Killer quotes

Posted by Captainchaos on March 29, 2010, 02:05 AM | #

Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, in ADL on the Frontline, January 1994, p. 2:

The Holocaust is something different. It is a singular event. It is not simply one example of genocide but a near successful attempt on the life of God’s chosen children and thus, on God Himself. It is an event that is the antithesis of Creation as recorded in the Bible; and like it’s direct opposite, which is relived weekly with the Sabbath and yearly with Torah, it must be remembered from generation to generation.

Posted by Captainchaos on March 29, 2010, 02:33 AM | #

Rabbi Yaacov Perrin stated in his eulogy to Dr. Baruch Goldstein, an American-born Jewish physician who murdered 29 Muslims and wounded 150 others in his 1994 massacre at Hebron:

One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.

Posted by Nicholas on March 29, 2010, 03:44 AM | #

Douglas Rushkoff, an American media theorist, writer, columnist, lecturer, graphic novelist and documentarian.  Author of “Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Judaism.”

The thing that makes Judaism dangerous to everybody, to every race, to every nation, to every idea is that we smash things that aren’t true. We don’t believe in the boundaries of nation-state. We don’t believe in the ideas of these individual gods that protect individual groups of people. These are all artificial constructions and Judaism really teaches us how to see that. In a sense our detractors have us right, in that we are a corrosive force. We’re breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people because they’re not real.  And that’s very upsetting to people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGt7_0GEOvo

Posted by NEATHERGATE. on March 29, 2010, 09:01 AM | #

What about the entire transcript of the ‘Neathergate’ article?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760073-dont-listen-to-the-whingers---london-needs-immigrants.do

Don’t listen to the whingers - London needs immigrants

Amid the sound and fury over Nick Griffin, there’s a sad but unnoticed fact: it has taken this fiasco to make politicians talk about the impact of immigration.

Yesterday MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames called for a 75 per cent cut in immigration and accused the Government of “clamping down” on any debate.

What’s missing is not only a sense of the benefits of immigration but also of where it came from.

It didn’t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration.

Even now, most graduates with good English and a salary of £40,000 or the local equivalent abroad are more or less guaranteed enough points to settle here.

The results in London, and especially for middle-class Londoners, have been highly positive. It’s not simply a question of foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners - although frankly it’s hard to see how the capital could function without them.

Their place certainly wouldn’t be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley - fascist au pair, anyone? Immigrants are everywhere and in all sorts of jobs, many of them skilled.

My family’s east European former nannies, for example, are model migrants, going on to be a social worker and an accountant. They have integrated into London society.

But this wave of immigration has enriched us much more than that. A large part of London’s attraction is its cosmopolitan nature.

It is so much more international now than, say, 15 years ago, and so much more heterogeneous than most of the provinces, that it’s pretty much unimaginable for us to go back either to the past or the sticks.

Field and Soames complain about schools where English is not the first language for many pupils.

But in my children’s south London primary school, the international influence is primarily the large numbers of (mostly middle-class) bilingual children, usually with one parent married to a Brit.

My children have half- or wholly Spanish, Italian, Swiss, Austrian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Congolese, Chinese and Turkish classmates.

London’s role as a magnet for immigration busted wide open the stale 1990s clichés about multiculturalism: it’s a question of genuine diversity now, not just tacking a few Afro-Caribbean and Bengali events on to a white British mainstream. It’s one of the reasons Paris now tends to look parochial to us.

So why is it that ministers have been so very bad at communicating this? I wonder because I wrote the landmark speech given by then immigration minister Barbara Roche in September 2000, calling for a loosening of controls. It marked a major shift from the policy of previous governments: from 1971 onwards, only foreigners joining relatives already in the UK had been permitted to settle here.

That speech was based largely on a report by the Performance and Innovation Unit, Tony Blair’s Cabinet Office think-tank.

The PIU’s reports were legendarily tedious within Whitehall but their big immigration report was surrounded by an unusual air of both anticipation and secrecy.

Drafts were handed out in summer 2000 only with extreme reluctance: there was a paranoia about it reaching the media.

Eventually published in January 2001, the innocuously labelled “RDS Occasional Paper no. 67”, “Migration: an economic and social analysis” focused heavily on the labour market case.

But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn’t its main purpose - to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far.

Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche’s keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour’s core white working-class vote.

This shone through even in the published report: the “social outcomes” it talks about are solely those for immigrants.

And this first-term immigration policy got no mention among the platitudes on the subject in Labour’s 1997 manifesto, headed Faster, Firmer, Fairer.

The results were dramatic. In 1995, 55,000 foreigners were granted the right to settle in the UK. By 2005 that had risen to 179,000; last year, with immigration falling thanks to the recession, it was 148,000.

In addition, hundreds of thousands of migrants have come from the new EU member states since 2004, most requiring neither visas nor permission to work or settle. The UK welcomed an estimated net 1.5 million immigrants in the decade to 2008.

Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.

But ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.

In part, too, it would have been just too metropolitan an argument to make in such places: London was the real model. Roche was unusual in that she was a London MP, herself of east European Jewish stock.

But Labour ministers elsewhere tend studiously to avoid ever mentioning London. Meanwhile, the capital’s capacity to absorb new immigrants depends in large part on its economic vitality and variety. There’s not a lot of that in, say, south Yorkshire. And so ministers lost their nerve.

I hope it’s not too late now, post-Question Time, for London to make the case for migration.

Of course we’re too small a country to afford an open door - but, by the same token, if the immigrants dry up, this city and this country will become a much poorer and less interesting place. Why is it so hard for Gordon Brown to say that?

Posted by Wandrin on March 29, 2010, 09:07 AM | #

It’s not quite on the exact same lines but i think some of them realise how messed up they are.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Posted by Gorboduc on March 29, 2010, 11:43 AM | #

Here’s a pdf of Higger’s Jewish Utopia

Posted by Gorboduc on March 29, 2010, 11:45 AM | #

Once again, techno-disaster: the above-mentioned pdf can be found at
http://ia350642.us.archive.org/2/items/TheJewishUtiopia/Higger.-.The.Jewish.Utopia.authentic.Zionist.Mein.Kampf.1932.pdf

Posted by D Allen on March 29, 2010, 01:27 PM | #

Jacques Derrida:

“The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and native tongue… The idea is to disarm the bombs… of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants...”

Posted by Dasein on March 29, 2010, 05:07 PM | #

Martin van Creveld, faculty member of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, former instructor at the US Naval War College, renowned military historian and theorist:

We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.

source

This quote (which Fred has also pointed out before) originates, I believe, from an interview in a Dutch magazine.  I had tried to find the original article when I first came across this quote, but it was no longer on the magazine’s website.  I wanted to see that it was what he really said, and not a mistranslation; it just seems too wild for someone to say without getting into huge shit.  Then I saw the following interview with him recently, at Junge Freiheit (my translation in italics):

JF: Glauben Sie, daß Deutschland die eigene Existenz riskieren und die Bundeswehr in einen großen Krieg für Israel schicken würde?

JF: Do you believe that Germany would risk its own existence by sending the Bundeswehr into a large war for Israel?

Creveld: Natürlich nicht. Offenbar muß ich Ihnen mal den Zweck der Gründung des Staates Israel erklären: Rund 2.000 Jahre konnten die Juden nicht beruhigt schlafen, weil sie sich Sorgen machen mußten, ob oder wer sie denn notfalls schützen würde. Israel wurde gegründet, damit die Juden endlich nachts durchschlafen können – weil sie sich diesbezüglich nun nicht mehr den Kopf zerbrechen müssen. Und übrigens, bei allem Respekt, aber mit Blick auf einen ruhigen Schlaf möchte ich meine Sicherheit von der heutigen deutschen Armee auch nicht abhängig wissen. Israel muß sich auf sich selbst verlassen können. Und falls das Unwahrscheinliche geschehen und Israel der Vernichtung gegenüberstehen sollte, würde es mich nicht überraschen, wenn wir so viel der übrigen Welt mit uns in den Abgrund reißen würden, wie wir nur können. 

Creveld: Of course, not.  Apparently I have to explain to you the reason for the creation of the Israeli state: for around 2000 years, the Jews could not sleep peacefully, because they had to worry whether someone would protect them in an emergency.  Israel was created so that the Jews could finally sleep through the night- they would no longer have to rack their brains over this.  And furthermore, with all due respect, in looking for a peaceful sleep, I would not want to make my security dependent on today’s German army.  Israel must be able to depend on itself.  And should the unlikely happen, and Israel was confronted with its own destruction, it would not surprise me if we would take as much of the world down with us as we could.

JF: Was meinen Sie damit?

JF: What do you mean by that?

Creveld: Denken Sie an die Geschichte des jüdischen Helden Samson.

Creveld: Think about the story of the Jewish hero, Samson.

JF: „Der durch seinen Tod (mehr) tötete als zu seinen Lebzeiten“, wie die Bibel berichtet. Was heißt das konkret?

JF: “Who through his death killed more than during his life,” as the Bible tells it.  What does that mean precisely?

Creveld: Das überlasse ich Ihrer Imaginationsgabe.

Creveld: I leave that to your imagination.

Posted by Gorboduc on March 29, 2010, 06:00 PM | #

Dasein: a follow-on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Samson_Option_(book) Worth reading.

There’s the famous Ben Hecht quote:

From 1948 to 1951, Hecht was blacklisted in England because of his criticism of British policies in Palestine. In May 1947, for instance, ten months after Irgun, the Jewish insurgency organisation led by Begin, had retaliated for mass British arrests of Jews by blowing up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 91 people, including Arabs and Jews as well as Britons, Hecht addressed Jewish militants thus: ‘Every time you blow up a British arsenal, or wreck a British jail, or send a British railroad sky high, or rob a British bank, or let go with your guns at the British betrayers and invaders of your homeland, the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts.’[28] His films were banned in England, and of the ones shown, his name was removed from the credits.[3][29]

This is from;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Hecht
and I suppose it could be rubbed into any bastard who espouses the US neo-con line and talks about the US-UK “special relationship” or any treacherous and corrupt MP who likes wallowing in his “Friend of Israel” cesspit.
Now if someone released those sentiments against the invaders of OUR homeland . . .

“The truncheon and the CS spray
Will silence what he has to say!”

Posted by Dan Dare on March 29, 2010, 06:58 PM | #

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass), Chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, assuring fellow senators about What the 1965 Immigration Act Will Not Do:

....First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same… Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or from the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.

Earl Raab, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council, writing in Jewish Bulletin, February 19, 1993:

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We Jews have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible— and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever..

And President Bill Clinton, in his commencement address to Portland State University, on June 13, 1998:

…In a little more than 50 years there will be no majority race in the United States. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time.

What do the changes mean? They can either strengthen and unite us, or they can weaken and divide us. We must decide.

Let me state my view unequivocally. I believe new immigrants are good for America. They are revitalizing our cities. They are building our new economy. They are strengthening our ties to the global economy, just as earlier waves of immigrants settled on the new frontier and powered the Industrial Revolution. They are energizing our culture and broadening our vision of the world. They are renewing our most basic values and reminding us all of what it truly means to be an American.

Posted by Dasein on March 29, 2010, 07:55 PM | #

This is the quote to which the JF interviewer was referring.

Bundeschancellor Angela Merkel, March 18th, 2008, to the Israeli Knesset:

Jede Bundesregierung und jeder Bundeskanzler vor mir waren der besonderen historischen Verantwortung Deutschlands für die Sicherheit Israels verpflichtet. Diese historische Verantwortung Deutschlands ist Teil der Staatsräson meines Landes. Das heißt, die Sicherheit Israels ist für mich als deutsche Bundeskanzlerin niemals verhandelbar.

Every German government and Bundeschancellor before me was committed to the special historical responsibility of Germany for the security of Israel.  This historical responsibility of Germany is part of the raison d’état of my country.  That means that the security of Israel is for me, as German Bundeschancellor, non-negotiable.

Posted by Dasein on March 29, 2010, 08:01 PM | #

Gorboduc, thanks for that Hecht quote.  Judging by his Wikipedia entry, he was an especially foul Jewish activist.  From the entry:

“Hecht’s most important race film historically was the Frank Capra message film The Negro Soldier, a feature length tribute shown to the armed forces and civilians during World War II.”

The film can be viewed here:

http://www.archive.org/details/negrosoldier

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 29, 2010, 08:37 PM | #

Dasein, the source of that quote of van Creveld’s you were looking for was a 2003 Guardian article, here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/21/israelandthepalestinians.bookextracts .

I mentioned the quote in a MajorityRights.com Forum entry, here:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/227/ .

Posted by Dasein on March 29, 2010, 08:54 PM | #

Fred, thanks, in the comment I also linked to your post in the forum (which, for those who haven’t seen it, has a translation of another interview with van Creveld in Junge Freiheit).  I originally came across the quote via an Altermedia article, and they linked back to an Elsevier interview (IIRC).  Perhaps the quote is in fact original for the Guardian piece (one would also think it should be, since they don’t reference the Elsevier story).

Posted by Dasein on March 29, 2010, 09:03 PM | #

Here is the original story (actually, from Indymedia- the other end of the spectrum from Altermedia):

http://de.indymedia.org/2003/01/39170.shtml

They reference it as coming from the Dutch magazine ‘Elsevier’ (also a publisher of many science journals).  It has the exact quote used in the Guardian piece, so I’m not sure why this interview wasn’t referenced.

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 29, 2010, 10:55 PM | #

Stephen Steinlight:

Like thousands of other typical Jewish kids of my generation, I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-separatist… More tacitly and subconsciously, I was taught the superiority of my people to the gentiles who had oppressed us. We were taught to view non-Jews as untrustworthy outsiders, people from whom sudden gusts of hatred might be anticipated, people less sensitive, intelligent, and moral than ourselves… [M]y nationalist training was to inculcate the belief that the primary division in the world was between “us” and “them.”

Another:

“The white ‘Christian’ supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration (Europeans being defined as Nordic or Anglo-Saxon), a position re-asserted by Peter Brimelow, must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change.”

Posted by Guessedworker on March 29, 2010, 11:46 PM | #

Nathan Abrams writing on Jews in porn in the Winter 2004 edition of The Jewish Quarterly (his article has since been taken down):

Is there a deeper reason, beyond the mere financial, as to why Jews in particular have become involved in porn? There is surely an element of rebellion in Jewish X-rated involvement. Its very taboo and forbidden nature serves to make it attractive. As I written in these pages before, treyf signifies ‘the whole world of forbidden sexuality, the sexuality of the goyim, and there all the delights are imagined to lie ...’ (‘Reel Kashrut: Jewish food in film’, JQ 189 [Spring 2003]).

According to one anonymous industry insider quoted by E. Michael Jones in the magazine Culture Wars (May 2003), ‘the leading male performers through the 1980s came from secular Jewish upbringings and the females from Roman Catholic day schools’. The standard porn scenario became as a result a Jewish fantasy of schtupping the Catholic shiksa.

Furthermore, as Orthodox Jew and porn gossipmonger Luke Ford explains on his website (lukeford.net): ‘Porn is just one expression of [the] rebellion against standards, against the disciplined life of obedience to Torah that marks a Jew living Judaism.’ It is also a revolt against (often middle-class) parents who wish their children to be lawyers, doctors and accountants. As performer Bobby Astyr put it on the same website, ‘It’s an “up yours” to the uncles with the pinky rings who got down on me as a kid for wanting to be musician.’

... Extending the subversive thesis, Jewish involvement in the X-rated industry can be seen as a proverbial two fingers to the entire WASP establishment in America. Some porn stars viewed themselves as frontline fighters in the spiritual battle between Christian America and secular humanism. According to Ford, Jewish X-rated actors often brag about their ‘joy in being anarchic, sexual gadflies to the puritanical beast’. Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. Astyr remembers having ‘to run or fight for it in grammar school because I was a Jew. It could very well be that part of my porn career is an “up yours” to these people’. Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw, said (on lukeford.net), ‘The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.’ Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged. Porn is no longer of the ‘what the Butler saw’ voyeuristic type; instead, it is driven to new extremes of portrayal that stretch the boundaries of the porn aesthetic. As new sexual positions are portrayed, the desire to shock (as well as entertain) seems clear.

It is a case of the traditional revolutionary/radical drive of immigrant Jews in America being channelled into sexual rather than leftist politics. Just as Jews have been disproportionately represented in radical movements over the years, so they are also disproportionately represented in the porn industry. Jews in America have been sexual revolutionaries. A large amount of the material on sexual liberation was written by Jews. Those at the forefront of the movement which forced America to adopt a more liberal view of sex were Jewish. Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading. Reich’s central preoccupations were work, love and sex, while Marcuse prophesied that a socialist utopia would free individuals to achieve sexual satisfaction. Goodman wrote of the ‘beautiful cultural consequences’ that would follow from legalizing pornography: it would ‘ennoble all our art’ and ‘humanize sexuality’.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 29, 2010, 11:54 PM | #

Searchlight on race-replacement and the prospects of the BNP at the ballot box:

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=189

Demographic changes to London, particularly Barking and Dagenham, will eventually result in a large section of the community that will ignore the BNP message. The next general election, and certainly the 2010 local elections, will constitute the BNP’s last stand in London. See the BNP off then and it will never return as a major political threat.

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 30, 2010, 01:04 AM | #

Sontag writing that “Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Balanchine ballets, et al. don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history.”

Posted by Nicholas on March 30, 2010, 01:29 AM | #

Joel Stein in The Los Angeles Times:

Who runs Hollywood? C’mon

“I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.”

“As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you’d be flipping between “The 700 Club” and “Davey and Goliath” on TV all day.”

“I called ADL Chairman Abe Foxman, who was in Santiago, Chile, where, he told me to my dismay, he was not hunting Nazis. He dismissed my whole proposition, saying that the number of people who think Jews run Hollywood is still too high. The ADL poll, he pointed out, showed that 59% of Americans think Hollywood execs “do not share the religious and moral values of most Americans,” and 43% think the entertainment industry is waging an organized campaign to “weaken the influence of religious values in this country."”

“"That’s a very dangerous phrase, ‘Jews control Hollywood.’ What is true is that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood,” he said. Instead of “control,” Foxman would prefer people say that many executives in the industry “happen to be Jewish,” as in “all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish.”

But Foxman said he is proud of the accomplishments of American Jews. “I think Jews are disproportionately represented in the creative industry. They’re disproportionate as lawyers and probably medicine here as well,” he said. He argues that this does not mean that Jews make pro-Jewish movies any more than they do pro-Jewish surgery. Though other countries, I’ve noticed, aren’t so big on circumcision."”

“I appreciate Foxman’s concerns. And maybe my life spent in a New Jersey-New York/Bay Area-L.A. pro-Semitic cocoon has left me naive. But I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.”

Posted by Grimoire on March 30, 2010, 03:55 AM | #

Passages from the New Testament referring to.....;

John:8 v44.
“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning”

Matthew 23 v13-33: “But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! ... Ye blind guides ... Ye fools and blind .... Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”

Matthew 21:13."And [He] said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves”

Micah 3:1-3.
“O heads of Jacob,” warns Micah, “and ye princes of the house of Israel; Is it not for you to know judgment? Who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones; who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off the”

Posted by Cut & pasted on March 30, 2010, 07:33 AM | #

Several prominent 20th century Hasidic Rabbis have been quite frank about this attitude:

“The difference between a Jewish soul and the souls of non-Jews . . . is greater than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.” Rabbi Kook the Elder, as quoted by Seffi Rachlevsky
“Two contrary types of soul exist; a non-Jewsih soul comes from three Satanic spheres, while the Jewsih soul stems from holiness . . . the substance of all divine emanations was created only to serve the Jews . . . The entire creation exists only for the sake of the Jews. Because of this a non-Jew should be punished with death if he kills an embryo, while a Jew, whose existence is most important, should not be punished with death.” Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Gatherings of Conversations

“If a Jew needs liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by to save him? The Torah would probably permit that. Jewish life has an infinite value. There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewsih life.” Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, April 26 1996 issue of Jewish Week

Posted by John on March 30, 2010, 12:35 PM | #

“What they fear most is community”. Celine

Posted by CFE on March 30, 2010, 02:29 PM | #

“What they fear most is people throwing their TV’s into the street.”

- me.

Posted by CFE on March 30, 2010, 03:59 PM | #

This is one of my favourites:

“The Jewish people as a whole will become its own Messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy (assassinations) and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship.
.
In this New World Order, the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition.The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state.
.
Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands.”

Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx, ‘La Revue de Paris’, p.574, June 1, 1928

But is it genuine? Details of a Jew who says it’s not, and a link to an image of the 1928 publication (which doesn’t work for me) here

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message497226/pg1

If this is to be a useful resource, I respectfully suggest that quotes should as far as possible be accompanied by supporting material of context and provenance. Surely Ryssen could at least have distributed a scan of the magazine with his article?

Posted by Gorboduc on March 30, 2010, 04:59 PM | #

GW: I’m trying to trace an article that I think appeared in the colour supplement to a UK Sunday paper abt. 8 years ago.
It concerned the setting-up of a Kosher organisation called something like Jews4Porn, and it raised a few questions about ethics and morality, all easily glossed over by the site’s rich backers.

The late Linda Lovelace star of Deep Throat, was originally a chaste Roman Catholic girl.

Of that film, more from Al Goldstein (see GW, above):

As we say in Israel, it was a mitzvah,” says Screw magazine founder Al Goldstein. Others interviewed in “Inside Deep Throat” include Ruth Westheimer, Gore Vidal, Erica Jong, Hugh Hefner and Helen Gurley Brown, who explains very daintily…

[I’m not going to finish that quote]
from:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6942291/

In other words, Adonai, the Lord God of Hosts, has given us this Catholic Gentile girl to corrupt, and to exploit financially. Thank you Lord: Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh.

There’s also this tasty offering from Professor Nathan Abrams, “The Jew of Sex”:
http://www.inpressbooks.co.uk/jews_sex_abrams_nathan_ed_i019460.aspx

Oh, and don’t forget this little cupcake:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Sprinkle

Enough now already: not feeling too good.

Posted by Gorboduc on March 30, 2010, 05:21 PM | #

This connects two important topics, porn and holohoax.
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/03/holocaust-porn-is-serious-subject.html

Posted by Dasein on March 31, 2010, 01:33 PM | #

This quote is always good for a laugh.  It epitomizes the garbage that the MSM puts out on the Holocaust:

As an 11 year-old boy held captive at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp during World War II, Moshe Peer was sent to the gas chamber at least six times. Each time he survived, watching with horrors as many of the women and children gassed with him collapsed and died. To this day, Peer doesn’t know how he was able to survive. “Maybe children resist better, I don’t know,” he said in an interview last week.

from The Montreal Gazette, August 5, 1993.

Posted by Anti-Scumite on March 31, 2010, 06:14 PM | #

Marcus Eli Ravage (Jew) in his article “A Real Case Against the Jews”:

“You have not begun to appreciate the real depth of our guilt. We are intruders. We are disturbers. We are subverters. We have taken your natural world, your ideals, your destiny, and played havoc with them. We have been at the bottom not merely of the latest great war but of nearly all your wars, not only of the Russian but of every other major revolution in your history. We have brought discord and confusion and frustration into your personal and public life. We are still doing it. No one can tell how long we shall go on doing it.
...
Is it any wonder you resent us? We have put a clog upon your progress. We have imposed upon you an alien book and an alien faith which you cannot swallow or digest, which is at cross-purposes with your native spirit, which keeps you ever-lastingly ill-at-ease, and which you lack the spirit either to reject or to accept in full.

- http://members.tripod.com/alabasters_archive/real_case.html

Posted by Anti-Scumite on March 31, 2010, 06:32 PM | #

...

If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.

Eternal Nature inexorably avenges the infringement of her commands.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

---

...

For a racially pure people which is conscious of its blood can never be enslaved by the Jew. In this world he will forever be master over bastards and bastards alone.

And so he tries systematically to lower the racial level by a continuous poisoning of individuals.

And in politics he begins to replace the idea of democracy by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In the organized mass of Marxism he has found the weapon which lets him dispense with democracy and in its stead allows him to subjugate and govern the peoples with a dictatorial and brutal fist.

He works systematically for revolutionization in a twofold sense: economic and political.

Around peoples who offer too violent a resistance to attack from within he weaves a net of enemies, thanks to his international influence, incites them to war, and finally, if necessary, plants a flag of revolution on the very battlefields.

In economics he undermines the states until the social enterprises which have become unprofitable are taken from the state and subjected to his financial control.

In the political field he refuses the state the means for its self-preservation, destroys the foundations of all national self-maintenance and defense, destroys faith in the leadership, scoffs at its history and past, and drags everything that is truly great into the gutter.

Culturally, he contaminates art, literature, the theater, makes a mockery of natural feeling, overthrows all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drags men down into the sphere of his own base nature.

Religion is ridiculed, ethics and morality represented as outmoded, until the last props of a nation in its struggle for existence in this world have fallen.

Now begins the great last revolution. In gaining political power the Jew casts off the few cloaks that he still wears. The democratic people’s Jew becomes the blood-Jew and tyrant over peoples. In a few years he tries to exterminate the national intelligentsia and by robbing the peoples of their natural intellectual leadership makes them ripe for the slave’s lot of permanent subjugation.

The most frightful example of this kind is offered by Russia, where he killed or starved about thirty million people with positively fanatical savagery, in part amid inhuman tortures, in order to give a gang of Jewish journalists and stock exchange bandits domination over a great people.

The end is not only the end of the freedom of the peoples oppressed by the Jew, but also the end of this parasite upon the nations. After the death of his victim, the vampire sooner or later dies too.

- http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/kampf.html

Posted by Anti-Scumite on March 31, 2010, 06:35 PM | #

...

That the Jewish state is subject to no territorial limitation, as is the case with Aryan states, is connected with the character of the Jewish people which is lacking in the productive forces for the construction and preservation of its own territorial state.

...

Because of the lack of productive capacities of its own the Jewish people cannot carry out the construction of a state, viewed in a territorial sense, but as a support of its own existence it needs the work and creative activities of other nations. Thus the existence of the Jew himself becomes a parasitical one within the lives of other peoples. Hence the ultimate goal of the Jewish struggle for existence is the enslavement of productively active peoples. In order to achieve this goal, which in reality has represented Jewry’s struggle for existence at all times, the Jew makes use of all weapons that are in keeping with the whole complex of his character.

Therefore in domestic politics within the individual nations he fights first for equal rights and later for super-rights. The characteristics of cunning, intelligence, astuteness, knavery, dissimulation, etc., rooted in the character of his folkdom, serve him as weapons thereto. They are as much stratagems in his war of survival as those of other peoples in combat.

In foreign policy he tries to bring nations into a state of unrest, to divert them from their true interests, and to plunge them into reciprocal wars and in this way gradually rise to mastery over them with the help of the power of money and propaganda.

His ultimate goal is the denationalization, the promiscuous bastardization of other peoples, the lowering of the racial level of the highest peoples as well as the domination of this racial mish-mash through the extirpation of the folkish intelligentsia and its replacement by the members of his own people.

The end of the Jewish world struggle therefore will always be a bloody Bolshevization. In truth this means the destruction of all the intellectual upper classes linked to their peoples so that he can rise to become the master of a mankind become leaderless.

Stupidity, cowardice and baseness, therefore, play into his hands. In bastards he secures for himself the first openings for the penetration of an alien nation.

Hence the result of Jewish domination is always the ruin of all culture and finally the madness of the Jew himself. For he is a parasite of nations and his victory signifies his own end as much as the death of his victim.

...

- http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/documents/part1/doc5.html

Posted by Dasein on April 01, 2010, 09:35 AM | #

General Wesley Clark, as Supreme Commander of NATO

Feb, 1999, on CNN:

There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multiethnic states.

Feb, 1999, in the NYT:

Our goal is that after this year, it will no longer be possible for those who support ethnically separate communities to believe that they can succeed.

I wasn’t able to find the CNN interview on YouTube, perhaps someone else knows where it can be found.  And I’ve seen conflicting dates for this interview; some say April, some say February.  It could also be that the interview was replayed in April.