Jews want Putin to end Talmudic investigation

[dukeofpain]

Foxman decries the investigation by saying, "this is reminiscent of tsarist oppression". However, does this comment have anything to do with the investigation? It seems to me that this is the typical course of action; playing the "anti-Semitism" card for anything and everything that may perhaps portray Jews in a different light. Since it's known that such imagery is effective in swaying public opinion. After all, how dare the Russians investigate the Talmud, which is a holy book of the Jews, the same Jews that had so many bad things done to them! I don't see why it would have to stop immediately anyways. If indeed it comes back that there are no similarities between the Talmud and Israel, or the Talmud and hate, wouldn't that be a great "win" for the fight against anti-semitism, since it's objective and merited truth? or, must it stop immediately because the Jews have something to hide?


Seems funny though, as the Zionists try to sway public opinion by constantly demonizing Arab Muslims for their "decadence" and "hate" dictated in the Koran and relating to sharia. For people like American evangelicals, who not only are rabidly Christian; historically at odds with Islam, but also have islamist terrorism imagery to fuel their hate. swaying them is all to easy.

The difference is the Russian government is motivated by a reasonable concern. Whereas the Zionists use their "investigation" to demonize people whom ascribe to the faith.





----------------------------------

ADL To Putin: Intervene To End Investigation of Jewish Holy Book


Update: On June 28, 2005, the Russian Prosecutor's office informed Russian Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar that the investigation had been halted.

_________________________________

New York, NY, June 27, 2005 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today expressed outrage at the decision of the Moscow District Prosecutor to order an investigation into the Jewish holy book that is the widely regarded authoritative text of Jewish law, on the baseless grounds that its contents are insulting towards non-Jews. Rabbi Zinovy Kogan, Chairman of the Congress of Jewish Organizations, which published an abbreviated version in Russian of the Shulhan Aruch, the 16th century codification of Jewish law, was questioned on June 23 by the Moscow District Prosecutor's office about its contents.

In a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, declared that, "the behavior of the District Prosecutor brings to mind the anti-Semitic persecution witnessed under the Tsars and during the rule of Stalin." The Prosecutor's action, Mr. Foxman wrote, "confirms our fears about the revival of anti-Semitic tendencies in Russia."

The League leader called on President Putin to "intervene immediately to end the Moscow District Prosecutor's investigation and to condemn anti-Semitic expressions and acts in Russia."

The investigation follows a call, sponsored by extreme nationalists and communists, to ban Jewish organizations in Russia. Five hundred public figures, including 20 members of the Russian parliament, signed a January statement calling for a ban. This was followed in March by a petition signed by 5,000 activists from the Russian Orthodox Church, also demanding a ban. The statement, which was based upon the false claim that the Shulhan Aruch is an expression of "Jewish chauvinism", repeated many of the most disgraceful lies leveled against the Jewish people, including the infamous 'blood libel' and the identification of Judaism with Satanism.

"We now think of Russia as a modern democracy, but this sort of anti-Semitic agitation is a throwback to the darkest medieval days," Mr. Foxman said. "The Russian government needs to declare a zero tolerance policy on anti-Semitism immediately. Russia also needs to know that the outside world is watching. We cannot and will not permit a situation in which Russian Jews are again at the mercy of extremists, xenophobes and anti-Semites."

[nymos]

The difference is the Russian government is motivated by a reasonable concern.

What is that reasonable concern?

[dukeofpain]

Wether it constitutes "hate speech". Which is a crime. Many revisionist scholars are given lengthy prison sentences for arguing historic authenticity. Yet, Jews when preach hate against Islam, or even against Germans, it isn't considered a crime. But when the jews are probed for the same offence, like by Russia, you have people like Abraham Foxman denounce it as "anti-semitism", eliciting powerful imagery so as to sway people into actually beliving he is justified in accusing the russians of what he had accused them of.
Because, like everyone knows, europeans (russians) are barbarous inherenly evil jew haters, and the jews are perfect in every way possible and aren't even capable of hate, so when they are investigated, it is an absolute outrage!

[dukeofpain]

nymos said:

The difference is the Russian government is motivated by a reasonable concern.

What is that reasonable concern?

As perhaps the millions of deaths unders bolshevism could be attributed to this kind of ideology, since the bolshevism leadership power structure was largely jewish. One infamous murderer of russian orthodox christians was Leon Trotsky (Bronstein), whom attended a Talmud school where the Shulchan Aruch was the predominant font of law and ethics.

[nordicyouth]

Some leading Jewish thinker in Canada gave a live televised speech.

He claimed that Zionists use anti-Semitism as a crutch to justify their actions in the Middle East i.e. labelling the Palestinians and Arabs, and all those who are concerned about the Jewish State as anti-Semites.

He said that the aboriginals who defended themselves against and attacked European settlers were not anti-European, which is a silly thought, therefore why would the Palestinian people be?

I agree. Indeed the Third Reich was not anti-Semitic per se, but rather pro-German. If it was the former, Hitler would have invaded Palestine, not Poland.

[dukeofpain]

nordicyouth said:

Some leading Jewish thinker in Canada gave a live televised speech.

He claimed that Zionists use anti-Semitism as a crutch to justify their actions in the Middle East i.e. labelling the Palestinians and Arabs, and all those who are concerned about the Jewish State as anti-Semites.

He said that the aboriginals who defended themselves against and attacked European settlers were not anti-European, which is a silly thought, therefore why would the Palestinian people be?

I agree. Indeed the Third Reich was not anti-Semitic per se, but rather pro-German. If it was the former, Hitler would have invaded Palestine, not Poland.

They're a minority. I too was watching television this past remembrance day, which had another rabbi "Jewish thinker" going off on a tangent about why the Canadian govt has to throw every hate preaching person in jail. This was near the end of the ceremonies, and which had been completely about Jews, and his personal Jewish agenda. In world war 2 the Jews had nothing to do with Canada's declaration of war against Germany in sept of 39', likewise when we were postured against Germany when the British declared war against the Kaiser. That's what our remembrance day is for: Canadian soldiers who fought and died, not Jews. November 11th being the anniversary of the armistice. They already have days marking the holocaust, even VE day is largely about Jews.
The thing that most angered me was after the end of the rant about why people should be censored and about Jewish suffering, a CBC reporter had asked an obviously personal and emotional question to a veteran about what his most haunting memory of the war was, that he would like to get out, so as to elicit revulsion for war. He described a German supply column that he encountered on a road in France that had been massacred by the the RCAF and RAF, explaining that everything was torn apart, chickens, cows and of course the soldiers. At this point he became noticeably shaken, which is when the interviewer cut him off explaining that they were "out of time" ! I nearly had a fit, seeing as I have family that were veterans and had died and whom this day was for, yet they cut off a veteran to give time for some rabbi Jew that wasn't even born during the war to rant about "hate speech". I wonder if at the next holocaust memorial day they will focus on Canadian veterans as had happen this past remembrance day? In reality though, it's rather typical.

[Yankel]

Anti-Semitic sentiment is everwhere in Russia, by Putin's own admission. I don't understand why they haven't left that post-communist shithole.

[dukeofpain]

prose said:

Anti-Semitic sentiment is everwhere in Russia, by Putin's own admission. I don't understand why they haven't left that post-communist shithole.

Why is it there?

[anodyne]

Take a look at this Sowell article and you'll have your answer:

www.hooverdigest.org/053/sowell.html

"What is chilling is what other things these groups have been called. “Parasites” has been another epithet applied to middleman minorities because, as retailers or money-lenders, they do not produce any physical product but are simply intermediaries between manufacturers and customers. “Bloodsuckers” is another epithet expressing the notion that middleman minorities do not add anything to the wealth of a community or nation but simply manage to extract a share of the existing wealth for themselves, at the expense of others. This charge has rung out against innumerable middleman minorities, from the villages of India to black ghettos in the United States."

"For much of human history, most people did arduous work in agriculture, and the rise of industrial societies meant for most of them simply the transfer of the scene of that arduous labor from the farm to the factory. In that setting, people who made a living more easily, and with clean hands, just by selling what others had produced, and who received back more money than they had lent, were readily resented. Add in the factor of ethnic differences in the case of middleman minorities, and there are the ingredients for resentments to arise spontaneously and for demagogues to be able to raise those resentments to a higher pitch."

[dukeofpain]

anodyne said:

Take a look at this Sowell article and you'll have your answer:

www.hooverdigest.org/053/sowell.html

"What is chilling is what other things these groups have been called. “Parasites” has been another epithet applied to middleman minorities because, as retailers or money-lenders, they do not produce any physical product but are simply intermediaries between manufacturers and customers. “Bloodsuckers” is another epithet expressing the notion that middleman minorities do not add anything to the wealth of a community or nation but simply manage to extract a share of the existing wealth for themselves, at the expense of others. This charge has rung out against innumerable middleman minorities, from the villages of India to black ghettos in the United States."

"For much of human history, most people did arduous work in agriculture, and the rise of industrial societies meant for most of them simply the transfer of the scene of that arduous labor from the farm to the factory. In that setting, people who made a living more easily, and with clean hands, just by selling what others had produced, and who received back more money than they had lent, were readily resented. Add in the factor of ethnic differences in the case of middleman minorities, and there are the ingredients for resentments to arise spontaneously and for demagogues to be able to raise those resentments to a higher pitch."

He, like everyone else, looks at it as if it is a disease or malady, rather than a symptom. Inter-ethnic conflict is one thing, however anti-semitism is, like the name suggests, unique. That certainly can't be explained away by this lowest common denominator defense. He also fails to include the whole story on most of the examples he gives. He refers to the Jew killing en masse by Bohdan Khmelnytsky followers, yet doesn't include specifics. Leading the reader to believe they were killed because their economic position had begun to "pay-off" from sheer determination and long arduous days sleeping 5 people to a room. Though indeed I would consider the Jews middle-men between the Ruthenians and the szlachta, I wouldn't consider them innocent in any way. They profited off of the enserfed and oppressed. Peoples whose lives were a lot nastier than a Jewish family in new York 100 years ago. Not a lot different than the position of Jews in early Bolshevism. Only the serfs were now the proletariat.

The whole middle man theory doesn't encompass the true scope of anti-semitism, and therefore means little. They are specific to epochs and areas. When in truth anti-semitism has literally been present everywhere the Jews have went. Assyria to Nigeria to Egypt to Spain to Germany through to Poland. The most rational and all encompassing theory I've heard was by Nietzsche in The Anti-Christ. In which he posits why he thinks the Jews have been such a hardy and influential people in their existence. He says much of it could be the effect of a defense type mechanism that facilitates decadence, ethnocentrism, and in most cases leads to violent anti-semitism. He says it can be traced all the way back to the years of bondage that, as you know, they ultimately triumphed from in every case, from this very cause. Which was said to potentiate greatly the Jews human "will to survival", and all of the positives and in many cases negatives, that came in wake. He explains it very well, and is the most reasonable explanation I've ever read. Superficially, Albert Einstein pithily summed it up.

"Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jew by the Jewish group. The Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world." -- Albert Einstein, in Collier's Magazine, November 26, 1938


Memorable quote from the Anti-Christ:
"Precisely for this reason the Jews are the most fateful people in the history of the world: their influence has so falsified the reasoning of mankind in this matter that today the Christian can cherish anti-Semitism without realizing that it is no more than the final consequence of Judaism."

[dukeofpain]

"Every goy who studies the Talmud, and every Jew who helps him in it, ought to die." --Sanhedrin, 59a, Aboda Zora 8-6, Shagiga 13

[asdf]

freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/van_hyning.html

"Every goy who studies the Talmud and every Jew who helps him in it, ought to die. (Sanhedrin, 59a Abhodah Zarah 8-6)." Abhodah Zarah 8-6. Insofar as this volume is concerned the quotation is a complete fabrication. Even the reference number is incorrect. It should read "Abhodah Zarah 8a or 8b." A number such as 8-6 can never exist in the Talmud.
Sanhedrin, 59a. Here is reported a dialogue between two Rabbis, the first of whom does indeed fanatically advocate death for a heathen who studies the Torah (the Pentateuch, not the Talmud), The second Rabbi effectively demolishes his colleague's argument by pointing out that the heathen who studies the Torah succeeds in elevating himself to the status of a High Priest.

Dukeofpain, can I ask you what reputable source you got that from? Commander Schoep?

[Oldbrit]

nordicyouth said:

labelling the Palestinians and Arabs, and all those who are concerned about the Jewish State as anti-Semites.

He said that the aboriginals who defended themselves against and attacked European settlers were not anti-European, which is a silly thought, therefore why would the Palestinian people be?

I agree. Indeed the Third Reich was not anti-Semitic per se, but rather pro-German. If it was the former, Hitler would have invaded Palestine, not Poland.

You've used Palestine/palestinian three times.
In the first use, you distinguish them from Arabs (correct because the Christians are descended from Jews for Jesus - original stylie)
In the second you refer to some mythical Palestinian people who can't pronounce their own name.
In the third usage if Palestine (as in Palestine Post, Palestine Symphony Orchestra) wasn't Jewish why would you suggest that Hitler might consider invading it.

[Drooperdoo]

I'm always shocked by the utter "denial" that Zionists and Zionist-symapathisers demonstrate when they say, "Palestinians? There is no Palestine! It doesn't exist. They're all Jordanians!"
This ignores the fact that "Jordan" is also a newly made-up country . . . just like Israel itself.
The Zionists always taunt, "Go show me a map with Palestine on it!"
And the answer is: If you look on a map from 1948, you can indeed see a Palestinian state, since one was made up by the same UN charter that made Israel.
If, however, you go before 1948 you see neither Palestine nor Israel.
So the Zionist arguments are self-defeating, for, by the same rationale they use against Palestinians, Israel's existence is equally called into question.
"But Israel existed thousands of years ago!" the Zionists will shoot back.
Whereupon the historian will say, "So did a land inhabited by Philistines. In the Bible it's called Philistia". And the Palestinian pronunciation of "Palestinian" is "Filistin".
In fact, Philistia has more documentation historically than Israel ever did. Historians and archaeologists are unanimous in stating that the "Israelite empire" described in the Bible is fictitious. Recently, Israeli archaeologists aired their own doubts that Judea and Israel were ever politically united at all.
So Israel's very history is steeped in fiction, misrepresentation and outright lies. Whereas history backing Philistia is much more solid.
Go figure!

P.S.--Of course the question is provoked, "Yes, but are the people claiming to be 'Philistines' today the same people who lived in Philistia many millennia ago?" A question equally damning to the people claiming to be Hebrews, 80% of whom are from Eastern Europe (a significant percentage of whom, under dna tests, displayed neither Jewish mtdna, nor Y-chromosomes.)

[ikilledjesus]

Arabs sold them the land and they have won it over by war several times over, isn't it good enough to be considered their land?.