Dont Blame The Jews
Posted on Sunday, August 27 at 19:26 by hal
Did David Ben-Gurien himself really state in 1938 he would have sacrificed half the Jews in Europe just to get 1/2 million to adopt Zionisim and take 'refuge' in Palestine?
Did the late Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, when he headed the Terrorsit brigade Irgun, really swing an Palestinian infant by the ankles and bash its head against a rock at Deir Yasssin in April of 1948, and throw its body into the well?...like their scriptures described about bashing Gentiles into the Cisterns?
Do Zionist Israelis really think you can forge a peaceful nation under god by ethnicly cleansing and destroying 400 villages and telling 1/2 a million Muslim Palestinan refugees to F***-Off into the desert?
Are Ashkenazi Jews really descendants of jaded Russian Huns of the Kazari empire that adopted Judism in 800 AD and susequently fled the invading Slavs in their own Diaspora, but in fact have no Semite in them whatsoever?
Did the Ashkenazi Jewish leadership conspire to exterminate authentic Semitic Yemenite and Saphardic Jews in the Ringworm programs and abductions in the 1950s?
Strangely, it hasnt been the prepoderance of evidence for the above seemily incredible atrocites that i read from several independent sources, several of which were themselves Jews, that gave me such second thought. (Youd think it would) No...It was the complete rubbish of character assasination and smear tactics and counter-blaming used as arguments aginst them. Not to mention the admition of Lying whenever they felt it necessary. If any of the education ive every had is any value, these are the very tactics of Facsism itself.
Yes i still believe the Holocaust happened and 6 million Jews and millions more were murdered. I can still barely imagine how living through that sort of thing would completely screw mt own mind, and society, in any direction it was offered, by any hand that offered it. Even if it was the hand that led them there. It seems to me, Jews were used and scrificed by the Zionists for sake of yet another crusade to the holy land. I can forgive them now for being swept up in the hysteria of post war Zionism. They really dont know what they do. Alas...neither do us gentiles.
Hal, Ottawa
Contributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
I am kind of surprised your challenge has been idle for this long.<br />
<br />
“. Im certain now ive been lied to but still not sure what the truth is. What has been suggested to me i fing shocking. If Im wrong, i want to know, with facts. So tell me....”<br />
<br />
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.” Thomas Pynchon.<br />
<br />
The question you have posed may or may not be red herrings but, that is not a point I wish to purse. The point that concerns me is the one about being lied to. <br />
I offer you a sight with views you may find objectionable, or you may find informative.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.warfolly.com/kaminski/ezra.html">http://www.warfolly.com/kaminski/ezra.html</a><br />
<br />
I am not a fan of blanket statement the begin with “the” (nationality of choice) as unified thought has not been reached, at least in my knowledge but other than that Kaminski offers thoughts worthy of considerations.<br />
Dio <br />
<p>---<br>We have met the enemy and he is us<br />
Pogo<br />
A mind is a fire to be kindled, not a vessel to be filled.<br />
Plutarch
Now, to be clear, not all Zionists are evil. Zionism in its simplest form is the belief that there should be a Jewish State. How that state is achieved is where Zionism fractures into groups. The two main groups are Labour Zionism and Revisionist Zionism.
Labour Zionism - this group wants a bi-national state. Creating a co-operative country where government is shared between Jews and the local people. I have a few problems with this model, but at least it espouses peaceful co-existance and does not rely on terror to drive non-jews out of Israel.
Revisionist Zionism - This is the heart of the Likud Party and the group that colaborated with Hitler and Mussolini in exchange for "help" in Palestine. It is also the group that formed the Irgun and Stern terrorists groups and the first Israeli government.
Revisionist Zionists were the ones that Bombed the King David Hotel, while dressed as Arabs, to make the world think that Arabs were the terrorists. Just last month (July 2006) the Revisionist Zionists had a 60th Anniversary party in honour of the bombing - organized by the Menachem Begin Centre and attended by Binyamin Netanyahu.
This "false flag" operation has been copied several times by revisionist elements, including bombings in Egypt carried out by Israeli agents and blamed on Arabs - it became known as the "Lavon Affair" after the Israeli Minister that was forced to step down after group was exposed and Israel's involvement became public knowledge.
So, blaming "Jews" for the actions of Israel is like blaming "Christians" for the actions of Hitler. Sure, the people involved are Jewish just as the Nazis were Christians, but they are not Judaism itself.
<br />
<a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=741434">http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=741434</a><br />
<br />
It may be worthwhile to revisit Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice<br />
<br />
<a href="http://ecclesia.org/truth/debt.html">http://ecclesia.org/truth/debt.html</a><br />
<br />
The following quote is from a law Review called The Georgetown Law Journal, written by Judith A. Shapiro. The name of this article is called The Shetar's Affect on the English Law, a Law of the Jews becomes the Law of the Land. The introduction reads as follows: <br />
<br />
“English Law, like the English language, is an amalgam of diverse cultural influences. The legal system may fairly be seen as a composite of discreet elements from disparate sources. After the conquest of 1066, the Normans imposed on the English and efficiently organized social system that crowded out many Anglo Saxon traditions. The Jews, whom the Normans brought to England, in their turn, contributed to the changing English society. The Jews brought a refined system of commercial law. Their own form of commerce and a system of rules to facilitate and govern it. These rules made their way into the developing structure of English law. <br />
<br />
“Several elements of historical Jewish practices have been integrated into the English legal system. Notable among these is the written credit agreement, Shetar, or Starr, as it appears in English documents. The basis of the Shetar, or Jewish gauge, was a lean on all property, including realty, that has been traced as a source of the modern mortgage. Under Jewish law, the Shetar permitted a creditor to proceed against all the goods and land of the defaulted debtor. Both movable and immovable property was subjected to distraint. <br />
<br />
“In contrast, the obligation of knight service, under Anglo Saxon Norman law, barred a land transfer that would have imposed a new tenant, and therefore, a different knight owing service upon the lord. The dominance of personal feudal loyalties equally forbade the attachment of land in satisfaction of a debt; only the debtor's chattels could be seized.” <br />
<br />
At this point we will pause here and explain the above quote. When someone took out a loan, that loan could not be applied to the land. The land was free of any debt, because it was under knight service. To continue the introduction: <br />
<br />
“These rules kept feudal obligations in tact, assuring that the lord would continue to be served by his own knights. When incorporated into English practice, the notion from Jewish law, that debts could be recovered against a loan secured by “all property, movable and immovable”, was a weapon of socio-economic change that tore the fabric of feudal society and established the power of liquid wealth in place of land holding.” <br />
<br />
So, they brought in the Shetar as a weapon, and it completely changed what debt could apply itself to. And it is now the modern mortgage system. Previously to that law being implemented, the land could never be taken from you, but of course today it can. And to continue: <br />
<br />
“The crusades of the twelfth century opened an era of change in feudal England. To obtain funds from Jews, nobles offered their land as collateral, although the Jews, as aliens, could not hold land in fee simple, they could take security interest in substantial money value. That Jews were permitted to hold security interest in land, they did not occupy expanded interest in land beyond the traditional tendencies. The separation of possessory interest from interest in fee contributed to the decline of the rigid feudal land tenure structure.” <br />
<br />
So, when they bring in a new law, it changes it slightly, and then over time they bring in new laws. Similar to what the Federal government does today. They'll bring in just a little change that really doesn't affect much, then they'll bring in another little change, and so on and so forth, and before you know it everything is turned upside down and things aren't exactly as they used to be. And finally: <br />
<br />
“At the same time, the strength of the feudal system had inheritant resistance to this widespread innovation abated. By 1250, scuttage had completely replaced feudal services. Tenant obligations had been reduced to money payments, and as the identity of the principles in the landlord tenant relationship became less critical, a change in the feudal rules restricting alienability of interest in land became possible.” <br />
<br />
<br />
The Shetar<br />
<br />
Now, in the same law review under the section The Jewish Credit Agreement in Feudal England, page 1182, it explains the more intricate history of the Shetar in Jewish law. <br />
<br />
“The law of the Shetar developed and elaborated by 500 A.D. in the Babylonian Talmud, antedates the Norman conquest by six centuries. Historically, the Shetar was an instrument that established formal obligation either in contract or in debt. At the moment that a debtor acknowledged his indebtedness through a Shetar, a general lien was established encumbering all the debtors property as security for ultimate repayment. In case of default, the creditor could proceed not only against “movable and immovable property” held by the debtor, but also against encumbered land that the debtor had transferred to a third party. The debt attached to the land and the creditors lien had priority over subsequent alienations. <br />
<br />
"Because of the severe obligation imposed by the Shetar, the contents of the instrument followed a standard form designed to insure authenticity and precision. Each Shetar recited standard clauses of obligation, the creditor's right to customary modes of execution, and a final phrase stating that the document was not merely a forum, but a statement of an express contract. Inserted into the forum language were the names of the parties, the sum and the currency of the debt, and the date of the obligation, thereby indicating the creation of the lien. To prevent fraud, the document was signed by two witnesses who knew the parties.” <br />
<br />
So when you see the description of the original Shetar, it's the same description of the modern mortgage. To continue: <br />
<br />
“A nation of wanderers, in adapting a variety of cultures, determined that the language in which the Shetar was written should be irrelevant to its legal validity. Thus, in dealings with a surrounding Gentile populous, Jews were content that loan agreements be formalized in Latin or in the Norman French of early England. Generally, the Jewish parties and witnesses were to test in Hebrew and the Christians in French or Latin. Although neither party may have understood the other's language, the document had the full force of law in both communities. <br />
<br />
“The crucial limitation on debt collection under Jewish law was that a creditor had a lien against the debtor's land, but not against the debtor's person. Personal freedom was not to be diminished by a debt obligation, and a creditor could not enslave one who was unable to repay him. The origin of this practice was the biblical protection of the dignity of debtors as embodied in the injunction not to enter the debtor's home to receive a pledge, but rather to wait outside for the debtor to bring it out. This was the structure of the law of obligation that the Jews brought with them to England.” <br />
<br />
So, what we see here is the modern mortgage system and its origin. It came out of the Babylonian Talmud, and it was adopted by the merchants of the world, the banking system, etc. Therefore, it is fully revealed that he who engages in a mortgage is yoked with those of the world.<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>We have met the enemy and he is us<br />
Pogo<br />
A mind is a fire to be kindled, not a vessel to be filled.<br />
Plutarch