaiming war against Jews all over the world want just a little war? It makes no sense.

Right.

WWII was ONLY about the Jews, right?
Blinded by Zionist propaganda.

FYI ... Jews were not the only ones that died in their millions in WWII.
Somehow, amongst this Holocaust smokescreen, people seem to have forgotten the millions of Russians that were killed; pre-War by the bloodied hands of the Jewish majority government in Siberian camps and during the war in Russia (25 million war time casualties), or the million + that died in the Nazi work camps post-war in the hands of the Allies from starvation and illness. Let's not even mention the deaths of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 200,000 directly and an undefined number of those who suffered from generational effects of radiation.

Does "history" remind us of this perspective?
No.

The David Irvings of this world TRY to bring fact based perspective, but unfortunately they're normally yelled down and ridiculed by those politically fuelled interest groups, too interested in protecting a deception and a biased perspective, to keep falsehoods and future agendas alive.

[nirvana]

David Irving says so much rubbish... He has also said that Hitler "wanted a little war"... How can someone proclaiming war against Jews all over the world want just a little war? It makes no sense.


If Hitler wanted war with all jews he would not of had so much jewish support.
IBM and lots of jewish bankers helped hitler financially etc. Another of hitlers jewish helpers I.G.Fabian

Why dont we get taught hitlers jewish support in school? :rolleyes:

[killerzzs]

Right.

WWII was ONLY about the Jews, right?
Blinded by Zionist propaganda.

FYI ... Jews were not the only ones that died in their millions in WWII.
Somehow, amongst this Holocaust smokescreen, people seem to have forgotten the millions of Russians that were killed; pre-War by the bloodied hands of the Jewish majority government in Siberian camps and during the war in Russia (25 million war time casualties), or the million + that died in the Nazi work camps post-war in the hands of the Allies from starvation and illness. Let's not even mention the deaths of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 200,000 directly and an undefined number of those who suffered from generational effects of radiation.

Does "history" remind us of this perspective?
No.

The David Irvings of this world TRY to bring fact based perspective, but unfortunately they're normally yelled down and ridiculed by those politically fuelled interest groups, too interested in protecting a deception and a biased perspective, to keep falsehoods and future agendas alive.



bolshisvism was a jewish run movement, its a fact and in some places you will be branded an anti-semite just for stating it

this same movement led to the wholesale slaughter and death of hundreds of millions of people

[dogsmilk]

I too have met Irving and he is somewhat racist but his resarch is on the button. He is the best historian on the second world war and knows more about Hitler and the senior Nazis than anyone else.
He has had access to documents that no one else has because he speaks perfect German and is also able to read the documents from the Nazi era in the original.

somewhat racist indeed.

Irving got access to some documents from former Nazis precisely because he got viewed as being more sympathetic to them so they gave him stuff. Speaking German has fuck all to do with anything. Do you seriously think career historians of the Third Reich aren't fluent in German? How the fuck do you think they do archival research? And what about German historians? You'd kind of think their grasp of German is pretty good wouldn't you?! Get a grip.
Technically speaking, Irving isn't actually a historian. If he hadn't discredited himself by talking so much shit he'd probably have been accepted as one by default, but he blew it big time. Nobody in their right mind views him as "the best historian on the second world war".
Check out Richard Evans' telling lies about Hitler for a concise account of some of his whoppers. Evans isn't God or anything, but his recent three volume history of the Third Reich pisses all over anything Irving has written.

It's widely accepted Irving knows a LOT about the Third Reich, but also widely accepted he's also a bullshitter and, as someone else already said, enjoys being controversial.

History is written by the victors.

So where does that leave people like Gotz Aly, Christian Gerlach and Dieter Pohl?

bolshisvism was a jewish run movement, its a fact and in some places you will be branded an anti-semite just for stating it


Not necessarily - you may equally be branded a gormless dick regurgitating mindless bullshit you read on teh interwebs.

[dogsmilk]

If Hitler wanted war with all jews he would not of had so much jewish support.
IBM and lots of jewish bankers helped hitler financially etc. Another of hitlers jewish helpers I.G.Fabian

Why dont we get taught hitlers jewish support in school? :rolleyes:

Since when were IG Farben "Jewish"? (I assume that's what you mean - fuck knows what this "I.G.Fabian" is).
And how did IBM help the Nazis financially? I was under the impression they did business with them which is kind of what businesses do.
What does "Jewish banks helped Hitler financially" mean?

[tyler]

Here come Dogsmilk again! He wanders round the forums looking for anything that might be construed as anti-semitic. Notice how he only makes an appearance here when a topic like this is being discussed? He is obviously alerted somehow. Could he be signed up to Megaphone the system that alerts all Israelis to anything on the web that might be anti-Zionist. He never comes here to discuss David's books or the NWo for example. He can often be seen on 9/11 sites supporting the status quo and the establishment point of view.

Best to ignore him.

Skunky Evans is the so called historian that was paid a million to be a witness in the trial of Irving. His history of the Third Reich is just a re-hash of all material that has already been published.

It is widely acknowledged that Irvings book on the bombing of Dresden is the best account ever published. His books on Hitler and Churchill are masterpieces.

[dogsmilk]

Actually, Evans' recent work is not a "re-hash". It's an attempt to present a contemporary full history aimed at a generic, non-specifically scholarly readership which incorporates a strong emphasis on social factors. I'm not aware of any recent work taking this particular pitch. I can't remember how much he got paid (for the trial), but I'm fairly sure it wasn't a million....
Irving's books are not "masterpieces". Anyone saying his account of Dresden is the 'best ever published' should ask themselves why he got the death toll so wrong.

Still, I can't hang around long. I have a big red phone that flashes "J" when I have to go and post on a truth forum, in the same way I haven't been doing for months.
We're targeting you Tyler. It may look to the untrained observer that you're just some random unintelligent nobody talking shit on the internet, but we realise you're a serious threat to the ZOG. We're watching your house. We're going through your bins. We know you like parading in front of a mirror wearing women's knickers when you're all alone. Bwahahahaha!!!!!

In the meantime -

He can often be seen on 9/11 sites supporting the status quo and the establishment point of view.


OK - I'm calling you a bullshit artist. Prove me wrong or else show yourself to be as a big a bullshitter as your hero.

He is obviously alerted somehow

Has it occurred to you that I might...look at the forum...?

Just a thought.

[dogsmilk]

Whoops! According to your guru David Irving's website Evans got paid 70 grand. Fuck knows if that's accurate, and I'm not of a mind to laboriously start checking it out, but it comes to something when you're plucking a figure out of the air that's about £930,000 larger than his arch nemesis your hero claims.
The question remains exactly where you got a million from. Don't tell me - you made it up because you thought it sounded impressive.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/payments.html

[tyler]

Pardon me, I may have got that figure from the same people who produced the six million figure out of thin air! Silly me.

[dogsmilk]

So I see from that little response you did just make it up.

How typical of you.

[yozhik]

So I see from that little response you did just make it up.

How typical of you.

An admittance that the 6 million is also made up?

Tyler never said the 6 million was made up; he stated he got it from the same people who produced the 6m figure.
Your conclusion; "you made it up" ergo, you are stating the 6m was made up?

Congratulations.
Welcome to the Truth Movement.

[dogsmilk]

An admittance that the 6 million is also made up?

Tyler never said the 6 million was made up; he stated he got it from the same people who produced the 6 million figure.
Your conclusion; "you made it up" ergo, you are stating the 6 million was made up?

Congratulations.
Welcome to the Truth Movement.

sigh - No, I meant that by making that comment (which involved not giving any actual indication of where he'd plucked a million from) he was tacitly admitting he made it up. I foolishly thought my meaning would probably be clear. I didn't reckon on the - ah - searing logic of whatever "Truth Movement' you think you're referring to. Which "Truth Movement" is this?
Tyler is quite obviously in the Bullshit Movement.

[nirvana]

Sorry hitler never had jewish support only jewish business men that wanted to cash in with hitler .

The chase bank in manhatten and many other jewish banks loaned hitler money.

IBM is this what jewish business men do as business deal with a supposedly anti jewish genocider ,yes its only business right:D

[dogsmilk]

Sorry hitler never had jewish support only jewish business men that wanted to cash in with hitler .

The chase bank in manhatten and many other jewish banks loaned hitler money.

IBM is this what jewish business men do as business deal with a supposedly anti jewish genocider ,yes its only business right:D

Hang on - banks lending money you say? Mercy me! I've never heard the like! You'll be saying people deposit money in things called 'bank accounts' next!

In what way is/was Chase Manhatten "Jewish"?

How is/was IBM "Jewish"?

Of course they'll do business with egregious dictators. Of course it's only business. What do you expect them to say? Hang on, this Hitler is rather a rum chap so we'd better put a stop to all our lucrative business opportunities in Nazi Germany! Get a fucking grip. Corporations only give a flying fuck about ethics if it suits their purpose - for example for PR reasons. They exist to make money so that's what they do.
IBM wasn't run by Jews so they didn't even have that pull against dealing with Hitler.

[redman]

Well if you watch or read anything about world war I and II, it's always put as we were the good guy's and they were the bad. Same as if you believe the BS official story of 911.

So my gut feeling is that Irving is actually one of the few people out there that's actually searching for the truth and has found bits of it and isn't scared of voicing his opinion.


This shit reminds me of watching the gormless brainwashed so called patriotic fuck wits who get all angry when people claim that the official story of 911 is complete fucking horse shit, which it is.


Going off intuition and looking around at how major events from these times are being covered and written about by our media, historians, and government then it's pretty fucking blatantly obvious that Irving is most definitely on to something and good on the man for standing up for truth instead of the usual BS that we are fed day in day out.

[dogsmilk]

Well if you watch or read anything about world war I and II, it's always put as we were the good guy's and they were the bad. Same as if you believe the BS official story of 911.

So my gut feeling is that Irving is actually one of the few people out there that's actually searching for the truth and has found bits of it and isn't scared of voicing his opinion.


This shit reminds me of watching the gormless brainwashed so called patriotic fuck wits who get all angry when people claim that the official story of 911 is complete fucking horse shit, which it is.


Going off intuition and looking around at how major events from these times are being covered and written about by our media, historians, and government then it's pretty fucking blatantly obvious that Irving is most definitely on to something and good on the man for standing up for truth instead of the usual BS that we are fed day in day out.

What amazing things does your 'intuition' tell you he's discovered then?

[redman]

What amazing things does your 'intuition' tell you he's discovered then?

I ain't read any of his books YET. I was talking about going off that interview you can tell the guy is just saying what he believes and what he has found from researching the topic.

And going off how major events these days are covered/covered up, reported and portrayed and the way that anyone that stands up and speaks out or goes against the grain are ridiculed and put down and totally misinterpreted by the media ( as you can see even in this clip in the way she is blatantly talking shite and fishing for a reaction ).

Then my intuition is telling me that Irving isn't this big bad holocaust denier like they want people to believe and he should be listened to even if you don't agree with what he has to say. To me he comes across as a genuine guy who is intelligent enough to see through the BS and is trying his damned hardest to get his findings out to the public.

And going off your posts on this thread, your just far to rapped up in he whole anti semitism/Jew stance to discuss this topic objectively. But I am sure your going to give it a try.

[flickflack]

Sorry hitler never had jewish support only jewish business men that wanted to cash in with hitler .

The chase bank in manhatten and many other jewish banks loaned hitler money.





Wow, they borrowed Hitlers Germany money? Who else did they borrow money to?

[breezinreezin]

Here come Dogsmilk again! He wanders round the forums looking for anything that might be construed as anti-semitic. Notice how he only makes an appearance here when a topic like this is being discussed?

I was thinking that yesterday, 'that dogsmilk bloke will be along in a while to put everbody right'. A one trick pony it seems. Very dedicated to his job though.

[killerzzs]

Not necessarily - you may equally be branded a gormless dick regurgitating mindless bullshit you read on teh interwebs.


a gormless dick for stating a fact about world jewry?

you sound like a typical venemous jew who spews bile when exposed, i have no interest in bland jew hatred, none at all

i do have a problem when people try and tell me whats true and not, are you part of some ADL programme to infiltrate the consipracy movement? :rolleyes:

bolshevism was over run with jews, given its money by high jewish finance, this has been verified by a number of prominent historical figures including churchill, who was an ardent zionist,

[dogsmilk]

I ain't read any of his books YET. I was talking about going off that interview you can tell the guy is just saying what he believes and what he has found from researching the topic.

Be careful when buying used cars.

Having said that, whether someone believes something is totally irrelevant regarding how accurate that belief is.


And going off how major events these days are covered/covered up, reported and portrayed and the way that anyone that stands up and speaks out or goes against the grain are ridiculed and put down and totally misinterpreted by the media ( as you can see even in this clip in the way she is blatantly talking shite and fishing for a reaction ).

If you use 'going against the grain' as an indicator that someone is likely 'on to something' then you'll rapidly find yourself believing the likes of Gene Ray.

Irving talks shite in the interview. For example, he talks about "writing to make money", yet his books are written in a populist style and used to be bestsellers, way outselling 'regular' history books. Bit rich coming from a guy who used to flash his cash and bask in his 'maverick notoriety' before he miscalculated.

He goes on about how the French weren't a 'nation of resisters' as one of his amazing 'politically incorrect' assertions. Wow. Like I've never heard that before. Well how fucking cutting edge!

I didn't watch it all, but of the interviewer I just saw a journalist being a journalist.


Then my intuition is telling me that Irving isn't this big bad holocaust denier like they want people to believe and he should be listened to even if you don't agree with what he has to say. To me he comes across as a genuine guy who is intelligent enough to see through the BS and is trying his damned hardest to get his findings out to the public.

His Holocaust denial has been kind of partial. For one thing, he seems to have irritated the denier community by saying the Aktion Rheinhardt camps were extermination centres. Accuracy on this board thinks he's a NWO shill :rolleyes: but seems reluctant to explain what he bases this on. Personally I think he's a mixture of his hard right politics serving to push him towards Nazi apologetics mixed in with a craving for notoriety and his long preoccupation with wanting to get one over historians.

And going off your posts on this thread, your just far to rapped up in he whole anti semitism/Jew stance to discuss this topic objectively. But I am sure your going to give it a try.

I just think all this Jew stuff is very, very stupid. People go on about how 'awake' they are then happily parrot recycled Nazi propaganda they've read on the internet (apparently this is called "research").
It's been my experience - certainly on this forum - that the Jew theorist crowd are fundamentally incapable of discussing anything 'objectively'. Generally, they're rapidly reduced to asinine comments like this twat -

I was thinking that yesterday, 'that dogsmilk bloke will be along in a while to put everbody right'. A one trick pony it seems. Very dedicated to his job though.

Dedicated my arse. If I were then I'd write far better, far more detailed posts on more threads. Mind you, I wish this was my job. Writing some forum posts - I could do that for cash. If any Elders of Zion are reading this, then if you can match my current salary please pop round my house and sign me up.

[dogsmilk]

a gormless dick for stating a fact about world jewry?

you sound like a typical venemous jew who spews bile when exposed, i have no interest in bland jew hatred, none at all

i do have a problem when people try and tell me whats true and not, are you part of some ADL programme to infiltrate the consipracy movement? :rolleyes:

bolshevism was over run with jews, given its money by high jewish finance, this has been verified by a number of prominent historical figures including churchill, who was an ardent zionist,

The number of Jews with actual power in the Soviet hierarchy was pretty minimal. And of course the Soviet Union became progressively more anti-semitic under Stalin. I've been through this recently, and I'm not going through it again. Isn't it amazing how a politician is suddenly inevitably correct when he says something you want to hear? If he was that ardent a Zionist, why was immigration to Palestine not freed up during WWII?

Exactly what is "high Jewish finance"?

And LOL - what does this line actually mean?

you sound like a typical venemous jew who spews bile when exposed,

"Exposed" how exactly?

Oh yeah

are you part of some ADL programme to infiltrate the consipracy movement?

Oh noes! Busted! Curses!

You guys crack me up.

[redman]

Be careful when buying used cars.

Having said that, whether someone believes something is totally irrelevant regarding how accurate that belief is.



If you use 'going against the grain' as an indicator that someone is likely 'on to something' then you'll rapidly find yourself believing the likes of Gene Ray.

Irving talks shite in the interview. For example, he talks about "writing to make money", yet his books are written in a populist style and used to be bestsellers, way outselling 'regular' history books. Bit rich coming from a guy who used to flash his cash and bask in his 'maverick notoriety' before he miscalculated.

He goes on about how the French weren't a 'nation of resisters' as one of his amazing 'politically incorrect' assertions. Wow. Like I've never heard that before. Well how fucking cutting edge!

I didn't watch it all, but of the interviewer I just saw a journalist being a journalist.



His Holocaust denial has been kind of partial. For one thing, he seems to have irritated the denier community by saying the Aktion Rheinhardt camps were extermination centres. Accuracy on this board thinks he's a NWO shill :rolleyes: but seems reluctant to explain what he bases this on. Personally I think he's a mixture of his hard right politics serving to push him towards Nazi apologetics mixed in with a craving for notoriety and his long preoccupation with wanting to get one over historians.



I just think all this Jew stuff is very, very stupid. People go on about how 'awake' they are then happily parrot recycled Nazi propaganda they've read on the internet (apparently this is called "research").
It's been my experience - certainly on this forum - that the Jew theorist crowd are fundamentally incapable of discussing anything 'objectively'. Generally, they're rapidly reduced to asinine comments like this twat -



Dedicated my arse. If I were then I'd write far better, far more detailed posts on more threads. Mind you, I wish this was my job. Writing some forum posts - I could do that for cash. If any Elders of Zion are reading this, then if you can match my current salary please pop round my house and sign me up.



Quick question, so you believe everything our media, movies, and historical records tell us about world war II ?? And don't think any of it is total BS ??

[dogsmilk]

Quick question, so you believe everything our media, movies, and historical records tell us about world war II ?? And don't think any of it is total BS ??

Of course not.

Movies are basically irrelevant. They're entertainment. Some may attempt to be accurate but I'm not sure I've ever seen a film about any factual event that didn't indulge in creative license. You might watch a film to bring to life an event or inspire you to learn about it, but how can you possibly trust a movie as being totally accurate?

The media is highly unreliable. Generally speaking, it's produced by journalists who, as well as being highly variable in their devotion to accurate reporting, are often writing about subjects they don't really know about. The media might report an event - like some document being found or something - but you can't just use the media to learn about WWII.
The other aspect to the media is documentaries. These too are obviously of highly variable quality and my experience of documentaries on all subjects is that they're generally getting worse and more dumbed down.

I'm not sure what you mean by "historical records".

[killerzzs]

The number of Jews with actual power in the Soviet hierarchy was pretty minimal. And of course the Soviet Union became progressively more anti-semitic under Stalin. I've been through this recently, and I'm not going through it again. Isn't it amazing how a politician is suddenly inevitably correct when he says something you want to hear? If he was that ardent a Zionist, why was immigration to Palestine not freed up during WWII?

you do not know my stance on palestine to make that assumption, i am dealing with facts, not your pre-emptive stereotypes (am sorry, but you sounded like a stroppy ADL type)

we know what churchill said about bolsehevism, i have no real point to argue, i can prove the positive, he said what he said, as did others, including historical figures, nobel laureates and historians

what are you arguing about? that they were not jewish?:D


high jewish finance means jewish capitalists from across the pond helping fellow jewish communists. :confused:


Jewish Bolshevism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - their reach in the movement is obvious

[redman]

Of course not.

Movies are basically irrelevant. They're entertainment. Some may attempt to be accurate but I'm not sure I've ever seen a film about any factual event that didn't indulge in creative license. You might watch a film to bring to life an event or inspire you to learn about it, but how can you possibly trust a movie as being totally accurate?

The media is highly unreliable. Generally speaking, it's produced by journalists who, as well as being highly variable in their devotion to accurate reporting, are often writing about subjects they don't really know about. The media might report an event - like some document being found or something - but you can't just use the media to learn about WWII.
The other aspect to the media is documentaries. These too are obviously of highly variable quality and my experience of documentaries on all subjects is that they're generally getting worse and more dumbed down.

I'm not sure what you mean by "historical records".


So why do you think that Irving is talking shite then and why is it you are obviously getting defensive about the things he claims. How do you know for sure that what he is saying is not the truth, what makes you so sure about it when you have said yourself that you can not count on the media, Movies, and the government to tell you the truth.


Just wondering why you are so adamant that this guy is lying to the point were you even attack his character, I am curious why you feel so strong because when I heard what he had to say it pretty much made sense and went along with how major events are covered today. Dramatized, exaggerated, or basically complete fucking bull squirt. So personally going off this video it wouldn't surprise me whats so ever if Irving was indeed telling the truth.


And as for historical records, well exactly what it says on the tin. Record of history, I'm sure they wouldn't forget to include World War II like they forgot to put in WTC 7 in the 911 commission book. LOL

[dogsmilk]

you do not know my stance on palestine to make that assumption, i am dealing with facts, not your pre-emptive stereotypes (am sorry, but you sounded like a stroppy ADL type)

we know what churchill said about bolsehevism, i have no real point to argue, i can prove the positive, he said what he said, as did others, including historical figures, nobel laureates and historians

what are you arguing about? that they were not jewish?:D


high jewish finance means jewish capitalists from across the pond helping fellow jewish communists. :confused:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism - their reach in the movement is obvious

If you look at the footnotes to your wiki article, it draws heavily on Jeffrey Herf. Here's Herf on Jewish Bolsheviks I posted last time this came up

As of 1917, roughly 1000, or about 5 percent, of the 23,000 members of the Bolshevik Party were Jewish. By August 1917, 6 of 21 members of the Central Committee were Jews: Lev Kamenev, Grigory Sokolnikov, Jakov Sverdlov, Grigory Zinoviev, Leon Trotsky, and Mosisei Uritsky. The party census of 1922 showed 19,564 Jewish members, 5.21 percent of the total. By 1927, the 49,627 Jewish members comprised 4.34 percent or less. By 1939, only 10 percent of the Central Committee was composed of Jews. After Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev had been ousted from the leadership in 1926, no Jews remained in the Politburo. In the Stalin era in the 1930s, Lazar Kaganovich became the only Jewish member of the Politburo – the exception that proved the rule. Of the 417 people who constituted the ruling elite of the Soviet Union in the mid-1920s (members of the Central Executive Committee, the party Central Committee, the Presidium of the Executive of the Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Republic, the ministers, and the chairman of the Executive Committee), 27, or 6 percent were Jewish. This proportion decreased radically in the 1930s, partly owing to the purge trials, which had strong anti-semitic overtones. During the Holocaust, the Stalin regime said very little about Nazi policies aimed specifically at Jews

Jeffrey Herf, the Jewish enemy p.96

Not all Jews are they?

And if you look at prominent Jews like Trotsky and Zinoviev, they didn't actually do very well in the end did they?
I mean, how exactly did 'the Jews' control Bolshevism? Didn't the other Bolsheviks notice? How come Stalin got to be in charge so he could start picking on them?

Your sledgehammer assertions also need to deal with the fact that Jews have also had some prominence in Anarchism.
Jewish anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you've got notable Jewish anarchists like Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman who were fiercely critical of the Bolsheviks. After being initially supportive of the revolution but then visiting Russia and seeing how it was going all oppressive, Berkman wrote the Bolshevik myth attacking what the Bolsheviks were doing. Similarly you had Rudolf Rocker (not a Jew but big in Jewish anarchist circles and married to Jew Milly Witcop) critiquing the Bolsheviks within his major work nationalism and culture - seeing Bolshevism as a religion in the same way he saw government generally as a religion. Incidentally, Rocker is a primary influence on that other famous Jewish radical Noam Chomsky.
The anarchist Makhnovists -

n the army of the Mahknovist insurgents there was an exclusively Jewish artillery battery which was covered by an infantry detachment, also made up of Jews.


Indeed, apparently the Makhnovists had a pretty positive attitude towards Jews:

On May 12, 1919, several Jewish families - 20 peoplpe in all - were killed in the Jewish agricultural colony of Gor'Kaya, near Aleksandrovsk. The Makhnovist staff immediately set up a special commission to investigate this event. This commission discovered that the murders had been committed by seven peasants of the neighbouring village of Uspenovka. These peasants were not part of the insurrectionary army. However, the Maknovists felt it was impossible to leave this crime unpunished, and they shot the murderers


On May 4th or 5th, 1919, Makhno and a few commanders hurridly left the front and went to Gulyai-Polye, where they were awaited by the Extraordinary Plenipotentiary of the Republic, L Kamenev, who had arrived from Khar'kov with other representatives of the Soviet government. At the Verkhnii Tokmak station, Makhno saw a poster with the words "Death to the Jews, Save the revolution, Long live Batko Makhno."
"Who put up that poster?" Makhno asked.
He learned that the poster had been put up by an insurgent whom Makhno knew personally, a soldier who had taken part in the battle against Deniken's troops, a person who was in general decent. He presented himself immediately and was shot on the spot...
...(Makhno) realised that the insurgent had been cruelly dealt with, but he also knew that in conditions of war and in view of Deniken's advance, such posters could represent an enormous danger for the Jewish population and for the entire revolution if one did not oppose them quickly and resolutely


Pyotr Arshinov History of the Makhnovist movement 1918-1921 p.213-14
(Arshinov was a member of the movement)

Yet the Makhnovists were ultimately destroyed by the Bolsheviks, despite initially being on the same side.

How does the conflict between Jewish Bolsheviks and Jewish anarchists fit into your neat little world?

Funnily enough, when going on about the Bolsheviks, Churchill said:

Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge
have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people.
Wherever General Denikin's authority could reach,
protection was always accorded to the Jewish population,
and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to
prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So
much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda
against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of
the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, in
relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have
declared that to their knowledge on more than one
occasion officers who committed offenses against Jews
were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the
front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole. vast
expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not
hesitate to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge
at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever
an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of
Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalized their every
success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found
among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an
eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest
forms.
http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showConnection.php?id1=4062&id2=6434

Seeming to indicate the Makhnovists were the anti-semites as opposed to that nice General Deniken. Yet -

Presses in white-held territory printed cheap editions of the protocols with a lurid addendum blaming the Bolshevik revolution on a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, and linking it to the reign of the Anti-Christ. This had little immediate impact because few Jews lived in the areas occupied by White forces. But when German troops evacuated the Ukraine in accordance with the armistice of November 1918, Russia regained 1.6 million Jews who had come under German rule in the Peace of Brest-Litovsk. The whites moved in, unleashing their rage and frustration on the Ukranian Jews.
General Anton Ivanovich Deniken commanded the main White force in the Ukraine. This so-called Volunteer Army was staffed by Russian officers and consisted primarily of Cossack troops. Although the Jews well remembered the Cossack massacres of their ancestors in 1648-49, they eagerly awaited the arrival of the Whites in 1918. For the most part artisans and tradesmen, the Ukranian Jews were not sympathetic to the Bolsheviks, they wanted stability, law and order. But devastation and death followed in the wake of the Volunteer Army,. First they looted Jewish property. After their forces suffered decisive defeats in late 1919, they initiated well-organised and ideologically motivated massacres of the Jews. These murders were the most successful military campaign of the White Russian Volunteer Army; at its conclusion this army had shot, bayoneted, hanged, burned, drowned and buried alive some 120,000 Jews, or about 8 percent of the Ukranian Jewish population

Holocaust - a history by Deborah Dwork and Robert Jan Van Pelt p.46

So it appears Mr Churchill may have turned things on their head somewhat in this instance.

The point is, like with all events, you're dealing with complexity involving a multitude of actors including Jews on all sides. But you're reduced to Durrrrr. Bolsheviks is Jewish. Is big plot. Jewish plot. Somehow.

On top of all this, saying atheistic revolutionary types from Jewish backgrounds were "Jews" is the same as saying an atheistic revolutionary type from a Catholic background "is a Catholic". It's vitally important to Jew theorists to maintain Jews are some secret club who retain Jewishness even if they have no interest in Jewish culture because they're just obsessed with Jews. But back on planet earth it's just senseless.

I don't know what "Jewish capitalists" you're harping on about. Presumably they're intrinsically different from "gentile capitalists"...?

[dogsmilk]

So why do you think that Irving is talking shite then and why is it you are obviously getting defensive about the things he claims. How do you know for sure that what he is saying is not the truth, what makes you so sure about it when you have said yourself that you can not count on the media, Movies, and the government to tell you the truth.


Just wondering why you are so adamant that this guy is lying to the point were you even attack his character, I am curious why you feel so strong because when I heard what he had to say it pretty much made sense and went along with how major events are covered today. Dramatized, exaggerated, or basically complete fucking bull squirt. So personally going off this video it wouldn't surprise me whats so ever if Irving was indeed telling the truth.


And as for historical records, well exactly what it says on the tin. Record of history, I'm sure they wouldn't forget to include World War II like they forgot to put in WTC 7 in the 911 commission book. LOL

I don't recall getting "defensive". I just know he's told lies - for example he quite blatantly lied about the Cavendish-Bentinck memo. It wasn't an error, he was clearing bullshitting. I don't think he lies about everything, but he's got pretty obvious sympathy towards the Nazis and he's told a string of whoppers. Pardon me for not putting much faith in a proven liar.

Now, when going through Irving's stuff (and on a limited timescale - I don't think it was ever claimed this was exhaustive), quite a list was produced -
http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/evans/keyword/cavendish+bentinck
compare this to when people were seriously gunning for Ward Churchill after his 'little Eichmanns' comment following 911 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill_academic_misconduct_investigation#F indings_of_fabrication_and_falsification
In a concerted effort to attack him by going over his (quite dense - a little matter of genocide alone runs to over 500 pages) writings with a fine tooth comb, he actually comes out looking a lot better than Irving did.

If "record of history" means written history, then obviously that's the best source. However, it's not all true. It can't be by definition - historians are frequently arguing with each other. However, the fact that they do means that hopefully stuff gets thrashed out. It's ridiculous to state historians don't get things wrong - who doesn't? Or a particular interpretation may be debatable. For example, people are still presenting new viewpoints on how the Holocaust came to happen. But there is a BIG distinction between ambiguity and error and just talking shit deliberately.

I think Irving said something about people refusing to debate him - thing is he had a ginormous 'debate' in court and these days he's just consigned to crankdom - it must really get on his tits that he's just not taken seriously any more. But it's his fault, nobody else's.

[killerzzs]

most of your posts sounds copied and pasted from somewhere else, i will answer anyway

Not all Jews are they?

its disengenuous to think i said and mean that every single bolshevist was a jew, obviously not, but it had an extremely heavy jewish influence from its roots, the birth of the movement was largely a jewish spawn, effectively making it an alien invasion on the russian people.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_anarchism

So you've got notable Jewish anarchists like Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman who were fiercely critical of the Bolsheviks. After being initially supportive of the revolution but then visiting Russia and seeing how it was going all oppressive, Berkman wrote the Bolshevik myth attacking what the Bolsheviks were doing. Similarly you had Rudolf Rocker (not a Jew but big in Jewish anarchist circles and married to Jew Milly Witcop) critiquing the Bolsheviks within his major work nationalism and culture - seeing Bolshevism as a religion in the same way he saw government generally as a religion. Incidentally, Rocker is a primary influence on that other famous Jewish radical Noam Chomsky.
The anarchist Makhnovists -

this is a cute retort, but that there were a few jewish anarchists around that time is neither here nor there, i am not trying to be virulently anti-jew and say each and every one is this or that, i am talking about the heavy influence of jews in bolshevism and events in russia


How does the conflict between Jewish Bolsheviks and Jewish anarchists fit into your neat little world?


so you admitt it was a jewish bolshevist movement and that the main opposition were jews aswell - not really helping your point about jews not being heavily involved in events does it? (hint, thats because they were)

So it appears Mr Churchill may have turned things on their head somewhat in this instance.

whats the date of that article?


how does it negate what i have said?


The point is, like with all events, you're dealing with complexity involving a multitude of actors including Jews on all sides. But you're reduced to Durrrrr. Bolsheviks is Jewish. Is big plot. Jewish plot. Somehow.

On top of all this, saying atheistic revolutionary types from Jewish backgrounds were "Jews" is the same as saying an atheistic revolutionary type from a Catholic background "is a Catholic". It's vitally important to Jew theorists to maintain Jews are some secret club who retain Jewishness even if they have no interest in Jewish culture because they're just obsessed with Jews. But back on planet earth it's just senseless.


a few loose quotes and an ill thought out attempt of proof by contradiction do not change the weight of facts, that bolshevism was driven by jews, the main players were jews, that a particular ethno-religions group who are not natives to a nation but come to dominate it makes it their revolution, not the voice of ordinary russians.

the jews have always been a (air) tight knit community, they are an exception to all others due to combination of their history and their beliefs - they say that themselves.

its not uncommon for this type of unique shared experience to lend an automatic and intrinsic understanding, especially when its so roots and shared feelings and experiences are deep, we have historically seen this happen a fair bit, i know how you will react to this, but none the less, people should not be stifled in a forum like this. :)


take this quote from lenin

"There the great world-progressive features of Jewish culture stand clearly revealed: its internationalism, its identification with the advanced movements of the epoch (the percentage of Jews in the democratic and proletarian movements is everywhere higher than the percentage of Jews among the population)."

-- Lenin, Vladimir Ilich. "National Culture" in Lumer, Hyman. Lenin on the Jewish Question. International Publishers. New York. 1974, p107, via Philip Mendes, THE NEW LEFT, THE JEWS AND THE VIETNAM WAR, 1965-1972, Lazare Press, North Caulfield, Victoria, Australia, p 9.


its the height the irony that on a david icke forum we have a member who is trying to outdo the orwellian thought police, 2+2=4, not 5 my friend.

[tyler]

Dogmilk's posts seem all copy and paste because that is what they are. All of these trolls who come here defending Zionism and trashing the truth seem to have a vast compendium of biased quotes and facts and figures at their fingertips.
They are obviously linked to some central source that supplies them with facts on whatever Zionist topic requested at the click of a key.
They are incredibly well organised. I believe it is called something like Jewish Internet Fighters for Israel.
They roam the internet looking for what they deem to be anti-semitic or anti-Israeli comments. Like the CIA's programme that goes into action when certain key words are mentioned in emails or telephone conversations. I forget the name of it now. I'm sure someone here can remind me.

Megaphone is the name of another setup that alerts Israeli members to similar postings. Wherever Israel or Zionism is discussed these vultures will be hovering.
Please have a look at this link. This will show you exactly what I am talking about........
http://giyus.org/

[3stepsahead]

Okay let me get this straight..and put it in a little perspective here..

David Irving is voicing an opinion about History and people
are up in arms that he is "lying"...and are violent with him.

Bush actually lied about WMD , we can prove it, he commited war crimes and genocide in Iraq...but NO ONE is holding him accountable for his lies and crimes.

What is wrong with this picture?

If you want to know where the power lies, ask you cannot criticize.

It is very very suspicious that there is such a firestorm over what this LONE researcher is saying,but actual war criminals walk off scott free..mindboggling

(edited: i am getting deja vu wicked bad...i seem to recall saying the exact same thing about the same researcher several years ago)

i guess you may have found the reason for why this was aired then.
but i jstu want to say that the norwegian telly does send some real information on its programmes even though its fairly rare.
uauslly its pure mind control but sometimes it is genuinely real information, usually sent mid day or past midnight when barely anyone is watching =)

there was a guy named otto who burned the american flag und dissed the jews on his shows but he was forced to apologise and he also eventually stopped having the show.
that to me was the nail in the coffin of righteous action and free speech publicly here.

[killerzzs]

Dogmilk's posts seem all copy and paste because that is what they are. All of these trolls who come here defending Zionism and trashing the truth seem to have a vast compendium of biased quotes and facts and figures at their fingertips.
They are obviously linked to some central source that supplies them with facts on whatever Zionist topic requested at the click of a key.
They are incredibly well organised. I believe it is called something like Jewish Internet Fighters for Israel.
They roam the internet looking for what they deem to be anti-semitic or anti-Israeli comments. Like the CIA's programme that goes into action when certain key words are mentioned in emails or telephone conversations. I forget the name of it now. I'm sure someone here can remind me.

Megaphone is the name of another setup that alerts Israeli members to similar postings. Wherever Israel or Zionism is discussed these vultures will be hovering.
Please have a look at this link. This will show you exactly what I am talking about........
http://giyus.org/



exactly, this type of propaganda offensive is what happened during the gaza massacre

Hasbara spam alert

With Israel's foreign ministry organising volunteers to flood news websites with pro-Israeli comments, Propaganda 2.0 is here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/israel-foreign-ministry-media


whose to say there are no programmes to extend it to other places

this place is an obvious place, since it allows free speech, mostly.

[dogsmilk]

most of your posts sounds copied and pasted from somewhere else, i will answer anyway


If I ever copy and paste anything from someone else I reference it. I do sometime plagiarise my own posts from the past because I sometimes find I keep saying the same things over and over. Usually about Richard Krege for some reason.

its disengenuous to think i said and mean that every single bolshevist was a jew, obviously not, but it had an extremely heavy jewish influence from its roots, the birth of the movement was largely a jewish spawn, effectively making it an alien invasion on the russian people.


Well we've seen on this thread that Jewish influence on Bolshevism was hardly overwhelming. What's interesting is the way you describe it as an "alien invasion" - how were Russian Jews "aliens"? And in what way were they "invading"?


http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll225/Dogsmilk23/warofworldscopy.jpg



this is a cute retort, but that there were a few jewish anarchists around that time is neither here nor there, i am not trying to be virulently anti-jew and say each and every one is this or that, i am talking about the heavy influence of jews in bolshevism and events in russia


Ah, but the key issue is that Jews were drawn to all trains of thought and within radical strains of thought they would conflict just like you'd expect with everyone else. Thing is, if your assertion is merely that there were a disproportionate amount of Jews in Bolshevism...well and? Are you just suggesting Jews had a greater tendency than gentiles to be drawn to Bolshevism (well and Menshevism and whatever other interpretations of Marxist or whatever thought that were kicking around - it wasn't really just Bolsheviks was it?)...? Ho hum, fancy that. How marginally interesting. Ah! but you go on to say -

a few loose quotes and an ill thought out attempt of proof by contradiction do not change the weight of facts, that bolshevism was driven by jews, the main players were jews, that a particular ethno-religions group who are not natives to a nation but come to dominate it makes it their revolution, not the voice of ordinary russians.

the jews have always been a (air) tight knit community, they are an exception to all others due to combination of their history and their beliefs - they say that themselves.

its not uncommon for this type of unique shared experience to lend an automatic and intrinsic understanding, especially when its so roots and shared feelings and experiences are deep, we have historically seen this happen a fair bit, i know how you will react to this, but none the less, people should not be stifled in a forum like this.

So not only do you neatly ignore the banal fact Jews in the Soviet Union found themselves in an ever more precarious position in the Stalin era but you chuck in a bunch of assumptions - they have a mysterious shared understanding, they're a tight knit community. Wooooooo!!!!!! Th-them Jews...they stick together man...they all think as one...it's kind of sinister...

http://samuelatgilgal.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/village-of-the-damned.jpg

Some Jews thinking as one

Whereas in actual fact Jews - just like everyone else - see things their own way. Hence radical Jews were apt to fall out. Hence in the time period in question, Western European urbanised Jews did not relate well to Eastern European Jews. Hence there were Jews into Mussolini style fascism. Jews against Zionism members wouldn't appreciate you saying they have a shared, deep-set understanding with Israeli Zionists would they?

Sure some Jews go on about the Jewish community and how Jews are this and Jews are that - what the fuck do you expect?? You get people wanting to say the British are this and that or that the Umma is this or that. If you want to be influential/some kind of leader are you seriously going to go round saying Y'know at the end of the day we're all just people. We all interpret this stuff in different ways so there you go. I really can't pretend to speak for everyone...so I won't...er have a nice day...I'll be down the pub (huge Nuremburg style cheering).

And sure you get 'Jewish culture' which people attribute certain things to. But again, people attribute things to 'British culture' or 'Muslim culture' that may or may not be accurate to specific people in/or specific cohorts at specific times.

All this stuff is predicated on Jews being some mysterious alien 'other' working towards some kind of shared goal. Often with the added disclaimer that there are some poor old good Jews that just don't get what the evil Jews are up to. You see you need some kind of punchline else what you're saying is utterly banal anyway. So you have to suggest Jews are working towards some kind of goal - being "aliens" and all - and wham! It's (drumroll) - the Jewish conspiracy. They run communism!...They run capitalism! They're ALIENS!!!!!!.

What I'd really like to understand is where this Jew stuff comes from. People harp on about how it's 'true' and anyone who thinks otherwise is a Jewish shill based at the ADL headquarters, but never really want to explain where it comes from. A while ago I was asking people what 'official' Holocaust history they'd read and I got zero response. Nobody at all answered. Which I thought was odd. So I'd now like to ask - in all seriousness and not as a way of starting another argument - what process is it that leads to the conclusion of the massive influence of the Jews in all their media controllin', Bolshevism spawnin', alien invadin' glory? How did you (or anyone else) come to this firm conclusion? What did you read or observe? And what is the core narrative? What do you think is actually occurring, what should be the reaction and what is the desired end result? Why should anyone actually be arsed about how many Jews were Bolsheviks?

Who is being stifled on this forum? Really who and how? Do you want everyone to just agree with you? Will that make you happy? What power do I have - a standard poster just like you - to stifle anybody? What makes you think I want to?


so you admitt it was a jewish bolshevist movement and that the main opposition were jews aswell - not really helping your point about jews not being heavily involved in events does it? (hint, thats because they were)


Don't be daft - as should have been amazingly obvious it was the simple point that radical Jews were sometimes in conflict with one another. You just don't like to think of Jews as being just people like everyone else (for some inane reason).

take this quote from lenin

What about it? So Lenin though Jewish culture made Jews more disposed towards "democratic and proletarian" movements?
Well how totally amazing.

Oh please, please can you do me a favour? Can you post one of those big lists of quotes of famous people saying things about Jews we can all nod sagely at? I don't think I could get through another day without seeing another one of those.

Dogmilk's posts seem all copy and paste because that is what they are. All of these trolls who come here defending Zionism and trashing the truth seem to have a vast compendium of biased quotes and facts and figures at their fingertips.
They are obviously linked to some central source that supplies them with facts on whatever Zionist topic requested at the click of a key.
They are incredibly well organised. I believe it is called something like Jewish Internet Fighters for Israel.
They roam the internet looking for what they deem to be anti-semitic or anti-Israeli comments. Like the CIA's programme that goes into action when certain key words are mentioned in emails or telephone conversations. I forget the name of it now. I'm sure someone here can remind me.

Megaphone is the name of another setup that alerts Israeli members to similar postings. Wherever Israel or Zionism is discussed these vultures will be hovering.
Please have a look at this link. This will show you exactly what I am talking about........

Dan Dan Daaaaa!!!!!! Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No - it's CAPTAIN BULLSHIT!!!!

Dan-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na bullshit!

Captain Bullshit flapped his damp brown cape and surveyed the situation - he realised he hadn't bullshitted enough on this thread yet...hmmmm this looked like a job for his amazing powers of bullshit. What bullshit could he start talking?

Aha!

He could say that Dogsmilk defends Zionism! He knew that Dogsmilk occasionally says he is opposed to the actions of Israel and never defends Israeli policy towards the Palestinians...yes!...this was some prime bullshit...
He could say Dogsmilk has a "vast compendium of biased quotes and facts". This was some real tangy bullshit. Mmmmm mmmmm! This carried the implication that the selection of websites captain bullshit sits drooling in front of are bastions of objectivity and that by having bothered to read some books, Dogsmilk has access to a "vast compendium" of "biased" quotes. They are of course "biased" because they say things that contradict what Captain Bullshit has read in his top secret source of information 'they' hide from the public (AKA teh interwebs). This would doubtless remind Dogsmilk of the time he suspiciously wondered why Dogsmilk had 'access to so much detailed information' - he realised Dogsmilk would still chuckle at this hilarious remark and thus he could tap into bullshit power from the past.
On a roll now, he felt he could comment on how they "roam the internet" - given Dogsmilk has only ever been a regular on two forums and now only this one this would be bullshit, and he could repeat his Israel bullshit as well.
He tried to think of what Eschelon is called but his brain was too full of bullshit to remember.
Some pointless chuntering about megaphone and lo! His work was done! This was some mighty bullshit! He considered making up some deranged claim or other - perhaps that Robert Jan Van Pelt was paid forty billion pounds and made king of the moon for the Lipstadt trial, but he decided to keep some bullshit power back. Who knows...at any time he could see that big turd beamed into the sky calling him into action...he must be alert for the next time the David Icke forum needs...Captain Bullshit!

exactly, this type of propaganda offensive is what happened during the gaza massacre

What? You mean there were some posts on an internet forum?
The fiends!

Honestly, the grandiosity you get on this forum is utterly astounding.

[dogsmilk]

Oh sorry, overlooked this -

whats the date of that article?


how does it negate what i have said?

I don't know the date. I only know it because it cropped up in an argument with Alulim/Hetware, one of those Jew theorist Holocaust deniers that patrols internet forums bringing up Holocaust denial and Jew theory in the same way Captain Bullshit seems to think I do.

It illustrates that just because Churchill said something that doesn't mean he was correct.

[guzla]

Its the reptiles!

[yozhik]

dogsmilk, a lot of your posts seem detailed and well constructed ... but they don't actually have much weight behind them.

Take for example;

If you look at the footnotes to your wiki article, it draws heavily on Jeffrey Herf. Here's Herf on Jewish Bolsheviks I posted last time this came up

Quote:
As of 1917, roughly 1000, or about 5 percent, of the 23,000 members of the Bolshevik Party were Jewish. By August 1917, 6 of 21 members of the Central Committee were Jews: Lev Kamenev, Grigory Sokolnikov, Jakov Sverdlov, Grigory Zinoviev, Leon Trotsky, and Mosisei Uritsky. The party census of 1922 showed 19,564 Jewish members, 5.21 percent of the total. By 1927, the 49,627 Jewish members comprised 4.34 percent or less. By 1939, only 10 percent of the Central Committee was composed of Jews. After Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev had been ousted from the leadership in 1926, no Jews remained in the Politburo. In the Stalin era in the 1930s, Lazar Kaganovich became the only Jewish member of the Politburo – the exception that proved the rule. Of the 417 people who constituted the ruling elite of the Soviet Union in the mid-1920s (members of the Central Executive Committee, the party Central Committee, the Presidium of the Executive of the Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Republic, the ministers, and the chairman of the Executive Committee), 27, or 6 percent were Jewish. This proportion decreased radically in the 1930s, partly owing to the purge trials, which had strong anti-semitic overtones. During the Holocaust, the Stalin regime said very little about Nazi policies aimed specifically at Jews
Jeffrey Herf, the Jewish enemy p.96

Not all Jews are they?

You have been quite "clever" with this one ... and at first glance, it almost looks compelling.

However, there is a flaw.

What you have here is essentially statistics of membership.
It has no relation to power or influence.

I could construct the same argument re: Zimbabwe.
There are over 13,000,000 people in Zimbabwe and only one Robert Mugabe. This means that Robert Mugabe is just 0.000008% of Zimbabweans ... therefore to assert that Robert Mugabe created the events in his country is preposterous!

Extreme - sure, I'll grant you that ... but you get the idea.

So the "5% of total membership" is misleading, irrelevant and intentionally obfuscatory.

It's not about statistics who who is sitting where; it is more often about "influence" ... something which your numbers will never reflect.

Similar to the NWO ... none of the elite sit out in the open - they have puppets doing their work for them.

Is Herf a Jew, by any chance?

[killerzzs]

Well we've seen on this thread that Jewish influence on Bolshevism was hardly overwhelming.

i am afraid we have seen nothing from you, and you cannot really prove a negative

the roots of bolshevism are overwhelmingly jewish, do i need to name the names?

no ofcourse not, you know it, i know it, we both know it, i am really just entertaining your denial here


And in what way were they "invading"?

they were not ethnic russians, nor did they have any loyalty to russia, they were nomadic jews in spirit and mind who felt no warmth for their fellow russians and their only home was that which what they called ancient israel, these are their beliefs which they are taught in the talmud, look up their prayers and their rites

this led them to the slaughter of tens of millions, which is well documented

btw, please do not apply contemporary standards for racism and nationhood here, they do not apply.

Ah, but the key issue is that Jews were drawn to all trains

tut tut, my friend, i will have to stop this conversation if you continue to be so silly, it does not show anything, it shows that a few jews had a slightly different take on things, you are using the plural of jew rather liberally here, this is neither here nor there

they have a mysterious shared understanding

its not mysterious at all, they talk about it themselves, so why is it mysterious for you :confused::confused:

Don't be daft - as should have been amazingly obvious it was the simple point that radical Jews were sometimes in conflict with one another

yes, at the birth, drive and forefront of both movements, what a pioneering people these are huh?

nobody else ofcourse manages such consistency at being behind destructive movements, neo-conservatism being another clear example, where people of jewish happened to stumble their way into, ofcourse, because its totally unworthy of question how a tiny tiny minority come to dominate the majority of positions of power/influence


What about it? So Lenin though Jewish culture made Jews more disposed towards "democratic and proletarian" movements?
Well how totally amazing.

except he makes no direct mention of that :rolleyes:

democracy and communism :D:D

now i know you are having a joke my friend

hitler i guess wanted the best interests of the jews aswell, lol


I don't know the date.

i wager it was before his initial quote, which means he was put under pressure to change his mind by zionists, you will understand that as 30 silver pieces


What? You mean there were some posts on an internet forum?
The fiends!

no, there was a propaganda offensive to obscure free speech because it was anti-israeli, conducted by the israeli govt.

once again you have a problem in dealing with facts



"There is much in the fact of Bolshevism (Communism) itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism." - The Jewish Chronicle, April 4, 1919.


"You cannot be English Jews. We are a race, and only as a race can we perpetuate. Our mentality is of a Hebraic character, and differs from that of an Englishman. Enough subterfuges! Let us assert openly that we are International Jews." - Gerald Soman, Chairman of the World Jewry Fellowship, in its official manifesto, January 1, 1935.




remember, i am only after the truth and i see it as clear as day, 2+2=4

[killerzzs]

dogsmilk, a lot of your posts seem detailed and well constructed

thats because he has practised and followed a set formula of trying to make everyone seem anti-semtic and an irrational jew hater, he is playing the person,not the points, that is always his aims

he still cannot disrove the large jewish influence on communism, thats because his thinking is flawed from the start, you cannot prove a negative, he is just trying to obscure or place a seed of doubt


he relies most heavily on contextualisation



the truth is evident, jews were at the heart of communism, they were the intellectual founders, they were the leaders, they occupied positions of power and influence, jews living in other nations were always the main ones spreading communism, the movement was completely top heavy with jews


if that does not make it a jewish influence then what does?

[dogsmilk]

dogsmilk, a lot of your posts seem detailed and well constructed ... but they don't actually have much weight behind them.

Take for example;



You have been quite "clever" with this one ... and at first glance, it almost looks compelling.

However, there is a flaw.

What you have here is essentially statistics of membership.
It has no relation to power or influence.

I could construct the same argument re: Zimbabwe.
There are over 13,000,000 people in Zimbabwe and only one Robert Mugabe. This means that Robert Mugabe is just 0.000008% of Zimbabweans ... therefore to assert that Robert Mugabe created the events in his country is preposterous!

Extreme - sure, I'll grant you that ... but you get the idea.

So the "5% of total membership" is misleading, irrelevant and intentionally obfuscatory.

It's not about statistics who who is sitting where; it is more often about "influence" ... something which your numbers will never reflect.

Similar to the NWO ... none of the elite sit out in the open - they have puppets doing their work for them.

Is Herf a Jew, by any chance?

Well this is a slightly different argument to the one that Bolshevism was "over-run" with Jews as I believe K put it. So if you're going to argue it doesn't matter how many Jews their were, it was their influence, then I suppose you need to evidence this. Particularly given neither Lenin or Stalin were Jewish (moronic statements about Lenin having a Jewish grandparent and that utterly deranged 'Stalin-was-sired-by-the-Rothchilds' stuff notwithstanding) and that the number of Jews in prominent positions declined and several met rather sticky ends. Trotsky may have been highly influential for a while, but it didn't stop him getting icepicked.
You also need to explain why if Jews were a minority in power, their influence nevertheless overrode all the other people in power and why none of these people apparently noticed they were being controlled by Jews, as Jews for Jewish reasons: Herf isn't just talking about party membership he's talking about numbers of Jews in the apparatus of power isn't he?

Similar to the NWO ... none of the elite sit out in the open - they have puppets doing their work for them.


Well the likes of Trotsky and Zinoviev were out in the open weren't they? Are you suggesting they were puppets along with the likes of Lenin and Stalin? If so, then demonstrate how.

And going by your "extreme" example, there was substantiual 'Georgian influence' on the Soviet Union under Stalin...right?

On top of that you need to demonstrate why their Jewishness is related to their influence and why being Jewish is relevant to having influence.

Is Herf a Jew, by any chance?

Fucked if I know. For some bizarre reason, not only do they allow Jews to be professors, they even neglect to put a big yellow badge with a J in it in their university bio so people can be warned. It's political correctness gone mad!

Hang on though - he looks Jewish.

http://www.history.umd.edu/Faculty/JHerf/image.jpg

Brrrrrr! Good point. Can't trust a Jew! Everything he says must be bullshit. I'll burn the book immediately.

i am afraid we have seen nothing from you, and you cannot really prove a negative

the roots of bolshevism are overwhelmingly jewish, do i need to name the names?

no ofcourse not, you know it, i know it, we both know it, i am really just entertaining your denial here


Well then maybe you should name names.

But again, you stoically neglect to make any explanation as to what it is that is so vitally important about how 'Jewish' Bolshevism was. I can't for the life of me understand why. You people seem to think if you say oh yeah look at all these Jews in Bolshevism. That makes Bolshvism Jewish innit people will just nod their heads in agreement.


they were not ethnic russians, nor did they have any loyalty to russia, they were nomadic jews in spirit and mind who felt no warmth for their fellow russians and their only home was that which what they called ancient israel, these are their beliefs which they are taught in the talmud, look up their prayers and their rites


Really? I have to confess I have no real knowledge about Russsian Jews (and I rather suspect neither do you), but wheeling out some flannel about "their prayers and their rites" is just pitiful. Here you're just plucking something out of thin air and pretending you have a clue what you're talking about. I mean on what basis do you claim "they were nomadic Jews" and "nor did they have any loyalty to Russia". And how do you know they “felt no warmth” for fellow Russians?

If Russian Jews were born, lived and died in Russia then how were they 'alien invaders'? Some fluff about 'ethnic Russians' does not cut it.

Mind you, IIRC Jews were picked on a bit in Tsarist Russia and subject to some restrictions. I guess this may have alienated them from the authorities somewhat, but then this would also give a logical reason why they'd be drawn to a movement seeking to precipitate social change, so I'd guess you'd probably want to avoid going down that path.

It goes without saying that why "nomadic Jews" whose only home was "ancient israel" would apparently suddenly see fit to suddenly set up the Soviet Union remains to be explained.

this led them to the slaughter of tens of millions, which is well documented


You mean under that famous Georgian Uncle Joe Stalin?

btw, please do not apply contemporary standards for racism and nationhood here, they do not apply.


Eh?

yes, at the birth, drive and forefront of both movements, what a pioneering people these are huh?

nobody else ofcourse manages such consistency at being behind destructive movements, neo-conservatism being another clear example, where people of jewish happened to stumble their way into, ofcourse, because its totally unworthy of question how a tiny tiny minority come to dominate the majority of positions of power/influence


Come again? "Communism" and "Anarchism" used to be fairly interchangeable terms and so Jews were "at the birth" huh. what birth? How far back do you go? (anti-semite) Proudhon's what is property?? Godwin's enquiry concerning political justice? the Diggers? When? You do realise communism/anarchism didn't just spring from the void when some Jews waved their magic wands and that such ideas evolved over hundreds of years...right? And what about Kropotkin? Bakunin? Malatesta? Reclus?

Actually, if we take Godwin, he came up with a kind of utilitarian anarchist philosophy, I think the first attempt to do so in the framework of western Enlightenment philosophy. The book was nearly banned, particularly it being 1793 and things being rather turbulent across the channel - IIRC correctly they decided not to ban it cause they figured the plebs wouldn't get access to it or get their heads round it. As well as Godwin being a big influence on radical thought (he also helped pioneer the thriller with novels like caleb williams which deliberately weaved in his political ideas), Godwin and his family generally were significantly influential in literature, poetry and politics -
wife Mary Wollstonecraft - author of vindication of the rights of women and big influence on feminism
daughter Mary Shelley - author of frankenstein, an enormously influential novel
son-in-law Percy Shelley - highly noted and at times quite political poet.
son-in-law (by step-daughter from second wife) George Byron - another highly influential poet and social reformer with a seat in the House of Lords

I can guarantee if this was a Jewish family you'd have all kinds of things to say about them. Since they weren't, you probably couldn't give a fuck. It's just how your mind works isn't it?

Otherwise, nice one for turning the banal fact that Jews are drawn to all trains of thought into the arbitrary assertion they somehow manufacture them.

I'd actually agree there has been a lot of people of Jewish backgrounds among the neocons. And? Neoconservatism is a horrible ideology (mind you, so is paleoconservatism if you ask me) that's probably had its day now. If you think Jewish people being big players in it is amazingly significant, then it would be useful if you explained what's 'Jewish' about neoconservatism as an ideology, why Jews chose to invent it as Jews, how they 'engineered' it into place and why it has been so appealing to so many gentiles. I mean, neoconservatism has been around for decades, built to a climax in terms of influence and is on the wane again. What's the big fucking deal?

Interestingly you say

consistency at being behind destructive movements, neo-conservatism being another clear example,

Ok, if that's just “one example”, please provide a list of “destructive movements” Jews created. Also please define “destructive movements”

And exactly how many "destructive movements" have there been throughout history? All Jewish are they? Fucking hell...





tut tut, my friend, i will have to stop this conversation if you continue to be so silly, it does not show anything, it shows that a few jews had a slightly different take on things, you are using the plural of jew rather liberally here, this is neither here nor there


No - it shows that Jews - like every other classifcation of human beings on the planet - are heterogeneous and apt to adopt whatever ideology happens to ring their bell. Kind of like everyone else.

its not mysterious at all, they talk about it themselves, so why is it mysterious for you

I already talked about this in my last post. If you choose to ignore my replies, that's up to you. In fact, it's interesting how I manage to be fairly meticulous about addressing all your points, yet you see fit to ignore chunks of my replies. I expect no less of Jew theorists though. They excel in selective perception.

except he makes no direct mention of that

democracy and communism

now i know you are having a joke my friend

hitler i guess wanted the best interests of the jews aswell, lol



There the great world-progressive features of Jewish culture stand clearly revealed: its internationalism, its identification with the advanced movements of the epoch (the percentage of Jews in the democratic and proletarian movements is everywhere higher than the percentage of Jews among the population)."



no, there was a propaganda offensive to obscure free speech because it was anti-israeli, conducted by the israeli govt.

once again you have a problem in dealing with facts


whose to say there are no programmes to extend it to other places

this place is an obvious place, since it allows free speech, mostly.

So you appeared to be speaking in the context of this forum. I was taking the piss.

i wager it was before his initial quote, which means he was put under pressure to change his mind by zionists, you will understand that as 30 silver pieces


This is why talking to you people is such a surreal experience - so now you've just decided he was "put under pressure" - how or why or anything resembling any evidence whatsoever is utterly irrelevant to you - you happily just make something up so it fits your belief system - and in the next breath you'll be going on about how you're only interested in 'the truth'. And blow me -

remember, i am only after the truth and i see it as clear as day, 2+2=4


So presumably this truth of yours includes the bits you made up...right?

The really funny part is if you'd bothered to click on the link and actually read the piece you'd have discovered it's Churchill saying exactly what you were going on about in the first place!:.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the
creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about
of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for
the most part atheistical Jews; it probably outweighs all others. With the
notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading
figures are Jews

Maybe you should team up with Captain 'Tyler' Bullshit and become his sidekick? Tagnut Boy or Winnit Lad perhaps?

This is why that other Jew theorist guy was posting it on another forum.

But then he sees Zionism as the answer

Zionism offers the third sphere to the political
conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to
international communism, it presents to the Jew a
national idea of a commanding character. it has fallen to
the British Government, as the result of the conquest of
Palestine, to have the opportunity and the responsibility
of securing for the Jewish race all over the world a home
and centre of national life. The statesmanship and
historic sense of Mr. Balfour were prompt to seize this
opportunity. Declarations have now been made which have
irrevocably decided the policy of Great Britain. The
fiery energies of Dr. Weissmann, the leader, for
practical purposes, of the Zionist project. backed by
many of the most prominent British Jews, and supported by
the full authority of Lord Allenby, are all directed to
achieving the success of this inspiring movement.

Of course, Palestine is far too small to accommodate
more than a fraction of the Jewish race, nor do the
majority of national Jews wish to go there. But if, as
may well happen, there should be created in our own
lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under
the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise
three or four millions of Jews, an event would have
occurred in the history of the world which would, from
every point of view, be beneficial, and would be
especially in harmony with the truest interests of the
British Empire.

ionism has already become a factor in the political
convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence
in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic
system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury
with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally,
and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of
his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a
world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are
directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which
directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land
towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable
goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the
Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle
for the soul of the Jewish people.
[/quote]

So don't tell me - the Zionists 'got to' Winnie and made him perceive that Jews had a choice between Zionism or communism. Or something. You'll make his opinions fit your belief system somehow wontcha tiger? And then claim it's 'the truth'.

Furthermore, you can see where he's at by the way he does stuff like lump Goldman in with Trotsky and I thought the bit I bolded was interesting -

From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of
Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun
(Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman
(United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of
society on the basis of arrested development, of envious
malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily
growing.




thats because he has practised and followed a set formula of trying to make everyone seem anti-semtic and an irrational jew hater, he is playing the person,not the points, that is always his aims

he still cannot disrove the large jewish influence on communism, thats because his thinking is flawed from the start, you cannot prove a negative, he is just trying to obscure or place a seed of doubt


he relies most heavily on contextualisation


What fascinates me is the way people go round the Jews engineered lots of bad stuff (for some reason - fuck knows what) - Jews this, Jews that, Jews Jews Jews - and then act like it's some kind of persecution when people think they may be a tad prejudice. But any time you try to suggest people might be talking out their arse, they wail and gnash their teeth and try to make out you calling them all kinds of Jew hater. Yet any trawl through my posts shows I'm quite rude to people I argue with but very rarely call them explicitly anti-semitic. How do I know? Maybe they just lack critical faculties and believe any old cobblers they read on the net while being fundamentally non-prejudicial by nature.

Of course on the other hand, I'm frequently apparently a Zionist, must be Jewish, working for the ADL or whatever. That's allowed though, right?

It might have escaped your attention, but on your part you have 'proved' exactly jack shit on this thread.


of course contextualisation is important. Everything happens in a context. People round here seem to think just rattling off some quotes of stuff Jews have said or whatever somehow means something. Are you seriously suggesting context isn't vital?? I mean - thanks for the lovely quotes -
"There is much in the fact of Bolshevism (Communism) itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism." - The Jewish Chronicle, April 4, 1919.

Quote:
"You cannot be English Jews. We are a race, and only as a race can we perpetuate. Our mentality is of a Hebraic character, and differs from that of an Englishman. Enough subterfuges! Let us assert openly that we are International Jews." - Gerald Soman, Chairman of the World Jewry Fellowship, in its official manifesto, January 1, 1935.



LOL - hooray!

Let's take the first; who wrote it? What were they trying to say? What was their ideological standpoint? What's the full piece about?

In terms of the second one, who the fuck was Gerald Soman? Who exactly were the World Jewry Fellowship? Were they big? Were they popular? Did they exist? Why does what Mr Soman says mean anything profound regarding what Jews in general think? I don't know - since you posted it I assume you do.


the truth is evident, jews were at the heart of communism, they were the intellectual founders, they were the leaders, they occupied positions of power and influence, jews living in other nations were always the main ones spreading communism, the movement was completely top heavy with jews


if that does not make it a jewish influence then what does?

Yet even if we take that at face value we're still left with...and?

Why do you persistently refuse to explain what you're really getting at?

So ok, let's say I agree with everything you say – then what? Jews invented communism – and? What reaction are you trying to get? What do you want to do about it?

Heh – and incidentally if Jews were “always the main ones spreading communism”, please give me your fascinating expose of how Jews were the principal actors spreading communism in China, Vietnam, Korea and Cuba.

[yozhik]

Good lord ... another flood of so the thread drowns in rancid dogsmilk.

A simple, brief answer, has more impact.
Or is your intent to overwhelm with quantity rather than quality?

[dogsmilk]

Good lord ... another flood of so the thread drowns in rancid dogsmilk.

A simple, brief answer, has more impact.
Or is your intent to overwhelm with quantity rather than quality?

I really am most dreadfully sorry - in future I'll endeavour to restrict myself to factoids, sloganeering and simply ignoring much of what people say.

Happy?

[yozhik]

Well this is a slightly different argument to the one that Bolshevism was "over-run" with Jews as I believe K put it.
"overun" can mean "overun with external influence".

You also need to explain why if Jews were a minority in power, their influence nevertheless overrode all the other people in power and why none of these people apparently noticed they were being controlled by Jews
Think U.S.A.
Think lobbyists.

Perfect example of how it can be done.

Well the likes of Trotsky and Zinoviev were out in the open weren't they? Are you suggesting they were puppets along with the likes of Lenin and Stalin? If so, then demonstrate how.
Again, look towards the U.S.A for a "living, breathing demonstration" of it in action.

And going by your "extreme" example, there was substantiual 'Georgian influence' on the Soviet Union under Stalin...right?
Do not put words into my mouth, so as to then answer your own question and complete your agenda.

http://www.history.umd.edu/Faculty/JHerf/image.jpg

Brrrrrr! Good point. Can't trust a Jew! Everything he says must be bullshit. I'll burn the book immediately.

I asked a simple question.
But ... oh my ... it did seem to get your heckles up :rolleyes:
(no surprise there)

My point being; if he is Jewish, then it is not at all unreasonable to suggest he will be writing from a Jewish perspective.
Nothing wrong with that; unless of course he is held up, by some, as a "neutral expert".
It would be the same as quoting a Nazi historian and his views (and justification) of the WWII work camps.

It's all about perspective.
We are products of our environment.
If I am raised in a Jewish family and taught Jewish customs, it is only reasonable to expect me to have Jewish sympathies and Jewish viewpoints on certain events.
That's not anti-semitic ... its human nature.

You people seem to think if you say oh yeah look at all these Jews in Bolshevism. That makes Bolshvism Jewish innit people will just nod their heads in agreement.
"You people" ???
Is that Jewish prejudice and bigotry??
"You people"??? ... what does that mean?

[yozhik]

I really am most dreadfully sorry - in future I'll endeavour to restrict myself to factoids, sloganeering and simply ignoring much of what people say.

Happy?

As I suggested ... brief = impact.
Sarcasm has little impact.

You want people to comprehend your views?
Then be more concise.

If you want to troll and flood the board so as to render it illegible ... continue with your flooding and spamming. "Copy and paste" is not debating and sharing ideas ... its lazy and its done with little thought. It requires zero comprehension of the views being expressed by others ... and as you have already demonstrated; when you copy and paste and are hellbent on fulfilling a predetermined agenda, you also need to pose your own questions so you can post (copy and paste) rehashed spam that you haven't had the chance to plaster and pollute the board with.

Original thoughts ever come into your head?
Or do your Zionist masters simply wind you up and set you off to complete your (their) tasks?

[breezinreezin]

"You people" ???
Is that Jewish prejudice and bigotry??
"You people"??? ... what does that mean?

It's what psychologists call a 'tell', I believe.

[yozhik]

It's what psychologists call a 'tell', I believe.

Hey ... all I know is if ANYONE ever referred to Jews as "you people" ... we'd be hauled into a courtroom and have an ADL funded lawyer jumping all over our ass, screaming "anti-semitic" at the top of their lungs.

I smell hypocracy.

... but then again, us goyim are only worthless, stinking, expendable cattle anyway ... so I guess no crime has been committed ... :rolleyes: ... because as we all know, a Jew can not be guilty of a "crime" if it is done against a non-Jew. Right?

[breezinreezin]

I don't know what to make of the whole argument. I don't have sufficient knowledge or interest in history to be able to argue some of Dogsmilks points, but I do wonder about his motives. If it's that he has some sense of duty to correct what he believes are historical errrors, that's cool. But my observations are that he mostly only ever argues in defence of Jews above and beyond the call of duty. Why? What drives him to sit for hours writing in the defence of a group that he states he has no ties with?

[dogsmilk]

"overun" can mean "overun with external influence".

What external influence is this then?


Think U.S.A.
Think lobbyists.

Perfect example of how it can be done.

Again, look towards the U.S.A for a "living, breathing demonstration" of it in action.



So hang on - are you suggesting there was a Jewish lobby in the Soviet Union? Like the other lobby groups you get ranging from the Armenian lobby to corporate lobbies. News to me, that - who were they? Did the Soviet Union actually operate in that way? Where were the Jewish lobby based? Who did they meet with? This is fascinating - do tell me more.


Do not put words into my mouth, so as to then answer your own question and complete your agenda.

I'm not. You used the example of Mugabe's influence trying to show it was absurd he had little influence by saying he was a tiny minority of the population.
Thing is, if Stalin was Jewish you'd be wetting yourself about it and trumpeting about how it 'proves' Jewish influence, yet I'm sure we can both agree that the fact he was Georgian isn't something to get excited about.


I asked a simple question.
But ... oh my ... it did seem to get your heckles up :rolleyes:
(no surprise there)

My point being; if he is Jewish, then it is not at all unreasonable to suggest he will be writing from a Jewish perspective.
Nothing wrong with that; unless of course he is held up, by some, as a "neutral expert".
It would be the same as quoting a Nazi historian and his views (and justification) of the WWII work camps.

It's all about perspective.
We are products of our environment.
If I am raised in a Jewish family and taught Jewish customs, it is only reasonable to expect me to have Jewish sympathies and Jewish viewpoints on certain events.
That's not anti-semitic ... its human nature.

I knew you'd say that.

Now the other variable is that Jews are generally more likely to be interested in Jewish affairs and history. Makes sense doesn't it? If he shows a clear bias, then this is totally open to critique from others, particularly through such things as peer review and what non-Jewish scholars write.
The interesting thing about this particular example is it's fact based - if his statistics are wrong they can be challenged can't they? Being Jewish has no impact on whether your stats are correct does it?

What's particularly interesting is the way nobody seems to give a shit about the bias of their Jew theorist and Holocaust denial sources which are awash with Nazis and people who just don't like Jews. Indeed, if you point this out, people are apt to say that's character assassination that has no bearing on the validity of their claims. People seem to think just being a Jew - irrespective of whether the person is particularly concerned with their Jewishness indicates bias (or urges for world domination or whatever) - yet don't appear to care about bias in people who willingly and consciously adopt an ideology. Because it suits their purposes to do so. Hell, just because someone is Jewish, what makes you assume they care about 'Jewish customs'? I've met people raised in Jewish, Christian and Muslim families that aren't arsed at all about their 'customs'. But they don't appear to care if someone is a white nationalist, anti-semite or neo-Nazi.
I didn't see you turning up the last time Richard Harwood's bullshit was posted cautioning people that as a Nazi he' was probably a tad biased. And you wouldn't. Because you don't care.

Furthermore, people ignore actual Jewish bias when it suits them. So you get these quotes from Jews saying stuff about what Jews are like and what Jews should be doing with the implication it's somehow a statement about what Jews think - totally ignoring the obvious fact that Jews who have a particularly strong ideological notion of what Jewishness means will come out with rhetoric that says nothing more than what they personally or their particular organisation thinks.


"You people" ???
Is that Jewish prejudice and bigotry??
"You people"??? ... what does that mean?

I mean Jew theorists. They're a regressive subspecies.:D

See? You think I'm Jewish. Yet my entire family is white British. On 'racial' grounds, I would have cruised into the SS. It's just like I said earlier - you bozos bleat on about how everyone accuses you of anti-semitism while simultaneously being routinely unable to avoid convincing yourselves anyone who disagrees with you has an 'agenda'. It really is quite pathetic. And childish.

As I suggested ... brief = impact.
Sarcasm has little impact.

You want people to comprehend your views?
Then be more concise.

If you want to troll and flood the board so as to render it illegible ... continue with your flooding and spamming. "Copy and paste" is not debating and sharing ideas ... its lazy and its done with little thought. It requires zero comprehension of the views being expressed by others ... and as you have already demonstrated; when you copy and paste and are hellbent on fulfilling a predetermined agenda, you also need to pose your own questions so you can post (copy and paste) rehashed spam that you haven't had the chance to plaster and pollute the board with.

Your choice.

If you can't follow lengthy posts, then maybe you should attend some adult literacy classes or something. As it is I don't give a flying fuck about whether my posts get your personal seal of approval - sorry.
You may think everyone should follow the way of the Jew theorist and tactically ignore chunks of people's posts, but I believe it's better to try to address other people's arguments as fully as you can be arsed to. I'm sorry if that upsets you.

How much do I copy and paste? Really? Look at my posts on this thread - how much is copied and pasted? I have addressed pretty much everything put to me with my own words, yet you say I just copy and paste. How do you work that out?
Yet your crowd excel in just copying stuff you saw on the web.

Thing is, you just don't like anyone disagreeing with you. You'd prefer some cosy backslapping club where everyone just concocts ever more outlandish allegations about Jews.

[deany]

I don't know what to make of the whole argument. I don't have sufficient knowledge or interest in history to be able to argue some of Dogsmilks points, but I do wonder about his motives. If it's that he has some sense of duty to correct what he believes are historical errrors, that's cool. But my observations are that he mostly only ever argues in defence of Jews above and beyond the call of duty. Why? What drives him to sit for hours writing in the defence of a group that he states he has no ties with?


maybe his signature will give us a clue??

"shilling for the holohoax since 2007"

"busting the potatohoax since 2009"

[yozhik]

You're an angry little fucker, aren't you?
So much hostility ... so much aggression.
... and so much childish (your word) argumentum ad hominem.
So much for taking the moral high ground.

Obviously some issues "in there" somewhere.

Again, to "copy and paste" your sentiments;
As it is I don't give a flying fuck about whether my posts get your personal seal of approval - sorry.

[yozhik]

I don't know what to make of the whole argument. I don't have sufficient knowledge or interest in history to be able to argue some of Dogsmilks points, but I do wonder about his motives. If it's that he has some sense of duty to correct what he believes are historical errrors, that's cool. But my observations are that he mostly only ever argues in defence of Jews above and beyond the call of duty. Why? What drives him to sit for hours writing in the defence of a group that he states he has no ties with?

He is paid by the Zionists to "correct" information on the internet.
This is his full time job.
An international payment from the heart of Mossad is transferred into his Jewish bankster owned account, like clockwork, every month.

:D :D :D :D

Total bullshit of course, posted for pure entertainment value and the irony of it all ...

or is it?

[dogsmilk]

I don't know what to make of the whole argument. I don't have sufficient knowledge or interest in history to be able to argue some of Dogsmilks points, but I do wonder about his motives. If it's that he has some sense of duty to correct what he believes are historical errrors, that's cool. But my observations are that he mostly only ever argues in defence of Jews above and beyond the call of duty. Why? What drives him to sit for hours writing in the defence of a group that he states he has no ties with?

It's my thing.

[dogsmilk]

You're an angry little fucker, aren't you?
So much hostility ... so much aggression.
... and so much childish (your word) argumentum ad hominem.
So much for taking the moral high ground.

Obviously some issues "in there" somewhere.

Again, to "copy and paste" your sentiments;

Well I actually experienced no anger writing that. Actually it's just the way I speak in 'real life'.

Seems like you're the one getting wound up...

[dogsmilk]

maybe his signature will give us a clue??

"shilling for the holohoax since 2007"

"busting the potatohoax since 2009"

Oh noes! My sig! They noticed!

[yozhik]

Well I actually experienced no anger writing that. Actually it's just the way I speak in 'real life'.

Seems like you're the one getting wound up...

Not true ... sorry to disappoint you.

Here's the deal;
I don't have the answers ... I only have questions.
I'm not tied into one side of the story.
I do not have an agenda.
What I do know is there is something incredibly "fishy" about the whole Holocaust story.
The numbers do not add up.
The secrecy is revealing in itself.
Those scientific experts who DO speak out, are ostracised; their careers ruined.
The fact that "thought crimes" exist for anyone who publicly questions it, is repugnant.

Every event in history is subject to investigation, scrutiny and debate ... except this one topic.

Why is that?

That's what I "don't get".

Your posts do not sway; they bludgeon.
Whenever a viewpoint is given with such ferociousness and bloody mindedness, my bullshit meter goes off the scale.

Now, you may be well meaning.
You obviously have passion.
However, rather than sway or explain a viewpoint, it reinforces the perception (right or wrong) that the propaganda machine is in full force.

You do not answer any of the questions ... you merely compound and reinforce the views and criticisms of those looking for answers.

[breezinreezin]

Well I actually experienced no anger writing that. Actually it's just the way I speak in 'real life'.

Seems like you're the one getting wound up...

Then you're either built like a brick shithouse or fast on your feet.

[killerzzs]

most of what you say is completely diversionary, in fact we should make it a sort of rule to speak concisely and avoid waffle, also any inference you make from facts are your own, i demand that you do not imply they are mine, its the result of your supression of free speech


also i am reducing the words i use, as you jump on every chance to create a diversion

please read

step

by

step

Well then maybe you should name names.

i already have, refer to the earlier link


so you admitt the ethno/religious gorup of jews were largly responsible for bolshevism, well dont my friend, congratulate yourself

wheeling out some flannel about "their prayers and their rites" is just pitiful.

like a muslim fundamentalist who is taught certain things from childhood in a madrassa will have a specific world view then so will a jew who has been taught certain prayer rites and talmudic teachings (which is basically what das kapital seems like, since marx came from a family of rabbi's), only that its more intense with jews due to their feeling of having a harsh history, walk a mile in their shoes first

If Russian Jews were born, lived and died in Russia then how were they 'alien invaders'? Some fluff about 'ethnic Russians' does not cut it.

as i said earlier, they were not ethnically russian, they were aliens to the russian people and only russian by technicality, their hearts were in biblical israel, which is why they killed so many people


in fact russia still has a strong connection jewish crime networks this day, that ofcourse another story

what birth? How far back do you go?

the intellectual and political leaders, duuuh

marx, lenin, trotsky

Solomon Lozovsky: deputy Soviet foreign minister

Maxim Wallach (Litvinov): Soviet foreign minister

Jacob Sverdlov: first president of the Soviet Union.

Jacob Yurovsky: commander, Soviet Secret Police


the list is goes on and on

remember, we are not talking about ethnic russians/slavs

we are talking about a specific race/religions, relatively tiny in number who came to take up a ridiculously disproportionate number of the top positions, as well as being the founders of the movement

ofcourse you know this is a fact

you just want to contextualise it in your own way, i stand for free sppech my friend, i shall not be silenced by you

2+2 = 4

I'd actually agree there has been a lot of people of Jewish backgrounds among the neocons.

exactly, just as there were in bolshevism.

two movements which have led to the death of millions, just stating a fact, any inference you make is yours



No - it shows that Jews - like every other classifcation of human beings on the planet - are heterogeneous and apt to adopt whatever ideology happens to ring their bell. Kind of like everyone else.

you mentioned a few names, big deal, 2 or 3 names is statistically meaningless, plus there were plenty of jewish capitalists and i never made a sweeping remark that they were ALL like that, point invalid.


What fascinates me is the way people go round the Jews engineered lots of bad stuff (for some reason - fuck knows what) - Jews this, Jews that, Jews Jews Jews - and then act like it's some kind of persecution when people think they may be a tad prejudice.

i merely want free speech and want to be able to say that if person x,y,z is a jew then i can

remember, all inferences are your own, i stand for free speech


Yet even if we take that at face value we're still left with


are you denying that the historicla records are wrong, that the jews who were involved in bolshevism were not? lets atleast get this straight.

these are all quotes from encylopedia judacia, declassified american sources, completely unbiased

Jews played in creating the Soviet Union. On page 792 it says : "Individual Jews played an important role in the early stages of Bolshevism and the Soviet Regime" (below).




http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3544/encjud7.jpg

Below: Both these telegrams are from official US National Archives: the upper one, State Department document 861.00/1757 was sent on 2 May 1918, from Moscow by US Consul General Summers. The lower one, State Department document 861.00/2205, was sent from Vladivostok on 5 July 1918, by US Consul Caldwell. Both describe the domination of the Bolshevik Communists by Jews, using the words "Fifty per cent of Soviet Government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type..."

Copies of documents from the US National Archives are freely available to anyone from the Washington DC, USA, office.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3328/ustelegram01a.jpg




"it is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type..."

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/6281/ustelegram02a.jpg


but then again, why are we arguing about the obvious?

because you want to deny me my right to speak the truth, shame on you young man!


please give me your fascinating expose of how Jews were the principal actors spreading communism in China, Vietnam, Korea and Cuba.
che guevara was jewish my friend, LOL.


the German Jew, Kurt Eisner, led a short lived communist revolution in Munich, Bavaria from November 1918 to February 1919 (at the same time that Adolf Hitler was an unknown soldier in that city - the effect of being a first hand witness to a Jewish and Communist-led revolution helped to cement Hitler's anti-Communist and anti-Jewish feelings);

the short lived Sparticus uprising in Berlin (September 1918 to January 1919) led by the German Jews, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg; and

the short lived Communist tyranny in Hungary led by the Jew, Bela Kun (Cohen), from March to August 1919.

[yozhik]

che guevara was jewish my friend, LOL.




That might be pushing the envelope just a little.
I've seen and read the reports that exist, but calling them "flimsy" is an understatement.

In fact, I'm not sure I'd even use them for toilet paper.

The jury is most certainly "still out" on this one.

[dogsmilk]

Not true ... sorry to disappoint you.

Here's the deal;
I don't have the answers ... I only have questions.
I'm not tied into one side of the story.
I do not have an agenda.
What I do know is there is something incredibly "fishy" about the whole Holocaust story.
The numbers do not add up.
The secrecy is revealing in itself.
Those scientific experts who DO speak out, are ostracised; their careers ruined.
The fact that "thought crimes" exist for anyone who publicly questions it, is repugnant.

Every event in history is subject to investigation, scrutiny and debate ... except this one topic.

Why is that?

That's what I "don't get".

Your posts do not sway; they bludgeon.
Whenever a viewpoint is given with such ferociousness and bloody mindedness, my bullshit meter goes off the scale.

Now, you may be well meaning.
You obviously have passion.
However, rather than sway or explain a viewpoint, it reinforces the perception (right or wrong) that the propaganda machine is in full force.

You do not answer any of the questions ... you merely compound and reinforce the views and criticisms of those looking for answers.

I'm not sure in what way you mean the numbers “don't add up”, but I'm having a break from Holocaust arguments, so I'm not getting into whatever canard you've been reading.
I do wonder what you mean by “secrecy” though. And “scientific experts” for that matter.

I personally disagree with anti-denial laws. As do a lot of historians. However I think you're over-egging things somewhat. Firstly, the consequences of denial are varied. E.g. In America you've got a spectrum whereby Leuchter lost his career, Arthur Butz still holds his electrical and computer engineering professorship at Northwestern University and Mark Weber made a career out of being a denier, with recent grumblings in denierdom about him allegedly pocketing loads of cash while the IHR does basically fuck all these days. Bradley Smith lives in Mexico (I think) and was a failed writer before being a denier gave him some fame and a following. Sure people like Zundel and Rudolf have been imprisoned but at least in Zundel's case (Rudolf is more ambiguous but IIRC he said some interesting things in his early days), as I've said before, as a Nazi he should have a grudging respect for his freedom of speech being curtailed. I don't think it's good he's been locked up, but I can't help finding this 'Nazis for free speech' stuff you get quite funny.

The anti-denier legislation I've actually looked at specifies denial of “Nazi atrocities” or suchlike. This invariably gets conflated with Jews as I'm not aware of any denier that doesn't focus on the Jews (specifically the gas chambers) – I don't know of anyone who's denied, say, T4 on its own. I think the issue gets centered around Jews precisely because that's who deniers are preoccupied with. Similarly actual and desired moves to ban denial of the Armenian genocide and Stalin's crimes just doesn't seem to generate any interest, let alone the hand-wringing you get on forums like this. Why not? From a freedom of speech perspective, surely the issues are exactly the same?

I think this notion that because denial is banned in some countries there's 'something to hide' is utterly ludicrous. You can buy much of the denier stuff on Amazon for fuck's sake. Or download it for free. In societies like ours which actually have a high level of freedom of speech, if you wanted to hide something , the best way to do so is to totally ignore it and let it drown in the vast amount of available information. How many people would ever have heard of that imbecile Toben if he didn't get arrested and hit the news? How many people who stick up for the likes of him and Irving on freedom of speech grounds would just ignore them otherwise? Banning denial makes news stories. News stories mean attention.

And they like it. Apart from the difficulties face by those that actually get locked up, it's a godsend. Everyone loves a martyr and people sat at home at their computers can pretend they're in some kind of exciting underground movement. And round here, you get folk sat in the comfort of their own homes wailing and gnashing their teeth about the awful suppression of Holocaust denial while posting links to a bewildering array of denial websites. Then you've got Killerzzs now apparently suffering from a delusion their freedom of speech is somehow being curtailed by me not lapping up every word – pulling the same stunt Sophia H used to.

Your posts do not sway; they bludgeon.
Whenever a viewpoint is given with such ferociousness and bloody mindedness, my bullshit meter goes off the scale.

I neither know nor care whether I “sway” anyone. I say what I think and say what I say and that's that. I don't mean this in a confrontational way at all, but I really don't give a shit whether people like my posting style or not. Why would I?
I'd have to be fucking crackers to think I could ever convince the deniers and Jew theorists of anything. They've found religion; you can't argue with that shit.


You do not answer any of the questions ... you merely compound and reinforce the views and criticisms of those looking for answers.

What? You think I think I've got the answers? I'm no expert. As far as I'm concerned these discussions are no more sage and informed than pub talk.
There are loads of answers out there though it just sometimes takes time and effort to find them.
It's like with all this denier stuff – I just cannot understand why people don't appear to seriously study 'official history' before deciding it's false.

[dogsmilk]

Then you're either built like a brick shithouse or fast on your feet.

Heh - the internet isn't very good at conveying the tone in which you say things.
And people that know me know I 'go off on one' about things.

[dogsmilk]

most of what you say is completely diversionary, in fact we should make it a sort of rule to speak concisely and avoid waffle,

What waffle? You mean the things I put to you you keep ignoring? Maybe we should make it a rule not to cherry pick which points we choose to address? Whaddya reckon?

also any inference you make from facts are your own, i demand that you do not imply they are mine, its the result of your supression of free speech



What's this senseless glossolalia supposed to mean? Have you been taking a drug you shouldn't or not taking one you should?

Your dinky list of names -

Lenin – not Jewish. Had one Jewish grandparent. Hell I think gramps was even a convert to Christianity. Even under Nazi law that would make him a mischling of the second degree and thus actually permitted to marry an Aryan. Congratulations on having a definition of “Jew” more stringent than the Third Reich.

See this is how you give yourself away as being a crank; playing spot the Jew by whatever tenuous means you can – you're not interested in who's Jewish in any meaningful sense, you just want to 'find' as many 'Jews' as possible. It's absurd.

Marx – received a Lutheran education, subsequently rejected all religion (like all your commie Jews really) and even wrote a book slagging off Jews. He utterly rejected Judaism.

Trotsky – never went near a synagogue as far as I know but definitely of Jewish heritage despite his atheism. Driven out and subsequently murdered by Stalin.

Lozovsky – imprisoned and tortured in one of Stalin's anti-semitic episodes

Sverdlov – "first president of the Soviet Union"" - died in 1918. The Soviet Union didn't actually come into being until 1922
And I was under the impression the Soviet Union didn't actually have a president until Gorbachev held the office in 1990. But I see now it had a zombie president back in 1922.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b261/thetrademark1/tarman.jpg

Sverdlov issues his first presidential decree - “braiiiiiiins!!!!!”

Yurovsky – I have no idea if he was Jewish or not. Was never head of the Cheka. I suspect you've got this from one of those stock articles that endlessly recycles round the internet.

But why bother? After all -


you mentioned a few names, big deal,

2 or 3 names is statistically meaningless, plus there were plenty of jewish capitalists and i never made a sweeping remark that they were ALL like that, point invalid.



I mentioned highly influential people who played a pivotal role in the evolution of such thought. It's like saying if I was talking about Enlightenment philosophy and mentioned Hume, Locke and Rousseau that's just “2 or three names”. I thought “influence” was important to you...?

2+2 = 4

If you're going to keep doing your cute little Orwellian thing, you may wish to bear in mind Orwell took a dim view of people who scapegoat Jews. If he were here today, he would not be impressed with your ravings.

exactly, just as there were in bolshevism.

two movements which have led to the death of millions, just stating a fact, any inference you make is yours


Er right. Rather than just repeat yourself, how about this list of “destructive movements” the Jews are apparently regularly behind? Are you attempting to “create a diversion”?

And again – yes there were lots of Jewish capitalists. And Jews of every other political persuasion. Exactly what you'd expect.

i merely want free speech and want to be able to say that if person x,y,z is a jew then i can

remember, all inferences are your own, i stand for free speech



Who says you can't? You're already saying it aren't you? Who's stopping your free speech? You can say David Duke is a Jew, Gordon Brown is from Zeta Reticuli and Vladimir Putin was raised by chimpanzees in the Congo if you so choose.

Stop pretending you're some kind of martyr. It's pathetic.

are you denying that the historicla records are wrong, that the jews who were involved in bolshevism were not? lets atleast get this straight.

If a given Jew was involved in Bolshevism, then that Jew was involved in Bolshevism. I don't think that's the point.


like a muslim fundamentalist who is taught certain things from childhood in a madrassa will have a specific world view then so will a jew who has been taught certain prayer rites and talmudic teachings (which is basically what das kapital seems like, since marx came from a family of rabbi's), only that its more intense with jews due to their feeling of having a harsh history, walk a mile in their shoes first


And a Muslim fundamentalist taught in a madrassa in Pakistan will likely have an entirely different take on Islam than a Muslim from Toxteth who went to a state school and goes pilled up to drum and bass nights with his non-Muslim friends. Or are they all part of 'international Muslimry' or something? Some Jews have an intensely Jewish education, some don't. Some people born into Jewish families practice Judaism, some don't.

Why you can't get your head round such blisteringly obvious stuff beggars belief. Oh I know – it's because you just want to see borg-like Jews everywhere.




which is basically what das kapital seems like,

Eh?

as i said earlier, they were not ethnically russian, they were aliens to the russian people and only russian by technicality, their hearts were in biblical israel, which is why they killed so many people



And you're claiming the Jews (apparently) “killed so many people” because “their hearts were in Israel”? Are you suggesting they were cross because they were homesick?

Jewish people may have been part of the killing, same as “ethnic” Russians and Ukrainians and whoever were. The major killing took place under Stalin – are you saying he wasn't responsible?
God I bet you wish he was Jewish. You probably pray every night someone will discover he had a Jewish cousin or something. People have already tried to claim he and his wives were Jewish. IIRC he shagged Jewish mistresses though – if I were you I'd arbitrarily decide they were controlling him. Claim it was a sort of Jewish honey trap. Then claim he realised what they were doing to him and that's why he became increasingly anti-semitic. Then claim those doctors really were trying to kill him to restore their Jewish control. See this stuff is easy – you just need a bit of imagination).

these are all quotes from encylopedia judacia, declassified american sources, completely unbiased

Uh huh. It says “contained a number of Jews” and says exactly nothing about their dominance in the context of actually quite a small list. If you you weren't determined to see what you want to see you might have noticed that.

but then again, why are we arguing about the obvious?

because you want to deny me my right to speak the truth, shame on you young man!

How the fuck do I “want to deny you your right to speak the truth”??? What utter bollocks. Do you have a tantrum every time people dare to contradict you? And what makes you think I'm young?

These memos are cited a lot on tons of the (predictable) websites. It's a shame from the images you posted we can't see the whole content.
What are they supposed to prove? That out of the enormous amount of archived correspondence, a couple of people go on about Bolshevism being Jewish which can then conveniently be endlessly posted on the internet? That second one is particularly cack – that Robert Wilton stuff is absolute bollocks – I think even most Jew theorists would do a double take at that thirteen Russians. And who are those “2 negroes”??? And it's a bit like finding a letter in which someone is going on about Islamic terrorists which cites a column by Melanie Phillips going on about how London is awash with Islamic militants and then pretending it's totally authoritative because it's 'official'. By an amazing coincidence, Wilton didn't like Jews. Apparently he also claimed a "monument to Judas Icariot" had been "unveiled" in Moscow.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=94H61cGGGQ8C&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197&dq=robert+wilton+the+times&source=bl&ots=QZtr8tJQbd&sig=TgAcVXmv0pazC-WaqM6ujBTkv8c&hl=en&ei=u8ooSryIGIihjAfw1Mz3Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8
(You'll like that book – it has lots of quotes you can copy and paste onto internet forums)
So some guy writes a memo in which he's going on about something he read in the paper and we're supposed to take him like he's some authority or something? Is that it?
The language used - “worst type of Jew”, “Jews of the greasiest type” seems to indicate something other than detached objectivity.

I don't know anything about the guys that wrote them or the people referred to therein. It would be nice to know more. But it's already well known these notion were kicking about widely at the time, so it's just not surprising they seeped into some such correspondence. What does it actually prove?

che guevara was jewish my friend, LOL.


Then please illuminate me further regarding this fascinating revelation.

the German Jew, Kurt Eisner, led a short lived communist revolution in Munich, Bavaria from November 1918 to February 1919 (at the same time that Adolf Hitler was an unknown soldier in that city - the effect of being a first hand witness to a Jewish and Communist-led revolution helped to cement Hitler's anti-Communist and anti-Jewish feelings);

the short lived Sparticus uprising in Berlin (September 1918 to January 1919) led by the German Jews, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg; and

the short lived Communist tyranny in Hungary led by the Jew, Bela Kun (Cohen), from March to August 1919.

We can talk about other countries later.
Please stick to answering the question you were asked without... “creating a diversion”.

And you still refuse to address the core issues which makes me wonder what the fuck you're trying to say.

You won't explain why if Jews managed to orchestrate Marxism and managed to orchestrate the Russian revolution they subsequently let Stalin take over and become subject to increasing persecution within their baby.

And YET AGAIN – say I agree with everything you say – and? What?

Are you arguing Jews just tend to like communist ideas? I don't think so – that would be just one of those questions like why the British seem quite passive and unrevolutionary (mores the pity) or why overwhelmingly white people like heavy metal or something. I don't think you are arguing that though.

Are you arguing the Jews willfully made Bolshevism happen? How? How did they? Did they have big meetings? Why were so many other people drawn to communism? Why were so many Jews not? Why communism specifically? Why in Russia?

Your underlying narrative is that Jews lever themselves into power. The 'enemy within'. Scheming aliens lurking in the corridors of power. Basically just recycled Nazi propaganda. So what do you want to do about it? If Jews really do manage to be a lot more successful (in an apparently “destructive” fashion) than gentiles than what? Shall we ban Jews from government? Shall we ban them from business? Shall we round them up and put them somewhere? If we did that would we all stroll hand in hand to a bright new future of peace and plenty? What's the point in carping on about the Jews unless you are prepared to say exactly what you think is so important and what you think should be done about it?

Look – I'm not playing this “I only choose to address the bits I think I've got some bullshit for” game any more. Please respond properly and stop being evasive.

[killerzzs]

Maybe we should make it a rule not to cherry pick which points we choose to address?

i filter your drivel, you should thank me for it. :D

Lenin – not Jewish. Had one Jewish grandparent. Hell I think gramps was even a convert to Christianity. Even under Nazi law that would make him a mischling of the second degree and thus actually permitted to marry an Aryan. Congratulations on having a definition of “Jew” more stringent than the Third Reich.

See this is how you give yourself away as being a crank; playing spot the Jew by whatever tenuous means you can – you're not interested in who's Jewish in any meaningful sense, you just want to 'find' as many 'Jews' as possible. It's absurd.

Marx – received a Lutheran education, subsequently rejected all religion (like all your commie Jews really) and even wrote a book slagging off Jews. He utterly rejected Judaism.

Trotsky – never went near a synagogue as far as I know but definitely of Jewish heritage despite his atheism. Driven out and subsequently murdered by Stalin.

Lozovsky – imprisoned and tortured in one of Stalin's anti-semitic episodes

Sverdlov – "first president of the Soviet Union"" - died in 1918. The Soviet Union didn't actually come into being until 1922
And I was under the impression the Soviet Union didn't actually have a president until Gorbachev held the office in 1990. But I see now it had a zombie president back in 1922.

a few points

-jews commonly converted to other religions because jews were despised so did so to fit in and save their necks, this was only a practical arrangement, some rabbi's endorsed as they can still maintain their jewish religion in private and stay where they are, some former jews have become priests aswell, this is documented fact

-they fit the definition of jews if their parents were, clearly i am only referring to their default religion/lineage and am making the point that people of a specific race and religion have come to dominate the bolshevist movement, which is a fact.
that you think they may or may not have gone to a synagogue or were atheistic jews or not the strictest jews is irrelevant,repeat irrelevant, the jewish connection is there

-read the point above to be clear

-all of the people above have a jewish connection, its always present

-i only posted a few names, there are far too many for you to respond to if i posted the full list, , what about Leiba Lazarevich Feldbin, Zakharovich Mekhlis, Solomon Mikhoels, David Dragonsky

time to hit google for you again my friend.

let me repeat again, the jews were the inteleectual and political driving force for the movement, not gentiles, not indians, not catholics, not muslims, not kenyans - but people who were wither jewish or has jewish roots, jeez, what are the chances eh?


I mentioned highly influential people who played a pivotal role in the evolution of such thought. It's like saying if I was talking about Enlightenment philosophy and mentioned Hume, Locke and Rousseau that's just “2 or three names”. I thought “influence” was important to you...?

i dont know what your point is, i never said all jews were communists, ofcourse not, many were capitalists so its wasted on me

and listen to this one, is it not ironic that you talk about the importance of a few names towards enlightenment philosophy and how they are central to it yet you refuse to acknowledge the same standard for jews being the intellectual and political driving force in communism, EXPOSED HYPOCRISY AND STUPIDITY.


And a Muslim fundamentalist taught in a madrassa in Pakistan will likely have an entirely different take on Islam than a Muslim from Toxteth who went to a state school and goes pilled up to drum and bass nights with his non-Muslim friends. Or are they all part of 'international Muslimry' or something? Some Jews have an intensely Jewish education, some don't. Some people born into Jewish families practice Judaism, some don't.

Why you can't get your head round such blisteringly obvious stuff beggars belief. Oh I know – it's because you just want to see borg-like Jews everywhere.

there were muslims from pakistan in toxeth listening to d&b over a hundred years ago, silly boy.

And you're claiming the Jews (apparently) “killed so many people” because “their hearts were in Israel”? Are you suggesting they were cross because they were homesick?

they had no regard for them as "their own" people, jews and gentiles dont go i am afrad, still dont to this day, one rule for jews, another for non-jews

if someone truly loved their people and was patriotic they would think twice before subjugating them and killing millions of them in a slavish movement, would you subject people you care for to such treatment unless you had contempt for them?



Uh huh. It says “contained a number of Jews” and says exactly nothing about their dominance in the context of actually quite a small list. If you you weren't determined to see what you want to see you might have noticed that

i will repeat the quotes

Jews played in creating the Soviet Union. On page 792 it says : "Individual Jews played an important role in the early stages of Bolshevism and the Soviet Regime" (below).

"Fifty per cent of Soviet Government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type..."

"it is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type..."

but ofcourse, you will find another context for these remarks, its your missions to do so, carrying on ignoring the reality, 2+2=4.


also, these are not the only quotes or bits of evidence, there are many.

How the fuck do I “want to deny you your right to speak the truth”??? What utter bollocks. Do you have a tantrum every time people dare to contradict you? And what makes you think I'm young?


you are versed in obsfucation, stifling, angry bursts, attempts at patronisation, pseudo-intellectualism, waffling etc etc

all designed to stifle free speech and peoples right to speak their mind in a decent honourable manner, something i believe in strongly.


What are they supposed to prove?

they prove what they say

you are so far ignoring

-all the jewish people involved in bolshevism/communism - the extensive lists
-what official jewish sources say about communism and jews
-what official american sources say about communism and jews
-what churchill said about jews and communism

you just ignore it - why? only you really know that

you completely overlook it or ignore it, theres a reason i picked those sources - because there no grounds for you to claim they are biased!!



as i said earlier, the inferences you make from facts are your own problem, just dont deny me the right to say the truth,
you can say that jews did dominate bolshevism but its got nothing to do with talmudic teachings or protocols of zionism type allegations (unlikely but hey thats you) etc

but do not tell me that jews did not dominate bolshevism

its like (note i am not saying exactly, so dont take this to its logical extreme) saying if british nigerians took over the next parliament, like they took 50%+ of important positions in the cabinet and government and they then changed the system of british governance completely, and this so happens to kill millions of people - then there is nothing remarkable about that in the slightest, c'mon, back to planet earth please, people would and should ask questions, how the heck did that happen?


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9...esult&resnum=8


so you rubbish my official unbiased sources only to find some watery loose quote from a book written by a jew on the history of anti-semitism of all subjects and not expect to question whether its biased,yet you claim to be rational - what a stranger cyber creature you are :confused::confused::confused:


And YET AGAIN – say I agree with everything you say – and? What?

any inference you make from facts is your issue not mine, just dont stop freedom of speech, that is awful, 2+2=4.

[mynameis]

Communism is a Karl Marx invention is who is Jewish just like Mutually Assured Destruction is an North American invention created by Christians in a Christianless government. I guess the guilt by association falls on the religion regardless of its inventors or perpetrators eh?

[bradstone]

Not all Jews are they?

But if you were a Russian who had to live under Bolshevism, it would clear to you that many of your oppressors were Jewish. You really wouldn't be thinking, "Oh, some Jews over in New York are really nice and are against Bolshevism, so it's not all of them."

You would be trying to work out how to overcome a oppressive system that victimised you, that was clearly majority Jewish run. The fact that some Jews are 'nice' wouldn't help you to do that.

[killerzzs]

But if you were a Russian who had to live under Bolshevism, it would clear to you that many of your oppressors were Jewish. You really wouldn't be thinking, "Oh, some Jews over in New York are really nice and are against Bolshevism, so it's not all of them."

You would be trying to work out how to overcome a oppressive system that victimised you, that was clearly majority Jewish run. The fact that some Jews are 'nice' wouldn't help you to do that.

indeed, as i said earlier, if nigerian brits were to somehow take power in britain in the next election, assume over 50% of all important administrative and government poisitions as well as champion a movement that led to the deaths of millions of brits then its the most obvious question to ask, "what the heck, who the f*** are you and what are you playing at?"

the fact that there may be some non-nigerians here or there does not change the overall thesis, taking something to its logical extreme to try and deny it is not clever, our friend dogsmilk refuses to accept this, but why?

[dogsmilk]

i filter your drivel, you should thank me for it.

You said Jews have regularly been behind "destructive movements" in history - yet you refuse to explain this.

You refuse to explain why if the Jews controlled the Soviet Union it became increasingly anti-semitic.

You said Jews are invariably behind communist movements yet apparently cannot explain where the Jews are in other successful communist revolutions. Even without playing the 'spot the jew' game in Germany and Hungary, they were minor and unsuccessful which kind of undermines your Jewish master plan theorising. Hell, what about Spain? That was a full-on civil war and the various left factions may possibly have won if they hadn't lapsed into internal fighting.

Then you have the nerve to say -

-all of the people above have a jewish connection, its always present


!!!!!

If you are going to claim Jews are invariably behind communism as part of some obscure plot you're apparently unable to elaborate on, then for this assertion to have any meaning you should really be pressing your case for all the most successful examples. Makes sense doesn't it?

You refuse to explain why you think this stuff is important and what you think should be done about it.

Then you frame your refusal to explain as being somehow down to my "drivel" while simultaneously saying I'm apparently trying to "create diversions" and "obfuscate". Irony ain't your strong point eh?

Answer the questions

jews commonly converted to other religions because jews were despised so did so to fit in and save their necks, this was only a practical arrangement, some rabbi's endorsed as they can still maintain their jewish religion in private and stay where they are, some former jews have become priests aswell, this is documented fact


Jews have historically from time to time been subject to forced conversion. They may have submitted to escape persecution or death - and who can blame them?
Other Jews have voluntarily converted to Christianity, become atheists or whatever because that is where their beliefs took them in exactly the same way gentiles change or reject their religion.
And some people have converted to Judaism.
So is there a point to this irrelevant rambling?

i only posted a few names, there are far too many for you to respond to if i posted the full list,

And your list would be utterly meaningless.

They way you would effectively demonstrate this would be to post complete lists of the Soviet government showing all Jews and non-Jews to demonstrate there was a huge amount of Jews. And this would need to be consistent with a given time period, without lumping together all the Jews that were in government over the years which would constitute sleight of hand - and up til now you don't seem particularly concerned with chronology.

Then you need to demonstrate exactly why this is important and produce some kind of coherent narrative as to why this occurred.

Otherwise, you're engaged in a deceptive tactic - post lists of Jews and hope it looks like enough to make people think it was mostly Jews. Though why anyone would trust information posted by someone who thinks things like Lenin and Che Guevara were Jewish (I really wish you'd post your 'evidence' for the latter. I reckon it'd be fucking hilarious) and that Sverdlov was "first president of the Soviet Union" also needs to be explained. But you could try posting information that isn't from a crank website to cater for people less credulous than your good self.

let me repeat again, the jews were the inteleectual and political driving force for the movement, not gentiles, not indians, not catholics, not muslims, not kenyans - but people who were wither jewish or has jewish roots, jeez, what are the chances eh?



Well even beyond all this, it's actually fairly intelligible that since Tsarist Russia wasn't exactly Jew friendly, Jews might be drawn to a movement that opposed the old order and ostensibly preoccupied with egalitarianism and the interests of the downtrodden.

i dont know what your point is, i never said all jews were communists, ofcourse not, many were capitalists so its wasted on me

and listen to this one, is it not ironic that you talk about the importance of a few names towards enlightenment philosophy and how they are central to it yet you refuse to acknowledge the same standard for jews being the intellectual and political driving force in communism, EXPOSED HYPOCRISY AND STUPIDITY.



Look moron, I mentioned some important radical thinkers. Is it not ironic you're only interested in Marx because he was Jewish? Marx was very important. But he is not the be-all and end-all and did not exist in a vacuum.
I realise everything you know about anything is based on a gaggle of websites going on about teh jooos, but that's not my problem. Hell, Kropotkin was even offered a position in the Soviet government (he turned it down).

But yet again - who cares anyway? Let's cut to the chase - Let's pretend I agree Jews were the "intellectual and political driving force in communism" - so what? Why is it important?

there were muslims from pakistan in toxeth listening to d&b over a hundred years ago, silly boy.


And a Muslim fundamentalist taught in a madrassa in Pakistan will likely have an entirely different take on Islam than a Muslim from Toxteth who went to a state school and goes pilled up to drum and bass nights with his non-Muslim friends. Or are they all part of 'international Muslimry' or something? Some Jews have an intensely Jewish education, some don't. Some people born into Jewish families practice Judaism, some don't.

- notice how your bizarre reply is wholly irrelevant to what I said, silly boy.

What drum and bass were people listening to "over a hundred years ago"? DJ jolly spiffing chap? Was it the next big thing after Victorian gabba?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/82/DinnerSavoy.jpg/400px-DinnerSavoy.jpg

A scene from a typical Edwardian old skool jungle night - "make some fuckin' noiiiiiise!!!!!"

they had no regard for them as "their own" people, jews and gentiles dont go i am afrad, still dont to this day, one rule for jews, another for non-jews

Says who? Just saying it doesn't make it true you know. You're just making it up.
Who says 'Jews and gentiles don't go'? Except with people like you of course.


if someone truly loved their people and was patriotic they would think twice before subjugating them and killing millions of them in a slavish movement, would you subject people you care for to such treatment unless you had contempt for them?


Yet again Stalin was the prime killer in the Soviet Union. The Jews did not "subjugate" the Russians (or if they did, the Russians didn't appear to notice).
Dictators throughout history have shown little regard for the subjugation and killing of their own people when it suits them.
Patriotism is simply an expression of primate territoriality the powerful can manipulate to make people do their bidding. You'd think people would think twice before killing people (and animals for that matter) generally (I've never really understood how you can distinguish between "your" people and everyone else - that seems quite horrific and a constant cause of killing to me) but unfortunately history shows us they do not.

And before you start, I'm fully aware that Jews may have a concept of 'their' people...just like everyone else. If Jews think of 'their' people, I think it's bullshit. Same as with everyone else. We're homo sapiens - period.

but ofcourse, you will find another context for these remarks, its your missions to do so, carrying on ignoring the reality, 2+2=4.


also, these are not the only quotes or bits of evidence, there are many.

Soopa doopa. You've been surfing the internet and found a bunch of quotes from people you know nothing about. Nice 'research' professor.

you are versed in obsfucation, stifling, angry bursts, attempts at patronisation, pseudo-intellectualism, waffling etc etc

all designed to stifle free speech and peoples right to speak their mind in a decent honourable manner, something i believe in strongly.


What utter wank. If you're so fucking "honourable" then why do you keep ignoring so many questions and obfuscating you sanctimonious prick?

Who is actually stopping you from speaking your mind? Is a mysterious force field preventing you from touching your keyboard?

Maybe I should be claiming you're trying to stop me speaking my mind? I wouldn't though because it would be a cretinous thing to say.
You Jew theorists just love thinking you're some kind of martyr. It's so teenage.
*waaaaaaaa!!!!!* everyone's against me! Nobody understands! I'm going to paint my bedroom black and have a wank listening to EMO!

they prove what they say

you are so far ignoring

-all the jewish people involved in bolshevism/communism - the extensive lists
-what official jewish sources say about communism and jews
-what official american sources say about communism and jews
-what churchill said about jews and communism

you just ignore it - why? only you really know that

you completely overlook it or ignore it, theres a reason i picked those sources - because there no grounds for you to claim they are biased!!


I haven't ignored anything (unlike you - oh the hypocrisy!)

- See above on your "lists"
- What "official" Jewish sources? How does an encyclopedia making utterly banal statements about a "number of Jews" constitute "official Jewish sources"? And nobody is disputing "a number of Jews" were Bolsheviks so what's the relevance? A "number of catholics" were Nazis - big fucking deal.
- A couple of internal memos written by individuals. Thousands of such memos get written. To say they're devoid of bias is ridiculous. They're not some impartial controlled study within a methodological framework are they?
The fallacy you're indulging in is the assumption that they're objective, unassailable reportage based on irrefutable facts. Yet from the fragments posted (do you actually know the full text without it being all ripped up? I can't be arsed to look, particularly as google will inevitably throw up scores of 'jooos rule teh world' websites endlessly repeating the specific quotes you've culled I'd have to wade through) there's nothing more tangible than some comments made by some obscure guys including citing Wilton's stuff which is unadulterated bullshit. You only know about them because they're touted by the jooo industry - I mean, who were these guys?
- So if Gordon Brown or someone writes a newspaper column as politicians frequently do, you consider it an impartial, unbiased and inherently accurate analysis you automatically believe do you?

as i said earlier, the inferences you make from facts are your own problem, just dont deny me the right to say the truth,
you can say that jews did dominate bolshevism but its got nothing to do with talmudic teachings or protocols of zionism type allegations (unlikely but hey thats you) etc


Why do you keep coming out with this "deny me the right to tell the truth" bullshit?

Ok then *sob* you're denying me the right to tell the truth. I demand you instantly stop contradicting me and accept everything I say else I'm going to the garden to eat worms. Then I'll scream and scream until I'm sick. And poo myself.
So there!

Bolshevism has got exactly fuck all to do with the Talmud. Or teh protocolz for that matter.

so you rubbish my official unbiased sources only to find some watery loose quote from a book written by a jew on the history of anti-semitism of all subjects and not expect to question whether its biased,yet you claim to be rational - what a stranger cyber creature you are

If you don't agree with what it says, you can critique it. I don't expect you not to question it at all - I referenced it with regard to one specific point about Wilton. If you think the quote is wrong, you can follow the footnote.

On what planet does "Jews of the greasiest sort" indicate a lack of bias?

any inference you make from facts is your issue not mine, just dont stop freedom of speech, that is awful, 2+2=4

Then by the same token, "any inference from facts is your issue not mine, just don't stop freedom of speech, that is awful". Nya Nya!

You can do basic arithmetic. Well done. I'm very impressed. You can have a lolly.

Communism is a Karl Marx invention is who is Jewish just like Mutually Assured Destruction is an North American invention created by Christians in a Christianless government. I guess the guilt by association falls on the religion regardless of its inventors or perpetrators eh?

I don't think it's accurate to say Marx "invented" communism. I don't think you can really say it was invented by any one individual. In the same way if you take wealth of nations, I don't think you can say Adam Smith "invented" capitalism and it's all his responsibility.

Probably the majority of people who call themselves capitalists have never read Smith and I can't say I know about this because I've never read him, but I have heard he wouldn't have been too chuffed with today's capitalism. Similarly, plenty of people who've called themselves communists have never read Marx and I don't think Marx intended anything like the Soviet Union or Mao's China. Hell, the more successful revolutions occurred in relatively 'backward' countries as opposed to the advanced capitalist nations Marx anticipated. Hell, I don't think Jesus would have approved of the Inquisition or Crusades either though there would certainly have been no Christianity without him.
Ideas are templates which people interpret according to what they see in them or want to see in them.

Apart from America being controlled by teh jooos ever since the Nazis decided it was (did you not realise that????), I think you make a good point insofar as the religious background of Marx's family is of course irrelevant, especially considering Marx did not like Judaism. Marx actually thought Jews needed to get over their Jewishness - totally contradicting Tagnut Boy's conception that All Jews Are As One and kind of negating his conception that Marxism is somehow Jewish. You can read it here. For some reason I previously described it as a "book" - my error.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

Marx is really fucking complicated and draws on a massive array of influences. I have not read capital and I keep meaning to try to get round to doing so. A friend of mine has recently needed to get his head round Marx as part of his phd and he pointed me to this series of lectures available online as a decent guide -
http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/
I've only watched a bit so far, but just "class 1 introduction" gives a clear impression of the multi-faceted nature of his work.
What gets me is the way these self-professed 'truth'(jooo)-seekers go on with themselves Durrrrr. Marx Jew. Communism Jewish. Marx make communism for Jews. Heap big Jewish evil....Must...stop....Jews.... while knowing approximately zero about what Marx actually said.

But if you were a Russian who had to live under Bolshevism, it would clear to you that many of your oppressors were Jewish. You really wouldn't be thinking, "Oh, some Jews over in New York are really nice and are against Bolshevism, so it's not all of them."

You would be trying to work out how to overcome a oppressive system that victimised you, that was clearly majority Jewish run. The fact that some Jews are 'nice' wouldn't help you to do that.


Which raises the question as to why we're pissing about with a couple of shitty memos when there must be literally thousands of source documents - letters, diaries, journals etc alluding to the Russians' collective awareness they were being run by mostly Jews.

indeed, as i said earlier, if nigerian brits were to somehow take power in britain in the next election, assume over 50% of all important administrative and government poisitions as well as champion a movement that led to the deaths of millions of brits then its the most obvious question to ask, "what the heck, who the f*** are you and what are you playing at?"

the fact that there may be some non-nigerians here or there does not change the overall thesis, taking something to its logical extreme to try and deny it is not clever, our friend dogsmilk refuses to accept this, but why?

So again, why are you pissing about with bits and pieces? There must be mass awareness in Russia about these 'invading aliens'. Indeed, there must be thousands of foreign documents. Why are you arsing about saying 'such-and-such was a Jew' and fannying about with two obscure memos?
It does raise such questions as to why Russians were actually revolting on their behalf apparently blissfully ignorant, but there you go.

Funnily enough, this would reinforce the query as to why you think this issue is such a big deal - why don't you obsess over when Greeks ruled Egypt and Syria, the British ran India, the Medes took over from the Assyrians, Ottoman Turks ran Greece etc etc etc? On your terms, why is your 'Jews ruled Russia' claim so amazingly important? And again, why did this Jewish power structure collapse quickly into anti-semitism?

Needless to say, you're also yet again ignoring that Stalin was the guy who killed people on a mass scale. It was he who was responsible for the Holodomor. Beria is often stated to be the most utterly ruthless and brutal of his entourage and he was also a Georgian. I wonder if I should do some research into how many Georgians served under Stalin? Georgia obviously isn't Russia - what were these invading alien Georgian thugs playing at?!

You're also (deliberately) missing the point about Jews being attracted to other ideologies - this alludes to some earlier bullshit you were talking about Jews being some kind of hive mind by virtue of their allegedly universal 'customs and rituals'. Do try to follow the conversation - there's a good chap.

I'm not being funny, but this is going round in circles and getting a bit boring. It's like being stuck in a lift with an evangelist. I ask myself why I waste time talking to a zealot from the church of joooo when I could be reading something interesting...?

[romas]

Holy shit this thread got loaded fast, I've skimmed through a few posts by dogsmilk, I can understand defending whole race, because obviously not all "jews" were in "it" (some actually got "sacrificed" aka "holocaust" in the name of cause), but he seems very interested in muddying waters, much love for house of sion?

[mynameis]

Not that it matters...History is written by the victors....

The two most influential theoreticians of communism of the 19th century were Germans Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, authors of The Communist Manifesto (1848), who also helped to form the first openly communist political organizations and firmly tied communism with the idea of revolution conducted by the exploited working class.

Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[tyler]

My God...is this Dogsmilk bloke paid per word? he can't half waffle on. Where does he get the time to dig up all that stuff or is he perhaps supplied with it?

If Russia is so anti-semitic, how come all of the so-called oligarchs who have stolen all the wealth of the Russian people are Jewish? The Russian mafia is jewish. The oligarchs on the run in Britain are jewish. The fabulously wealthy crook who owns Chelsea FC is Jewish.
They haven't done so badly, have they?

If there is so much anti-semitism about here in England it certainly hasn't held them back, has it? Sainsburys, Tescos, British Home Stores, Freemans all jewish owned. So many Jewish billionaires here.
I wish the country was a bit more anti-Catholic then I might be able to make a few billions for myself!

[yozhik]

If Russia is so anti-semitic, how come all of the so-called oligarchs who have stolen all the wealth of the Russian people are Jewish?

+1

This is the question that hangs (silently) on many Russian lips.

[breezinreezin]

My God...is this Dogsmilk bloke paid per word? he can't half waffle on. Where does he get the time to dig up all that stuff or is he perhaps supplied with it?

If Russia is so anti-semitic, how come all of the so-called oligarchs who have stolen all the wealth of the Russian people are Jewish? The Russian mafia is jewish. The oligarchs on the run in Britain are jewish. The fabulously wealthy crook who owns Chelsea FC is Jewish.
They haven't done so badly, have they?

If there is so much anti-semitism about here in England it certainly hasn't held them back, has it? Sainsburys, Tescos, British Home Stores, Freemans all jewish owned. So many Jewish billionaires here.
I wish the country was a bit more anti-Catholic then I might be able to make a few billions for myself!

LOL. Good post:)

MC Dogsmilk will be along soon with his broken record collection.

[dogsmilk]

My God...is this Dogsmilk bloke paid per word? he can't half waffle on. Where does he get the time to dig up all that stuff or is he perhaps supplied with it?

If Russia is so anti-semitic, how come all of the so-called oligarchs who have stolen all the wealth of the Russian people are Jewish? The Russian mafia is jewish. The oligarchs on the run in Britain are jewish. The fabulously wealthy crook who owns Chelsea FC is Jewish.
They haven't done so badly, have they?

If there is so much anti-semitism about here in England it certainly hasn't held them back, has it? Sainsburys, Tescos, British Home Stores, Freemans all jewish owned. So many Jewish billionaires here.
I wish the country was a bit more anti-Catholic then I might be able to make a few billions for myself!

God you guys just hate it when someone doesn't join in with deranged ravings about teh jooos don't you?

I'm talking about communist Russia, specifically under Stalin, in case you hadn't noticed. It may surprise you to learn that Russia is no longer communist or run by Stalin. If you want to gibber on about modern Russia, why don't you start another thread about why the Jews run modern Russia?

It goes without saying nobody has been talking about anti-semitism in England on this thread.

Captain Bullshit unleashes...Bullshit Powerrrrrr!!!!.

I neither know nor care which businesses are 'owned by Jews'. Personally I don't spend my time scouring the internet for evidence that Jews own things in some deranged quest to bolster prejudicial fantasies. Public corporations are entities which exist solely to generate profit for shareholders no more no less. They are simply a manifestation of capitalism. If a Jew owns a supermarket or a football club - so what? If they've done well for themselves - so what? Isn't that what capitalism tells us we're supposed to do? Do you think Jews should be banned from owning supermarket chains? Shall we forbid them to learn to read so they'll never be successful? Shall we put them in camps? What?

he perhaps supplied with it

Perhaps he's not pig ignorant and a bit thick like some?

Just a thought.

[dogsmilk]

LOL. Good post:)

MC Dogsmilk will be along soon with his broken record collection.

Yeah - I'll reply to posts directed at me

I'm just so totally fiendish.

[dogsmilk]

+1

This is the question that hangs (silently) on many Russian lips.

So it "hangs silently" on their lips?

I suppose you read their minds...

[killerzzs]

thanks for replying dogmilk, i appreciate your reply and i will do my best to answer your points and correct you as best i can

You said Jews have regularly been behind "destructive movements" in history - yet you refuse to explain this.

this deserves a seperate topic initself, but history has examples of jewish finance funding and pushing for wars

You refuse to explain why if the Jews controlled the Soviet Union it became increasingly anti-semitic.

i think i would credit you with enough intelligence to realise its for this very reason that there was anti-semitism - because they controlled the soviet union and were leading people to their deaths through their majority control - was that a joke question or something? :confused::confused:

also, the jews had special treatment because being anti-semitic was regarded as counter revolutionary, since ofcourse all the leaders were jewish, then when millions are dying and given the special treatment of jews it leads to resentment


You said Jews are invariably behind communist movements yet apparently cannot explain where the Jews are in other successful communist revolutions. Even without playing the 'spot the jew' game in Germany and Hungary, they were minor and unsuccessful which kind of undermines your Jewish master plan theorising. Hell, what about Spain? That was a full-on civil war and the various left factions may possibly have won if they hadn't lapsed into internal fighting.


oh, so the movement has to be a successful one for it to qualify as jewish people belonging to it?

the fact that there were jews behind the revoluvtion validates my point, successful or not, again, rather silly point


If you are going to claim Jews are invariably behind communism as part of some obscure plot you're apparently unable to elaborate on, then for this assertion to have any meaning you should really be pressing your case for all the most successful examples. Makes sense doesn't it?

i reject this comment because i did not say it was part of an obscure plot nor have i meant to imply it because its another topic initself but not unworthy of discussion given the facts we have

i have just stated what is there, let me repeat, any inference you make from facts is your own problem, this ofcourse is another topic initself, but first my friend, you have to accept the obvious facts.

You refuse to explain why you think this stuff is important and what you think should be done about it.

see above

Jews have historically from time to time been subject to forced conversion. They may have submitted to escape persecution or death - and who can blame them?
Other Jews have voluntarily converted to Christianity, become atheists or whatever because that is where their beliefs took them in exactly the same way gentiles change or reject their religion.
And some people have converted to Judaism.
So is there a point to this irrelevant rambling?

this point relates to the fact there is a jewish connection and that those who did convert may not have done so through a genuine love for christ or christianity, this is fair to say because it was forced and done in a hostile environment.

hey way you would effectively demonstrate this would be to post complete lists of the Soviet government showing all Jews and non-Jews to demonstrate there was a huge amount of Jews. And this would need to be consistent with a given time period, without lumping together all the Jews that were in government over the years which would constitute sleight of hand - and up til now you don't seem particularly concerned with chronology.


i do not understand this, more obsfucation


Otherwise, you're engaged in a deceptive tactic - post lists of Jews and hope it looks like enough to make people think it was mostly Jews.


but we already know that the political and intellectual leaders of bolshevism were jews, but you are using the "well they never went to a synagogue" excuse, so its deflection on your part

Well even beyond all this, it's actually fairly intelligible that since Tsarist Russia wasn't exactly Jew friendly, Jews might be drawn to a movement that opposed the old order and ostensibly preoccupied with egalitarianism and the interests of the downtrodden.

so from going on a rant about denying that they were jews you now acknowledge it and make some reasoning for why it was that jews came to lead such a movement, more inconsistency and a stone cold example of your obsfucation and deception


Look moron, I mentioned some important radical thinkers.

you mentioned some radical thinkers and said that they epitomised the movement of enlightenment philosophy, yet you refused to extend this to jewish people and communism, once again your deception is found out

Says who? Just saying it doesn't make it true you know. You're just making it up.
Who says 'Jews and gentiles don't go'? Except with people like you of course.

seperate topic really, have to leave that point one on hold, dont want to divert from the point.

Yet again Stalin was the prime killer in the Soviet Union. The Jews did not "subjugate" the Russians (or if they did, the Russians didn't appear to notice).
Dictators throughout history have shown little regard for the subjugation and killing of their own people when it suits them.

the people in the actual roles of helping to administer deaths were heavily jewish


nobel prize winning russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his work the gulag archipelagoII he tells us the 6 leading administrators of the soviet death machine were jewish; Aron Solts, Yakov Rappoport, Lazar Kogan, Matvei Berman, Genrikh Yagoda, and Naftaly Frenkel

ofcourse, i am sure there is something wrong with mentioning this

Patriotism is simply an expression of primate territoriality the powerful can manipulate to make people do their bidding. You'd think people would think twice before killing people (and animals for that matter) generally (I've never really understood how you can distinguish between "your" people and everyone else - that seems quite horrific and a constant cause of killing to me) but unfortunately history shows us they do not.

this is ofcourse completely as an aside but patriosm strongly entails a care and love for the people who live in your nation and not wanting any harm come to them, ofcourse i wont debate this with you, its just my opinion

in the words of alexander solzhenitsyn jewish people had

"disproportionate role" in the creation of a terrorist state "insensitive to the Russian people and disconnected from Russian history."



I haven't ignored anything (unlike you - oh the hypocrisy!)

- See above on your "lists"
- What "official" Jewish sources? How does an encyclopedia making utterly banal statements about a "number of Jews" constitute "official Jewish sources"? And nobody is disputing "a number of Jews" were Bolsheviks so what's the relevance? A "number of catholics" were Nazis - big fucking deal.
- A couple of internal memos written by individuals. Thousands of such memos get written. To say they're devoid of bias is ridiculous. They're not some impartial controlled study within a methodological framework are they?
The fallacy you're indulging in is the assumption that they're objective, unassailable reportage based on irrefutable facts. Yet from the fragments posted (do you actually know the full text without it being all ripped up? I can't be arsed to look, particularly as google will inevitably throw up scores of 'jooos rule teh world' websites endlessly repeating the specific quotes you've culled I'd have to wade through) there's nothing more tangible than some comments made by some obscure guys including citing Wilton's stuff which is unadulterated bullshit. You only know about them because they're touted by the jooo industry - I mean, who were these guys?
- So if Gordon Brown or someone writes a newspaper column as politicians frequently do, you consider it an impartial, unbiased and inherently accurate analysis you automatically believe do you?



this i am afrad to say where you lose all your credability imo

if you cannot accept such sources then i really want to know is there anything on this planet you can accept, these are the hallmarks of an extremist.

i would like to open the above point up to the rest of the forummers, is this guy for real?



The encyclopedia judaica is a multi-volume book, published in Jerusalem by Jews and according to Amazon.com


This long-awaited revision of the premier reference source on Jewish life, culture

some more quotes from this jewish reference

On page 793, the same Encyclopedia Judaica states: "Communist trends became widespread in virtually all Jewish communities. In some countries, Jews became the leading element in the legal and illegal Communist Parties.."

on the military revolution committe which organised the revolution

"comprised of five members, three of whom were Jewish."


the Politburo, the ultimate ruling body of Russia immediately after the Communist Revolution, counted "four Jews amongst its seven members," according to page 797 of the Jewish Encyclopedia



etc i could go on but i wont - you dont accept this source



then you do not accept offical us intelligence reports which mentions the percentage of jews in control of the soviet govt, pray tell, why on earth would they lie?




Funnily enough, this would reinforce the query as to why you think this issue is such a big deal - why don't you obsess over when Greeks ruled Egypt and Syria, the British ran India, the Medes took over from the Assyrians, Ottoman Turks ran Greece etc etc etc? On your terms, why is your 'Jews ruled Russia' claim so amazingly important? And again, why did this Jewish power structure collapse quickly into anti-semitism?

how can you compare an empire rule to a revolutionary movement done quite covertly?

and again this is like you are once again tactily agreeing that jewish people dominated the movement, but then you fight hard to deny it

also, you refuse to say whether it would be comepletely unremarkable of british nigerians came to dominate the govt in the next election and then lead the nation to a movement killing millions

Needless to say, you're also yet again ignoring that Stalin was the guy who killed people on a mass scale.

see earlier in this post

[yozhik]

So it "hangs silently" on their lips?

I suppose you read their minds...

No ... actually I talk with them. Do you?
You write with such authority about Russia and the mindset of its people.
How many times have you been there?

You're being petty.
You know that "hangs silently on their lips" means they will talk privately about it, but dare not speak of it publicly.

Don't be a twat.

[bradstone]

You refuse to explain why if the Jews controlled the Soviet Union it became increasingly anti-semitic.

You mean AFTER 1947?

Because there is a difference between 1920s/30s Russia and 1950s Soviet Russia. The main difference being the creation of the state of Israel. A new Jewish nation, creating different ideologies/camps among the Soviet leaders. International communism and Israel don't go together. So Stalin tried to purge perceived political enemies - not because they were Jewish, but because he questioned their loyalty to the goal of international communism after the changed political dynamic.

[bradstone]

I have a quote for you, dogsmilk.

During a December 1, 1952 Politburo meeting, Stalin declared: "Every Jewish nationalist is a potential agent of the American intelligence. Jewish nationalists think that their nation was saved by the USA."

Stalin said this, despite having many lovers who were Jewish by blood. But that's irrelevant to the point of his not trusting advisers etc. on suspicion that they were loyal to Israel/US or potential spies.

You yourself will push the idea that Jews have different political and religious opinions. They have free will, and can believe whatever they want. Some Jews even support the BNP.

If you were a Ukrainian farmer living under that system in the 1930s, however, You're not going to say, "Well Jews run the Soviet Union, but things may change if Israel is established one day, and they're not all bad, even Stalin has Jewish lovers."

It doesn't change the basic fact that the people oppressing you were Jewish.

[dogsmilk]

You mean AFTER 1947?

Because there is a difference between 1920s/30s Russia and 1950s Soviet Russia. The main difference being the creation of the state of Israel. A new Jewish nation, creating different ideologies/camps among the Soviet leaders. International communism and Israel don't go together. So Stalin tried to purge perceived political enemies - not because they were Jewish, but because he questioned their loyalty to the goal of international communism after the changed political dynamic.

There's slightly more to it than that. For example, one of the problems with 'Jews controlled communism' bullshit is that powerful Jews like Trotsky and Zinoviev were eliminated. Polish Jews fleeing the Nazis into the Soviet controlled zone were frequently treated badly. Stalin never really liked Jews and it was more than their 'commitment to communism', he got paranoid about them - just look at the doctors affair. That's not to say stances on Jews did not fluctuate according to circumstances - that they did also makes a mockery of the notion the SU was Jewish. Furthermore, Stalin was pissed off with Israel because he wanted it to align itself with the Soviet Union but it instead moved towards an American orbit. It goes without saying that if communism was some Jewish affair, the Soviet Union and Israel would have been best buddies.
Furthermore, communist narratives were far more preoccupied with antifascism than anti-semitism. There was a notion that Nazi anti-semitism was a tool for splitting the working class and though there was stated solidarity with Jews who obviously had the same enemy, the plight of the Jews was seen within the context of the class struggle and not especially important. To the extent that when East Germany fell into a Soviet orbit, the Holocaust was basically a non-issue and the East German government refused to pay compensation. Communists just weren't that arsed about Jews. Which is kinda odd if you think communism was Jewish.

[dogsmilk]

I have a quote for you, dogsmilk.

During a December 1, 1952 Politburo meeting, Stalin declared: "Every Jewish nationalist is a potential agent of the American intelligence. Jewish nationalists think that their nation was saved by the USA."

Stalin said this, despite having many lovers who were Jewish by blood. But that's irrelevant to the point of his not trusting advisers etc. on suspicion that they were loyal to Israel/US or potential spies.

You yourself will push the idea that Jews have different political and religious opinions. They have free will, and can believe whatever they want. Some Jews even support the BNP.

If you were a Ukrainian farmer living under that system in the 1930s, however, You're not going to say, "Well Jews run the Soviet Union, but things may change if Israel is established one day, and they're not all bad, even Stalin has Jewish lovers."

It doesn't change the basic fact that the people oppressing you were Jewish.

I'm sorry but I find that totally incoherent and I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Did Ukranian farmers go round thinking they were being controlled by Jews? Did they know Stalin shagged Jews? Did they give a flying fuck about Israel? I don't know - you tell me.

[yozhik]

dogsmilk ... have you been to Russia?

Have you ever spoken to Russian people?
Have you ever experienced the "feeling" on the streets?
Have you ever experienced the culture, first hand?
Have you ever looked into their eyes when you discuss these topics?

Or is all of your "knowledge" acquired from reading the pages of soulless books?

[dogsmilk]

dogsmilk ... have you been to Russia?

Have you ever spoken to Russian people?
Have you ever experienced the "feeling" on the streets?
Have you ever experienced the culture, first hand?
Have you ever looked into their eyes when you discuss these topics?

Or is all of your "knowledge" acquired from reading the pages of soulless books?

Ah I see, and I suppose you have. I feel a dose of Astrochicken's mystery Germans coming on.

I have actually personally spoken to people who said and experienced a 'feeling on the streets' that 'the Pakis' are taking over - I see now I should have paid more attention to it.

[breezinreezin]

God you guys just hate it when someone doesn't join in with deranged ravings about teh jooos don't you?

Not at all. It's just you. Your manner and obvious contempt for those you argue with. I played that game for a while, but then stopped myself. I saw it as a cowardly pursuit, given the age and lack of scholarly competence of a great many here. Not that I'm anything of an intellectual, but it just seemed all to easy score esteem points at the expense of others. And that's what your modus operandi seems to be here, judging by your tediously long, sarcastic posts.

I neither know nor care which businesses are 'owned by Jews'. Personally I don't spend my time scouring the internet for evidence that Jews own things in some deranged quest to bolster prejudicial fantasies.No, you just scour this forum for any thread pertaining to Jews in order to bolster your sense of being, well, er, you.

I don't see that much prejudice going on here. The fact that Jews have positions of influence, power and control in the upper stratas of societies globally, would make them fair game to be discussed on a conspiracy theory site wouldn't it. There, I said that without calling you a moron for not making that connection.

[yozhik]

Ah I see, and I suppose you have. I feel a dose of Astrochicken's mystery Germans coming on.

I have actually personally spoken to people who said and experienced a 'feeling on the streets' that 'the Pakis' are taking over - I see now I should have paid more attention to it.

Again, trivialising, being petty and a dismissive twat.

Do I take this to mean that you DO only have "knowledge" from books?
You do realise that books are just opinions of an author, yes?
Have you never considered the relevance of conferring what you read with what people feel?

Yes - I have spoken with Russian people.
I have seen the look in their eyes, experienced the culture and felt the vibe of the streets.
Yes - I have spoken and debated political, social and topical issues with them.
Yes - I have seen them react to media stories.
Yes - I have heard their opinions on historical events; both the opinions passed down through generation to generation and the opinions on the "official" story.

I highly recommend considering personal testimony as an important counterpoint to book based learning.

Oh wait ... you "shill for the Holohoax"; I don't need to tell you the importance of personal testimony, do I?
Strange that you would try to discredit it's significance ... :rolleyes:

[flickflack]

My God...is this Dogsmilk bloke paid per word? he can't half waffle on. Where does he get the time to dig up all that stuff or is he perhaps supplied with it?




Maybe he is just well educated? There is better sources to read from than the Antisemitic websites.

[dogsmilk]

Again, trivialising, being petty and a dismissive twat.

Do I take this to mean that you DO only have "knowledge" from books?
You do realise that books are just opinions of an author, yes?
Have you never considered the relevance of conferring what you read with what people feel?

Yes - I have spoken with Russian people.
I have seen the look in their eyes, experienced the culture and felt the vibe of the streets.
Yes - I have spoken and debated political, social and topical issues with them.
Yes - I have seen them react to media stories.
Yes - I have heard their opinions on historical events; both the opinions passed down through generation to generation and the opinions on the "official" story.

I highly recommend considering personal testimony as an important counterpoint to book based learning.

Oh wait ... you "shill for the Holohoax"; I don't need to tell you the importance of personal testimony, do I?
Strange that you would try to discredit it's significance ... :rolleyes:

Bully for you.

I don't discredit personal testimony at all, but it just depends on its nature. For example, if I have a political discussion with someone, this is different 'testimony' to their description of the car crash they were in. How they react to a media story is different 'testimony' to their description of their sick grandma. Much of this forum is predicated on being sceptical about what regular people are just generally saying - or what? You hold your hands up and say it's full of conspiracy theorists out of step with reality?

I don't know what your Russian chums say and have no way of verifying it. For all I know, you're a teenager who's never set forth out of Nottingham. What do you want me to say? Oh well, you say you speak to Russians so your word is gospel? Some anonymous guy on an internet forum saying he's spoken to people trumps "soulless books"? Yeah great - I shall henceforth base all my beliefs on anecdotes from internet forums. Happy?

[yozhik]

Bully for you.

I don't discredit personal testimony at all, but it just depends on its nature. For example, if I have a political discussion with someone, this is different 'testimony' to their description of the car crash they were in. How they react to a media story is different 'testimony' to their description of their sick grandma. Much of this forum is predicated on being sceptical about what regular people are just generally saying - or what? You hold your hands up and say it's full of conspiracy theorists out of step with reality?

I don't know what your Russian chums say and have no way of verifying it. For all I know, you're a teenager who's never set forth out of Nottingham. What do you want me to say? Oh well, you say you speak to Russians so your word is gospel? Some anonymous guy on an internet forum saying he's spoken to people trumps "soulless books"? Yeah great - I shall henceforth base all my beliefs on anecdotes from internet forums. Happy?

Actually, I prefer a more balanced approach.
I highly recommend it.

Rather than taking a Westernised version of Russian history, found in the pages of a soulless book, possibly written by an author with a personal agenda ... and taking THAT as gospel, or superior ... as it appears you do ... I prefer to both read AND then discuss with those closer to it than myself.

Do you honestly believe that Westernised (translated) or authored books give a true account of history of an Eastern country?

That is incredibly naive and delusional.

Not that it's important, but I am not a teenager who has never set foot out of Nottingham. To infer or suggest such is again petty and dismissive. Unfortunately, it does appear to be your modus operandi.

[cheeb]

If Russia is so anti-semitic, how come all of the so-called oligarchs who have stolen all the wealth of the Russian people are Jewish? The Russian mafia is jewish. The oligarchs on the run in Britain are jewish. The fabulously wealthy crook who owns Chelsea FC is Jewish.
They haven't done so badly, have they?

If there is so much anti-semitism about here in England it certainly hasn't held them back, has it? Sainsburys, Tescos, British Home Stores, Freemans all jewish owned. So many Jewish billionaires here.


If The Joos Can Get Themselves Into All The Top Positions...

Then Sureley They Can Get To The Top Of Holocaust Denial Tree Too...???

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/5223/davidirvingmagazine.jpg

A Footnote of Irony
By Germar Rudolf

The Revisionist · 2004 · Volume 2 · No. 2 · p. 122

One of Hochhuth’s statements about Irving piqued the publisher’s interest most intensely,
and that was his claim that Irving’s mother was Jewish.

Herr Munier inquired about this in disbelief,
but David Irving happily confirmed it:

yes, his mother was Jewish,

but he was never interested in this fact,
nor was he raised within the Jewish tradition.

He therefore never considered it to have any relevance.

Thus, according to orthodox Jewish tradition, David Irving is a Jew, plain and simple.

Why did Ralf Hochhuth want to blow the whistle on Irving in this regard?

Had he an interest in undermining Irving’s financial basis by hoping to cut him off from some of his supporters who are anti-Semitic to the point where they would reject Irving because of this?

And why was this fact never mentioned by anybody?

Why was it not raised during Irving’s libel case against Lipstadt?

I bet all sides knew that an atheist Jew (Irving) was fighting against orthodox Jews (Lipstadt, van Pelt, and others).

It was, and continues to be, a case of Jewish in-fighting, if you wish to label it that way.

So David Irving Is What Theodor Lessing Refers To As "Der Judishe Selbsthaf..."

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/2116/selfloathingjew.jpg

A Self Loathing Jew...!!!

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

This Info Has Been Spread About By Holocaust Denier Rudolf Germar

where the info
> >came
> >> >from and why someone like Germar, who is noted for his precision and
> >> >accuracy,
> >> >would go to the trouble to circulate it.

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/2100/germarrudolphreport.jpg

Rudolf wrote a thorough forensic study about the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz which irons out the deficiencies and discrepancies of the Leuchter Report.
The Rudolf Report is the first English edition of this sensational scientific work.

In 1994, Rudolf was sentenced to 14 months in prison by the district court of Tübingen because of the "Rudolf Report", as Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany.
Rudolf avoided prison by fleeing to Spain, England and finally to Chicago. There, he applied for political asylum, but his request was denied.

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/6958/germarrudolf200x283.jpg

He Also Likes Dressing In Nazi Uniforms...!!!

David Irving Is Not Averse To Using The Law Himself,
As He Instigated A Libel Trial Against The Observer And Gitta Sereny...!!!


David Irving v The Observer

The David Irving libel trial: special report

* The Observer, Sunday 16 April 2000

David Irving is continuing to pursue his intention to bring a libel action against The Observer and the writer Gitta Sereny, for words in an article entitled 'Spin Time For Hitler' which appeared on 21 April, 1996.

In his Statement of Claim, Irving lists 13 points he considers defamatory.

The article, in his view, accuses him, among other things, of inflating the death toll in the Allied air raid on Dresden tenfold, of obtaining the microfiche plates of the Goebbels diaries in Moscow by subterfuge, and of using 'the means of invention, omission or distortion to express an obsession, thereby demonstrating a lack of the detachment, rationality and judgment'.

Irving also claims aggravated damages on the grounds that The Observer failed to publish a timely reply by him to the article and that Sereny had pursued a campaign of defamation against him for nearly 20 years.

He Lost...

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Observer/index.html

I Covered This Plonker Here...

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56687

:rolleyes:

[dogsmilk]

this deserves a seperate topic initself, but history has examples of jewish finance funding and pushing for wars


Failed to answer question.
You said -

nobody else ofcourse manages such consistency at being behind destructive movements,


think i would credit you with enough intelligence to realise its for this very reason that there was anti-semitism - because they controlled the soviet union and were leading people to their deaths through their majority control - was that a joke question or something?

I was referring to Stalin's anti-semitism dickhead.

also, the jews had special treatment because being anti-semitic was regarded as counter revolutionary, since ofcourse all the leaders were jewish, then when millions are dying and given the special treatment of jews it leads to resentment


They did not receive special treatment. At its inception, the SU opposed anti-semitism while simultaneously suppressing the Jewish religion (along with other religion). And as I just mentioned on another post, Polish Jews fleeing Hitler got shabby as opposed to preferential treatment. Jews at no point were treated as being any better than any other 'comrade'.

Are you suggesting being against anti-semitism is "special treatment"? So if I'm against racism, does that mean I'm giving black people "special treatment"?

oh, so the movement has to be a successful one for it to qualify as jewish people belonging to it?

the fact that there were jews behind the revoluvtion validates my point, successful or not, again, rather silly point



Ridiculous obfuscation. You claimed Jews are invariably behind communism but cannot explain where the Jews were in other successful communist revolutions.
You said:

jews living in other nations were always the main ones spreading communism, the movement was completely top heavy with jews

China
Korea
Vietnam
Cuba
let's add Spain

Otherwise what? Jews were behind minor uprisings that failed? Yeah great, whatever - why even bother to argue if it makes you happy to think that? I'll just congratulate you on sterling examples of Jews not levering themselves into power.

i reject this comment because i did not say it was part of an obscure plot nor have i meant to imply it because its another topic initself but not unworthy of discussion given the facts we have

i have just stated what is there, let me repeat, any inference you make from facts is your own problem, this ofcourse is another topic initself, but first my friend, you have to accept the obvious facts.


The point is important because you flatly refuse to explain why you think your hypothesis is important or of note.

this point relates to the fact there is a jewish connection and that those who did convert may not have done so through a genuine love for christ or christianity, this is fair to say because it was forced and done in a hostile environment.


Forced conversions did not occur in the context we are discussing. Some Jews may have converted for practical reasons to avoid prejudice, but this would then indicate they weren't exactly passionate about the Jewish faith.
Quite obviously some Jews genuinely became Christians or whatever. I don't see the point you're trying to make.

i do not understand this, more obsfucation


If you are trying to prove the Jews ran the Soviet Union you should:

Show both the Jews and non-Jews in the Soviet government so a direct comparison can be made.

Obviously, personnel changed, so this should show different lists for different times

It really is that simple.

but we already know that the political and intellectual leaders of bolshevism were jews, but you are using the "well they never went to a synagogue" excuse, so its deflection on your part


Are you suggesting that someone from a Jewish family that embraces atheism is still inherently Jewish? If someone from a Christian family becomes an atheist are they still somehow a Christian?

so from going on a rant about denying that they were jews you now acknowledge it and make some reasoning for why it was that jews came to lead such a movement, more inconsistency and a stone cold example of your obsfucation and deception


I'm giving a reason why Jews may have found communism appealing. Can you not get your thick head round that or something?

you mentioned some radical thinkers and said that they epitomised the movement of enlightenment philosophy, yet you refused to extend this to jewish people and communism, once again your deception is found out

I said not one word about them epitomising enlightenment philosophy - they're from a totally differnt era, bozo.
What I said was that Marx did not exist in a vacuum and did not simply "invent" communism nor was the only important radical thinker.
Seriously - have you been drinking?

the people in the actual roles of helping to administer deaths were heavily jewish


nobel prize winning russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his work the gulag archipelagoII he tells us the 6 leading administrators of the soviet death machine were jewish; Aron Solts, Yakov Rappoport, Lazar Kogan, Matvei Berman, Genrikh Yagoda, and Naftaly Frenkel

ofcourse, i am sure there is something wrong with mentioning this


Don't tell me - you're reproducing a stock factoid you read on the internet that quote mines or otherwise distorts what Solzhenitsyn said (I haven't read it yet so I'm not sure). Otherwise, please quote the relevant text in full.
As it is, the statement is simply false. This is referring to gulag administrators, there were more than these guys and the guys mentioned were transient. For example, Berman was arrested in 1938 for allegedly heading up a "right-Trotskyist terror and sabotage organisation" - I suppose his gulag must have under-performed. He actually ran his show between 1932 and 1937. Kogan was shot in 1939. Frenkel actually started out as a prisoner and worked his way up (not unusual in the gulag system). He was charged but got off. Apparently Stalin must have liked him.
I don't know exactly which were Jews and which weren't - doesn't matter to you does it? You just read it on Dunse or somewhere...right?
Are you seriously suggesting these guys somehow trumped Beria??

this i am afrad to say where you lose all your credability imo

if you cannot accept such sources then i really want to know is there anything on this planet you can accept, these are the hallmarks of an extremist.

i would like to open the above point up to the rest of the forummers, is this guy for real?


Pointless hand-waving that fails to address what was said.

On page 793, the same Encyclopedia Judaica states: "Communist trends became widespread in virtually all Jewish communities. In some countries, Jews became the leading element in the legal and illegal Communist Parties.."

Which countries?

Communist trends became widespread in virtually all gentile communities. It was the spirit of the age.

The encyclopedia judaica is a multi-volume book, published in Jerusalem by Jews and according to Amazon.com



I'm not sure about the first one and I'm insufficiently interested to look it up, but it's certainly true about the politburo. That certainly is a disproportionate amount of Jews. Which makes me wonder why it was dissolved in a month or whatever and replaced with an administration in which Jews were rather thinner on the ground. Why do you think that happened?

how can you compare an empire rule to a revolutionary movement done quite covertly?

and again this is like you are once again tactily agreeing that jewish people dominated the movement, but then you fight hard to deny it

also, you refuse to say whether it would be comepletely unremarkable of british nigerians came to dominate the govt in the next election and then lead the nation to a movement killing millions


So hang on - are you suggesting people were totally unaware of people's Jewish backgrounds? Are you suggesting it was all kept secret? How do you work that out?

The question is why this is such a big thing for you. I just don't get it. You seem to be determined to blame all the mass killing that happened under Stalin on the Jews. It's like trying to blame Hitler's crimes on the Prussians or something. I think you've just got a thing about Jews. Or what? What's your big point?

By the way - Lenin, Che Guevara, Sverdlov - have you actually abandoned all this now or what? I'm dying to see your Che Guevara 'evidence'....

Actually, I prefer a more balanced approach.
I highly recommend it.

Rather than taking a Westernised version of Russian history, found in the pages of a soulless book, possibly written by an author with a personal agenda ... and taking THAT as gospel, or superior ... as it appears you do ... I prefer to both read AND then discuss with those closer to it than myself.



Apart from your assumption any kind of study is "soulless" and has an "agenda" I think that's a fair point. Nevertheless, if you don't happen to meet those closest to it then unfortunately that's difficult. And then what? Should I not have an opinion on the suffering of Iraqis because I've never been to Iraq? Have you been there? If not, I assume you are cautious about having an opinion.

I find your constant assertion that books are "soulless" curiously anti-intellectual. Perhaps history would be more accurate if it consisted of people sitting around and telling stories like in the old days?
If books are "soulless", then what does that make all other media?

I wonder if you would thus care to comment on people culling factoids from websites - where does this fit within your schema of the hierarchy of knowledge?
Have you asked Killerzzs how much time they have spent in Russia? In fact, isn't it curious how your little epistemological framework suddenly materialised in the context of me saying things you don't like? I assume for the sake of consistency, you have been routinely raising this point across the forum on a variety of historical and foreign affairs topics?

Do you honestly believe that Westernised (translated) or authored books give a true account of history of an Eastern country?

That is incredibly naive and delusional.

I don't see why a book in translation suddenly becomes inaccurate. You are attempting are rather specious argument in which you are suggesting that 'an outsider just cannot understand'. It's a way of saying "look - I know Russians, so I know best, right!" As it happens, I have known immigrant Ukranians...does that meet your seal of approval?
By your logic, we should just all shut the fuck up about anything that concerns people we haven't lived among.
In fact, in one sense at least, at least 'outsiders' can step back. As a participant in a culture, you may well be coloured in your perceptions by your culture and upbringing.

Not that it's important, but I am not a teenager who has never set foot out of Nottingham. To infer or suggest such is again petty and dismissive. Unfortunately, it does appear to be your modus operandi.


So you just take everyone on internet forums at their word do you?

Isn't it strange how the banal and quite obviously correct observation that I don't know who you are makes me "petty and dismissive" yet it's perfectly ok for me to apparently have an 'agenda', a 'mission', be 'fed stuff' etc etc. How does that work exactly?

[tintin]

Failed to answer question.
You said -






I was referring to Stalin's anti-semitism dickhead.



They did not receive special treatment. At its inception, the SU opposed anti-semitism while simultaneously suppressing the Jewish religion (along with other religion). And as I just mentioned on another post, Polish Jews fleeing Hitler got shabby as opposed to preferential treatment. Jews at no point were treated as being any better than any other 'comrade'.

Are you suggesting being against anti-semitism is "special treatment"? So if I'm against racism, does that mean I'm giving black people "special treatment"?



Ridiculous obfuscation. You claimed Jews are invariably behind communism but cannot explain where the Jews were in other successful communist revolutions.
You said:



China
Korea
Vietnam
Cuba
let's add Spain

Otherwise what? Jews were behind minor uprisings that failed? Yeah great, whatever - why even bother to argue if it makes you happy to think that? I'll just congratulate you on sterling examples of Jews not levering themselves into power.



The point is important because you flatly refuse to explain why you think your hypothesis is important or of note.



Forced conversions did not occur in the context we are discussing. Some Jews may have converted for practical reasons to avoid prejudice, but this would then indicate they weren't exactly passionate about the Jewish faith.
Quite obviously some Jews genuinely became Christians or whatever. I don't see the point you're trying to make.



If you are trying to prove the Jews ran the Soviet Union you should:

Show both the Jews and non-Jews in the Soviet government so a direct comparison can be made.

Obviously, personnel changed, so this should show different lists for different times

It really is that simple.



Are you suggesting that someone from a Jewish family that embraces atheism is still inherently Jewish? If someone from a Christian family becomes an atheist are they still somehow a Christian?



I'm giving a reason why Jews may have found communism appealing. Can you not get your thick head round that or something?



I said not one word about them epitomising enlightenment philosophy - they're from a totally differnt era, bozo.
What I said was that Marx did not exist in a vacuum and did not simply "invent" communism nor was the only important radical thinker.
Seriously - have you been drinking?



Don't tell me - you're reproducing a stock factoid you read on the internet that quote mines or otherwise distorts what Solzhenitsyn said (I haven't read it yet so I'm not sure). Otherwise, please quote the relevant text in full.
As it is, the statement is simply false. This is referring to gulag administrators, there were more than these guys and the guys mentioned were transient. For example, Berman was arrested in 1938 for allegedly heading up a "right-Trotskyist terror and sabotage organisation" - I suppose his gulag must have under-performed. He actually ran his show between 1932 and 1937. Kogan was shot in 1939. Frenkel actually started out as a prisoner and worked his way up (not unusual in the gulag system). He was charged but got off. Apparently Stalin must have liked him.
I don't know exactly which were Jews and which weren't - doesn't matter to you does it? You just read it on Dunse or somewhere...right?
Are you seriously suggesting these guys somehow trumped Beria??



Pointless hand-waving that fails to address what was said.



Which countries?

Communist trends became widespread in virtually all gentile communities. It was the spirit of the age.



I'm not sure about the first one and I'm insufficiently interested to look it up, but it's certainly true about the politburo. That certainly is a disproportionate amount of Jews. Which makes me wonder why it was dissolved in a month or whatever and replaced with an administration in which Jews were rather thinner on the ground. Why do you think that happened?



So hang on - are you suggesting people were totally unaware of people's Jewish backgrounds? Are you suggesting it was all kept secret? How do you work that out?

The question is why this is such a big thing for you. I just don't get it. You seem to be determined to blame all the mass killing that happened under Stalin on the Jews. It's like trying to blame Hitler's crimes on the Prussians or something. I think you've just got a thing about Jews. Or what? What's your big point?

By the way - Lenin, Che Guevara, Sverdlov - have you actually abandoned all this now or what? I'm dying to see your Che Guevara 'evidence'....



Apart from your assumption any kind of study is "soulless" and has an "agenda" I think that's a fair point. Nevertheless, if you don't happen to meet those closest to it then unfortunately that's difficult. And then what? Should I not have an opinion on the suffering of Iraqis because I've never been to Iraq? Have you been there? If not, I assume you are cautious about having an opinion.

I find your constant assertion that books are "soulless" curiously anti-intellectual. Perhaps history would be more accurate if it consisted of people sitting around and telling stories like in the old days?
If books are "soulless", then what does that make all other media?

I wonder if you would thus care to comment on people culling factoids from websites - where does this fit within your schema of the hierarchy of knowledge?
Have you asked Killerzzs how much time they have spent in Russia? In fact, isn't it curious how your little epistemological framework suddenly materialised in the context of me saying things you don't like? I assume for the sake of consistency, you have been routinely raising this point across the forum on a variety of historical and foreign affairs topics?



I don't see why a book in translation suddenly becomes inaccurate. You are attempting are rather specious argument in which you are suggesting that 'an outsider just cannot understand'. It's a way of saying "look - I know Russians, so I know best, right!" As it happens, I have known immigrant Ukranians...does that meet your seal of approval?
By your logic, we should just all shut the fuck up about anything that concerns people we haven't lived among.
In fact, in one sense at least, at least 'outsiders' can step back. As a participant in a culture, you may well be coloured in your perceptions by your culture and upbringing.



So you just take everyone on internet forums at their word do you?

Isn't it strange how the banal and quite obviously correct observation that I don't know who you are makes me "petty and dismissive" yet it's perfectly ok for me to apparently have an 'agenda', a 'mission', be 'fed stuff' etc etc. How does that work exactly?

Hi DOGSMILK,

Cannot believe people are supporting THE CHILD KILLERS.

(have to edit this, anyway, Dogsmilk is a TRAITOR)

[dogsmilk]

Hi DOGSMILK,

Cannot believe people are supporting THE CHILD KILLERS.

(have to edit this, anyway, Dogsmilk is a TRAITOR)

Shouldn't you be 'decoding the news' with your psychotic version of the Kevin Bacon game?

PS, you needn't have quoted my entire long post - it needlessly clogs up the thread. You could have indulged in your deranged raving just as well without it.

[tintin]

If The Joos Can Get Themselves Into All The Top Positions...

Then Sureley They Can Get To The Top Of Holocaust Denial Tree Too...???

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/5223/davidirvingmagazine.jpg

A Footnote of Irony
By Germar Rudolf

The Revisionist · 2004 · Volume 2 · No. 2 · p. 122

One of Hochhuth’s statements about Irving piqued the publisher’s interest most intensely,
and that was his claim that Irving’s mother was Jewish.

Herr Munier inquired about this in disbelief,
but David Irving happily confirmed it:

yes, his mother was Jewish,

but he was never interested in this fact,
nor was he raised within the Jewish tradition.

He therefore never considered it to have any relevance.

Thus, according to orthodox Jewish tradition, David Irving is a Jew, plain and simple.

Why did Ralf Hochhuth want to blow the whistle on Irving in this regard?

Had he an interest in undermining Irving’s financial basis by hoping to cut him off from some of his supporters who are anti-Semitic to the point where they would reject Irving because of this?

And why was this fact never mentioned by anybody?

Why was it not raised during Irving’s libel case against Lipstadt?

I bet all sides knew that an atheist Jew (Irving) was fighting against orthodox Jews (Lipstadt, van Pelt, and others).

It was, and continues to be, a case of Jewish in-fighting, if you wish to label it that way.

So David Irving Is What Theodor Lessing Refers To As "Der Judishe Selbsthaf..."

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/2116/selfloathingjew.jpg

A Self Loathing Jew...!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y38nXqTmdtg

This Info Has Been Spread About By Holocaust Denier Rudolf Germar

where the info
> >came
> >> >from and why someone like Germar, who is noted for his precision and
> >> >accuracy,
> >> >would go to the trouble to circulate it.

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/2100/germarrudolphreport.jpg



In 1994, Rudolf was sentenced to 14 months in prison by the district court of Tübingen because of the "Rudolf Report", as Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany.
Rudolf avoided prison by fleeing to Spain, England and finally to Chicago. There, he applied for political asylum, but his request was denied.

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/6958/germarrudolf200x283.jpg

He Also Likes Dressing In Nazi Uniforms...!!!

David Irving Is Not Averse To Using The Law Himself,
As He Instigated A Libel Trial Against The Observer And Gitta Sereny...!!!


David Irving v The Observer

The David Irving libel trial: special report

* The Observer, Sunday 16 April 2000

David Irving is continuing to pursue his intention to bring a libel action against The Observer and the writer Gitta Sereny, for words in an article entitled 'Spin Time For Hitler' which appeared on 21 April, 1996.

In his Statement of Claim, Irving lists 13 points he considers defamatory.

The article, in his view, accuses him, among other things, of inflating the death toll in the Allied air raid on Dresden tenfold, of obtaining the microfiche plates of the Goebbels diaries in Moscow by subterfuge, and of using 'the means of invention, omission or distortion to express an obsession, thereby demonstrating a lack of the detachment, rationality and judgment'.

Irving also claims aggravated damages on the grounds that The Observer failed to publish a timely reply by him to the article and that Sereny had pursued a campaign of defamation against him for nearly 20 years.

He Lost...

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Observer/index.html

I Covered This Plonker Here...

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56687

:rolleyes:

Hey Cheeb,
You are brilliant man!
Why are you supporting this HOLOCAUST thing?
I really don't get you......

[killerzzs]

dogsmilk, you dont so much as recyle the same old vomit, you regurgitate it, how bitter you must be inside







Ridiculous obfuscation. You claimed Jews are invariably behind communism but cannot explain where the Jews were in other successful communist revolutions.

my point is valid, i said they were behind revolutions in other countries and they were, theres no argument, point proven, QED.

I was referring to Stalin's anti-semitism dickhead.

clearly you are upset



Ridiculous obfuscation. You claimed Jews are invariably behind communism but cannot explain where the Jews were in other successful communist revolutions.

using a phrase and taking it to its logical limits is not clever, try and meed me halfway my friend


Otherwise what? Jews were behind minor uprisings that failed? Yeah great, whatever - why even bother to argue if it makes you happy to think that? I'll just congratulate you on sterling examples of Jews not levering themselves into power.

again, you are just being obscure, what am i meant to take from this?

you know they were behind the communist movement in other countries which is what i stated, point proven, QED.


The point is important because you flatly refuse to explain why you think your hypothesis is important or of note.

this is your problem really, you become shrill and verbally violent when someone suggests anything untoward regarding jews, you completely and utterly exposed yourself


remember people, this all started from a simple comment that bolshevism was a jewish run movement which is a historical fact - and look at how bezerk he goes trying to bully, bludgeon and obfuscate his way through the discusion

i have provided mainstream sources, first hand historical documents, jewish sources, important quotes, the work of nobel prize winners - and each and every one of them was denied, what exactly are we dealing with here, someone please tell me

this normally would be so funny if it was not so desperate


Some Jews may have converted for practical reasons to avoid prejudice, but this would then indicate they weren't exactly passionate about the Jewish faith

rubbish, total piffle, they held a grudge against christians for this reason


Are you suggesting that someone from a Jewish family that embraces atheism is still inherently Jewish?

as i said, we know conversions were forced and funnily there is always a jewish connection - and not a cousin 3 times removed, but normally a grandparent.

I'm giving a reason why Jews may have found communism appealing. Can you not get your thick head round that or something?

yes, whatever, you are free to hypothesise, does not really change the fact that it was a heavily jewish run movement - which sometimes you admit and sometimes you do not


What I said was that Marx did not exist in a vacuum and did not simply "invent" communism nor was the only important radical thinker.

LOL


Don't tell me - you're reproducing a stock factoid you read on the internet that quote mines or otherwise distorts what Solzhenitsyn said (I haven't read it yet so I'm not sure). Otherwise, please quote the relevant text in full.
As it is, the statement is simply false. This is referring to gulag administrators, there were more than these guys and the guys mentioned were transient. For example, Berman was arrested in 1938 for allegedly heading up a "right-Trotskyist terror and sabotage organisation" - I suppose his gulag must have under-performed. He actually ran his show between 1932 and 1937. Kogan was shot in 1939. Frenkel actually started out as a prisoner and worked his way up (not unusual in the gulag system). He was charged but got off. Apparently Stalin must have liked him.
I don't know exactly which were Jews and which weren't - doesn't matter to you does it? You just read it on Dunse or somewhere...right?
Are you seriously suggesting these guys somehow trumped Beria??




more distortion

so what have you done here

you have said my source is rubbish - because it IS - because you say so

then you tell me a whole bunch of pointless information

and you think thats honestly answering the point?


I'm not sure about the first one and I'm insufficiently interested to look it up

because it will destory your argument, a jewish source written by jews cofirming what i said, OH THE HORROR

lighten up my friend, its all there

So hang on - are you suggesting people were totally unaware of people's Jewish backgrounds? Are you suggesting it was all kept secret? How do you work that out?

no

The question is why this is such a big thing for you. I just don't get it


so you now accept its the truth and are asking me what the problem is, more deflection and squirming, refer back to my very original point on this thread, the question is not why its a big problem for me, but why its a big problem for you


you just take every sentence i post, and impute some spin to make it seem as if i am trying to imply something ridiculous all the time, this is why i urge everyone to be economical in their words with this person

i know this tactic well, you make the other person seem ridiculous so we do not discuss the issue at hand but your silly allegations, its stifling, it deflects from the point

2+2=4.

[flickflack]

You are the one that seems desperate by the way, judging your last 2 posts.

[killerzzs]

You are the one that seems desperate by the way, judging your last 2 posts.

font is large and loud, true, thats done quite intentionally, thats because my point is sober and calm, not resorted towards direct insults or a fierce tone, i have always been cordial


however with hindsight it does seem excessive and heavy on the eye, therefore i have deleted the previous post

[dogsmilk]

because it will destory your argument, a jewish source written by jews cofirming what i said, OH THE HORROR

lighten up my friend, its all there

I have been:

I've been looking at the later incarnations of the Politburo when it re-emerged.

1919 -

Lev Kamenev - Jewish father, Russian mother
Nikolai Krestinsky - not Jewish except according to wiki Molotov claimed his parents were Jewish converts to Orthodox Christianity. Other than that, no evidence of Jewishness.
Lenin – not Jewish
Stalin – not Jewish
Trotsky – Jewish
Nikolai Bukharin – not Jewish
Mikhail Kalinin - not Jewish
Grigory Zinoviev – Jewish
Yelena Stasova -not Jewish

1920

Zinoviev – Jewish
Bukharin – not Jewish
Kalinin – not Jewish
Trotsky – Jewish
Stalin – not Jewish
Lenin – not Jewish
Kretinsky – not Jewish except for one claim of Jewishness
Kamenev – Jewish father – does that actually make you Jewish?

1921 -
Zinoviev – Jewishness
Kamenev – Jewish father
Lenin – not Jewish
Stalin – not Jewish
Trotsky – Jewish
Bukharin – not Jewish
Kalinin – not Jewish
Vyacheslav Molotov – not Jewish

1922 -

Alexey Rykov – not Jewish
Mikhail Tomsky – not Jewish
Zinoviev – Jewish
Kamenev – Jewish father
Lenin – not Jewish
Trotsky – Jewish
Stalin – not Jewish
Bukharin – not Jewish
Kalinin – not Jewish
Molotov – not Jewish

1923 -

Alexey Rykov – not Jewish
Mikhail Tomsky – not Jewish
Zinoviev – Jewish
Kamenev – Jewish father
Lenin – not Jewish
Trotsky – Jewish
Stalin – not Jewish
Bukharin – not Jewish
Kalinin – not Jewish
Molotov – not Jewish
Yan Rudzutak – not Jewish

1924 -

Bukharin – not Jewish
Zinoviev – Jewish
Kamenev – 1 Jewish parent
Rykov – not Jewish
Stalin – not Jewish
Trotsky – Jewish
Kalinin – not Jewish
Molotov – not Jewish
Rudzutak - not Jewish
Mikhail Tomsky – not Jewish
Grigory Sokolnikov – Jewish
Nikolai Uglanov – not Jewish
Felix Dzerzhinsky – not Jewish

1926 (1) -

Bukharin – not Jewish
Zinoviev – Jewish
Kamenev – 1 Jewish parent
Kalinin – not Jewish
Molotov – not Jewish
Rykov – not Jewish
Stalin – not Jewish
Tomsky – not Jewish
Trotsky – Jewish
Dzerzhinsky – not Jewish
Kamenev – 1 Jewish parent
Rudzutak – not Jewish
Grigory Petrovsky – not Jewish
Nikolai Uglanov – not Jewish
Kliment Voroshilov – not Jewish

1926 (2)

Rudzudak – not Jewish
Bukharin - not Jewish
Voroshilov - not Jewish
Kalinin – not Jewish
Rykov -not Jewish
Molotov – not Jewish
Stalin – not Jewish
Tomsky – not Jewish
Andrei Andreyev – not Jewish
Lazar Kaganovich – Jewish
Sergey Kirov – not Jewish
Anastas Mikoyan – not Jewish
Grigoriy Ordzhonikidze – not Jewish
Kamenev – 1 Jewish parent - relieved of duties October 1926
Trotsky – Jewish – relieved of duties October 1926

So hang on – how the fuck were Jews 'in control' of the Soviet Union when there was less and less on the Politburo as time went on, indeed they had a tendency to be ousted and murdered...?

[killerzzs]

I have been:

I've been looking at the later incarnations of the Politburo when it re-emerged.

1919 -

Lev Kamenev - Jewish father, Russian mother
Nikolai Krestinsky - not Jewish except according to wiki Molotov claimed his parents were Jewish converts to Orthodox Christianity. Other than that, no evidence of Jewishness.
Lenin – not Jewish
Stalin – not Jewish
Trotsky – Jewish
Nikolai Bukharin – not Jewish
Mikhail Kalinin - not Jewish
Grigory Zinoviev – Jewish
Yelena Stasova -not Jewish

1920

Zinoviev – Jewish
Bukharin – not Jewish
Kalinin – not Jewish
Trotsky – Jewish
Stalin – not Jewish
Lenin – not Jewish
Kretinsky – not Jewish except for one claim of Jewishness
Kamenev – Jewish father – does that actually make you Jewish?

1921 -
Zinoviev – Jewishness
Kamenev – Jewish father
Lenin – not Jewish
Stalin – not Jewish
Trotsky – Jewish
Bukharin – not Jewish
Kalinin – not Jewish
Vyacheslav Molotov – not Jewish

1922 -

Alexey Rykov – not Jewish
Mikhail Tomsky – not Jewish
Zinoviev – Jewish
Kamenev – Jewish father
Lenin – not Jewish
Trotsky – Jewish
Stalin – not Jewish
Bukharin – not Jewish
Kalinin – not Jewish
Molotov – not Jewish

1923 -

Alexey Rykov – not Jewish
Mikhail Tomsky – not Jewish
Zinoviev – Jewish
Kamenev – Jewish father
Lenin – not Jewish
Trotsky – Jewish
Stalin – not Jewish
Bukharin – not Jewish
Kalinin – not Jewish
Molotov – not Jewish
Yan Rudzutak – not Jewish

1924 -

Bukharin – not Jewish
Zinoviev – Jewish
Kamenev – 1 Jewish parent
Rykov – not Jewish
Stalin – not Jewish
Trotsky – Jewish
Kalinin – not Jewish
Molotov – not Jewish
Rudzutak - not Jewish
Mikhail Tomsky – not Jewish
Grigory Sokolnikov – Jewish
Nikolai Uglanov – not Jewish
Felix Dzerzhinsky – not Jewish

1926 (1) -

Bukharin – not Jewish
Zinoviev – Jewish
Kamenev – 1 Jewish parent
Kalinin – not Jewish
Molotov – not Jewish
Rykov – not Jewish
Stalin – not Jewish
Tomsky – not Jewish
Trotsky – Jewish
Dzerzhinsky – not Jewish
Kamenev – 1 Jewish parent
Rudzutak – not Jewish
Grigory Petrovsky – not Jewish
Nikolai Uglanov – not Jewish
Kliment Voroshilov – not Jewish

1926 (2)

Rudzudak – not Jewish
Bukharin - not Jewish
Voroshilov - not Jewish
Kalinin – not Jewish
Rykov -not Jewish
Molotov – not Jewish
Stalin – not Jewish
Tomsky – not Jewish
Andrei Andreyev – not Jewish
Lazar Kaganovich – Jewish
Sergey Kirov – not Jewish
Anastas Mikoyan – not Jewish
Grigoriy Ordzhonikidze – not Jewish
Kamenev – 1 Jewish parent - relieved of duties October 1926
Trotsky – Jewish – relieved of duties October 1926

So hang on – how the fuck were Jews 'in control' of the Soviet Union when there was less and less on the Politburo as time went on, indeed they had a tendency to be ousted and murdered...?

well, thats quite an extensive list, i will have to get back that you on that

however, i did not say that communism remained in the control of jewish people, i merely said at its roots - it seems you have taken alot of time to prove a point i did not really say which is consistent for you - as it makes it seem like its rebuttal of my point, when really its not

however the effort not unappreciated


'To say nothing of Beine and Borne, Marx was of purest Jewish blood; Lassalle was a jew. Many of our best people are Jews. My friend Victor Adler, who is at present paying in prison for his devotion to the cause of the proletariat, Eduard Bernstein, editor of the London Sozial-Demokrat, Paul Singer, one or our best men in the Reichstag - people of whose friendship I am proud, are all Jews."

engels.

[yozhik]

dogsmilk ... seriously; your "intellectual arrogance" is astonishing.

A book is soulless.
A soul is ascribed to living, breathing, sentient beings.
A book is a "thing".
It's not an "anti-intellectual" statement; its a factual statement.
A book does not and can not have a soul.

Instead of adopting a condescending, highbrow tone, why don't you use your obvious higher education to convey a simple message in simple terms.

I realise it may be beneath you - and I apologise for dragging you down to a lower intellectual level (you are obviously uncomfortable down here) ... but as you infer repeatedly; I am not worthy of such lofty heights of academia. Afterall, I am prone to promoting anti-intellectual thought, and given the maxim, "I think, therefore I am", then the obvious extension of your assertion is that I too, am anti-intellectual.

I can't read wot you says.
Please mister, can you speak simple for me?

[dogsmilk]

dogsmilk ... seriously; your "intellectual arrogance" is astonishing.

A book is soulless.
A soul is ascribed to living, breathing, sentient beings.
A book is a "thing".
It's not an "anti-intellectual" statement; its a factual statement.
A book does not and can not have a soul.

Instead of adopting a condescending, highbrow tone, why don't you use your obvious higher education to convey a simple message in simple terms.

I realise it may be beneath you - and I apologise for dragging you down to a lower intellectual level (you are obviously uncomfortable down here) ... but as you infer repeatedly; I am not worthy of such lofty heights of academia. Afterall, I am prone to promoting anti-intellectual thought, and given the maxim, "I think, therefore I am", then the obvious extension of your assertion is that I too, am anti-intellectual.

I can't read wot you says.
Please mister, can you speak simple for me?

Stop being a tit - there would be no reason to describe books as "souiless" except to invoke your condescending principle that your claim you know Russian people somehow makes you wise to the ways of the world. Technically speaking, books are the means by which the entities the mythical soul is ascribed to transmit information. I've never heard anyone describe a book of the works of Wordsworth as "soulless" because they felt the need to point out the vehicle for his words is an inanimate object. At the moment I'm reading Plato...but I just realised the book isn't living and breathing so it strikes me it's soulless...God I'm just so fucking profound....

You're just chatting shit because you realised what a hypocrite you are; you wouldn't say any such thing when one of Jew theorist mates posts something from a "soulless" website or, indeed, from a "soulless" book. Indeed, you wouldn't go round the forum saying it about any other topic would you?
Why aren't you disseminating your little pearls of wisdom on this thread?
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2713

my point is valid, i said they were behind revolutions in other countries and they were, theres no argument, point proven, QED.


Which ones? I mean - how hard a question is that? Don't tell me - Mao was Jewish.

clearly you are upset


Clearly it's yet another question you can't answer.

again, you are just being obscure, what am i meant to take from this?

you know they were behind the communist movement in other countries which is what i stated, point proven, QED.


No I don't. I just don't see the point of introducing a whole new game of where's Jewy when we're still at this one. All I was saying is that it's actually quite ironic that the only other examples you feel even able to name anyone in failed, which kinda undermines your notion the Jews have amazing abilities to lever themselves into power - so your argument crashes in flames before it clears the runway. Communist parties have existed all over Europe with varying degrees of success. Let along the big revolutions you seem mysteriously uninterested in.

this is your problem really, you become shrill and verbally violent when someone suggests anything untoward regarding jews, you completely and utterly exposed yourself


And who knows - I might even lose my shit to the extent I start typing in huge blue letters.

i have provided mainstream sources, first hand historical documents, jewish sources, important quotes, the work of nobel prize winners - and each and every one of them was denied, what exactly are we dealing with here, someone please tell me


LOL - and yet you can't handle my respones. You haven't even read the Solzhenitsyn book have you? If you really do believe what you're writing, you should really enrol on some basic history course as you clearly have no idea about how to handle source material. You appear to think that just because something is an internal document its opinion is automatically accurate and unbiased without needing to know anything about it. "I has historical douments! Historical documents I tells thee!" Why don't you write a book - why my two memos prove I'm right about the Jews?

rubbish, total piffle, they held a grudge against christians for this reason


Oh right yeah. And your basis for this is...?

You're just trying to push a Jews - they hate us! notion.

as i said, we know conversions were forced and funnily there is always a jewish connection - and not a cousin 3 times removed, but normally a grandparent.


Yeah but forced conversions weren't really a feature of the era we're talking about were they? You would kinda think there'd be a Jewish connection to the descendants of converts wouldn't you? I don't know what you're saying -it's just incoherent.

yes, whatever, you are free to hypothesise, does not really change the fact that it was a heavily jewish run movement - which sometimes you admit and sometimes you do not


Hang on - you've been saying Jews actually ran it and they're alien invaders that took over the country and shit. You compared it to a bunch of Nigerians seizing control of Britain. You've said the 'murder of millions' is the direct responsibility of the Jews and don't seem to have a bad word to say about Stalin - make up your mind.
Sure Jews were Bolsheviks - I never said they weren't. I just don't see that they dominated it or that their Jewish ancestry had any relevance whatsoever. As I keep saying, those that did get power tended to be eliminated. And they were all atheists anyway. I just cannot see what the fuck is supposed to be so Jewish about Bolshevism.
I think I've actually got a different definition of "Jew" than some Jews seem to have. I mean, you see it said (by people including Jews) Kamenev was Jewish - well if his dad was Jewish but did not follow Judaism, his mother wasn't Jewish and Kamenev was an atheist, then why the fuck is he 'a Jew'? - it makes no sense to me - can you explain?
In fact one of my other Politburo dudes seemed to only have a Jewish dad, but I couldn't verify exactly what his mum was so I just called him a Jew because I thought it would make you happy.


more distortion

so what have you done here

you have said my source is rubbish - because it IS - because you say so

then you tell me a whole bunch of pointless information

and you think thats honestly answering the point?


I'm certainly saying your source is rubbish - by which I mean whatever bullshit website you've been reading, not the actual book because you haven't read it. I thought I made that clear.

Course it's answering the point. You don't seem to realise the extent of the staff turnover under Stalin, principally in the 1930s. Your guys simply did not 'run the death machine' in any meaningful sense. Hell I bet you didn't even know what they did until I told you. Funnily enough, the guys with the biggest staying power - like Molotov, Beria and Khruschev - tended not to be Jewish. Weird huh?

because it will destory your argument, a jewish source written by jews cofirming what i said, OH THE HORROR

lighten up my friend, its all there


Yeah? Well unfortunately I've been preoccupied with the Politburo as you know. Doing what you should have been doing. honestly - I'm not your mum you know.

no

Right. So your point kinda collapses doesn't it?

so you now accept its the truth and are asking me what the problem is, more deflection and squirming, refer back to my very original point on this thread, the question is not why its a big problem for me, but why its a big problem for you


you just take every sentence i post, and impute some spin to make it seem as if i am trying to imply something ridiculous all the time, this is why i urge everyone to be economical in their words with this person

i know this tactic well, you make the other person seem ridiculous so we do not discuss the issue at hand but your silly allegations, its stifling, it deflects from the point

2+2=4.

Blah blah blah. And Che Guevara's Jewish, drum and bass was invented by the Edwardians and Jews start all the commie revolutions but you can't quite remember which ones. I just applied my spin to obfuscate these and other such profundities didn't I?

well, thats quite an extensive list, i will have to get back that you on that


Molotov had a Jewish wife so you might want to go on about that. Except she got sent to the gulag.

however, i did not say that communism remained in the control of jewish people, i merely said at its roots - it seems you have taken alot of time to prove a point i did not really say which is consistent for you - as it makes it seem like its rebuttal of my point, when really its not


also, the jews had special treatment because being anti-semitic was regarded as counter revolutionary, since ofcourse all the leaders were jewish, then when millions are dying and given the special treatment of jews it leads to resentment


they were not ethnic russians, nor did they have any loyalty to russia, they were nomadic jews in spirit and mind who felt no warmth for their fellow russians and their only home was that which what they called ancient israel, these are their beliefs which they are taught in the talmud, look up their prayers and their rites

this led them to the slaughter of tens of millions, which is well documented


(quite obviously anything referring to 'millions' is can only conceivably refer to the Stalin era - ironically I think by the 1930s you're looking at around about a whopping 1 Jew in the Politburo)

if someone truly loved their people and was patriotic they would think twice before subjugating them and killing millions of them in a slavish movement

the truth is evident, jews were at the heart of communism, they were the intellectual founders, they were the leaders, they occupied positions of power and influence, jews living in other nations were always the main ones spreading communism, the movement was completely top heavy with jews


Anyway, if that's what you're now arguing I'm struggling to see the point. What are you actually proposing? What's your actual position? Are you arguing that Jews just had a tendency towards communism or are you arguing that they deliberately 'invented' communism as part of some big master plan? It's an important question because it defines the basis of your argument. I suspect you want to promote the latter but realise how ridiculous it actually is.
And why do you therefore blame the Jews for how communism turned out? It's like trying to blame the guys that wrote the Bible for the Inquisition.

While the Soviet Union was a monstrosity, commies, anarchists and socialists in other countries helped bring us things like the 8 hour day, employment rights and free public libraries. Was that a Jewish master plan?

What I really, really want to know is...why are people so fucking obsessed with Jews? It can't just because people have read all these dumb sites on the net - nobody's that stupid - so why?

To say nothing of Beine and Borne, Marx was of purest Jewish blood; Lassalle was a jew. Many of our best people are Jews. My friend Victor Adler, who is at present paying in prison for his devotion to the cause of the proletariat, Eduard Bernstein, editor of the London Sozial-Demokrat, Paul Singer, one or our best men in the Reichstag - people of whose friendship I am proud, are all Jews."

In what context? Sounds like he's saying some of my best friends are Jews. Marx didn't like Judaism. I already linked to his big rant about Jews. Sure he had 'Jewish blood' but so what? Is that green or something? Does it pump weird Jewish cells into your brain.
Can you link to the rest of the piece? Do you know why he was saying this?

I'm just not interested in random quotes. I could get hundreds of the web in half an hour. They're totally pointless. They don't teach you anything. The purpose of quotes is to illuminate something. If you quote somebody, the onus is on you to understand who they were, what they were trying to say, the context they said it in and to be giving an accurate presentation of their views. If somebody is writing a "soulless" book about something and quotes somebody, it is their responsibility to ensure their quotes are part of an accurate representation of the views they're describing else they should expect to be shredded in peer review, general reviews or by competing works.
It totally does my head in the way you get these pages of quotes people copy and paste and pretend it teaches them stuff. Obviously in this case we all know who Engels was, but people post two line quotes where rabbi x said this or that and they haven't got a fucking clue who they were, what they were actually trying to say, how prominent they were, what other people thought about it etc etc. It's just there's an online cottage industry collating quotes regarding Jews and people think it's somehow 'educational'. I just cannot understand it.

[killerzzs]

which kinda undermines your notion the Jews have amazing abilities to lever themselves into powe

i did not say this, you are desperate for me to say this so you can have a field day telling me i am this and that

this is why you are still shreiking - because i am refusing to fall for your traps of stifling, freedom of speech is to be cherished.


Which ones? I mean - how hard a question is that? Don't tell me - Mao was Jewish.

i have already given proof, you can also look at the roots of american communism, which is surprise surprise heavily nigerian..i mean buddhist...i mean muslim....no thats right, a fair few jewish folks

Oh right yeah. And your basis for this is...?

You're just trying to push a Jews - they hate us! notion.


you are being completely disingenuous, jews have always been a tight knit community with a strong sense of their roots

forced conversions and hostility = resentment

who loves their (apparent) oppressors?

Yeah but forced conversions weren't really a feature of the era we're talking about were they?

what?

You would kinda think there'd be a Jewish connection to the descendants of converts wouldn't you?

more obscuring, more of your own spin and contextualisation


Hang on - you've been saying Jews actually ran it and they're alien invaders that took over the country and shit. You compared it to a bunch of Nigerians seizing control of Britain. You've said the 'murder of millions' is the direct responsibility of the Jews and don't seem to have a bad word to say about Stalin - make up your mind.
Sure Jews were Bolsheviks - I never said they weren't. I just don't see that they dominated it or that their Jewish ancestry had any relevance whatsoever. As I keep saying, those that did get power tended to be eliminated. And they were all atheists anyway. I just cannot see what the fuck is supposed to be so Jewish about Bolshevism.
I think I've actually got a different definition of "Jew" than some Jews seem to have. I mean, you see it said (by people including Jews) Kamenev was Jewish - well if his dad was Jewish but did not follow Judaism, his mother wasn't Jewish and Kamenev was an atheist, then why the fuck is he 'a Jew'? - it makes no sense to me - can you explain?
In fact one of my other Politburo dudes seemed to only have a Jewish dad, but I couldn't verify exactly what his mum was so I just called him a Jew because I thought it would make you happy.

again, you just go off on subjects not relevant, refer back to my very initial point on this thread and match it back to your shrill response


by which I mean whatever bullshit website you've been reading

i have seen your responses to my questions basically copied from jewish websites or websites by a jew written to respond to such claims, thats why i chuckle when i read your responses

i dont care where my sources, quotes and evidence have appeared, it does not detract from the fact that it exists, a fairly obvious point


Yeah? Well unfortunately I've been preoccupied with the Politburo as you know. Doing what you should have been doing. honestly - I'm not your mum you know.

once again, just ignoring it all

you should really enrol on some basic history course as you clearly have no idea about how to handle source material

yes, it is true that i cannot obscure a plain statement as much as you can

Why don't you write a book - why my two memos prove I'm right about the Jews?

why not help me help myself out here, tell me for what reason would the sources i posted have reason to lie or be inaccurate, why not help me help myself?

or do not have any interest in destroying your own stifling?

Anyway, if that's what you're now arguing I'm struggling to see the point. What are you actually proposing?

you really cant help it, you always have to contextualise things, add your own spin and stifle a simple remark


you are gagging for me to say something about this question so you can copy and paste some spiel about how silly, illogical or bigoted i am, or whatever

simply put i wont fall for it, i makes me laugh that you are so desperate to try and reel me in

that i only stick to facts and historical documents only further infuriates you, harder to discredit so you try and obsfucate your way through

"hey look, there was a jew who had a fight with another jew so thats clearly a contradiction so you are clearly talking bollox"

except you are nowhere as consice


It's an important question because it defines the basis of your argument.

you mean the extensive argument i mapped out in my inital post on this thread.:confused::rolleyes:

you completely exposed yourself, put some clothes on quick!!!!!

why are people so fucking obsessed with Jews?


its not obsession

you are on a forum for people who are inquisitive, looking for truth and knowledge

in search of this knowledge many people will find jewish people/israel related issues in all spheres and arenas (too many to name) - and before you start barking - not just a bystanders role but key central roles

this would not be so remarkable were it not for the fact that they are a tiny minority yet consistently they are heavily in the mix

should these same people happen to be chinese, indian, buddhist etc etc i would ask the same, yet it never is.

it is entirely natural, correct and fair to note any such patterns, which is all i have done.



In what context? Sounds like he's saying some of my best friends are Jews.

and "many of his best people" - who is he referring to, his hairdresser? :rolleyes:
And who knows - I might even lose my shit to the extent I start typing in huge blue letters.


amongst this extensive dialogue i wished for this point to be seen by anyone who happened to be skimming through, since it encapsulates the discussion, so quite deliberately it is loud and bright

I'm just not interested in random quotes.

you are not interested in anything that contradicts you, which is why you pollute this thread so much, is there anything that can hypothetically convince you?

ofcourse not, because you are opposed to any possible conclusion from the off so your modus operandi is to DISTORT DISTORT DISTORT

[yozhik]

Stop being a tit - there would be no reason to describe books as "souiless" except to invoke your condescending principle that your claim you know Russian people somehow makes you wise to the ways of the world. Technically speaking, books are the means by which the entities the mythical soul is ascribed to transmit information. I've never heard anyone describe a book of the works of Wordsworth as "soulless" because they felt the need to point out the vehicle for his words is an inanimate object. At the moment I'm reading Plato...but I just realised the book isn't living and breathing so it strikes me it's soulless...God I'm just so fucking profound....
I rest my case.
Move along ... nothing to reply to here ... *yawn*


You're just chatting shit because you realised what a hypocrite you are; you wouldn't say any such thing when one of Jew theorist mates posts something from a "soulless" website or, indeed, from a "soulless" book.
Seriously; that would have to be one of the most fucked up justifications and arguments ever presented on this forum, being passed off as genuine rebuttal from a supposedly intelligent sentient being.

1. yes - a website is soulless (no shit)
2. yes - a book is soulless

So why, when one person quotes from one soulless entity, in rebuttal to a quote sourced from another soulless entity, why would I then "say such a thing" regarding it being soulless?

I wouldn't.
They are BOTH soulless.
Introducing an argument about having soul or not having soul, to promote one side or reject the other, would be redundant.

You really need to stop with these false premise arguments and twisting of words - its making you look like an idiot.

Indeed, you wouldn't go round the forum saying it about any other topic would you?

(sigh) ... you really are a prize pillock.

Maybe you should check out this post.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1035236&postcount=9

Don't bother ... I'll save you the time;
Anything we read ... any thing and everything ... will be the fictitious representation of the author's opinions or interpretation.

A written word is a fiction of the word itself.
It represents the message in written form.

Oh no ... it looks like I do post similar thoughts, in other posts, in other threads.
Oh dear; you're arrogance and false accusations have been rumbled AGAIN. :rolleyes:

Hint: better to be thought an idiot than to type inanely on a keyboard and remove all doubt.


dogsmilk ... seriously; your "intellectual arrogance" is astonishing.

Nearly says it all.
Need to make a couple of minor edits ...

dogsmilk ... seriously; your "intellectual arrogance" and stifling condescending attitude is both nauseating and repugnant.

Yep ... much better.

[killerzzs]

i am feeling a distinct lack of love.

[yozhik]

i am feeling a distinct lack of love.

sad, isn't it?

[romas]

Some decent books on the topic:

Amazon.com: Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question (9781892796059): David Duke: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21gYvo7vckL.@@AMEPARAM@@21gYvo7vckL
Amazon.com: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (9780374531508): John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41YA7Mh2y2L.@@AMEPARAM@@41YA7Mh2y2L
Amazon.com: The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (9780759672222): Kevin MacDonald: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41E3KHQXFKL.@@AMEPARAM@@41E3KHQXFKL

[dogsmilk]

i did not say this, you are desperate for me to say this so you can have a field day telling me i am this and that

this is why you are still shreiking - because i am refusing to fall for your traps of stifling, freedom of speech is to be cherished.


I'm not "desperate" for you to say anything. It just appears implicit in your narrative. I apologise if I am wrong.
So would you say you don't think Jews lever themselves into power in any way other than other individuals might?

i have already given proof, you can also look at the roots of american communism, which is surprise surprise heavily nigerian..i mean buddhist...i mean muslim....no thats right, a fair few jewish folks


I don't really know anything about American communism so I couldn't say. If you wish to present a chronological analysis of Jews in American communism and explain why you think it is important I will look at it.
I haven't seen any 'proof' of anything so far. You mentioned a couple of names from failed events in Germany and Hungary while studiously ignoring the other countries I asked you about. Apart from claiming Che Guevara is Jewish and then persistently refusing to explain why you believe so.
If you accept Jews were irrelevant to China etc then just say so. I don't think you want to because I think you are determined to associate Jews with communism as much as you possibly can. For some reason.

you are being completely disingenuous, jews have always been a tight knit community with a strong sense of their roots

forced conversions and hostility = resentment

who loves their (apparent) oppressors?

what?

I sort of thought forced conversions weren't really a feature of early twentieth century Russia. Perhaps they were. There were pogroms.
You like sweeping generalisations a lot. I confess I have never studied the nature of Jewish communities in pre-revolutionary Russia. I do know the extent to which Jewish communities were tight knit varied generally. However, if you have studied Jewish communities in Russia, then please enlighten me further.
You also assume resentment. It goes without saying people respond to oppression in various ways ranging from passivity to active confronatation. I wouldn't personally make assumptions about how Jews in different parts of Russia experienced or reacted to oppression. You just seem to prefer sweeping statements based on apparently nothing.
This particular argument is a hangover from your claims the Jews killed millions of people - in your last post you moved to saying you were only arguing Jews were initially behind communism. Which means they can't be behind the mass slaughter that occurred later under Stalin - that guy who is apparently invisible to you. So I sort of wonder why you're still going on about it.
I previously said that the experience of oppression may have led Jews to find communism attractive as it represented an ostensibly egalitarian alternative to the old order. I'm not saying it's true, it just makes sense to me.
When I said this previously, you started flailing around claiming that by suggesting this as a reason Jews may have been drawn to communism I was therefore 'admitting' they were behind it or whatever. However, if you are indeed not in actuality concerned with making everything fit with some crackpot Jewish conspiracy drivel, then I don't see why it's a notion that isn't at least worth considering.

more obscuring, more of your own spin and contextualisation

You omitted the part where I said I didn't understand what you were trying to say. What was that about obscuring?

again, you just go off on subjects not relevant, refer back to my very initial point on this thread and match it back to your shrill response

This is curious as I was making an extremely relevant point. If as a disciple of the church of jooo it is your mission on earth to demonstrate Jews are behind things, then I would have thought that having an effective definition of Jewishness was of paramount importance. So with Kamenev:
1/He's generally referred to as Jewish. By people including Jews. Yet his father was a non-practicing Jew. It strikes me that if you were an atheist, your father was a lapsed Catholic and your mother was Orthodox it would be rather absurd to say you 'were a Catholic'. So do you think someone like Kamenev qualifies as a Jew in some meaningful way and if so why? - I mean, it's not even that maternal lineage thing Jew theorists are so fond of citing.
2/Why are you concerned with Jews who were atheists as opposed to all the people from, say, Orthodox backgrounds? Bolsheviks were atheists - it goes with the territory. So these Jews are actually atheists who subscribe to an ideology that is dismissive of religion generally. You hear people say 'atheistic Jews' which on one hand I understand with the notion of the Jews as 'a people' but is also something of an oxymoron. I once used to be mates with someone from an immigrant Muslim family. She was an atheist with Marxist leanings. Would she be called an 'atheistic Muslim'? How does that make sense? At any rate, Jews who wished to be Jews could have subscribed to a Jewish organisation. They could have become Zionists. Yet they were not 'Jews' in the sense they followed the Torah and observed the Sabbath or whatever. So why does it matter to you how many atheistic Bolsheviks happened to be from a Jewish background?

I really do not think these are unreasonable questions.

i have seen your responses to my questions basically copied from jewish websites or websites by a jew written to respond to such claims, thats why i chuckle when i read your responses

i dont care where my sources, quotes and evidence have appeared, it does not detract from the fact that it exists, a fairly obvious point


I don't think I have posted anything from a Jewish website on this thread. Please correct me if I am wrong. I may have posted things by books written by Jews; I think Jews have as much right to write books as anyone else and am aware of no evidence whatsoever that the texts I have cited have been shown to be flawed or biased. Yet you contradict yourself - you automatically dismiss any book a Jew has written that will have been subjected to peer review (Herf is actually well known and respected...by gentiles too!), yet any old cobblers you find on some website - which any monkey can whop on the net - and which has led you to cite patently false 'information', you couldn't care less about. You haven't even provided links, which is a standard courtesy. This leas me to suspect you have basically no interest in 'truth'.

once again, just ignoring it all

I am not ignoring anything. I have not got round to investigating a claim you are apparently too lazy to properly present yourself. I do not see why it is my responsibility to do your research for you. You may be happy with some throwaway quote from a book you found on the net but that's you. I already spent time compiling the Politburo list when this would have been the logical thing for you to do in the first place and was my suggested sensible way to consider the issue. On top of that - would you like me to compile a list of all the things on this thread you have ignored?

yes, it is true that i cannot obscure a plain statement as much as you can

Today I would like to present my thesis on Jewish domination of Bolshevism. I would like to consider these memos. I don't know anything about the person that wrote them and I haven't seen the complete text. I don't know why they were written and in exactly what capacity. I have no idea what comparable correspondence was being produced at the time. I do know that one of them contains statements so ridiculous even I have to admit they're false - unless I can find the 'negros and chinamen' in the Bolshevik government that is. Nevertheless they both say pejorative things about Jews so I can only conclude they are entirely accurate. I'll be signing my book at the front. No Jews please. Thank you.

why not help me help myself out here, tell me for what reason would the sources i posted have reason to lie or be inaccurate, why not help me help myself?

or do not have any interest in destroying your own stifling?


There may be several conceivable reasons. The authors may have had a low opinion of Jews. They may have received inaccurate information (white Russians certainly had a vested interest in their own propaganda). The revolution was of deep concern not because of how evil the Bolsheviks may have turned out to be but because the idea of it happening elsewhere was frightening so some may have wanted to play down Russian working class support. All three of these could be combined. Without knowing more about them how can you draw a conclusion? The text is incomplete, there is no background on them or their authors.
I know very little about this, but apparently white Russians were fond of talking about "kike-Bolshevik commissars" and I do know there were Jew stories in various papers. The distinction you're failing to make is what bullshit was flying around in the context of a turbulent time. Jumping to some big conclusion you've 'proved' something on the basis of these isolated ripped memos just seems barmy to me. I would like to thank you though - it occurs my knowledge of the early stages of the revolution is poor and I need to put it on my 'read up about' (sorry Zozhik) list.
The funny thing is, I'm sure I've read about one of them somewhere, but I'm buggered if I can remember where.

you really cant help it, you always have to contextualise things, add your own spin and stifle a simple remark


How can you not?!?! Everything happens in a context.
You just seem happy to leap to mad conclusions on the basis of a couple of factoids you encountered online. You don't even seem remotely bothered with trying to understand the context of events at all. It mystifies me.

that i only stick to facts and historical documents only
Edwardian drum and bass?
Zombie presidents?
The elusive Jewishness of Che Guevara and Lenin?
Books you've never read?


Your constant refrain of "historical documents" tickles me. I can't stop thinking of this.

http://www.arts.u-szeged.hu/american/americana/volIno1/images/missi_pyle_patrick_breen_enrico_colantoni_jed_rees _galaxy_quest_001.jpg

we have seen the historical documents...

you are on a forum for people who are inquisitive, looking for truth and knowledge


Maybe so but I don't think that's your goal. You're going a funny way about it at least.

in search of this knowledge many people will find jewish people/israel related issues in all spheres and arenas (too many to name) - and before you start barking - not just a bystanders role but key central roles

this would not be so remarkable were it not for the fact that they are a tiny minority yet consistently they are heavily in the mix

should these same people happen to be chinese, indian, buddhist etc etc i would ask the same, yet it never is.

it is entirely natural, correct and fair to note any such patterns, which is all i have done.


One minute you're trying to make out you're engaged in some impartial enquiry, the next you're citing any old wank you can find on the net and accusing teh jooos of murdering millions of people while not once recognising Stalin had any responsibility for anything. Please don't bullshit me. You're a Jew theorist seeking to find bad things about Jews. Do you think it's not obvious or something????
I just wish one of you people would at least once do me the courtesy of explaining how your Jew theorist conversion occurred. It truly fascinates me.

this would not be so remarkable were it not for the fact that they are a tiny minority yet consistently they are heavily in the mix


Don't tell me - it's all in teh protocolz - woooooo!!!!!!!



amongst this extensive dialogue i wished for this point to be seen by anyone who happened to be skimming through, since it encapsulates the discussion, so quite deliberately it is loud and bright


Do you always make such a big thing of ranting and raving? Do you stand outside shopping centres screaming the Jews!!! the Jeeeeewwwwwws!!!!!!.

you are not interested in anything that contradicts you, which is why you pollute this thread so much, is there anything that can hypothetically convince you?

ofcourse not, because you are opposed to any possible conclusion from the off so your modus operandi is to DISTORT DISTORT DISTORT

I've kind of indicated what would convince me in various posts, but I'll make it explicit.
a/A clear chronological comparison of Jews and non-Jews in whatever government or organisation you're concerned with.
b/ A rational explanation or hypothesis as to why Jewish predominance - if present - occurred.
c/A coherent explanation as to why anyone should give a shit about how many people from Jewish backgrounds were communists.
d/A coherent explanation as to why communist ideology has anything to do with Judaism.
e/Why it's so unspeakably negative. The Soviet Union turned out to be a monstrosity but communists/anarchists weren't intrinsically bad people and the ideology was about overthrowing the bosses and striving for equality. It may have gone tits up but these guys nevertheless won us some rights. I have a certain romantic fondness for anarchism at least, so should I be thinking of American commies or whatever as bad guys or what?

That's a start.

I needn't ask you as to what would convince you communism wasn't/isn't Jewish as nothing would.

i am feeling a distinct lack of love.

That's sad. Are you lonely?
Do you seek a companion you can spent long nights with talking about Jews?
Get a cat.
Or take some ecstasy perhaps.

No time to reply to Yozhik. Will try to tomorrow.

[dogsmilk]

Oh -

you mean the extensive argument i mapped out in my inital post on this thread.

you completely exposed yourself, put some clothes on quick!!!!!


Which extensive argument??

Your first post on this thread was this -

exactly

the same cabal of jewish zionist war mongers who have the blood of thousands of iraq's and americans on their hands pretending to defend freedom do everything in their power to stop freedom of speech when they are threatened

Your first directed at me was -

a gormless dick for stating a fact about world jewry?

you sound like a typical venemous jew who spews bile when exposed, i have no interest in bland jew hatred, none at all

i do have a problem when people try and tell me whats true and not, are you part of some ADL programme to infiltrate the consipracy movement?

bolshevism was over run with jews, given its money by high jewish finance, this has been verified by a number of prominent historical figures including churchill, who was an ardent zionist,
killerzzs is online now Report Post Reply With Quote

Totally irrelevant.

and "many of his best people" - who is he referring to, his hairdresser?

What is the quote from and exactly what was he trying to say?

[yozhik]

No time to reply to Yozhik. Will try to tomorrow.

None required.
Seems we're in a relatively cyclic debate.
Can't see there being any middle ground to agree on.
Let's just agree to disagree.

[dogsmilk]

None required.
Seems we're in a relatively cyclic debate.
Can't see there being any middle ground to agree on.
Let's just agree to disagree.

Ah don't be so bloody pessimistic. Though I'm not posting on that thread and loathe the BNP I think some of your posts in that thread in the news section were good points well argued. I don't think us all having guns would help though. That would just be an excuse for the average bobby or even the community support 'plastic police' to be tooled up. And the state has tanks and helicopters.

Anyway.

I rest my case.
Move along ... nothing to reply to here ... *yawn*


The point is the written word is a means of transmitting information and ideas even over the centuries. If you are moved or inspired by thinkers, poets, writers from the past I think classifying the communication medium as soulless is just pointless.
And I think your initial 'you don't know the Russians like I do' pitch was simply condescending. As I said previously, I think few of us here really know the Iraqis or Afghans; I don't think that precludes us from having strong opinions.

Seriously; that would have to be one of the most fucked up justifications and arguments ever presented on this forum, being passed off as genuine rebuttal from a supposedly intelligent sentient being.

1. yes - a website is soulless (no shit)
2. yes - a book is soulless

So why, when one person quotes from one soulless entity, in rebuttal to a quote sourced from another soulless entity, why would I then "say such a thing" regarding it being soulless?

I wouldn't.
They are BOTH soulless.
Introducing an argument about having soul or not having soul, to promote one side or reject the other, would be redundant.

You really need to stop with these false premise arguments and twisting of words - its making you look like an idiot.


The question is why you suddenly decided to inject this principle into this thread specifically aimed at me. Look, you say in that other post you linked to

Anything we read ... any thing and everything ... will be the fictitious representation of the author's opinions or interpretation.

A written word is a fiction of the word itself.
It represents the message in written form.

Well I don't see why writing something down automatically makes it any different than saying it. If I tell you something then write down the exact same words and post them to someone else, I don't see how my initial verbalisation is inherently more 'authentic'. Now you can say that anything we communicate is in a sense a 'fiction' because we are all subjects who lack objectivity by virtue of being subjective creatures who use the medium of language, a mechanism that does not convey reality (whatever that is) only a representation of it. The map is not the territory and all that. Perhaps only God could be truly objective. However, humans have strived to invent mechanism whereby we can get as close to the 'objective' as possible. Hence various disciplines devise methodologies to attempt to account for subjectivity as far as possible. These can be abused, misapplied or ignored, but they're the best we can do. I agree talking to people and reading about things is good but this is not always possible - particularly with the past. Furthermore, people's impressions and beliefs may be skewed and different communities may have wildly varying outlooks. Attempting to analyse this through some rational methodology is the best means we have of trying to get 'truth'.

What bugs me is when people lie about information. Sure, in your sense what we may convey or interpret may be at some level 'fiction' and we can interpret texts in different ways, but it is fairly clear when we deliberately distort something.

So Killerzzs says

nobel prize winning russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his work the gulag archipelagoII he tells us the 6 leading administrators of the soviet death machine were jewish; Aron Solts, Yakov Rappoport, Lazar Kogan, Matvei Berman, Genrikh Yagoda, and Naftaly Frenkel

ofcourse, i am sure there is something wrong with mentioning this


Which they doubtless culled directly from an unnamed website.
Now since I was popping into a Local Authority ADL shill archive anyway, I've since had chance to check this out (it's why I like these discussions. They make me learn things.).

Between page 186 and 187 of the edition I consulted in some photo plates appears this image showing our guys:

http://www.davidduke.com/images/gulagjews.jpg

It is as it is. Their names with no further caption. Consulting the index for where they are mentioned, at no point does Mr S appear to refer to them as the "6 leading administrators of the Soviet death machine". For example, for Rappaport he's mentioned in one place in relation to some stuff about the angle wheelbarrows should be pushed at (you'd have to read it) and in one other place in the nearest we get to our quote above:

Yes, and it was quite right for them to set forth on the banks of the canal the names of the six principal lieutenants of Stalin and Yagoda, the chief overseers of Belamor, six hired murderers each of whom accounted for thirty thousand lives: Firin-Berman-Frenkel-Kogan-Rappoport-Zhuk.
Yes, and they should have added there the Chief of VOKhR of BelBaltlag - Brodsky. Yes, and the curator of the canal representing VTsIK-Solts.
Yes, and all thirty-seven Chekists who were at the canal. And the thirty-six writers who glorified Belamor. And the dramatist Pogodin should not be forgotten either.

p.91

So we note:

*Our list is slightly different to the one presented.
*This refers to the White Sea canal project. One event at one place in one time period. Referring to the "6 leading administrators" of the "Soviet death machine" is vague and conjures up images of the people running Stalin's crimes. 30 thousand deaths is awful, but I don't think anyone would think it's anywhere near the tally for "Stalin's death machine". Even if you just classify the "death machine" as the gulags (maybe killerzzs modified the quote they copied. That bastion of impartial study, racist cuntrag David Duke, frames them in terms of the gulags in a similar deceptive quote to Killerzzs'), then what the fuck was the Holodomor? And the gulags were around for a hell of a lot longer than just the canal project. And these guys were not permanent fixtures - as I posted before two were liquidated before the end of the 30s. Probably others two, dunno. It's deliberately giving a false impression.
*I can't find any comparable reference to our original six guys as being referred to as "leading administrators".

So what winds me up is this deliberate distortion. This isn't the abstract soullessness of the written word, it's intentional verbal sleight of hand. If I read something, I want to have some confidence the author may make different interpretations than I would, may make errors but is not trying to willfully deceive me. Yet for all the bullshit examples I see, I never see Jew theorists acknowledge obvious bullshit in their sources. Cheers to Killerzzs anyway. It does look like an interesting book so ta for spurring me on to check it out.

Oh no ... it looks like I do post similar thoughts, in other posts, in other threads.
Oh dear; you're arrogance and false accusations have been rumbled AGAIN.

Hint: better to be thought an idiot than to type inanely on a keyboard and remove all doubt.

Heh heh, I could argue the toss about this...but I'm actually not that petty, so my apologies if I leaped to un unwarranted conclusion.

dogsmilk ... seriously; your "intellectual arrogance" and stifling condescending attitude is both nauseating and repugnant.
Yep ... much better.


Oh I know. I just don't understand the Russians the way you do...

Some decent books on the topic:

http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Suprema.../dp/1892796058
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U...ref=pd_sim_b_4
http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Critiq...ref=pd_sim_b_3

Totally futile. They have no soul.;)

[killerzzs]

So would you say you don't think Jews lever themselves into power in any way other than other individuals might?

again, you thought you were very smart by imputing such a conclusion on my behalf - as if it was an obvious conclusion and you had to interject by shooting it down before it was said huh?

I don't really know anything about American communism so I couldn't say. If you wish to present a chronological analysis of Jews in American communism and explain why you think it is important I will look at it.
I haven't seen any 'proof' of anything so far. You mentioned a couple of names from failed events in Germany and Hungary while studiously ignoring the other countries I asked you about. Apart from claiming Che Guevara is Jewish and then persistently refusing to explain why you believe so.
If you accept Jews were irrelevant to China etc then just say so. I don't think you want to because I think you are determined to associate Jews with communism as much as you possibly can. For some reason.


firstly i said jews were the ones involved heavily in bolshevism, not communism as a whole

you then thought you were smart by taking a point thats not discussed to its extension and trying to rebutt me from there - totally useless, i never said anything about china, or cuba.

i will come back you on american communism, no doubt this heads up will prompt you to some of your favourite sites


You also assume resentment.


and i am right in doing so, i know i would be if i were an innocent everyday non-harmful jew.

and again yes i do think the jewish community are an extremely tight knit community, all throughout their history more or less - without presuming too much i think thats an extremely obvious point which you could ask an everyday jew and he would confirm it

This particular argument is a hangover from your claims the Jews killed millions of people - in your last post you moved to saying you were only arguing Jews were initially behind communism. Which means they can't be behind the mass slaughter that occurred later under Stalin - that guy who is apparently invisible to you. So I sort of wonder why you're still going on about it.

yet stalin did not run and do everything


I previously said that the experience of oppression may have led Jews to find communism attractive as it represented an ostensibly egalitarian alternative to the old order. I'm not saying it's true, it just makes sense to me.
When I said this previously, you started flailing around claiming that by suggesting this as a reason Jews may have been drawn to communism I was therefore 'admitting' they were behind it or whatever. However, if you are indeed not in actuality concerned with making everything fit with some crackpot Jewish conspiracy drivel, then I don't see why it's a notion that isn't at least worth considering.
but all i did was note it

you are entitled to make such a hypothesis, i cannot say i agree with it, nor can i say its entirely without basis, however thats just a superficial opninion right now


I really do not think these are unreasonable questions.


i see what you are saying, but jews are a race and in many ways a tribe as much as a religion, therefore the criteria of practising/non-practising does not apply to my reckoning

Today I would like to present my thesis on Jewish domination of Bolshevism. I would like to consider these memos. I don't know anything about the person that wrote them and I haven't seen the complete text. I don't know why they were written and in exactly what capacity. I have no idea what comparable correspondence was being produced at the time. I do know that one of them contains statements so ridiculous even I have to admit they're false - unless I can find the 'negros and chinamen' in the Bolshevik government that is. Nevertheless they both say pejorative things about Jews so I can only conclude they are entirely accurate. I'll be signing my book at the front. No Jews please. Thank you.

hehe, very good

There may be several conceivable reasons. The authors may have had a low opinion of Jews. They may have received inaccurate information (white Russians certainly had a vested interest in their own propaganda). The revolution was of deep concern not because of how evil the Bolsheviks may have turned out to be but because the idea of it happening elsewhere was frightening so some may have wanted to play down Russian working class support. All three of these could be combined. Without knowing more about them how can you draw a conclusion? The text is incomplete, there is no background on them or their authors.
I know very little about this, but apparently white Russians were fond of talking about "kike-Bolshevik commissars" and I do know there were Jew stories in various papers. The distinction you're failing to make is what bullshit was flying around in the context of a turbulent time. Jumping to some big conclusion you've 'proved' something on the basis of these isolated ripped memos just seems barmy to me. I would like to thank you though - it occurs my knowledge of the early stages of the revolution is poor and I need to put it on my 'read up about' (sorry Zozhik) list.
The funny thing is, I'm sure I've read about one of them somewhere, but I'm buggered if I can remember where.



thats really quite speculative is it not?

"oh the author must have been an anti-semite"

"his info was probably faulty"


nothing solid there i am afraid, as it stands the documents have more credance than your claims to discredit them


a/A clear chronological comparison of Jews and non-Jews in whatever government or organisation you're concerned with.
b/ A rational explanation or hypothesis as to why Jewish predominance - if present - occurred.
c/A coherent explanation as to why anyone should give a shit about how many people from Jewish backgrounds were communists.
d/A coherent explanation as to why communist ideology has anything to do with Judaism.
e/Why it's so unspeakably negative. The Soviet Union turned out to be a monstrosity but communists/anarchists weren't intrinsically bad people and the ideology was about overthrowing the bosses and striving for equality. It may have gone tits up but these guys nevertheless won us some rights. I have a certain romantic fondness for anarchism at least, so should I be thinking of American commies or whatever as bad guys or what?


a. the essence of the point are the roots of the movement
b. i would also be interested in an answer to that, its just a shame that you will shoot down any possible hypothesis or conjecture on the issue
c. responsible for the most destructive movement of the last century, i think thats quite important
d. will get back to that, i think thats 3 things i need to do at some point
e. see c.

That's sad. Are you lonely?
Do you seek a companion you can spent long nights with talking about Jews?
Get a cat.
Or take some ecstasy perhaps.




clearly you are ruffled

Which extensive argument??

exactly, i was being ironic my friend.

[yozhik]

The point is the written word is a means of transmitting information and ideas even over the centuries. If you are moved or inspired by thinkers, poets, writers from the past I think classifying the communication medium as soulless is just pointless.

This is quite difficult to explain, which actually reinforces my point. :)

The written word will never fully express the thoughts and feelings of the author. They might come close; some would argue the better the author, the greater the ability to more closely express the thought.

However, written expression will always, IMHO, fall short; if even by the most minuscule of margins.

A written word is an interpretation of a thought or a "thing".
It describes or it represents. However, it can not ever be, what "is".
Words are a fiction; a substitute for the non-fictional, sentient communicated thought, action or emotion.

I'm not saying that incredible poetry can not inspire great emotion.
But the emotion is not transferred from the book, or the written form; it is inspired by it.
The emotion comes from within the soul of the receiver.
It is not received from the soul of what is written.
The book or poem or painting, etc ... is the medium by which the thoughts, emotions, feelings of one soul is communicated to the receiver's soul.
It is a form of transference, rather than possessing the soul like qualities itself.


I'm probably making a pig's ear of this ... and to be honest, it is WAY off topic ... but I thought you deserved my attempt at an answer.

Don't misinterpret my viewpoint as an inability to appreciate quality writing, or incredible artworks ... I do appreciate them. They often spark wonderful thoughts, emotions or periods of creativity ... but in this respect, they are tools - they are not the emotions or the "soul" themselves.

[yozhik]

And I think your initial 'you don't know the Russians like I do' pitch was simply condescending. As I said previously, I think few of us here really know the Iraqis or Afghans; I don't think that precludes us from having strong opinions.

If it came across as condescending, I apologise to all.

Again, just my personal modus operandi.
I question everything; including everything I read.
I will often read it and try to debate from that viewpoint, but I'm not married to it.
If I encounter a compelling rebuttal, which on examination seems more factually accurate, I'll morph this new found knowledge into my opinion. I'm not so arrogant as to think I will ever know everything.
The day I wake up with nothing to learn is the day I am happy to die.

Again, going back to my personal choice of information gathering; I like, where possible, to seek the opinions of those who" were there" or have experienced that which is spoken about. it does not mean I'm going to take their testimony or opinion as fact - but it will add "light and shade" to the information that has already been harvested.

Bringing it back to what has already been discussed ... and before you get your knife out, let me forewarn you I will be extremely general and hypothetical in this example ... it is not an opinion, merely an illustrative, hypothetical example :)

If I read something in a newspaper, or see something on the TV news, or hear something ... regarding the political landscape in Russia and how the people have reacted; I will ask the Russian people I know what their views on it are. Not because I'm going to instantly quote it as gospel and totally reject what was previously heard or seen, but because (in my opinion) the truth often lies somewhere in between.

For example, if I read that the Jews have no influence on Russian history or modern political events and the basis for this statement is, "how could they - the Jews only make up 2% of the population" ... then I will ask for views and opinions, from people that LIVE there. Who experience it first hand.

I don't necessarily know the personal opinions of the author or speech writer of the information I received, being passed of as credible news or information. I am not privy to whether the author or orator has an agenda. When I refer to books being soulless, this is also hand in hand with this unknown background agenda or subconsciously transmitted personal opinion.

Historians, whilst striving to remain impartial to some degree, can not fully communicate information in written form, without it being tainted by their own life experiences. Everything we say or do is a product of who we were, who we are and who we will be.

So, to try and find a "balance"; to (vainly) search for as close to the truth as I humanly can ... I try to incorporate as many "personal" views as possible ... the views of the authors of history, the views of bloggers, the views of journalists, the views of politicians, the views of video makers, the views of friends, family, strangers ... throw them into one big melting pot, scoop off the scum that floats to the top, sieve out the impurities, reboil the cleansed remains, rinse and HOPEFULLY end up with a beautiful, rich, clean, balanced stock from which to make a plentiful supply of brain soup :D

I don't know if this helps explain my (erroneously) condescending post ... but hell - I gave oit a good shot.

[dogsmilk]

again, you thought you were very smart by imputing such a conclusion on my behalf - as if it was an obvious conclusion and you had to interject by shooting it down before it was said huh?


If you wish to be evasive and not say what you think that's up to you. It's just very dishonest.

firstly i said jews were the ones involved heavily in bolshevism, not communism as a whole


you know they were behind the communist movement in other countries which is what i stated, point proven, QED.


the truth is evident, jews were at the heart of communism, they were the intellectual founders, they were the leaders, they occupied positions of power and influence, jews living in other nations were always the main ones spreading communism, the movement was completely top heavy with jews


And why did you start going on about Germany and Hungary?
Why the fuck do you think we got talking about other countries in the first place? Why tell such a blatant lie?

you then thought you were smart by taking a point thats not discussed to its extension and trying to rebutt me from there - totally useless, i never said anything about china, or cuba.


I asked you about China because of quotes such as the above. You specifically said Che Guevara was Jewish then refused to provide your 'evidence' for this bizarre assertion.


i will come back you on american communism, no doubt this heads up will prompt you to some of your favourite sites


I'm afraid I will probably have little interest in quotes from websites saying such-and-such WAS A JEW!
And if your argument is only that Jews were heavily involved in early Boslhevism, why bother?

Nevertheless, for your convenience I've located a source that goes some way towards backing your thesis. See chapter 2 -
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GwSeTrRCWyAC&dq=harvey+klehr+communist+cadre&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=-rvraxtFWd&sig=lUb3korobKSA6SpIZMLNpvbYFJ8&hl=en&ei=_ekvSs7wEcnLjAeu7NiGCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPP1,M1
However, as you will see, although Klehr finds Jews to be dramatically over-represented on the committee, he also finds they did not figure in the formation of the party nor were prominent in actually controlling it. Interestingly, before that chapter on page 30, he appears to endorse a reason for Jews being drawn to Bolshevism rather like the one I suggested earlier. None of his analysis mentions a Jewish plot to force communism on the world or teh protocolz or whatever, so I'm not sure if it's exactly what you're looking for. Though I do think it contains veins of quote mine deposits you may wish to highlight for future extraction.
I don't know anything about this guy other than he's written stuff claiming the American communists were basically controlled by the USSR.

and i am right in doing so, i know i would be if i were an innocent everyday non-harmful jew.

and again yes i do think the jewish community are an extremely tight knit community, all throughout their history more or less - without presuming too much i think thats an extremely obvious point which you could ask an everyday jew and he would confirm it

And people behave exactly like you sorta think they should so you don't need to know a thing about it. Yeah whatever.
The experience of Jewish communities has been contingent on their time and place.

yet stalin did not run and do everything



He was very much in charge and made all the big decisions. Sure loads of other people were doing stuff. Khrushchev subsequently described himself as being 'up to his elbows' in his victim's blood from those days and though he wasn't a big cuddly bunny when he ran the Soviet Union it was not accompanied by the same slaughter. . It's totally uncontroversial that the Stalin era was the most brutal in the Soviet Union's history and that obviously was really down to Stalin.

but all i did was note it

you are entitled to make such a hypothesis, i cannot say i agree with it, nor can i say its entirely without basis, however thats just a superficial opninion right now


Course it is. Unlike you I don't get ideas into my head about things I've a superficial understanding of and run round shouting they're true because I decided they are.

i see what you are saying, but jews are a race and in many ways a tribe as much as a religion, therefore the criteria of practising/non-practising does not apply to my reckoning


Totally irrelevant. Personally I think 'race' is a social construct, but beyond that nobody in their right mind thinks members of other 'races' all have the same beliefs and ideologies do they?
How the fuck are Jews a "tribe"? As I said before, West and Eastern European Jews just did not relate to each other.
How do you reckon whether you practice Judaism or not an issue? Are you seriously suggesting there is no diversity of beliefs among people born of Jewish lineage?
That's absolutely barking mad.
Heh – where do you reckon these guys fit in then?
http://www.jewsforjesus.org.uk/
In fact, whether someone was a practicing Jew or not figured in Nazi 'racial' legislation.

You just fantasise Jews are all the same because of it's necessity for the crank theories you've indoctrinated yourself with.

hehe, very good

Glad you liked it.

thats really quite speculative is it not?

"oh the author must have been an anti-semite"

"his info was probably faulty"


nothing solid there i am afraid, as it stands the documents have more credance than your claims to discredit them


Of course it's speculative. You haven't provided and don't know any background information. Now I do know that anti-semitic notions associated with Bolshevism were kicking around at the time, but I don't know much about it. The Wilton stuff is obvious codswallop so that second guy was clearly talking out his arse wasn't he? It's like believing a memo that earnestly cites this blast from the past piece of quality journalism

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/pictures/thumb/s/f/j/sunday_sport.jpg

is a reliable source.
Mind you, you'd probably have believed that if it had claimed Jews put it there.

a. the essence of the point are the roots of the movement
b. i would also be interested in an answer to that, its just a shame that you will shoot down any possible hypothesis or conjecture on the issue
c. responsible for the most destructive movement of the last century, i think thats quite important
d. will get back to that, i think thats 3 things i need to do at some point
e. see c.


a/then demonstrate it fully and chronologically. Like I care as -
b/Well since you're now restricting your claim to solely that Jews were dominant in early Bolshevism, we'll essentially be reduced to arguing about exactly how many there were and how dominant they were. Which is getting a bit trivial. That claim in itself instantly makes me think - yeah, and, so, what? So saying why you think it happened it probably crucial to make your argument seem remotely interesting.
c/On your current argument it isn't. People like Kamenev and Zinoviev were more moderate than Stalin and not as paranoid so in all likelihood the movement wouldn't have been as destructive if one of them had took over. No-one was expecting the purges, no-one was expecting the Holodomor. You'd need to find some mad evidence these were evil Jewish soothsayers.

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z196/rmartelweb/crystal_ball.jpg

Trotsky foretells Stalin's purges and decides to dominate Bolshevism

d/I'm sure you'll find a website with some 'evidence'.
e/ That doesn't answer it. Early Communists weren't calling for what the Soviet Union turned out to be. Some anarchists warned them what might happen, but the revolution was supposed to emancipate the workers not replace one oppressor with another.

exactly, i was being ironic my friend.

Why? This was the question you were replying to.

Anyway, if that's what you're now arguing I'm struggling to see the point. What are you actually proposing? What's your actual position? Are you arguing that Jews just had a tendency towards communism or are you arguing that they deliberately 'invented' communism as part of some big master plan? It's an important question because it defines the basis of your argument.

Since you apparently only deal with “facts and historical documents”, would you care to comment on how you've been deceived by whatever website regarding Solzhenitsyn?

[dogsmilk]

This is quite difficult to explain, which actually reinforces my point. :)

The written word will never fully express the thoughts and feelings of the author. They might come close; some would argue the better the author, the greater the ability to more closely express the thought.

However, written expression will always, IMHO, fall short; if even by the most minuscule of margins.

A written word is an interpretation of a thought or a "thing".
It describes or it represents. However, it can not ever be, what "is".
Words are a fiction; a substitute for the non-fictional, sentient communicated thought, action or emotion.

I'm not saying that incredible poetry can not inspire great emotion.
But the emotion is not transferred from the book, or the written form; it is inspired by it.
The emotion comes from within the soul of the receiver.
It is not received from the soul of what is written.
The book or poem or painting, etc ... is the medium by which the thoughts, emotions, feelings of one soul is communicated to the receiver's soul.
It is a form of transference, rather than possessing the soul like qualities itself.


I'm probably making a pig's ear of this ... and to be honest, it is WAY off topic ... but I thought you deserved my attempt at an answer.

Don't misinterpret my viewpoint as an inability to appreciate quality writing, or incredible artworks ... I do appreciate them. They often spark wonderful thoughts, emotions or periods of creativity ... but in this respect, they are tools - they are not the emotions or the "soul" themselves.

I think I see what you are saying. The way you had raised it in the context of books vs talking to people sounded to me like you were saying when you write something down it's less 'authentic' than when you say it - a distinction I cannot see.
Otherwise I agree. Words are inadequate for capturing the experiential quality of thoughts and emotions. I suppose at the extreme end saying "I love you" will never properly capture how you are actually feeling. No matter what nauseating cards adorned with puppy dogs and and bouquets from Sainsbury's may happen to accompany it.
However, what I think is magical is the way that someone could write down their thoughts 2000 years ago or more and, as it were, transmit them through time (albeit imperfectly) by making markings other sentient beings in the future can decode and be affected by.
I also think there is power in the experience of those 'eureka moments' when you read something and think fucking hell yeah - I get it! and your own thoughts are profoundly affected by the transmission of those of someone else. Even if your thoughts are not quite the same.
At any rate, until we all invent telepathy it's all we've got.

[yozhik]

I think I see what you are saying. The way you had raised it in the context of books vs talking to people sounded to me like you were saying when you write something down it's less 'authentic' than when you say it - a distinction I cannot see.
Otherwise I agree. Words are inadequate for capturing the experiential quality of thoughts and emotions. I suppose at the extreme end saying "I love you" will never properly capture how you are actually feeling. No matter what nauseating cards adorned with puppy dogs and and bouquets from Sainsbury's may happen to accompany it.
However, what I think is magical is the way that someone could write down their thoughts 2000 years ago or more and, as it were, transmit them through time (albeit imperfectly) by making markings other sentient beings in the future can decode and be affected by.
I also think there is power in the experience of those 'eureka moments' when you read something and think fucking hell yeah - I get it! and your own thoughts are profoundly affected by the transmission of those of someone else. Even if your thoughts are not quite the same.
At any rate, until we all invent telepathy it's all we've got.

Holy snapping duck shit ... I think WE have just had a "Eureka moment".

WE AGREE!!!!

[breezinreezin]

Holy snapping duck shit ... I think WE have just had a "Eureka moment".

WE AGREE!!!!

Yeah, but only cos it had nuffin 2 do wid da joos. Innit.

[yozhik]

Yeah, but only cos it had nuffin 2 do wid da joos. Innit.

From small acorns, mighty oaks do grow :)

[bradstone]

It goes without saying that if communism was some Jewish affair, the Soviet Union and Israel would have been best buddies.

To the extent that when East Germany fell into a Soviet orbit, the Holocaust was basically a non-issue and the East German government refused to pay compensation. Communists just weren't that arsed about Jews. Which is kinda odd if you think communism was Jewish.

Bolshevism was Jewish. Think of the link between New York financiers and the SU. This remains true, even if the majority of Jews living in the SU at the time were not involved in running it. The basic fact of who was in charge is not altered.

However, international communism/socialism post 1945, you can't really say is exclusively or dominantly Jewish.

Priorities change. With Germany gone, the New York elite had achieved their goal. The Soviet Union was no longer important. Israel was the next project. So it was like a new phase that created different camps.

Still doesn't alter the fact that Bolshevism was overwhelmingly Jewish though.