Talmud does not condone pedophilia

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

Its too bad for Jewish children that their sick and pathological cult insists upon infant penis mutilation-- for starters. I realize most gentile white men in America have suffered this too and are pretty much OK in spite of it. But let's recognize that its a barbaric practice that is bad nonetheless.

Secondly yes the Jewish are famous for their high rate of incestuous relations. Its probably true to some extent of all insular religious cults that the freaks will prey on their own most oftenly. Now we're not saying every Jew is a sexual freak, that would be untrue, but that there are a high rate of them, and asking, what does the Jewish cult gutter religion do to condone it? And as such, is this wicked patholigical ideology, something that the State should tolerate as a "religion" such as other alien creeds, or should it be definitively persecuted as a criminal gang? I believe that a healthy society will ask this question and base their conclusion on facts and not just pressure from Jewish bankers, the Israeli military, and powerful Jew politicians.

In my opinion, the Jewish religious organizations are fronts for criminal activity, starting first and foremost criminal foreign espionage on behalf of Israel. Secondly, they are tax evasion fronts. Thirdly, money laundering. Fourthly, the possibility exists that they are sponsoring terrorism in that according to ex Mossad katsa Victor Ostrovsky Jewish Diaspora "sayanim" cooperate with Mossad Kidon units who are active murdering and assasinating people worldwide at the order of the Israeli government.

Think about this Jews. Essentially your criminal gang centers known as Synagogues are all subject to prosecution under existing laws and the RICO laws could be used to dismantle them and all the other criminal Jewish enterprises like AIPAC . Prosecute, seize the assets, imprison the criminals, expel the lesser minions to Israel. For starters. Who knows, right now we all agree that Rahm Emmanuel probably controls Obama, but what if he wakes up one day and has a "hitleresque" moment?

[Karl Radl]

Originally Posted by The Wandering Jew

In the specific discussion it was discussing if the female had been raped (something that the white Romans & Babylonians were known to do specifically to little girls).

Every society has had rapists, but it is the jew's specifically sick imaginations and egocentric conception of the world that believes that jewesses are specifically targeted [for example: you see this in the 'holocaust' literature: most jewesses' 'witness' testimonies say they were greatly desired by their guards and raped accordingly (which is a jewish fantasy more than anything else)]. In fact if anything the Torah and the Tanakh seem to suggest the inverse to have been the case (i.e. that male jews are far more interested in raping female gentiles not that male gentiles are more interested in raping female jewesses). It seems to be true today as well since jewish men just really don't want to date, let alone marry, jewish females (hence the 'marrying out' fiasco for example the famous, among jewish religious and secular literati anyway, Noah Feldman controversy in 2007). The reason why is relatively simple: they are like having the mother in law from hell as your wife (and also male jews prefer to stick to desiring their mother without another jewess fighting to replace her in their affections).

Incidentally the Babylonians as far as I know were probably Semitic and when you use 'Romans' it entirely depends what time period you mean as to the general state of racial decay.

[banjo_billy]

Originally Posted by The Wandering Jew

IIRC, these are the only two passage that the Talmud discuss pedestry. In both cases it is implicitly condemning it.

"Implicitly condemning it?" As in saying one thing and doing another?

You Jews are such a bunch of lying, deceiving, hypocritical swine. In fact, these topics are scatter throughout the Talmud.

Jewish children are butt-fuckers and mother fuckers:

"...a son may privately associate with his mother, and nobody else may privately associate with any woman whom the Torah disallows him in marriage!"

Wonder where Sigmund Freud got his perverted ideas? He was a Jew, so of course he was full of perverted ideas.

"R. Nahman b. Isaac said: They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it should cause defilement by seminal emission so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with him. For R. Zera said: I experienced great trouble with R. Assi,18 and R. Assi with R. Johanan, and R. Johanan with R. Jannai, and R. Jannai with R. Nathan b. Amram, and R. Nathan b. Amram with Rabbi over this question: From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? — He replied to me: From a day old; but when I came to R. Hiyya, he told me: From the age of nine years and one day. When I then came and discussed the matter with Rabbi, he said to me: Abandon my reply and adopt that of R. Hiyya who declared: From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? From the age of nine years and one day,"

-- both quotes are from Abodah Zarah 36b

In other words, Jewish children are taught by the Rabbis to sodomize each other.
However, for them to sodomize a non-Jewish child, is not encouraged since this
would cause the Holy Jewish queer to become "unclean." Yes, the Jews are the
chosen one's of God alright. They have been chosen to keep the fires of hell
well-stoked with their souls and carcasses!

Jesus and Hitler told the truth about the Jews. But the Jews always lie about Jesus and Hitler.

[Karl Radl]

I've received a reply from the rabbi that Hoffman cites as referring to him as a Talmid Chacham (Torah Scholar). According to Praver he has been in legal actions with Hoffman over this claim and won the claim with Amazon that by quoting him: Hoffman had infringed his intellectual copyright (since he was quoting something he couldn't evidence Praver as actually saying). Hence, according to Praver, Hoffman had to remove the quote from the book in order to get Amazon to stock it. He's also threatening to sue him again due to Hoffman's repeated use of the claim.

According to Praver the quote actually has to do with Praver telling Hoffman that he has obviously read and studied the Talmud, the Torah and the Tanakh well enough to know his arguments are utter frauds.

I've emailed Hoffman for his explanation, but on the face of it: Praver's exposition sounds reasonable considering that it would be quite a breach of custom to suggest that a non-jew who hadn't studied with any recognised Torah scholars is actually a Torah scholar. It also seems a touch unlikely given that Hoffman, although he claims to be capable of reading at a high level in Hebrew and Aramaic, doesn't seem to be. There's also the fact that from Jonoleth's previous experience Hoffman is quite incapable of debating Talmud to any real degree.

I'll summarise what Hoffman has to say when and if I receive a reply to my inquiry from him.

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

we should burn the freakin talmud not read it. i read it once and it was stone cold boring. something about whether or not it was sinful to bind the teats of a goat on the shabbat. zzzzzzzzz.

we know there is one jew question that really defines "sin:" "CAN I GET AWAY WITH IT?"

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

we should burn the freakin talmud not read it. i read it once and it was stone cold boring. something about whether or not it was sinful to bind the teats of a goat on the shabbat. zzzzzzzzz.

we know there is reall only one jew question that for them will define "sin:" "CAN I GET AWAY WITH IT?"

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

[Karl Radl]

Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes

we know there is one jew question that really defines "sin:" "CAN I GET AWAY WITH IT?"

Now that is a very accurate estimation of the jewish mentality towards Judaism and just about everything else in general.

[Oy Ze Hate]

re: faceless

Is this you or a friend of yours?

YouTube - Drunken Israeli Settler Threatens Film Crew

YouTube - Drunken Israeli Settler Threatens Film Crew

Shabat shalom, shit for brains.

[Oy Ze Hate]

Can we make one definition of "God" the Jews' only friend?

[Oy Ze Hate]

Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes

we should burn the freakin talmud not read it. i read it once and it was stone cold boring. something about whether or not it was sinful to bind the teats of a goat on the shabbat. zzzzzzzzz.

we know there is one jew question that really defines "sin:" "CAN I GET AWAY WITH IT?"

Another jew meme that guides their every action: "IT'S ONLY A CRIME IF YOU GET CAUGHT."

[Hugh]

The Talmud legislates against rape of children, i.e it echoes and adds decisions through halakah (jewish law) against it. While there are some quotes that out of context appear to give it a green light so to speak, they are either overturned by subsequent discussion in the given discussions or rejected elsewhere, as I've demonstrated, therein via the rulings of law.

The Talmud legislates laws applicable to Jews treatment of each other, depending upon what category of Jew they are, and are not always applicable to Jews treatment of Gentiles, such as proselytes, servants, slaves, or prisoners.
The quotes from the Bible are not out of context.
The Jewish God, priests and Jewish kings ordered the rape and killing of children, over and over again, in war after war, for close to a millenium.
That rape happens during war, yes it certainly does.
That the God, kings and priests of a nation order it, is uniquely Jewish.
Their Gods direct instructions, supported by their priests and kings, were repeated for a millenium, and carried out for 3 millenia.

No, you are thinking of God's warcries of the OT me thinks. God commanded a lot of horrible deeds therein, no doubt about it, but this does not mean that neither Christianity or Judaism considers these examples as law or legal for them to do.

Yes they do and yes it does. They made numerous laws actually requiring killing and torturing heretics and unbelievers, and waged numerous wars exactly in line with what the Jewish God said.

Though it appears that according to you, their own God who apparently spoke the Talmud and OT, which are thus his own words, condemns himself, makes laws against his own actions and considers his own actions as being against his law, as well as the actions he ordered through Moses, David etc who did as he ordered.

But they do agree with the religious jewish behaviour.

No they don't.
Not then, not now.
They don't agree with the behaviour of the Jewish God, or the priests or the kings such as
Moses, Joshua, Gideon, David the list goes on and on.
They don't agree with their behaviour throughout history or today in Israel which is approved by their religious leaders, or outside Israel.

Considering how the Talmud criticises and condemns, by name, rabbis and individuals at the level of what they did with a cloak, one would think they would have noticed things like the actions of their God, priests and kings over a millenium, and if it was wrong, pointed it out.

Well I do not know of diaspora jews have been notably more abusive of their children that their host populus have been of their own, historically.

Jews have had a horrific history with children, especially White children.
Apart from mutilating their childrens genitals and turning them into sociopaths by teaching them from birth the world hates them and they are born to rule the very world which hates them, their actions against our children include:

1) mutilating millions of white male childrens genitals, telling trusting White parents it is best for the child
2) for millenia having run the European slavery industry where they sold hundreds of thousands of White children into slavery to Muslims, as well as to India and China, many of whom they castrated by cutting off their testicles, and in many cases cutting off their penises as well
3) being one of the main driving forces behind child pornography and child prostitution
4) using our children in medical experiments
5) aborting millions of our children every year, with roughly 80 million White babies aborted in Europe and the US since the 1950's, and roughly a quarter of all babies in the US being aborted annually. Jews are currently fighting to be allowed to crush babies skulls and then rip their bodies to shreds with metal hooks even as they move down the birth canal after being carried to full-term. They are supported in their efforts to do this by all the major Jewish political, social and religious organisations. Yet this can't be happening, according to you, because the Talmud legislates against it.

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.
-- Deuteronomy 22:20-21

The above basically states that if we find someone in a town of that do not ascribe to God's word, that has a different belief and talks about it, God says kill 'em all (including those who do not follow those different beliefs, but dwell in such a town) and therefor we are all commanded to kill everyone in every town where there are if only one person with different beliefs??
I mean come on, not a rabbi or priest believes this, since that would mean they would have to pretty much kill most of their own people as well.

Many do believe it, and act on it.
I guess the Flood, Soddom, Gommorrah, all these just passed you by, unnoticed.
I suggest you read the Old Testament, which is Judaism in action, and which describes how they did just this, even confirming that their own God himself sometimes ordered it, also giving the names of the Jewish priests and kings who ordered it, and the cities and kings and peoples they did it to.

The founding of Israel after WW2 has to date involved Jews doing pretty much as the Bible instructs them to in Palestine, urged on and approved by their rabbis.

Christians did just that as well, up until after the destruction of the Moslem Empire, largely by the British during WW1
The recent war in Serbia was largely a religious war between Albanian Muslims and Serbian Orthodox

You are apparently not aware of the slaughters carried out with the approval of the highest Christian authorities:

1) by rulers of Europe of heretics in Europe, urged on by the church in general for example Charlemagne especially in his religious wars against e.g. the Saxons, and ordered by several popes personally in papal bulls e.g. the Middle East and Albigensian Crusades
2) of entire towns on the way to the Middle East by the crusaders, which included cramming hundreds and sometimes thousands of unbelievers into halls where they were burned alive, where Christian bishops are described as weeping with joy at the sight
3) of entire towns of heretics and Muslims by crusaders in the Middle East
4) during the Reconquista and Inquisition of Spain
5) by the conquistadores, who conquered vast portions of South America in the name of God, of people such as the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas, as well by many other Europeans during the colonisation period worldwide and in Europe all over the Baltic, Scandinavia, Russia by e.g. the Teutonic knights, the entire history of the religious wars in Eastern Europe between Christians and Arabian and Turkish Muslims
6) by Constantine of unbelievers and the numerous other Byzantine religious wars which raged inside the Empire for 800 years
7) the wars between the Catholics and Protestants in Europe which raged for over 400 years, ending in France in the late 1700's when the last of the French Hugenots were either killed or expelled from France, after having their towns burned and inhabitants slaughtered
8) the church actions against witchcraft
9) the numerous wars waged between Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians between each other and others in the Near East, Russia etc

The Puritans who initially settled America did so to escape being persecuted and often killed.

You may also find it interesting to research what was done by the Jewish Bolsheviks to Christian priests, such as skinning them alive, crucifying them upside down, nailing them to the doors of their churches etc

Winston Churchill, himself a Jew, had some interesting comments about the Jewish Bolsheviks
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/...cfm?pageid=287

Honestly, these rants of yours are possibly some of the worst critiques of jewish behaviour I've ever seen, I'm sad to say.
If you wish to argue that Judaism condones rape of babies, then you have to prove it within the context of said religion.

You are saying that the Talmud is not the law itself, but the source of the laws.
The actual laws themself are contained in the Torah.
Thus what is in the Torah forms the actual laws of Judaism.

You then go on to say that in the Torah, we must ignore the words and deeds of the actual Jewish God himself since he cannot provide the context within which to interpret the religion he established.

The founders of their people and their greatest figures such as Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Gideon and David apparently also should be ignored from a contextual perspective, because their acts and words, which form the foundation of the Jewish people and Judaism, are in conflict with the Talmud and they can thus not have any bearing on Jewish laws or religion.

You then go on to ridicule and deny the recorded Jewish and Christian history of Chief Rabbis, Popes, Archbishops, Emperors and Kings legislating and carrying out the slaughter of those whose religious beliefs differed from their own.

And you do all this, you say, to stop us making fools of ourselves.
I don't think we are the ones who need worry about that.

[Jonoleth Stiltskin]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The Talmud legislates laws applicable to Jews treatment of each other, depending upon what category of Jew they are, and are not always applicable to Jews treatment of Gentiles, such as proselytes, servants, slaves, or prisoners.

But now you are dodging our discussing with stating that jewish laws applied to jewish people are not always of the same standing concerning treatment of gentiles.
If you are suggesting that, as it would in some way pertain to our discussion, jewish law legislated in favour of raping proselytes, prisoners et al, then you are still wrong.

The Jewish God, priests and Jewish kings ordered the rape and killing of children, over and over again, in war after war, for close to a millenium.

Rape of children? It wasn't in any of the biblical quotes. Nevertheless the OT does indeed describe here and there, for example, how God commanded the israelites to do plenty of horrible things to basically every one of their enemies.
This does not mean Judaism teaches jews that it is justified/legal for them to kill anyone at will, let alone children. No, what we can possibly derive from such quotes, of the old scriptural aspects of the OT, is that it reflects how the israelites in times of war knew no compassion, only malice. Then again that is the case for a lot of other cultures histories, but in this case it is indeed part of jewish and christian holy writ. Still, as I said before, it isn't correct to claim that some quotes from the OT of bloodfilled madness teaches a negation of the laws of Christianity or Judaism that were not long after subsequently set an enacted.

It is similar to the Norse nordicist (incorrectly called, at times, "odinist" which imo is a pop-cultural name) who would draw strength, inspiration and reflect admiration back at the many lessons taught by the Norse, their culture, their adventures, their moral and ethics, without them believing it is a-ok to go rampaging across Europe with axes and swords.

Their Gods direct instructions, supported by their priests and kings, were repeated for a millenium, and carried out for 3 millenia.

Order of rape? Look, you're not making a good argument. Yes the OT's/Tanakh's God is a vengeful God in a tale were people waged bloody war back and forth and where commands were given here and there to israelites etc for them to secure devistating destruction upon the enemy's populus in times of war. But besides setting a serious malicious tone of judgement, it isn't something followed on a literal basis as neither christians or jews have had a notable concistent tendency of interpreting it literally.
One point you should pursue however is the meme of the Amalek-concept in the history of Jewry and how it can be/should be carefully analysed in the context of jewish revolts but also written statements, commentary and so forth.
Drop the ol' "jews are evil and decidedly blood thirsty devils because their religions teaches them to be so". Let me quote my friend Karl Radl from his latest article on Semitic Controversies:

In short: deal with the reality of the jew and the world will applaud anti-Semitism. Treat the jew as an imaginary, inhuman fantasy and the world will have justified contempt for anti-Semitism.

Yes they do and yes it does. They made numerous laws actually requiring killing and torturing heretics and unbelievers, and waged numerous wars exactly in line with what the Jewish God said.

People have, historically as well as contemporarily, in a plethora of ways and forms justified war or persecution of their, at the time, cultural dissidents and exterior enemies. There has indeed been a lot of such persecution and war superficially justified by finding some piece of scripture that might in some way come across as in favour of said persecutions or justification for war. When concerning scriptural appeals as formentioned, it always required ignoring parts and using anything but the kitchen sink in order to rally enough people and secure status by making it seem it was in line with the current cultural beliefs and necessities.

I do not consider it a valid argument that the Crusades were in any way a direct result of the leaders being directly influenced and ordered by Samuel or Deutoronomy, the same goes for the Bar Kochba revolt or the Six Day War and so forth. No, that would be a rather dumb way to argue, which you are de facto doing.

Though it appears that according to you, their own God who apparently spoke the Talmud and OT, which are thus his own words, condemns himself, makes laws against his own actions and considers his own actions as being against his law, as well as the actions he ordered through Moses, David etc who did as he ordered.

Only if you regard it through an overarching, simplistically generalized dumbified analysis of the given theology. There is a painstakingly long historical process of biblical and rabbinical work that acknowledges God as just and kind but also accepts the fact that he ordered certain people in certain times to kill indiscriminately. It is a valid discussion how such a God can be viewed as just considering some deeds and commands ascribed to him, but it is a different discussion than what you are doing, which is acting confused how there can be laws in christian and jewish theological legal work against murder when God ordered murder.

Such examples are, as I said before, not generally interpretated literally, as laws calling for continued massacres, rather examples of historical examples, instances where God simply ordered massacre for a variety of given reasons. The laws for the people to follow, that were passed down, are not interchangable with, and should not be confused with, the allegorical or historical tales. Yet, the tales of the massacres do help to provide an influence of tone in the religious frame-work, which would be a vengeful and malicious one, which we do find to have been carried on by the OT/Tanakh.

Ergo, it is stupid to say jews and christians waged war because they were simply mimicing and re-enacting the wars of the OT.

I mean, Deutoronomy describes how people should be put to death for disobeying their parents, or being intoxicated. These were run-of-the-mill quotes that never really made it long into of the subsequent jewish civilizations or communities. You can't view it all through a superficial and one-dimensional interpretation by just flicking through the Bible, Torah or what have you.

No they don't.
Not then, not now.
They don't agree with the behaviour of the Jewish God, or the priests or the kings such as
Moses, Joshua, Gideon, David the list goes on and on.
They don't agree with their behaviour throughout history or today in Israel which is approved by their religious leaders, or outside Israel.

Aside from the fact that neither Gideon or David's behaviour agrees with Moses or Joshua on that much or inbetween them on such notes, my points given in my article which you said didn't agree with jewish behaviour is in fact agreeable with how the laws of the Written and Oral Torah have been applied in general by the jewish community.

Apart from mutilating their childrens genitals and turning them into sociopaths by teaching them from birth the world hates them and they are born to rule the very world which hates them

Your view of the "jew" is more of a chimearical fantasy than an intellectually grounded analysis. The jews are more hardwired but also taught by their identity, history and jewish upbringing to consider themselves to be special, something else, but also that "jew" means they are of a persecuted flock which by default invokes the victim mentality.

their actions against our children include:
mutilating millions of white male childrens genitals, telling trusting White parents it is best for the child

Well millions of white males are circumcised not by jews but by white doctors. Jews and muslims have circumcised their youngs for ages, it is more of a recent phenomena of the recent one and a half century, in Europe for european ancestral folk, to my knowledge.
I doubt circumcusion of white people would be of any strategic end to jews or that they even consider it as a strategy. They honestly regard it as sanitary and proper, many do. I personally do not.

for millenia having run the European slavery industry where they sold hundreds of thousands of White children into slavery to Muslims, as well as to India and China, many of whom they castrated by cutting off their testicles, and in many cases cutting off their penises as well

For as long as there have been jews in Europe, which means from many nations starting point thereof, they've been involved more or less frequently in large trade enterprises. I do not know if they ran the European slavey industry, nor do I know if hundreds of thousands of white children were sold into slavery to Muslims. What are you specifically referring to?

being one of the main driving forces behind child pornography and child prostitution

I do not know of this is correct but it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

using our children in medical experiments

Whate are you specifically referring to?

aborting millions of our children every year, with roughly 80 million White babies aborted in Europe and the US since the 1950's, and roughly a quarter of all babies in the US being aborted annually.

Well I'm pro-abortion. I do not consider it to be used as a loosely as a birth-control method, but it should be available.
Also it isn't the jews that are aborting millions of our children, rather pro-abortion policies that jews have been notably part of pushing forth in some countries along others, however in Sweden for example we saw the abortion for the reasonable and necessary method it is and applied it without any help from jews.

They are supported in their efforts to do this by all the major Jewish political, social and religious organisations. Yet this can't be happening, according to you, because the Talmud legislates against it.

The Talmud doesn't mention much about it but jewish law as given therein does allow abortion if the life of the mother is threatened (however, in Judaism the baby isn't legally a person until birth), so the general orthodox jew is against it as the Orthodox and Catholic Church is against it. Allthough in recent times there are several liberal cultural off-shots from these positions, which means jews also have a tendency to adapt to modern sentiments and discourse influencing the positions traditionally held.

Many do believe it, and act on it. I guess the Flood, Soddom, Gommorrah, all these just passed you by, unnoticed.

No, many do not believe and act on, for example, the given sentiment of what I quoted for you (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), since most people, wether religious jews or white people, are not homicidal maniacs and neither do they believe (just because it is stated in Deuteronomy) that it is lawful to kill all the inhabitants and livestock of a town within or without their vicinity if they find one or a few religious dissidents.

I suggest you read the Old Testament, which is Judaism in action, and which describes how they did just this, even confirming that their own God himself sometimes ordered it, also giving the names of the Jewish priests and kings who ordered it, and the cities and kings and peoples they did it to.

You suggest I read the Old Testament? That's a laugh. I suggest you read it yourself, then the Tanakh, then the Oral Torah and provide an actual analysis of the jewish psyche as opposed to state; "Hey, I've figured this whole thing out. In the Old Testament God commands massacres, and the israelites kill alot of people and other people kill them, and their God punishes their enemy."

These parts can only, at best, serve to show us how jews have a religious mythology that involves bloody warfare and annihilation of their enemy. Then again, every other culture has had those as well. Perhaps you haven't read much of Norse history and mythology or Greek mythology? Do you claim the Greek and the Norse went warmongering and homicidal back then and now "through millenias" (as you said) because of examples of what Zeus did or Odin did?

I have time and again contested against such utter idiocy. Zeus is not responsible for the historical greek's psyche, Odin isn't responsible for the norseman's psyche and the OT's God and the tales thereof is not responsible for the jewish psyche, nor are the aformentioned examples indicators of them except as general reflections of how the people at that time would express their "folk mythos", ie their cultural mythology.

Hugh, in some textual examples, notably found in the OT, it certainly was expressed through megalomaniacal and gory fantasy adventures along with severe xenophobia and holier than thau worship of self, ie their own identity. This is does not mean jews subsequently became imprinted with murdering people at will and that Samuel or Kings 1-2 or Deutoronomy quotes found here and there can be used as an exposé of explaining the motivation for jewish behaviour. On the contrary, it does a very poor and superficial job of doing so.

Unless... you can carefully analyze the content their texts from old ranging throughout history to the Talmud and to contemporary times and align it with a coherent argument and analysis that describes how the jewish behaviour works, how it is motivated and reflected.

Deutornomy in concern to the quotes you used doesn't do a good nor coherent job of that, it only reflects that ancient jews had musings and ascribed self-justification for gory war, but white people have also had plenty of such musings as well even from non-scriptural mythology and history.

The founding of Israel after WW2 has to date involved Jews doing pretty much as the Bible instructs them to in Palestine, urged on and approved by their rabbis.

Actually the founding of the Israeli state in the late 40's was against what their Torah commanded. At first, almost the entire orthodox community was against it, though they subsequently got along with the secular zionistic program of Israel as a state.

The fact that jews persecute palestinians has nothing to do with what they are instructed in the Torah or Bible to do, since most of them that went after the palestinians were secular jews, but what their hardwired values allows and encourages them to do... which in this case is to be physically malicious toward those who stand in the way of them taking back what they percieve is their land and soil.

Any reflections about examples of malicious jewish behaviour in the OT compared to contemporary malicious jewish behaviour is simply independant of the OT, as the former is in part a reflection of the latter, not a director, instructor or guide of it.

You are apparently not aware of the slaughters carried out with the approval of the highest Christian authorities:

Of course I am. Indeed their religiously established identities played a role but what they did had nothing to do with being directed by Deutoronomy or Samuel etc. They would have gone after culturual dissidents and ventured out for conquest either way, despite what some scriptural quotes would say, since it is one of the more persistent and common aspects of humanity in doing so.

You may also find it interesting to research what was done by the Jewish Bolsheviks to Christian priests, such as skinning them alive, crucifying them upside down, nailing them to the doors of their churches etc

The bolsheviks were predominantely russian, 5,2 percent were jewish allthough in its early stages of the government they, for example, were overrepresented in the government.
Skinning priests alive is a bit of a tall-tale I would say, you see a lot of religious jews were also killed after the Bolshevik government through progroms and persecution, many people were. The ones targeted were dissidents of the new cultural/political order, this included jews and slavs etc.

Winston Churchill, himself a Jew, had some interesting comments about the Jewish Bolsheviks
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/...cfm?pageid=287

Erhm, Winston Churchill was not a jew. That's been debunked several times over.

You are saying that the Talmud is not the law itself, but the source of the laws.
The actual laws themself are contained in the Torah.
Thus what is in the Torah forms the actual laws of Judaism.

I can see that not only are you clueless about Judaism, you haven't even read what I've stated. Instead of me repeating myself, re-read what I've written, or better yet read my article I linked before on "Written or Oral Torah".

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

I was reading a little bit about Edward Gibbon’s causes for the decline of the Roman Empire, recently. From wiki a quote about the Jews:

Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which [the Jews] committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives;¹ and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but also of humankind…..

The footnote says:

Womersley, ed., Decline and Fall, vol. 1, ch. XVI, p. 516. Gibbon's first footnote here reveals even more about why his detractors reacted so harshly: "In Cyrene, [the Jews] massacred 220,000 Greeks; in Cyprus, 240,000; in Egypt, a very great multitude. Many of these unhappy victims were sawed asunder, according to a precedent to which David had given the sanction of his examples. The victorious Jews devoured the flesh, licked up the blood, and twisted the entrails like a girdle around their bodies. see Dion Cassius l.lxviii, p. 1145."

[Hugh]

But now you are dodging our discussing with stating that jewish laws applied to jewish people are not always of the same standing concerning treatment of gentiles.
If you are suggesting that, as it would in some way pertain to our discussion, jewish law legislated in favour of raping proselytes, prisoners et al, then you are still wrong.

Their god, priests and kings made their laws. What they ordered was legal in terms of their religious and state policy.
The quotes have been provided. There they are, and your denying them as being valid because of what is stated elsewhere in their religious writings does not mean that they do not exist.
There certainly are contradictory quotes, in the Talmud and OT.

Where in the Talmud, or anywhere else for that matter, what is written does not correspond with reality, then it is not valid as a predictor of behaviour.

The laws towards non-jews are of the same standing.
The laws are different depending upon whether the person is a jew or not, and then for jews, also depends upon which category of jew they belong to.
When the mass child rapes are ordered by their God, priests and kings, they are usually to rape non-jewish children.

Rape of children? It wasn't in any of the biblical quotes.

Yes it was, repeated over and over again.
Here's just one example of the ordering of the mass rape of virgin children
Numbers
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

This does not mean Judaism teaches jews that it is justified/legal for them to kill anyone at will, let alone children.

It teaches them that it is justified and legal to do so when ordered to by their God, their priests or kings.

People have, historically as well as contemporarily, in a plethora of ways and forms justified war or persecution of their, at the time, cultural dissidents and exterior enemies. There has indeed been a lot of such persecution and war superficially justified by finding some piece of scripture that might in some way come across as in favour of said persecutions or justification for war. When concerning scriptural appeals as formentioned, it always required ignoring parts and using anything but the kitchen sink in order to rally enough people and secure status by making it seem it was in line with the current cultural beliefs and necessities.

Rather like people who search desperately for scraps of scripture that show Jews in a good light.
If their current beliefs, which lead to their current behaviour, differ from the Talmud, then the Talmud is not the basis of their beliefs, and thus of little importance.
Where it corresponds with their behaviour, then it is of importance.

I do not know if they ran the European slavey industry, nor do I know if hundreds of thousands of white children were sold into slavery to Muslims.

Yes they did, since Roman times till today.
It was one of the main reasons Jews were so hated in Europe.
The town near Auschwitz was once the site of one of the largest slave markets run by the Jews in medieval times.
Nazis always did have a sense of humour.

I do not consider it a valid argument that the Crusades were in any way a direct result of the leaders being directly influenced and ordered by Samuel or Deutoronomy, the same goes for the Bar Kochba revolt or the Six Day War and so forth. No, that would be a rather dumb way to argue, which you are de facto doing.

The crusades were ordered by the popes, their religious leaders, for religious reasons.
The crusaders went on crusade as a result of their religion.
They killed heretics and unbelievers because of their religion, and stated that was why they did it, over and over.
It is not an argument, it is a historical fact.

Acceptance of and support for Israel and its actions by the masses in the West is largely as a result of their religion.
The 6 day war was fought to preserve that religious state, it was supported by Christians because of their religious beliefs, so was in that sense a religious war.

I can see that not only are you clueless about Judaism, you haven't even read what I've stated.

You appear to believe that because you state something, it must then accepted.
That what you quote also exists in the Talmud, I don't doubt.

What you state Jews believe, does not correspond with how they behave, so is not valid as a frame of reference when using their beliefs to anticipate their behaviour.

I am not concerned very much about their religion, except insofar as it relates to their behaviour. Nor do I believe that God exists as they describe, though for purposes of this discussion, one needs to adopt that paradigm.

In Exodus, they describe themselves as prostitutes, murderers, robbers and thieves fleeing Egypt.
Their behaviour since then confirms that as a group they have not changed, and are decidedly sociopathic.
Studying sociopathy and organised crime is of great value when studying Jews, religious studies have little value.

Studying Jewish religion per se is of no interest to me, except where it may assist us to separate from them.

They are more an underclass, a state of mind, or personality type, than a nation. As they move from place to place, they recruit and absorb the smartest of the corrupt, the criminal and the perverted to them. They seek out the poor, the disaffected, the rebels in societies they encounter, use them to rise to power, then kill those who put them into power.
Communism and organised crime is Judaism in action.

Their religion came largely from Babylonia and Egypt.
Abraham himself came from the area near Babylonia.
The Assyrians, Babylonians and Chaldeans were much the same people.
Most of the war stories Jews claim for their own would possibly be accurate if ascribed to the Assyrians more than Jews, since the Assyrians did indeed treat defeated enemies as the Jews describe themselves doing.

Since we know that the Assyrian armies did exist, and were recorded as doing such deeds, and since we do not know if the Jewish armies existed, and there are no non-Jewish records of their having existed, it seems likely that many of the events the Jews describe were carried out by the Assyrians and other warring nations. Jews may well have been present as slave dealers, magicians, quacks, prostitutes, thieves and of course as merchants buying up theslaves and plunder from cities captured by other peoples.

The very concept of Jews being mighty warriors is so totally contrary to reality that that alone in and of itself shows their history to be a borrowed one, a mishmash of other peoples religions.

Nevertheless, the fact that they selected these episodes as representative of their history, and not others which could have shown themselves as good or kind, as well as the type of god they chose, indicates in itself their nature.

They are a predominantly Arabic nation, living amongst whites, causing real problems in real life, who we need to physically separate from.

How to separate from them, how to remove them from positions of power over us or where this is not possible, to remove power over us from any positions they hold, is of value.

How to disintegrate their pillars of support, persuading them to move to Israel, boycotts, sanctions, if necessary secession, networking, training, finance, that is what really matters.

[Jonoleth Stiltskin]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Their god, priests and kings made their laws. What they ordered was legal in terms of their religious and state policy.

Well again we are now on to stories of warfare and the oft brutal and savageous nature of it described in older written texts, such as in places within the OT of God commanding his followers to committ atrocities. This is not something that is debatable. What is debatable is wether you can pick quotes from Deutoronomy and/or Samuel, Kings etc of such examples and equate it with the laws rendered by Judaism. There is a substantial difference between descriptions and musings of overexagurated acts of God's wrath and with a coherent, careful analysis detailing jewish behaviour.

Because, as I mentioned earlier, many cultures and religious folklores have their archaic musings of merciless warfare. It's part n parcel of old and/or ancient cultural heritage for most people and doesn't function very well as a telling indicator of the given people's behaviour in such a superficial way, i.e; this quote here and there decrees merciless warfare, therefor it explains the given culture's behaviour from then to contemporary times. We have the Huns, the Greeks, the Norse (vikings), the Berber, the Mongols and so forth, were a folk-mythos existed reflecting past events of rather unsavoury warfare.
They didn't go conquering, killing, destroying, gaining ground and stature because of a slavic obedience or even doctrinal adherence to a certain set of stories telling them to do so. To say that a notable behavioural factor for any of the formentioned's conquestal, and upon occasion, merciless warfare were set by kept stories is amateuristic and sloppy conjecture at best.

Yet, this is not to say that formentioned cultures general outlook can't be in some ways reflected through their adhered mythology.

Yes it was, repeated over and over again.
Here's just one example of the ordering of the mass rape of virgin children
Numbers
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Well this is in reference to the war against the Midianites were all male subjects and the women who weren't virgins anymore were killed, yes, yet the latter quote does not translate into rape, they weren't kept for the purpose of rape, but for keeping as future converts or more likely; slaves (which was a common practice to do with captives in those days, throughout many a cultures).
This is actually one of the special cases where women and young are ordered to be killed, since it was otherwise given that they should always be spared (Deutoronomy 20:10-14). In this case though, God is shown to have made an exception and sought to punish the midianites partly for their blashpmey of adhereing to Balaam.
This was war and, as another example, the war against the Canaanites were wars of tribal extermination.

Now, is it a working, exact and good way of describing what directs jewish behaviour in general by hinting to passages like the above? Well, no, not really. One could make a general appeal of the very oft malicious and vengeful tone to be a reflection of the jewish mindset, providing you do a more elaborate case/work in detailing it, but it is not the same as to claim jews act the way they do because they are consciously trying to re-enact any mentioned specific event.
That is a bit like saying the reason why Roman's went out to expand and conquer through bloody warfare was because of direct adherence to some tales about Jupiter and Mars.

It teaches them that it is justified and legal to do so when ordered to by their God, their priests or kings.

It doesn't teach legal work but mentioned where God commanded almost total annihilation of their specific enemy. This is a very common feature in folklores and mythology in general, but not to be mixed up with legal work of what is law. But, of course, if for example God somehow appeared from the sky with a booming voice, acknowledged to be God by the jews for example, and told them to kill every subject of a specific enemy, perhaps they would. I think that would go for many people. The fact remains that there is no standing order for such to be considered lawful.

If their current beliefs, which lead to their current behaviour, differ from the Talmud, then the Talmud is not the basis of their beliefs, and thus of little importance.
Where it corresponds with their behaviour, then it is of importance.

Well today the ruling elite of Israel is generally secular, as are much of organised Jewry across the world, so your argument is inherently flawed since it assumes there must be a religious adherence in a certain way to a certain text in order to explain the shades of their behaviour.
The behaviour of Jewry is not determined by some passages from Deutoronomy, Samuel, Numbers et al, it is determined moreso by their inherited hardwired set of characterists that in many ways remain visible and enactable for all to see wether or not they are secular, christian, orthodox jewish and so forth.
Furthemore, there are some differences contemporarily as well as historically between ashkenazi and sephardi jewry, but you wouldn't know anything about that would you since it can't be determined and analysed by slapping a quote on it like a sticker and call it a day.

Hugh, if you have a preconcieved and, imo, overly lame and simplistic view of what jewish behaviour is then of course you would ignore anything that doesn't fit into your notion, and embrace anything that appear to fit, just like the believer of psychic's ignore the misses and only remembers the 'hits' of when they said something that did fit, or said something that the person could somehow bend into something that fits.

You can not hope to understand much if you exclude any alternative that is rejected by default from your narrow viewpoint.

Yes they did, since Roman times till today.
It was one of the main reasons Jews were so hated in Europe.

I do not doubt jewry was part of a lot of history's slavetrade in Europe, however I do think it is a counter-productive exaguration to say that they ran it from the time then to today. Also, why would they be hated for it in a time when slave trade was readily accepted and popular enterprise in old Europe?

The crusades were ordered by the popes, their religious leaders, for religious reasons.
The crusaders went on crusade as a result of their religion.
They killed heretics and unbelievers because of their religion, and stated that was why they did it, over and over.
It is not an argument, it is a historical fact.

But the real reason for the crusades are not well explained or determined by a passage here and there from the OT or what have you. On the contrary, you have to look moreso at the social and political aspects of that time. Initially you had the fear of military islamic expansion that did indeed threatened the sovereignty of allied lands as well as their own.
Now, the fact that in any setting cultural dissidents within their own borders were persecuted is always historically expected, as it was and as it were and as it is today, sometimes were commonly regarded as cultural dissidents for the sake of religious quarrels and differences, other times due to other reasons.
These reasons have always fluctated and so the common denominator explaining the motivation would not really be found in any specific passage but rather, as I said before, as reactions toward those who were seen as a threat to the current established culture despite what it might have been compact of.

Acceptance of and support for Israel and its actions by the masses in the West is largely as a result of their religion.
The 6 day war was fought to preserve that religious state, it was supported by Christians because of their religious beliefs, so was in that sense a religious war.

Since Israel's heads and state-effective body were generally of the secular slant, that's not really a good and coherent argument.
The acceptence and support of Israel, its actions, is much more a result of the power of victimized status of jews that has been thoroughly used as leverage and was used to obtain this piece of land, and also due to their west'ward political and financial alliances. You see, despite the irony inherent perhaps, zionism was not a religious movement, it was a political one.

What you state Jews believe, does not correspond with how they behave, so is not valid as a frame of reference when using their beliefs to anticipate their behaviour.

You have this rather typical and myopic methodology from a chimearical fantasy view of jews, i.e that; "jewish behaviour = evil and homicidal and so anything found in the OT that relates to such evil is therefor a direct source and reason for their behaviour".
One of the biggest mistakes one can make when critiquing Jewry, is to do a one-dimensional and simplistic one.
The laws enacted in their legal work explains much more than you have come to understand, it's just that you have not bothered to actually study their legal work and apparently you are sticking with dumb and most decidedly counter-productive methodology formentioned.

I am not concerned very much about their religion, except insofar as it relates to their behaviour.
...
Studying Jewish religion per se is of no interest to me, except where it may assist us to separate from them.

I think the above statements summarize your methodology quite well, but it is quite bad. You can not hope to understand Judaism or the behaviour of religious Jewry, its history et al if you have not studied its legal work and variants of applications of it. You can not make any qualified comments about their behaviour from their religion if you haven't really studied it.
That is like trying to understand the behaviour of white americans by assuming it's all centered in commercialized conquest and using the New Testament yet only parts were it can be said to approve of conquest. You might find a seed or two that fits the bill, not much else, and all for the poor methodological reasons.

Communism and organised crime is Judaism in action.

In a lot of ways the two are exclusive and at odds, since Judaism and history of jews served hierarchy of jewish clergy and favoured subjects, whereas communism was to favour the proletariate, the working class, and damn much of religious enterprise and adherence in general. The jews found in Russia's, heck elswhere too, government head were secular and did not behave the way they did due to any adherence to any passage of the OT.

The very concept of Jews being mighty warriors is so totally contrary to reality that that alone in and of itself shows their history to be a borrowed one, a mishmash of other peoples religions.

Yes that might be the case, because it seems many cultures just had to have at least some sort of folk-mythos involving a past of warriors.

Nevertheless, the fact that they selected these episodes as representative of their history, and not others which could have shown themselves as good or kind, as well as the type of god they chose, indicates in itself their nature.

Erhm, you do realise that they didn't just select "these episodes" and called it their history, rather the texts are filled with a variety of virtues and sins, examples of humility, compassion as well as vengence and merciless warfare, love and hate. Still, as I said before, the general tone of vengefulness can be argued to reflect the state of mind and attitude of those who chose it and that it contributed to influence subsequent scriptural outlook and understanding.

Also, what does it say about scandinavian behaviour that we, the norse, picked several grusome examples of episodes to entertain as folklore and inspiration. In retrospect such "episodes" explain very little and very poorly the behaviour, beliefs and lives of the Norse. It can be argued that to some extent, these episodes as well as others all convergently reflected something about the state of mind and belief of the Norse, the same goes for the Hebrews, but in both cases it barely begins to thoroughly detail the behaviour, the motivation, the life and complexity of the dynamics in said people... yet you use it, on jews, as a sure and evident way of analytical yardstick.

[bmwbiker]

all that Semits or desert perverts love peadofilia....Jews, muslims that is all saim..

YouTube - paedophilia in Islam

YouTube - paedophilia in Islam

[MikeTodd]

Didn't Mohamed "marry" a five year old girl?

[bmwbiker]

Originally Posted by MikeTodd

Didn't Mohamed "marry" a five year old girl?

yes that fucker have 30 wifes (someone was children) ..... but he newer gain SON - how ironic, so many womans, so many kids...but all female...allmost as curse...