-3 votes

As a Lutheran, I condemn antisemitism

I condemn every aspect of antisemitism. We are all created in God's image, though that image has fallen due to original sin. Because we are God's children, we must love one another as Christ loved us. However, we Christians have fallen into traps of hate. My hero, Martin Luther, did. After advocating treating Jews well and trying to spread the message to them, he was betrayed to the Catholic Church by them. This caused him to be greatly embittered toward Jews, and unfortunately, he became a great and influential to antisemites everywhere.


I agree that calling Luther an antisemite is an anachronism at best. However, eugenicist and hatemongers everywhere have misused his diatribes to empower their positions.

Six million Jews died in the Holocaust. Many more also died under Stalin. Jews and Christians are being killed in the Middle East as our government installs Islamic dictatorships as they over through the moderate secular regimes like Qaddafi's and so on.

I recall an episode of Family Guy where they were taking a tour in Germany. The historical tour left out 1930-1944. The tour guide's response was they were all on vacation. I think that the antisemitic Holocaust deniers on here just think that 6 million Jews went on vacation during the Third Reich.

I am greatly ashamed of this. We need to stand with both Jews and Palestinians because NO ONE wins in war, not even the people who think they will win.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Semites ...

... are both Jews and Arabs.

Many Jews are anti-Semites, as are many Arabs.

Who cares? Just another way to divide people.

More than likely

there are many more Arabs who are Semites, and according to new genetic reasearch by Dr. Eran Elhaik (“a Jew”) and associates at the McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, only about 5% of so-called Jews have lineage to Hebrews. http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/new-dna-rese...

Previous to the mid 20th century this was a well known fact, until, the Rothschilds and the agent coharts propagated the Zionism myth. Even Theodore Herzl, the Father of the Zionism, knew this fact when he began the search to create a 'homeland of the Jews'. It wasn't until, he began the Uganda Proposal, that the Rothschilds changed their original opposition to making the homeland in Israel. (not Balfour Declaration). Then, he summoned his agent in the US, Sam Untermeyer, to find a way to get the American and world Christians to except Palestine as the God given homeland of the Jews. Untermeyer, who also wrote the laws of the Fed, found a crimal con-artist Cyrus Scofield, who learned about the teachings of long dismissed theroy by John Darby will in prison, to manufacture (with Jewish Bankster funding and connections) the Scofield Reference Bible. This belief took many years to infiltrate the churchs, but now most evangelical churches now sell this created myth to millions of Christians. http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/hoax/scofield.htm
This can also, be backed up by former Jewish Zionist elite, Benjamin Freedman, http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

You need to read more, sir.

I'm cut from a line of Irish Presbyterians and traditionalist Romanists with Jansenist leanings, so I have a small handful of disagreements with Luther on the scope and authority of magistrates, but one thing he was definitely not wrong about was his assessment of the Jewish religion during his time, which has largely endured to this day. Likewise, several of the early church fathers such as Augustine of Hippo, Iraneus, Cyprian, Ambrose, Peter Chrysologus, Basil the Great, and even the medieval doctor of Christendom Thomas Aquinas recognized that Judaism can not be reconciled with Christianity.

Since you've taken the time to read Luther's works, you might want to look into the primary source of his negative reaction to the Jews, namely the Talmudic writings. Rome had nothing to do with the vile garbage written by the Rabbis regarding Jesus, Mary, and how Christians and people not of Hebrew lineage should be treated. If you really wish to be bold in your views and take an actual stand, you might want to ask why several prominent Jewish media moguls, bankers and Hollywood types have been at the forefront of propagating America's barbaric foreign policy, to speak nothing for the moral debauchery that they regularly subsidize and even profit from behave as such if they are the so-called "chosen people", and why with very few exceptions those not participating in such things never rise in condemnation of it.

P.S. - Don't confuse the righteous annoyance that many feel towards people that have professed to be and behave as their enemies with unprovoked bigotry.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Wow, you condemn

Wow, you condemn anti-semitism? What a bold stance to take!

You are taking a stance opposite of the neo-nazis and the KKK! What bravery!

I also take some very bold stances. For example, I am against children starving. How bold of me!

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

The Pope Hates Our Constitution

Address to US bishops on ad limina visit By Pope Benedict XVI
Dear Brother Bishops,

I greet all of you with fraternal affection and I pray that this pilgrimage of spiritual renewal and deepened communion will confirm you in faith and commitment to your task as Pastors of the Church in the United States of America. As you know, it is my intention in the course of this year to reflect with you on some of the spiritual and cultural challenges of the new evangelization.
One of the most memorable aspects of my Pastoral Visit to the United States was the opportunity it afforded me to reflect on America’s historical experience of religious freedom, and specifically the relationship between religion and culture. At the heart of every culture, whether perceived or not, is a consensus about the nature of reality and the moral good, and thus about the conditions for human flourishing. In America, that consensus, as enshrined in your nation’s founding documents, was grounded in a worldview shaped not only by faith but a commitment to certain ethical principles deriving from nature and nature’s God. Today that consensus has eroded significantly in the face of powerful new cultural currents which are not only directly opposed to core moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but increasingly hostile to Christianity as such.
For her part, the Church in the United States is called, in season and out of season, to proclaim a Gospel which not only proposes unchanging moral truths(The 10 Commandments) but proposes them precisely as the key to human happiness and social prospering (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). To the extent that some current cultural trends contain elements that would curtail the proclamation of these truths, whether constricting it within the limits of a merely scientific rationality, or suppressing it in the name of political power or majority rule, they represent a threat not just to Christian faith, but also to humanity itself and to the deepest truth about our being and ultimate vocation, our relationship to God. When a culture attempts to suppress the dimension of ultimate mystery, and to close the doors to transcendent truth, it inevitably becomes impoverished and falls prey, as the late Pope John Paul II so clearly saw, to reductionist and totalitarian readings of the human person and the nature of society.
With her long tradition of respect for the right relationship between faith and reason, the (Catholic) Church has a critical role to play in countering cultural currents which, on the basis of an extreme individualism, seek to promote notions of freedom detached from moral truth. Our tradition does not speak from blind faith, but from a rational perspective which links our commitment to building an authentically just, humane and prosperous society to our ultimate assurance that the cosmos is possessed of an inner logic accessible to human reasoning. The Church’s defense of a moral reasoning based on the natural law is grounded on her conviction that this law is not a threat to our freedom, but rather a "language" which enables us to understand ourselves and the truth of our being, and so to shape a more just and humane world. She thus proposes her moral teaching as a message not of constraint but of liberation, and as the basis for building a secure future.
The Church’s witness, then, is of its nature public: she seeks to convince by proposing rational arguments in the public square. The legitimate separation of Church and State cannot be taken to mean that the Church must be silent on certain issues, nor that the State may choose not to engage, or be engaged by, the voices of committed believers in determining the values which will shape the future of the nation.
In the light of these considerations, it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.
Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society. The preparation of committed lay leaders and the presentation of a convincing articulation of the Christian vision of man and society remain a primary task of the Church in your country; as essential components of the new evangelization, these concerns must shape the vision and goals of catechetical programs at every level.
In this regard, I would mention with appreciation your efforts to maintain contacts with Catholics involved in political life and to help them understand their personal responsibility to offer public witness to their faith, especially with regard to the great moral issues of our time: respect for God’s gift of life, the protection of human dignity and the promotion of authentic human rights. As the Council noted, and I wished to reiterate during my Pastoral Visit, respect for the just autonomy of the secular sphere must also take into consideration the truth that there is no realm of worldly affairs which can be withdrawn from the Creator and his dominion (cfr. Gaudium et Spes, 36). There can be no doubt that a more consistent witness on the part of America’s Catholics to their deepest convictions would make a major contribution to the renewal of society as a whole.
Dear Brother Bishops, in these brief remarks I have wished to touch upon some of the pressing issues which you face in your service to the Gospel and their significance for the evangelization of American culture. No one who looks at these issues realistically can ignore the genuine difficulties which the Church encounters at the present moment. Yet in faith we can take heart from the growing awareness of the need to preserve a civil order clearly rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, as well as from the promise offered by a new generation of Catholics whose experience and convictions will have a decisive role in renewing the Church’s presence and witness in American society. The hope which these "signs of the times" give us is itself a reason to renew our efforts to mobilize the intellectual and moral resources of the entire Catholic community in the service of the evangelization of American culture and the building of the civilization of love. With great affection I commend all of you, and the flock entrusted to your care, to the prayers of Mary, Mother of Hope, and cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of grace and peace in Jesus Christ our Lord.

Assessing the Grim Legacy of Soviet Communism

Institute for Historical Review

The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's Early Soviet Regime
Assessing the Grim Legacy of Soviet Communism
by Mark Weber
In the night of July 16-17, 1918, a squad of Bolshevik secret police murdered Russia's last emperor, Tsar Nicholas II, along with his wife, Tsaritsa Alexandra, their 14-year-old son, Tsarevich Alexis, and their four daughters. They were cut down in a hail of gunfire in a half-cellar room of the house in Ekaterinburg, a city in the Ural mountain region, where they were being held prisoner. The daughters were finished off with bayonets. To prevent a cult for the dead Tsar, the bodies were carted away to the countryside and hastily buried in a secret grave.
Bolshevik authorities at first reported that the Romanov emperor had been shot after the discovery of a plot to liberate him. For some time the deaths of the Empress and the children were kept secret. Soviet historians claimed for many years that local Bolsheviks had acted on their own in carrying out the killings, and that Lenin, founder of the Soviet state, had nothing to do with the crime.
In 1990, Moscow playwright and historian Edvard Radzinsky announced the result of his detailed investigation into the murders. He unearthed the reminiscences of Lenin's bodyguard, Alexei Akimov, who recounted how he personally delivered Lenin's execution order to the telegraph office. The telegram was also signed by Soviet government chief Yakov Sverdlov. Akimov had saved the original telegraph tape as a record of the secret order.
Radzinsky's research confirmed what earlier evidence had already indicated. Leon Trotsky -- one of Lenin's closest colleagues -- had revealed years earlier that Lenin and Sverdlov had together made the decision to put the Tsar and his family to death. Recalling a conversation in 1918, Trotsky wrote:
My next visit to Moscow took place after the [temporary] fall of Ekaterinburg [to anti-Communist forces]. Speaking with Sverdlov, I asked in passing: "Oh yes, and where is the Tsar?"
"Finished," he replied. "He has been shot."
"And where is the family?"
"The family along with him."
"All of them?," I asked, apparently with a trace of surprise.
"All of them," replied Sverdlov. "What about it?" He was waiting to see my reaction. I made no reply.
"And who made the decision?," I asked.
"We decided it here. Ilyich [Lenin] believed that we shouldn't leave the Whites a live banner to rally around, especially under the present difficult circumstances."
I asked no further questions and considered the matter closed.
Recent research and investigation by Radzinsky and others also corroborates the account provided years earlier by Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times in Russia for 17 years. His account, The Last Days of the Romanovs - originally published in 1920, and recently reissued by the Institute for Historical Review -- is based in large part on the findings of a detailed investigation carried out in 1919 by Nikolai Sokolov under the authority of "White" (anti-Communist) leader Alexander Kolchak. Wilton's book remains one of the most accurate and complete accounts of the murder of Russia's imperial family.
A solid understanding of history has long been the best guide to comprehending the present and anticipating the future. Accordingly, people are most interested in historical questions during times of crisis, when the future seems most uncertain. With the collapse of Communist rule in the Soviet Union, 1989-1991, and as Russians struggle to build a new order on the ruins of the old, historical issues have become very topical. For example, many ask: How did the Bolsheviks, a small movement guided by the teachings of German-Jewish social philosopher Karl Marx, succeed in taking control of Russia and imposing a cruel and despotic regime on its people?
In recent years, Jews around the world have been voicing anxious concern over the specter of anti-Semitism in the lands of the former Soviet Union. In this new and uncertain era, we are told, suppressed feelings of hatred and rage against Jews are once again being expressed. According to one public opinion survey conducted in 1991, for example, most Russians wanted all Jews to leave the country. But precisely why is anti-Jewish sentiment so widespread among the peoples of the former Soviet Union? Why do so many Russians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and others blame "the Jews" for so much misfortune?
A Taboo Subject
Although officially Jews have never made up more than five percent of the country's total population, they played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role in the infant Bolshevik regime, effectively dominating the Soviet government during its early years. Soviet historians, along with most of their colleagues in the West, for decades preferred to ignore this subject. The facts, though, cannot be denied.
With the notable exception of Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov), most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews. Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) headed the Red Army and, for a time, was chief of Soviet foreign affairs. Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon) was both the Bolshevik party's executive secretary and -- as chairman of the Central Executive Committee -- head of the Soviet government. Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries. Other prominent Jews included press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky.
Lenin himself was of mostly Russian and Kalmuck ancestry, but he was also one-quarter Jewish. His maternal grandfather, Israel (Alexander) Blank, was a Ukrainian Jew who was later baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church.
A thorough-going internationalist, Lenin viewed ethnic or cultural loyalties with contempt. He had little regard for his own countrymen. "An intelligent Russian," he once remarked, "is almost always a Jew or someone with Jewish blood in his veins."
Critical Meetings
In the Communist seizure of power in Russia, the Jewish role was probably critical.
Two weeks prior to the Bolshevik "October Revolution" of 1917, Lenin convened a top secret meeting in St. Petersburg (Petrograd) at which the key leaders of the Bolshevik party's Central Committee made the fateful decision to seize power in a violent takeover. Of the twelve persons who took part in this decisive gathering, there were four Russians (including Lenin), one Georgian (Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and six Jews.
To direct the takeover, a seven-man "Political Bureau" was chosen. It consisted of two Russians (Lenin and Bubnov), one Georgian (Stalin), and four Jews (Trotsky, Sokolnikov, Zinoviev, and Kamenev). Meanwhile, the Petersburg (Petrograd) Soviet -- whose chairman was Trotsky -- established an 18-member "Military Revolutionary Committee" to actually carry out the seizure of power. It included eight (or nine) Russians, one Ukrainian, one Pole, one Caucasian, and six Jews. Finally, to supervise the organization of the uprising, the Bolshevik Central Committee established a five-man "Revolutionary Military Center" as the Party's operations command. It consisted of one Russian (Bubnov), one Georgian (Stalin), one Pole (Dzerzhinsky), and two Jews (Sverdlov and Uritsky).
Contemporary Voices of Warning
Well-informed observers, both inside and outside of Russia, took note at the time of the crucial Jewish role in Bolshevism. Winston Churchill, for one, warned in an article published in the February 8, 1920, issue of the London Illustrated Sunday Herald that Bolshevism is a "worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality." The eminent British political leader and historian went on to write:
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses
Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people.
David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 dispatch to Washington: "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."
The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, made much the same point a few months later: "Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."
"The Bolshevik Revolution," declared a leading American Jewish community paper in 1920, "was largely the product of Jewish thinking, Jewish discontent, Jewish effort to reconstruct."
As an expression of its radically anti-nationalist character, the fledgling Soviet government issued a decree a few months after taking power that made anti-Semitism a crime in Russia. The new Communist regime thus became the first in the world to severely punish all expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment. Soviet officials apparently regarded such measures as indispensable. Based on careful observation during a lengthy stay in Russia, American-Jewish scholar Frank Golder reported in 1925 that "because so many of the Soviet leaders are Jews anti-Semitism is gaining [in Russia], particularly in the army [and] among the old and new intelligentsia who are being crowded for positions by the sons of Israel."
Historians' Views
Summing up the situation at that time, Israeli historian Louis Rapoport writes:
Immediately after the [Bolshevik] Revolution, many Jews were euphoric over their high representation in the new government. Lenin's first Politburo was dominated by men of Jewish origins
Under Lenin, Jews became involved in all aspects of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work. Despite the Communists' vows to eradicate anti-Semitism, it spread rapidly after the Revolution -- partly because of the prominence of so many Jews in the Soviet administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman Sovietization drives that followed. Historian Salo Baron has noted that an immensely disproportionate number of Jews joined the new Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka And many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka would be shot by Jewish investigators.
The collective leadership that emerged in Lenin's dying days was headed by the Jew Zinoviev, a loquacious, mean-spirited, curly-haired Adonis whose vanity knew no bounds.
"Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka," wrote Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro, "stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator." In Ukraine, "Jews made up nearly 80 percent of the rank-and-file Cheka agents," reports W. Bruce Lincoln, an American professor of Russian history. (Beginning as the Cheka, or Vecheka) the Soviet secret police was later known as the GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MVD and KGB.)
In light of all this, it should not be surprising that Yakov M. Yurovksy, the leader of the Bolshevik squad that carried out the murder of the Tsar and his family, was Jewish, as was Sverdlov, the Soviet chief who co-signed Lenin's execution order.
Igor Shafarevich, a Russian mathematician of world stature, has sharply criticized the Jewish role in bringing down the Romanov monarchy and establishing Communist rule in his country. Shafarevich was a leading dissident during the final decades of Soviet rule. A prominent human rights activist, he was a founding member of the Committee on the Defense of Human Rights in the USSR.
In Russophobia, a book written ten years before the collapse of Communist rule, he noted that Jews were "amazingly" numerous among the personnel of the Bolshevik secret police. The characteristic Jewishness of the Bolshevik executioners, Shafarevich went on, is most conspicuous in the execution of Nicholas II:
This ritual action symbolized the end of centuries of Russian history, so that it can be compared only to the execution of Charles I in England or Louis XVI in France. It would seem that representatives of an insignificant ethnic minority should keep as far as possible from this painful action, which would reverberate in all history. Yet what names do we meet? The execution was personally overseen by Yakov Yurovsky who shot the Tsar; the president of the local Soviet was Beloborodov (Vaisbart); the person responsible for the general administration in Ekaterinburg was Shaya Goloshchekin. To round out the picture, on the wall of the room where the execution took place was a distich from a poem by Heine (written in German) about King Balthazar, who offended Jehovah and was killed for the offense.
In his 1920 book, British veteran journalist Robert Wilton offered a similarly harsh assessment:
The whole record of Bolshevism in Russia is indelibly impressed with the stamp of alien invasion. The murder of the Tsar, deliberately planned by the Jew Sverdlov (who came to Russia as a paid agent of Germany) and carried out by the Jews Goloshchekin, Syromolotov, Safarov, Voikov and Yurovsky, is the act not of the Russian people, but of this hostile invader.
In the struggle for power that followed Lenin's death in 1924, Stalin emerged victorious over his rivals, eventually succeeding in putting to death nearly every one of the most prominent early Bolsheviks leaders - including Trotsky, Zinoviev, Radek, and Kamenev. With the passage of time, and particularly after 1928, the Jewish role in the top leadership of the Soviet state and its Communist party diminished markedly.
Put To Death Without Trial
For a few months after taking power, Bolshevik leaders considered bringing "Nicholas Romanov" before a "Revolutionary Tribunal" that would publicize his "crimes against the people" before sentencing him to death. Historical precedent existed for this. Two European monarchs had lost their lives as a consequence of revolutionary upheaval: England's Charles I was beheaded in 1649, and France's Louis XVI was guillotined in 1793.
In these cases, the king was put to death after a lengthy public trial, during which he was allowed to present arguments in his defense. Nicholas II, though, was neither charged nor tried. He was secretly put to death - along with his family and staff -- in the dead of night, in an act that resembled more a gangster-style massacre than a formal execution.
Why did Lenin and Sverdlov abandon plans for a show trial of the former Tsar? In Wilton's view, Nicholas and his family were murdered because the Bolshevik rulers knew quite well that they lacked genuine popular support, and rightly feared that the Russian people would never approve killing the Tsar, regardless of pretexts and legalistic formalities.
For his part, Trotsky defended the massacre as a useful and even necesssary measure. He wrote:
The decision [to kill the imperial family] was not only expedient but necessary. The severity of this punishment showed everyone that we would continue to fight on mercilessly, stopping at nothing. The execution of the Tsar's family was needed not only in order to frighten, horrify, and instill a sense of hopelessness in the enemy but also to shake up our own ranks, to show that there was no turning back, that ahead lay either total victory or total doom This Lenin sensed well.
Historical Context
In the years leading up to the 1917 revolution, Jews were disproportionately represented in all of Russia's subversive leftist parties. Jewish hatred of the Tsarist regime had a basis in objective conditions. Of the leading European powers of the day, imperial Russia was the most institutionally conser-vative and anti-Jewish. For example, Jews were normally not permitted to reside outside a large area in the west of the Empire known as the "Pale of Settlement."
However understandable, and perhaps even defensible, Jewish hostility toward the imperial regime may have been, the remarkable Jewish role in the vastly more despotic Soviet regime is less easy to justify. In a recently published book about the Jews in Russia during the 20th century, Russian-born Jewish writer Sonya Margolina goes so far as to call the Jewish role in supporting the Bolshevik regime the "historic sin of the Jews." She points, for example, to the prominent role of Jews as commandants of Soviet Gulag concentration and labor camps, and the role of Jewish Communists in the systematic destruction of Russian churches. Moreover, she goes on, "The Jews of the entire world supported Soviet power, and remained silent in the face of any criticism from the opposition." In light of this record, Margolina offers a grim prediction:
The exaggeratedly enthusiastic participation of the Jewish Bolsheviks in the subjugation and destruction of Russia is a sin that will be avenged Soviet power will be equated with Jewish power, and the furious hatred against the Bolsheviks will become hatred against Jews.
If the past is any indication, it is unlikely that many Russians will seek the revenge that Margolina prophecies. Anyway, to blame "the Jews" for the horrors of Communism seems no more justifiable than to blame "white people" for Negro slavery, or "the Germans" for the Second World War or "the Holocaust."
Words of Grim Portent
Nicholas and his family are only the best known of countless victims of a regime that openly proclaimed its ruthless purpose. A few weeks after the Ekaterinburg massacre, the newspaper of the fledgling Red Army declared:
Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies by the scores of hundreds, let them be thousands, let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritskii let there be floods of blood of the bourgeoisie -- more blood, as much as possible.
Grigori Zinoviev, speaking at a meeting of Communists in September 1918, effectively pronounced a death sentence on ten million human beings: "We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia's inhabitants. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated."
'The Twenty Million'
As it turned out, the Soviet toll in human lives and suffering proved to be much higher than Zinoviev's murderous rhetoric suggested. Rarely, if ever, has a regime taken the lives of so many of its own people.
Citing newly-available Soviet KGB documents, historian Dmitri Volkogonov, head of a special Russian parliamentary commission, recently concluded that "from 1929 to 1952 21.5 million [Soviet] people were repressed. Of these a third were shot, the rest sentenced to imprisonment, where many also died."
Olga Shatunovskaya, a member of the Soviet Commission of Party Control, and head of a special commission during the 1960s appointed by premier Khrushchev, has similarly concluded: "From January 1, 1935 to June 22, 1941, 19,840,000 enemies of the people were arrested. Of these, seven million were shot in prison, and a majority of the others died in camp." These figures were also found in the papers of Politburo member Anastas Mikoyan.
Robert Conquest, the distinguished specialist of Soviet history, recently summed up the grim record of Soviet "repression" of it own people:
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the post-1934 death toll was well over ten million. To this should be added the victims of the 1930-1933 famine, the kulak deportations, and other anti-peasant campaigns, amounting to another ten million plus. The total is thus in the range of what the Russians now refer to as 'The Twenty Million'."
A few other scholars have given significantly higher estimates.
The Tsarist Era in Retrospect
With the dramatic collapse of Soviet rule, many Russians are taking a new and more respectful look at their country's pre-Communist history, including the era of the last Romanov emperor. While the Soviets -- along with many in the West -- have stereotypically portrayed this era as little more than an age of arbitrary despotism, cruel suppression and mass poverty, the reality is rather different. While it is true that the power of the Tsar was absolute, that only a small minority had any significant political voice, and that the mass of the empire's citizens were peasants, it is worth noting that Russians during the reign of Nicholas II had freedom of press, religion, assembly and association, protection of private property, and free labor unions. Sworn enemies of the regime, such as Lenin, were treated with remarkable leniency.
During the decades prior to the outbreak of the First World War, the Russian economy was booming. In fact, between 1890 and 1913, it was the fastest growing in the world. New rail lines were opened at an annual rate double that of the Soviet years. Between 1900 and 1913, iron production increased by 58 percent, while coal production more than doubled. Exported Russian grain fed all of Europe. Finally, the last decades of Tsarist Russia witnessed a magnificent flowering of cultural life.
Everything changed with the First World War, a catastrophe not only for Russia, but for the entire West.

Are you sure about those numbers?

I hate to bother you with facts, but they changed the sign at Auschwitz years ago - reduced the number of dead there by several million. Yet the propagandized total stubbornly remains at six million.... There is information available, you just have to be willing to look for truth, not reassurance about what you already believe. By the way, every heard of "Ashkenazi?"
Hate is a bad thing, but "condemning" something as "antisemitic" has become a knee jerk reaction, preventing many people from learning important facts.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I have studied Luther and disagree with your comment.

Martin Luther name has been smeared thru time by the adherents of Popery. Martin Luther was motiviated by the true teachings of the Bible and belief in our Saviour Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church, and it's use of Indulgences,(Being able to buy a pardon for sin both for yourself or a deceased person) spurred Luther to challenge the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome. Luther firmly declared that "Christians should receive not other doctrines than those which rest on the authority of Sacred Scriptures." These words struck at the very foundation of papal supremacy. Luther saw the danger of exalting human theories above the word of God. (Such as the Pope saying he has the ability to forgive sin!) The reformers had identified the Papacy as being the Anti-Christ power. THe papacy fits the Prophecy of Daniel 7 and has all of the attributes of the "Little Horn Power". But nowadays, Lutherans have forgotten what a true hero Martin Luther was and shame his name by calling him anti-semetic. For a great video of Martin Luther watch this.

Unfortunately, Lutherans now look to the Pope as being their Religous icon, instead of Jesus Christ. Check out these pic's
Pope Benedict XVI flanked by Rev. Jens-Martin Kruse prays prays during his visit to the Lutheran Church of Rome on March 14, 2010 in Vatican City, Vatican. Benedict spoke about the importance of relationships between the different Christian churches.

Pope Visits The Evangelic Lutheran Church Of Rome

Title: 932 - Let There Be Light

Author: Walter J. Veith

Description: By Martin Luther’s day, the Catholic Church was ruling the known world of Europe. It was dictating policy to kings and queens. Luther opposed the Church’s blatant misrepresentation of Christ and the Scriptures. The history of the Church was one of persecution of Christians who believed that God’s Word was infallible, not the dictates of the Papacy. In this DVD, you will trace the life of Luther and see what the Church today has done to reunite the world under its authority. Ecumenism has achieved its desired result and this presentation reveals startling new developments in current religio-political thought.

Here is the true and accurate description of the Heritage of Israel.


Description: Tradition holds that those who are born of the sons of Abraham can receive salvation by this merit alone. There are many people who claim to be from the tribes of Israel. This DVD examines this belief in light of Scripture. What was the purpose of Israel? Does salvation come through the Jewish nation? Is salvation even possible through birthright? The meaning of the Jewish feasts is also examined, along with the question of the name of Jesus

I really hate

being called a crypto-Catholic. I reject the Papacy. Michelle Bachmann was apart of the Wisconsin Synod and they still maintain the Pope IS the actual Anti-Christ of Revelation.

No, sir that is a smear. Luther was not Jesus Christ. Luther was a reformer who unfortunately became a hater later in his life. I am honest enough to admit that. Just because he was a hater, it did not take way from the theological truths of Law and Gospel.

Note which Church went away in the Lutheran dialogs of Justification and Faith. The ELCA capitulated the historic stance by caving in on the Joint Declaration on Justification and Faith.



I really really really hate it when Lutherans are called crypto-catholics just because we keep in place the historic Sacraments.

May the LORD bless you and keep you
May the LORD make His face shed light upon you and be gracious unto you
May the LORD lift up His face unto you and give you peace
Follow me on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/Burning_Sirius

You have highlighted the truth.

Good luck to you.

I am not ashamed by anyone researching the holocaust and providing facts (if they are based on the truth) but it is just stupid to spread lies and half truths.

It is perfectly acceptable to for anyone to hold any group up to accountability for their actions but we must not let ourselves be swayed by prejudice.

You cannot ignore the large number of Jewish philosophers and activists who have helped the movement get to where it is today - that would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If we do not treat Jews as we would other people then we are violating the ideas that this movement is based on.

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."

I have stood up for Catholics as well

and now I am called a crypto-Catholic (really they are calling me a Jesuit), that is meant to subvert 'true' Christianity from within.

If you accept the Creeds, Lord's Prayer and 10 Commandments as truth, you are a true Christian by the historical definition of the faith.

I make no judgements on if you are Catholic, Methodist, and so on.

May the LORD bless you and keep you
May the LORD make His face shed light upon you and be gracious unto you
May the LORD lift up His face unto you and give you peace
Follow me on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/Burning_Sirius


He supported the German Princes' drive to cull the peasants as I recall. Obviously for the divine right of Kings.

I would consider Hus, Tyndale, and Wycliffe braver and brighter men.


Hello Friedrich Engles.

This isn't accurate history, this is revisionist garbage right out of the earliest purveyors of Marxism in Germany. Luther made an appeal to the lower magistrate authority (the princes) in order to reform the politics of the German provinces' secular governments since the Holy Roman Emperor was in the Papacy's pocket. The peasant wars happened in the midst of this at the hands of the lower nobility (mostly chivalry-based knights who were losing power and over-taxing the dwindling fiefdoms as Germany was beginning to transition into the Renaissance). Essentially the princes went in with Luther's blessing to clean up a mess created by lower governing officials in an antiquated feudal system. Sadly, due to the influence of proto-communistic heretics like Thomas Muntzer, the peasants basically turned into a mob of raging anarchists that had to be put down by force.

I suppose next you'll be telling me that Maximilien de Robespierre was a saint and champion of liberty in France. *sigh*

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Supported German Princes to cull peasants? U must be kidding.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. He was Protestantisms Hero against popery. He was the people's hero when he said that you don't need a pope or his prelates to have a relationship with Jesus Christ, and the way to salvation is to follow the precepts of Christ and the KJV Bible, not through human works.

Supported German Princes to cull peasants? U must be kidding.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. He was Protestantisms Hero against popery. He was the people's hero when he said that you don't need a pope or his prelates to have a relationship with Jesus Christ, and the way to salvation is to follow the precepts of Christ and the KJV Bible, not through human works.

Cyril's picture


If one asks me, nothing is more damaging to man's intelligence, society, and liberty than a looser and looser respect for dictionaries.

This is also the opinion of Ron Paul, btw :

"Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk 8/27/12: Meaningless Words in Politics"


And also, even more threatening, when lawmen base their interpretation after political or ideological agendas :

"Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution"


But this should apply to ANY TOPIC, in fact, especially where and when intellectual honesty is crucial to preserve peaceful debates and to reject irrational hate or revengeful thinking.


In the hope it will help this thread, let's give credit to Apple's comment for simply recalling what should be understood by "semite", and by logical implication, "anti-semite" NO MORE and NO LESS :




"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

You FAIL to define anti-semitism, but thanks for telling us you

condem it.

I submit to you the battle is over how to define it. If we are to believe the Politically Correct left liberal mag The New Republic, just to hold Ron Paul's foreign policy views is "anti-Semitic". If you do not agree with the UN's "power" to create a country inside another country, then you are "anti-Semitic". And if you think that the Nation of Israel, which claims its "right to exist" from the UN's decree of boundaries and that the city of Jerusalem is NOT apart of the nation of Israel, should stick to that UN decree, then just to raise such views you are today thought of as "anti-Semitic".

But is that anti-semitism? I submit it is not.

Further, if you are a bit of an European historian, you can't help but notice that turn of the last centuries intellectuals where MAINLY Jewish-Males and Socialist and/or Communist. After Socialism came, and war came, and the WWI and WWII ended, the European people thought of this simplification ...Jews=Socialists=wars... was commonplace. It was commonplace, natural, and in my mind, NOT "anti-Semitic" as much as anti-Socialism. Those Jews who subscribed to Zionism, longed for their own country, where socialists. They got their wish with Israel and set about making it their Socialist Theocracy. Meanwhile Israeli propaganda likes to say that ALL of Europe after WWII was "anti-Semitic" when what it really was was weary of people who held those socialist views and chanted those socialist slogans. Since being a European Jew and a Socialist was vertually the same thing, perhaps you can forgive the war weary europeans for not being too precise. Obviously some jews such as the Austrian Economists that we respect were not socialists, but they were in a very small minority of intellectuals at the time, still are. They were so small a minority, they were the Black Swans among millions of white ones.

And finally, in business, as a young businessman, I never found anyone who was not willing to do business with American Jews, both as customers or as businesses. Further, on a personal level, I found no one who would discriminate against them. However, I did find that THEY discriminated against all others regularly both in their personal lives and their business lives. Jewish daughters were to date and marry other Jews, PERIOD. Fiddler On the Roof was historically correct for 1960-2012 America. Jewish parents would "die" if their child married "outside" their faith & race.

And I submit to you, that if human genetics continues its deep understanding of human sub populations that we call races & ethnic groups, that science will pronounce the Jews as the most "racist" of all the human sub groups.

So, if there is still real anti-Semitism out there in America, I submit to you that there is plenty of "anti-non-Jewishism" out there and it is very much healthy and alive inside the Jewish "faith". Its there for the very reason that it is both a "faith" and a "race" and a "culture" all wrapped into one.


Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

You must be feeling frisky to "go there"

I was trying to compose an answer that just got bigger and bigger so I settled on this Scripture, it may not make sense in light of your post but I hope it does --

Luke 18:1-8
And he spake a parable unto them [to this end], that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;

Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:

And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.

And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man;

Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.

And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.

And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?

I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?


~The Wheels of God's Justice grind exceedingly slow, but they grind exceedingly fine~

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

Congrats on that

If you want to know where true power lies,
Seek out those you can't criticize.

Didn't California just make it hate speech to criticize israel? Something like that.

Focus on restoring Constitutional government and the Bill of Rights. Forget about the Jews, they're a distraction. But keep an eye on the zionuts...their fangs are aching to taste Semite (Iranian) blood.

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

There will always be those who promote and provoke hate

There are a fair amount of anti-semitic remarks on Infowars, MSNBC is absolutely rife with anti-muslims. (It's actually worse on MSNBC, where posts on arab/muslim articles are comments such as "they should all be strung up", "nuke the entire damn country", "the only good muslim is a dead muslim", etc.) Fox News is more of a freak show.

People need to remember, that Jews and Muslims are right and left wing in their politics just like everyone else. People should understand, that just because they don't agree with a Netanyahu policy, doesn't mean all Jews support that policy, because they don't. And if some Mullah calls for death to America doesn't mean all Muslims feel that way.

Just like in America with the NDAA or drone strikes, it doesn't mean ALL Americans are evil or can all be painted with the same brush. We don't all support those policies to various degrees.

There are some Jews and non Jews I'd like to see strung up sure, but it ain't got nothin to do with their religion.

All the way to the last line,

All the way to the last line, and you conflate a person's race with their religion again.

It's quite possible to be Jewish and not believe in Talmud Judaism. In fact, traditional Judaism considers you no longer Jewish if you convert - now THAT is racism.

And yes, people who believe in things like it is quite appropriate to discuss when it is legal to send their children through the fire ARE part of the problem. Beliefs matter!

Rather long discussion from the Talmud on how to sacrifice your own children:

A brief discussion which leads to lots of other things you can look up.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.


I despise neo-cons, some of which happen to be Christian, and some of which happen to be Jewish. *shrug*

Beliefs do matter

Here is a group of 20 ever loving rabbis peforming a Kaballistic death spell in a graveyard to assassinate one of the prime ministers of Israel. Traditionally, only rabbis over 40 were taught Kabbalism.

Result - the last time they did this, the prime minister was shot. This one survived - he's in a vegetable state, probably poisoned. Real magic? Heck no, public terrorism and assassination. But it's been here the whole time, this is what reaks in western society.

Note, the source is worldnetdaily, a pro-Israel neoconservative site, the people who did it wanted it to be printed, and this happened just a few years ago.

http://www.w nd.com/2005/07/31479/

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

As in martin Luther on the "On the Jews and Their Lies"


I mean did you read that link you posted

Here's what he wrote in that book its shocking...

In the first ten sections of the treatise, Luther expounds, at considerable length, upon his views concerning Jews and Judaism and how these compare against Christians and Christianity. Following this exposition, Section XI of the treatise advises Christians to carry out seven remedial actions. These are

1 for Jewish synagogues and schools to be burned to the ground, and the remnants buried out of sight;
2 for houses owned by Jews to be likewise razed, and the owners made to live in agricultural outbuildings;
3 for their religious writings to be taken away;
4 for rabbis to be forbidden to preach, and to be executed if they do;
5 for safe conduct on the roads to be abolished for Jews;
for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed and "put aside for safekeeping"; and
6 for the Jewish population to be put to work as agricultural slave labor.

That's just awful.

It is

He did not always hold those views. Those views came about when he was really old. Someone said, one wishes Luther would of died before he wrote that nasty garbage. Luther is not a god. He was a fallible person who let betrayal and hate guide his emotions when he should of forgiven.

May the LORD bless you and keep you
May the LORD make His face shed light upon you and be gracious unto you
May the LORD lift up His face unto you and give you peace
Follow me on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/Burning_Sirius

I know he didn't always hold those views

At first he sought to convert them but he saw when he saw that would not work he changed his tune.

I just don't see why you condemn it as a Lutheran, when Luther himself (very much Lutheran surely) unrepentantly held such views.

Because being Lutheran

is not being bound by Luther. We actually differentiate ourselves from many of Luther's views like his rejection of James.

Melancthon was the real theologian behind Lutheranism.

May the LORD bless you and keep you
May the LORD make His face shed light upon you and be gracious unto you
May the LORD lift up His face unto you and give you peace
Follow me on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/Burning_Sirius


While it is probably true that a sizable part of so-called "holocaust-deniers" are Jew-haters the reverse is not true.

Most of those who question the established story of the Holocaust do so because they researched the evidence, wanted to examine details, causes, perpetrators etc. - and found that a lot of what is taught in schools, universities and mass media about that topic is contrary to the laws of physics and logic.

The word "holocaust denier" is also a misnomer. These people should be called "holocaust skeptics".

BTW, I did neither upvote nor downvote.

UFOs are real
4 Hour Witness DVD (radar operators, pilots, scientists, military)
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud49Gh9yYLs
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpHAxxRKksQ

Cyril's picture

As a Libertarian, I condemn and I ACCUSE :

As a Libertarian,

I condemn :

1. any form of interventionism against foreign powers


2. any form of alliance with foreign powers

Both denying the American People's sovereignty, DECLARED in the form of the U.S. Constitution.


I). to be a BLOODY CRIMINAL, GLOBAL STATIST and OLIGARCHICAL organization, SERVING exclusively the private interests of its members

I)bis. to DISGUISE itself, and DECEIVE the nations' Peoples under the COVER of a humanitarian intent WHICH NEVER WAS and WILL NEVER BE

II). to have Plans to annihilate all forms of Liberty and deny the nation's People's natural rights

III). to have infiltrated an accomplice U.S. Government, CRIMINAL of TREASON against the U.S. Constitution, via associated clubs such as the CFR, and a number of multinational Corporations, thru their insiders

IV). to have corrupted the U.S. Congress itself, and other Houses


I DENOUNCE and I ACCUSE all those who ARE STILL TODAY, DAILY, COMMITING crimes of treason against the American People and its Sovereignty.

I appeal to the American People and of other nations to DECLARE WAR AGAINST the U.N. and all its satellites, TO OVERTHROW its criminals and bring them before the Peoples' justice !

Otherwise, Peace to the Peoples.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

As an individual,

I condemn collectivism.