[Karl Radl]

Originally Posted by Ron Doggett

Personally I'm quite thankful for this discussion, the last thing I want to do is use material in a debate that can't be backed up. Needless to say I can't read Hebrew and don't wish to learn quite frankly, so I'm glad to have posters like Karl who can educate us.

Well you could contend these quotes mean what they supposedly mean, but because your argument would be attacked on the grounds that you haven't included all the ancillary material and the other Talmudic quotes: you would have severe problems providing cogent responses to your opponents (but they would be correct and you would be incorrect). I've seen to many encounters between anti-Semites arguing the rational position that jews are the problem, but then have used Talmudic quotes and/or the Protocols of Zion (promptly getting utterly butchered, because of the inability to formulate cogent en pointe responses) and then promptly lost all credibility among the sort of audience you want to at least take your arguments seriously intellectually, emotionally and politically.

Much like the Ben Franklin and Washington quotes on jews that have been proven false we need a good review of the Talmud and Karl has given us good insight, I hope he'll continue on other quotes that our side uses.

Well there's a tonne of quotations out there, which aren't related to the Talmud, which are probably worse (for example the Selenkov quotation [whose origin I can't locate but I suspect it is from the circle around Conde McGinley]). Since at the very least most of the Talmud quotations are actually real, but not in their proper theological context.

For example: I am still tracking down Eustace Mullins' Israel Cohen (from the supposed work: 'A Racial Programme for the Twentieth Century') quotation (since if it is real, which I doubt given the language is utterly wrong for both a jew and even a Poale Zion member, then there can only be one Israel Cohen it could be [i.e. the same who authored 'Jewish Life in Modern Times']: who does fit the bill in other respects), but until I find some evidence of the work existing then it is rather hard to conjecture Mullins' quotation is genuine.

Don't get me wrong this doesn't change my attitude on the jewish question at all, they've destroyed our country and culture and use us to fight their wars. There is a wealth of information out there to prove it I don't need fake quotes to do that. Heck there is more damaging material in the Old Testament (as pointed out) to the jewish religion mindset than in the Talmud it seems.

I'd heartily agree with that the Torah and the Tanakh are absolutely replete with quite useful tit-bits for understanding the jews (especially note the Amalekites and how the term Amalek is used both in jewish culture and Judaism [it essentially means: 'the gentile/gentiles who must be killed' in terms of usage]), but we have to remember when looking at Judaism, at least in my estimation of it, that it is a control mechanism developed by jewish minds to hold their own people in check (which is why it is so strict and also why many jews have historically tried to appear to be as frum [pious] as possible, while actually trying to get away with not obeying the mitzvot).

However jewish lore, including, but not exclusively, the Talmud (IMO the Rabbinics are far more interesting: look up the issue surrounding 'informers' for example), can be a rich source of anti-jewish material, but it isn't as obvious as calling the gentiles sub-human etc. The issue is more that in order to produce air tight arguments out of it and to force jewish intellectuals to contradict their own writings, as Pablo Christiani (a jewish convert who is jointly responsible for the Talmudic argument, although the specific arguments used are really Eisenmenger's creation in the main, that is oft purported) did to Nahmanides (Moses ben Nachman) in Spain (in the 13th century I think it was), when he used Nahmanides own arguments against him and Nahmanides was forced to argue against his own arguments (it was generally agreed Christiani had got the better of Nahmanides: although jews have generally claimed it was the other way around) [see Yitzhak Baer's two volume 'A History of the Jews in Christian Spain', which is one of the standard texts on the subject].

Essentially if you are going to critique the Talmud you need to devote a lot of time and study to it as well as engage in responsa with rabbis in order to sharpen your understanding of their thoughts and your own arguments. You'd also have to learn modern Hebrew at the very least (you only need biblical Hebrew and Aramaic if you want to get into the debates over the meaning of a particular turn of phrase).

Ironically I think one of the bits of evidence regarding that jews can act as an organised conspiracy (although I would contend this more a facade in actuality) has been generally ignored by anti-Semites. That is the Bar Kochba revolt against the Romans led by Nero (and then by Vespasian and Titus), when jews around the Med. funnelled money (via an early form of money laundering via their contributions to the Temple: I believe) back to Judea, purchased and gathered weapons and stores in preparation to revolt (and indeed did) in Roman cities in North Africa (the plan seems to have been to massacre/enslave the non-jewish inhabitants) and performed to a precise agreed timetable (all directed through the Temple in Jerusalem and including all kinds of different sects and groups). In fact this was why the Roman legions were called back from outer Mesopotamia as I recall from my, somewhat sketchy, knowledge of Roman colonial history.

I think the best study of this for the general anti-Semite to read is John Allegro's 'The Chosen People' (Allegro is a quite famous [and controversial] theologian who focused on 'macro-theology' and the Essene connection to Christianity), which details just how blood-thirsty, organised and generally genocidal the jews were.