Antisemite Henry Makow discusses banker theory...

by **otis gaye** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:42 pm

Hello Osculum Infame....I am most interested in the following: "I discovered the money behind the neo nazi movement in the UK is ...wait for it ....wait for it JEWISH money." could you please provde some background to your comment. Thanks otis gaye

by **mr e** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:44 pm

... how does merely observing verifiable facts (some of them quite obvious), and drawing conclusions from those facts, make the Jew Henry Makow an "anti-semite"? How many times and in how many ways does Makow have to reiterate that he's talking about a tiny minority of "Jews," who aren't really Jews anyway, before the paranoid anti-semite-criers will shut up? And, hate to bring up inconvenient questions such as this, but what is an "anti-semite"? Jewish and Gentile haters of (semitic) Arabs never seem to get tarred with that label. Why? There are many conspiracies, but there is a big global conspiracy. Simply put, the quest for global empire. The impulse has existed for centuries. In medieval times this impulse took the form of religion (i.e., Roman Catholicism). In modern times a new power has arisen -- a power actually able to pull off the feat of world hegemony: the power of financial capital. Any number of Jewish scholars and authors will observe that Jews have played leading roles in -- practically invented -- capitalism, and financial capitalism in particular. Or, as some authors such as Eric Jon Phelps and Tupper Saussy would argue, these apparently immensely powerful Jews are only fronts themselves for the Vatican, or for whatever cult hides behind the Vatican. In support of this view one could cite the fact that the Jewish stronghold in finance actually grew out of the European royalty's preference for having "court Jews" handle their financial affairs, taxation, etc. And they point out that Mayer Rothschild was private banker to Catholic nobles and the Rothschild family later became "guardians of the Vatican treasure." So could the Vatican be behind it all? Your guess is as good as mine. However, when people want to censor and criminalize the very act of attempting to look behind the scenes and describing who and what is there, then I start to suspect they are being less than forthcoming about their true agenda. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Psychiatric diagnosis! â€” What some stoop to when they run out of arguments ... Psychiatric diagnosis! â€” A reflex developed by debaters who have become too lazy to think ... Just as there can be only shame in proclaiming, "I don't have to work; I'm on welfare!" so there should be only shame in proclaiming, "I don't have to think; I'm a Jew who can close down any argument by the accusation of anti-Semitism!" Psychiatric diagnosis is a form of intellectual welfare. The accusation of anti-Semitism is the taking of intellectual welfare. Welfare of any kind destroys character. Economic welfare destroys the ability to work. Intellectual welfare destroys the ability to think. ... Of course it is understood that the accusation of anti-Semitism is more than a psychiatric diagnosis â€” it is also a threat. -- <a href="http://ukar.org/radler01.html">Lubomyr Prytulak</a><hr></blockquote><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes">

by **Felix** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:31 pm

It's really hard to hide hatred of Jews or any group, for that matter. Lump everyone together, say they're bad, and presto - YOU DON"T HAVE TO THINK ANYMORE. Example: My sister likes to use terms such as "Jewish princess" and really believes that ALL Jewish women have it easier than other women. At the same time her son is engaged to an incredibly wealthy Catholic women who decides not to marry him because he won't make enough money and she doesn't think she can leave her life style behind (big houses, maids, horses, etc). But she's not a "Catholic princess". She's still pretty wonderful in their eyes, but can you imagine the venom my sister and nephew would spew if she were Jewish? And that reminds me, it's not only that you don't have to think anymore if you're an antisemite, the truth is, you really CAN'T think anymore.

by **mr e** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:33 pm

Sepka said: "If I ever launch a major conspiracy, I'm going to recruit every Jew I can find." Exactly. That's my point, and one of Makow's points too. Jews are untouchable; they can do no wrong; so wrongdoers would hide behind Judaism. The WWII atrocities (<a href="http://abettedbytheZionists">abetted by the Zionists</a>), played right into and exponentially strengthened this notion of Jewish exceptionalism. Talmudism has its own problems and has contributed to the exceptionalism, the superiority complex and the anti-Christianism that flows barely submerged within Judaism. Truly orthodox Jews reject the Talmud as a mere compilation of traditions. It is not the Law or Torah which was believed to have been handed down by Yahweh to Moses. It is centuries worth of rabbinical commentaries, many of which stray far afield from Torah. Talmudism is the Jewish equivalent of Roman Catholicism: an evolutionary religion in which accumulated tradition trumps divine revelation. Seventhson says that the conspiracy/world banking system is WASP with some Jewish collaborators. This may very well be true. Or it may be that the so-called WASPS are run by Jews in the City of London. The "crown" of Britain (not the monarchy, the Money Power which long ago usurped the power) has long been associated with Jews. Uber-WASP and "reputed anti-semite" J.P. Morgan was secretly a Rothschild agent. Another Rothschild was a member of the inner circle of Rhodes and Milner who formed the backbone of the "Anglo-American establishment" of the last century. At the end of the day, what's important to me is NOT the outward ethnic or religious identification of evildoers, but their evilness. So, as I have stated before, I don't care if they are Eskimos or Hutus -- evil is evil! However, evil usually needs a cover. Certain religious organizations and ethnic groups make better covers than others. "Judaism" and Jewry, IMO, are especially infested. So are many of the institutions of Islam and "Christianity," I might add, and I am a Christian! So this is no attempt to single out "the Jews." However, to omit the role that Jews have played would be as gross an error as to blame every Jew for every evil in the world. I don't know about the rest of the individuals in this thread, but my goal is to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Whenever those simply attempting to investigate and describe reality are shouted down as "anti-semitic," the quest for truth is frustrated. If your quest is the same as mine, then you should have no need of such tactics.

by **Dreams End** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:16 pm

I love all you folks who claim to know what's wrong with Judaism or who the real Jews are. Pray, someone...mr. e perhaps? Osculum infame? pray, do tell us exactly what the fuck "talmudic judaism" is? I know what the talmud is, of course, and for those of you interested, there's a fairly complete translation over at sacred texts <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm.">www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm.</a> In one way or another, it has influenced and been central to all of Judaism. As modernity has set in, of course, literal approaches to such texts diminish, but even reformed Judaism will read Talmud and find a source of inspirational and historical value. The more liberal the style of Judaism, the less likely to take all of the Jewish laws (oral and written) as absolute truth...but this is true within all religious traditions is it not, as religion and science attempt to make peace with each other? So what to make of these rants against "Talmudic Jews?" Orthodox Jews reject the Talmud, mr. e? What are you talking about? And everyone in Judaism is quite aware that the Talmud is comprised of commentaries. They are commentaries on Torah...attempting to apply the laws in the Torah in a variety of specific situations. From answers.com: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Talmud (tăl'məd) [Aramaic from Heb.,=learning], in Judaism, vast compilation of the Oral Law with rabbinical elucidations, elaborations, and commentaries, in contradistinction to the Scriptures or Written Laws. The Talmud is the accepted authority for Orthodox Jews everywhere. Its two divisions are the Mishna or text of the Oral Law (in Hebrew) and the Gemara (in Aramaic), a commentary on the Mishna, which it supplements. <hr></blockquote> So who are the "Talmudic Jews"? What percentage of Judaism is NOT Talmudic? <blockquote>Quote:<hr> The "crown" of Britain (not the monarchy, the Money Power which long ago usurped the power) has long been associated with Jews. Uber-WASP and "reputed anti-semite" J.P. Morgan was secretly a Rothschild agent.<hr></blockquote> Other than providing yet more insight from the Larouche organization, do you want to bother to give ANY evidence for this? If J.P. Morgan was "secretly" a Rothschild agent, what great feat of scholarship was required for you to unearth this historical gem? Because, see, secret means nobody knows about it. You should be embarrassed by the paucity of intellectual effort in such statements, if not for the outright fascist agenda it represents. And please don't spend a whole post singling out Jews and then talk about how you aren't singling out Jews. Speaking of paucity of intellectual effort. Osculum wants to put forward his great "revelations" about the Jewish conspiracy ruling the world, and then wants to claim ignorance about the most ancient such "theory", the blood libel? When you want to post something condemning an entire religion or ethnic group (or whatever "minority" therein that your non-Jewish wisdom is so much more capable of determining than those within the group themselves), have the courtesy to learn a little about the subject first. Jeff needs to make a decision about whether this sort of thing is going to be allowed on this board or not. It was one thing when people would post from folks like Makow and attack me for daring to suggest he meant "Jews" when he said "bankers". Now that he's out of the closet, the debate is over. I thank db4d for his original post as at least you Makow supporters can be seen for what you are. Seriously, listen to yourselves. "There's a secret evil group within Judaism that runs the world. I don't mean all the Jews. Most regular Jews have nothing to do with it. I simply know more about the inner workings of Judaism than they do. Like how Orthodox Jews reject the Talmud. Like what the blood libel is." Here's a clue...you ain't no rabbi and you don't know shit about Jews.

by **Trifecta** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:36 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Speaking of paucity of intellectual effort. Osculum wants to put forward his great "revelations" about the Jewish conspiracy ruling the world, and then wants to claim ignorance about the most ancient such "theory", the blood libel? When you want to post something condemning an entire religion or ethnic group (or whatever "minority" therein that your non-Jewish wisdom is so much more capable of determining than those within the group themselves), have the courtesy to learn a little about the subject first.<hr></blockquote> I post articles that have a ring of truth for me. Hence the original article posted, now in the fire pit. Evil bastards exist in all socieites I accept the truth of that. My beef is to being refered to ask either a nazi on one thread and an anti jew on anothher. Get this, they are all the same ... fascist is fascist whatever shirt, colour or beliefe system you carry around. This whole thread is purposely flamable, mine was a mistake, I can admit, I know very very little about jewsish people and what they think, shame really because it most be unacceptable the level all socieites have reached, that I would guess most heating beating people all over the world can smell and taste the shit that surrounds us all. This thread is folly and counter productive to all of us. I suggest we make up names in the future, as we will never really know the clique that controls, that I guess is just another programme <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

by **Dreams End** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:41 pm

Taking O.I at his word...that's one reason that this stuff is so insidious. I don't worry about Makow personally, but the well meaning who buy that line of crap. It IMPEDES the search for the truth. The rabbi comment was more for mr. e., and others who claim to know more about Judaism than Jews themselves.

by **antiaristo** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:42 pm

DreamsEnd, Can you tell us about the secret societies on your own list, please. Added on edit This seems a good opportunity to test my own understanding on two "facts". First, that Talmud first entered into Judaism during the Captivity, hence the name Babylonian Talmud. Second, that on return from exile, there was considerable friction between the former captives and those who remained. Any comments? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 1/16/06 4:53 pm

by **IMO** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:10 am

Whats up Dreams end ? Youre logic and reasoning v that of Makow ? Why is it that anyone with even half a brain in their head can understand the role of Big Oil and banking in the overall position today, whilst you with your Brain and a half ( so some might believe) cant get this ? Any number of people have continously pointed out to your incredibly selective editing intellect that Makow is reffering to a select cabal of Jews. But of course thats not good enough for you, you Judas. Or , is this some kind of intellectual penis envy on your part - Because as far as I can see, all you have ever done with Makow, is that which you usually do on these boards. Fuck the message, attack the messenger. Misquote, Half quote, and in your own sweet way do you job. Fucking ADL.

by **IMO** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:19 am

I almost forgot........... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Fuck the message, attack the messenger. Misquote, Half quote, and in your own sweet way do you job.<hr></blockquote> ............ And then scream "anti semite". Youre a funny guy. You know that ?

by **Dreams End** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:37 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>First, that Talmud first entered into Judaism during the Captivity, hence the name Babylonian Talmud<hr></blockquote> Bablyon yes. captivity no. Almost 1000 years to late (captivity in 6th century b.c.e., final redaction of Talmud 1000 years later...redacting 300 years of commentary.) Information on the "two" talmuds below. I'm no expert...only showing that it's easy to find this info. And please don't ANYONE think I've read the talmud. The one on sacred texts is the only public domain translation...and it's only about 1/3 of the total. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Talmud Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud) Main articles: Jerusalem Talmud, and [[{{{2}}}]], and [[{{{3}}}]], and [[{{{4}}}]], and [[{{{5}}}]] The Gemara here is a synopsis of almost 200 years of analysis of the Mishna in the Academies in Israel. Due to the location of the Academies, the agricultural laws of the Land of Israel are discussed in great detail. It was redacted in the year 350 C.E. by Rav Muna and Rav Yossi in Israel. Together, this Gemara and the Mishnah are known as Talmud Yerushalmi (The Jerusalem Talmud; however, the name is a misnomer, as it was not written in Jerusalem. As such it is also known more accurately as the Palestinian Talmud or The Talmud of the Land of Israel.) References to the Yerushalmi are usually not by page (as in the Babylonian Talmud) but by the Mishna which is under discussion. References are therefore in the format of [Tractate chapter:Mishna] (e.g. Berachot 1:2). As the Babylonian Talmud is considered more influential, references to the Yerushalmi are generally prefaced by "Yerushalmi" to clarify their origin. The classical commentaries on the Yerushalmi are the P'nei Moshe and the Korban ha-Eidah, which are printed alongside the Talmudic text in most versions of the Yerushalmi. [edit] Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud) The Gemara here is a synopsis of more than 300 years of analysis of the Mishna in the Babylonian Academies. It was redacted as a formal collection by Rav Ashi and Ravina, two leaders of the Babylonian Jewish community, around the year 550. Rav Ashi actually died in 427 CE, leaving an early version of the Talmud that is no longer extant. Ravina furthered the editorial process well after Rav Ashi's death. Editorial work by the Savoraim or Rabbanan Savoraei (post-Talmudic rabbis), continued on this text for the next 250 years; much of the text did not reach its final form until around 700. (See eras within Jewish law.) The Mishnah and Babylonian Gemara together form the Talmud Bavli (the "Babylonian Talmud"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> . <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud#The_two_Talmuds">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tal...wo_Talmuds</a> <hr></blockquote> Bit more: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Babylonian Academies It was during this period that Babylonia emerged as the great center of religious studies which rivaled Palestine. Between the third and the fifth centuries, Babylonian academies--the future yeshivot--established a method of commentary on the Bible which became the basis for the Babylonian Talmud. This tradition, later disseminated by the geonim (heads of the Babylonian academies), was to be accepted by the entire Jewish world. Paradoxically perhaps, the sons of a community of which nothing is known prior to the third century, determined the norms and behavior of Jews throughout the world for fifteen centuries. <a href="http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Ancient/TheStoryI/Expanding_Diaspora/Babylon.htm">www.myjewishlearning.com/...abylon.htm</a> <hr></blockquote> Also, please keep in mind that Talmud is two parts. The Mishnah, commentaries on the written law, was first written down around 200 c.e. in Galilee. this was a compilation of an oral tradition extending back 5 or 600 years...and it's always hard to date oral traditions. The written Mishnah is a look at the state of this oral tradition in 200 c.e. the Gemara, is commentary on the commentaries. And so comes later. There are two sets...and the Bablylonian, as noted above, is the one that is considered "standard". <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Here's another wikipedia quote about the return from captivity. I don't consider wikipedia infallible...just a place to start. Three separate occasions are mentioned (Jeremiah 52:28-30). The first was in the time of Jehoiachin in 597 BCE, when the temple of Jerusalem was partially despoiled, and a number of the leading citizens were removed. After eleven years (in the reign of Zedekiah) a fresh rising of the Judaeans occurred; the city was razed to the ground, and a further deportation ensued. Finally, five years later, Jeremiah records a third captivity. After the overthrow of Babylonia by the Persians, Cyrus gave the Jews permission to return to their native land (537 BCE), and more than forty thousand are said to have availed themselves of the privilege. (See Jehoiakim; Ezra; Nehemiah and Jews.) Previously, the northern tribes had been taken captive by Assyria and never returned; survivors of the Babylonian exile were all that remained of the Children of Israel. The Persians had a different political philosophy of managing conquered territories than the Babylonians or Assyrians. Under the Persians, local personages were put into power to govern the local populace. When the Israelites returned home however, they found a mixture of peoples practicing a religion very similar to their own, but not identical to it. Hostility grew up between the returning Jews and the Samaritans, the mixed-blood people of the region, which has continued to the present day. According to the Bible, the Samaritans were foreign peoples, settled into the area by the kings of Assyria, who had partially adopted the Israelite religion; in reality, most of them were probably simply Israelites who had remained behind, and thus had had no part in the sweeping changes of the Israelite religion brought about among the captives. Or perhaps, alternatively; the fierce purity of the Jewish religion and cultural identity of the Babylonian Jews returning from exile, seventy years after their deportation, completely eclipsed the partial faith of the mixed group of Israelite survivors, who had practised paganism for hundreds of years in Israel (including the worship of a golden bull), and who had inter-married with the peoples sent into the territory by the Assyrians (and which was strictly forbidden by Mosaic Torah 'law', and punished by Nehemiah). The hatred and disgust of the Hebrew Judeans for the Samaritans prompted Jesus of Nazareth to later propound the parable of the "good Samaritan". [edit]<hr></blockquote> I can only guess that your questions are to support a theory of some Bablylonian influence, or, more likely, actual separate Bablylonian cult that somehow overtakes Judaism and secretly subverted it (at least, I've seen such theories). I highly doubt you'll find much real evidence about that. So far, everything I've read says that information on the Jewish community in Babylon is pretty scant before about 200 c.e. But it's clear that the Talmud comes long after the captivity and, in fact, can only be said to be related in the sense that it was the captivity that created a Jewish community there in the first place. Like any religious community, especially one exiled all over the place and lasting thousands of years, there are all different strains, currents, controversies, perspectives, debates, theological differences, etc. I don't claim to know much about all those. As to your first question about my "list" of secret organizations. I have no good list. My assumption is that if they are secret I don't know much about them. The list I was referring to was an extension of the various forces acting on history. I accepted "secret societies" on that list. I would also add the military/industrial complex and its underground/criminal counterpart to that list. I also am interested in "open conspiracy". That is, one can read records from the Trilateral Commission, Kissinger, etc, where there is some frank (if surely only partial) disclosures of intent and method. Notice that the first director of the CIA was Allen Dulles...attorney for Rockefeller. I accept with horror the idea that U.S and British corporations, such as those of the Rockefellers backed the nazi cause to the hilt. So, you have Dulles in the CIA, fronting for "naziism by other means" I suppose. And I believe (doing this from memory due to time) Dulles was pretty central to the wholesale importation of Nazis into the scientific and intelligence communities. I don't think much of that would be too controversial to all sides of this particular thread. So, part of my list revolves around wealthy industrialists such as Rockefeller and their interaction with Nazi forces and the influence those forces had at the beginning of our postwar conversion to a permanent warfare state. How about those "secret" societies. I've seen very little good evidence that can convince me that there is one, overarching "Illuminati" running everything. But I certainly believe in the role of such societies...and I'm imagining the most powerful ones are still secret. Masons? P-2 and Gladio is enough to convince me that the Masonic network is used for nasty things. This is not the same as suggesting a nearly omnipotent Masonic conspiracy to rule the world. I simply think history is too much of a chaotic system for such reductionist thinking. But where there's smoke...as they say...and I'd say there's lots of smoke where the Masons are concerned. Since I'm not privy to their secret documents, I don't know how central they are, and how much they act on their own agenda or are used as a convenient network by those with THEIR own agendas. And from masonry you get Crowley/Golden Dawn and much of the Western Occult tradition. From Crowley comes Hubbard and Scientology. This tradition also incorporates much of the Blavatsky material, also considered important by the Nazis. From Scientology you also get SRI and you are back to the military/industrial complex...which we can now call the military/industrial/occult complex. These associations are not exactly proof, but they are suggestive. What I DON'T do is assume a level of knowledge I don't have. How much influence do these groups really have. How central are they. How often are occult groups, for example, really just psychological experiments by Yale student CIA interns? I could keep going. I simply don't know how to point to one person/group and say "they are the ones behind it all." I think alliances may change, newcomers arrive on the scene (surely Bill Gates is part of this in our computer age) and others lose importance. Toss in the illegal underworld of drug/weapons/slave/child peddlers and there's a far VASTER arena that no FOIA request (that's the freedom of information act for non-U.S. citizens) could ever touch. Go FOIA Iran-Contra figure Adnan Kashoggi about his ties to John "Men are from Mars" Gray and the beginnings of the 9/11 truth movement. I assume that the networks are more complex and also more secret, in some ways, than gets assumed around here. I also assume that anyone who actually exposes secrets that are damaging to this network will end up buried in unhallowed ground, if you know what I mean. Two shots to the head and a nod and a wink from a coroner. So sorry if I don't name enough of the "right" names. Not a single reference to Venetians for example. I don't think the "lines of succession" are as clean as that. Ultimately, there is very dark, very scary, unbelievable stuff that goes on behind the scenes (sometimes just BARELY behind the scenes). I think it's worse than we imagine, even on this site. Someone on this site remarked on the "Finders" thread that it was the first time they had that experience of understanding that this stuff is real...it's not just a game to play at night in front of a computer screen. I've had that feeling a few times when something indisputable pops up. And that's just the stuff that gets through the filters. Oh...and since we're on it, anti, I actually DO believe your story about Anglia, etc. I don't understand all of it...really, I don't understand most of it. Too much "inside baseball" about people whose role in English society I don't even know. I don't buy your "mason-monarch-zionist" version of history, nor does the term zionist in that context have any recognizable meaning for me. But since you think I am a Mason...I guess that's no surprise.

by **sceneshifter** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:04 am

how about we agree that some superrich people are evil, ie, they dont care how many people suffer and die as long as they dont, and as long as they make money and get more power and then how about we consider what to do about this and we reflect that such people tend to be secretive and hide behind masks and that us ordinary people are going generally to pierce very few of these masks, and that us ordinary people are very rarely if ever going to get enough clear information about the big evildoers to convince enough people to move and put the evildoers out of action what can we do? - we can limit fortunes to the maximum that one person can contribute to society by their work - between $1 million and $10 million - one person can only work 100 hours a week for 50 years, which is 250,000 hours - and no one can work much harder than the average in a unit of time - so the average pay per hour [US$15, 2005AD] times 250,000 is the most a person can contribute to society - US$4 million - but whatever the maximum is, we can set the maximum at some figure we like in the area of the maximum [we could say: it isnt healthy for anyone to work more than 50 hours a week, and then set the max at US$15 x 50 hours x 50 weeks x 50 years - that is, US$2 million] then we could make it illegal to have more than that - then the police have a mandate to search out and punish everyone with more than that - then there is no superpower, no superconspiracies, no sociopathic monomaniacs bossing us, and we dont have to spend our lives trying [without tools] - and failing - to limit the evil of an endless string of superpowerful maniacs over all history who would suffer by a limitation of fortunes to the maximum that a person can contribute to social wealth by their work? - by definition it is not unjust - it prevents all tyrannous behaviour, it automatically defeats all future methods to rob the people of fairshare and freedom and fairpower 'money is like manure, best when spread' francis bacon we all work, right? no one can work more than twice as hard as the average, and maybe no one should work more than 50 hours a week, anyway - if people are fairpaid, [in proportion to work] the money is well spread - equals justice equals peace equals permanent easy sure safety from superrich superpowerful supersociopaths you outlaw giants, you dont get trodden on - history is a record of giants of wealth and power - of overpay and overpower - of theft and evil - and the millions of people they trod on and if no one is very overpaid, no one is very underpaid, and noo one is very pissed off about it and bitter and inclined to take revenge in some violent way - like mafiaism, druglordism, mugging, robbery, etc and if there is no way to be superoverpaid, all the motivation to get superoverpaid by evil means is gone - all the diablolical temptation to get money hook or crook is gone good people try to reduce evil - so good people try to reduce overpay, which is unjust, and the main source of suffering for people who suffers with limitation of pay? - no one - who is saved from fierce troubles - everyone the more overpaid someone is, the more enemies they have - naturally - tell me why this is not a good idea or are you so addicted to getting your kicks from trying to peer into what the evil are up to that you couldnt bear the evil to be gone? everyone's contribution to society by their work is limited - therefore fortunes should be limited unlimited fortunes must make overpay, overpay must make underpay, overpay/underpay must make for relentless - and escalating - trouble, yes? are you making trouble for yourself by supporting unlimited fortunes? - you are giving enormous power to someone else - overpay creates underpaid, who resent and attack you - so you, by allowing unlimited pay, are making everyone your enemy - the overpaid and the underpaid - DIY holocaust tell me why this is a bad idea [you dont need overpaid to create capital - the opposite is true - eqalitarian societies have the most capital] [personal real income growth is greatest in eqalitarian societies - lower violence costs] tell me why you cant take in this great idea

by ir » Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:12 am

the word talmud means - learning. mishna - reciting tora - teaching i am happy to see all this methodical info on Talmud etc., i always had just bits of info and this kind of puts it all together. The attack on "rabbinical judaism" and "talmudic judaism" is part of the ancient rift between jews and early christians. And also ZIonists against Religious. The zionists challenged the talmud as the suprior law, and instilled the power of the Israeli laws to be superior. Talmud is just a complition of the laws and interpretations/commentaries thereon with all the usual politics (schools, groups that argued). I read parts of it, in law school, and its actually a pretty good legal text and has some humor too. Of course, there are all those archaic disparaging rules (women, non jews etc.), which are a cause of political rifts in Israel these days. -- The notion of a sect taking over the jews is, as I mentioned in another thread, present in Jewish politics/thinking as well. The concept of rif raff, and the usual excumminaction of anyone who the current people in power don't like. (they are not ReALLY jewish...is the common wording). There have been bloody and deadly political and spiritual battles in Judaism, such as between the kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judea, so the concept of internal struggles is present, to the exclusion of whole parts of the people from the mainstream. King David (who is supposed to return as messiah) had left the jews to join the philistines (palestinians), and returned with them to overthrow the house of Saul and cleanse all their supporters and relatives.

by **Sepka** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:17 am

Well said, Dream's End.

by **scollon** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:37 am

De I have read your comments on New Age and the way you make massive sweeping statements. Your knowledge and understanding of that subject is considerably less than Makow's about Judaism. He is of Jewish descent. Not an insult, just a fact. Hitler read Blavatsky, he got it completely wrong which is what you would expect from a racist, meglomaniacal amphetamine addict. Crowley was a heroin addict and in my opinion a total headcase, nothing more. The roots of masonry aren't at all mystical, it was a seventeenth century men's club based on the medieval masonic lodges which were little more than unions to protect the wages of the members.They were closely associated with the Catholic Church who were their biggest employers. I read that recently in what was a very popular British expose of masonic crimes in Britain. When the mysticism was added, I'm not sure but it is completely bogus. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 1/17/06 5:51 am

Antisemite Henry Makow discusses banker theory...

Request For Info.

Always with the "anti-semitism"!

Hating

-

Re: -

Exactly I know Jack Shit about what it is to be jewish

Re: Exactly I know Jack Shit about what it is to be jewish

Re: -

Dreams end v makow ?

oh and I forgot.....

Re: -

how about this?

learning about the talmud

Re: -

New Age

Who is online