7 votes

Ernst Zundel Warns The Jews About Doing To America What They Did To Germany

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

no, not at all--

this can happen with all groups--

leaders of a particular group (religion, race, nation, ethnic group)--

can do things that harm the 'ordinary' members of that group. It can happen to everyone.

One of the most important things that *we* can do to make certain this does not, ever, happen again is to not allow leaders of any group to get out of control and endanger their own people. It's very difficult to do, and several groups have become very experienced at doing things that cause harm to those in their group who don't go along with the 'program'.

IF this is happening among some Jewish leaders who have Zionist leanings, it is extremely important to support those among their 'ordinary' members who recognize that it is happening and want to stop it--

without violence--

The only real way this can be accomplished is to help everyone in every group recognize the danger of collectivism. That's hard to do, because collectivization has been used by evil people for centuries--

to oppress and gain control over populations.

I refuse to call those who have power within the Israeli and American governments who would use Zionism to oppress and control--


Yes, some of them might be Jews, but it is not their Jewishness that is the problem; it is the radical brand of thinking that would oppress their "own" and others that is the problem.

Support those Jews (and others) who are awake--

to keep oligarchs of all races and religions from destroying their own--

and others.

Stop collectivizing. Just stop it!

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--


I'm pro-Jew and anti-Zionist.

I see no incongruity in that, do you?


not at all; I am quite sure that Noam Chomsky, Norman Finklestein (sp?) and Miko Peled would agree with you, not to mention Rabbi Weiss--

It is time to draw up behind these people and support them, morally and philosophically--

and vocally.

It's time to fight the MSM which wants to collect *us* all into little groups and turn *us* against "each other".

I prefer not to use the word 'anti' myself, but since so many Jews call themselves anti-Zionists I am not sure I can see a way out of it--

it is a destructive philosophy, as much so as communism, I believe.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

That Rothbard and Mises were Jewish is immaterial

Their study of human action did not make distinctions between Jewish and non-Jewish persons. Their observations were applicable to ALL humans, regardless of race, creed, nationality, gender, etc. They did not advocate for "Jewish" causes, but for all human beings.

That's more than I can say for you.



Murray Rothbard is Anarchist trash, and Anarchists are worthless to liberty. He's your hero, not mine.

The only way his message works is if you're preaching it to a room full of Anarchists and destroyers who'll glob onto any idea that includes destroying the American government. When somebody who isn't interested in that agenda questions an Anarchists ideas, their whole dog and pony show collapses, and they're left with one message: "I'm smart and you're stupid."

There's a connection between Anarchism and that belief; believing they're smart and everyone else is stupid, and it has to do with why they've chosen to be destroyers.

You slobber, but you don't argue

Your comment is nothing but foaming spit. Not a single idea to support or dispute.

Rothbard concluded that the State cannot be contained, that it will alwatys, by its' very nature, violate a human being's right to be left alone, and that it is possible to live very well without a State if you adopt the philosophy of individualism. If you disagree with that conclusion, you certainly can point out where the anarchist philosophy fails. But to call him, personally, 'trash' is not an argument. It's a drive-by insulting.

I'm slobbering aye?

It's not that I don't make cogent arguments. It's that you need to close your eyes to them.

Should I believe that you're incapable of reading? Should I believe that you're short some form of intellect, and can't understand that there is nothing "straw" about my arguments.

It's what an Anarchist preaches, the free market taking over the proper role of government; to defend liberty, to serve justice. The free market does not serve justice. It serves VALUE. People want to get the most they can for their money, and there is no better way to create value through violence than slavery.


1.anything worthless, useless, or discarded; rubbish.
2.foolish or pointless ideas, talk, or writing; nonsense.
3.a worthless or disreputable person.
4.such persons collectively.
5.literary or artistic material of poor or inferior quality.

Murray Rothbard is trash.

scawarren's picture

You apparently have no idea

You apparently have no idea what what an anarchist is and you might as well have spit in Ron Paul's face with your ignorant hateful comment.

It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. – Mark Twain
Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it's wrong. - Ron Paul

Spitting in a destroyers face isn't serving justice.

Spitting in a destroyers face isn't serving justice. I'd rather take their liberty, because that's the agenda an Anarchist serves and what they hope to do in a free market of violence where their wallet replaces debate and consent, where he with the most money buys the most muscle.

Hey, if they see the role of government as something that rules you, they see what they're going to buy in a free market as something that's going to rule you. They're hypocrites and phonies. When has Ron Paul ever demanded justice? NEVER!!!

I'd rather destroy Murray Rothbard publicly and choke the life out of his broken and worthless ideas.

Spitting in his face doesn't interest me. Serving justice on destroyers like Murray Rothbard does, and I have no doubt that wherever he is right now; justice is being served.

You're raving again

This sentence makes no sense to me:

"Hey, if they see the role of government as something that rules you, they see what they're going to buy in a free market as something that's going to rule you. They're hypocrites and phonies. When has Ron Paul ever demanded justice? NEVER!!!"

I would be good, for the sake of discussion, to be more specific about who exactly is going to be bought to rule, and what justice Ron Paul should be demanding.

Why not? Too busy covering your eyes hiding from something?

"This sentence makes no sense to me"

Why not? Too busy covering your eyes hiding from something?

Government is force, collective force, and Murray Rothbard believes that the free market can fill the roll government serves and use collective force to serve justice against those who'd take your liberty with collective force.

He's at least smart enough to know that it's not a mugger you need to worry about, but an army of muggers. He wants to be able to buy armies in a free market of collective violence to serve justice, and guess who's going to field the biggest armies, those who can afford them. Wanna be a warlord? Well Murray Rothbard is your man.

How big is your wallet? Are you going to be able to compete? Do you know how many people will line up to serve justice on you Anarchists? I won't even have to pay people. They'll volunteer.

Anarchists love blaming injustice on government and stating that liberty is directly opposed to government; that a governments only purpose is to rule you, to take your liberty, that those who chose government "worship" government like their father, so lets look at what a guy like Murray Rothbard wants to replace it with. If the only purpose of collective force is to rule you, to take your liberty, than whatever it is he wants to be able to buy in a free market will be used to rule you, because in an Anarchists opinion, government (Collective force) can only be used to rule you.

I'm not sure how to put it into any simpler terms for you other than to say EVERYTHING, all the injustices you'd blame government for, is what an Anarchist wants to be able to buy in a free market of collective violence, but they know they need to destroy what prevents them from being able to do that; government. Anarchists covet power.

They are destroyers, and something is standing in there way, and it doesn't matter to me that they haven't figured out what that is, justice will still be served. Ignorance will NOT be an excuse for choosing to be a destroyer.

Clearer? Not clear? It doesn't really matter to me if it's not. Some people choose to live in the dark, and nothing will EVER be clear to them.

You distort his ideas

You've set up a strawman, and you're busy gleefully knocking him down.

Rothbard did not believe in substituting government force against individuals with private force against individuals. He did not believe in any force against individuals.

The ideas about private policing and private sources of 'national' defense (he'd have a problem with the concept of 'national') are much more nuanced than you give him credit for.

Rothbard is not the enemy. He was a great friend of individual liberty, and he pushed his ideas of liberty as far as he could go with them to show how a society could operate without resorting to force against free individuals.

Not true, he believes the free market can replace government

"He did not believe in any force against individuals."

Not true, he believes the free market can replace governments role, and if it were, you just said that he will NOT serve justice, that justice is something he opposes, and justice begins by defending liberty. Justice is not something somebody consents to. No criminal or destroyer ever wants to face justice. It's imposed on them.

If you won't serve justice, you are worthless to liberty, because if you haven't noticed, people CHOOSE to use violence to take each others liberty.

Whether you're a single cell organism or a human being, violence serves two ends; to either take what you covet, or defend yourself against those who would. People CHOOSE to use violence to take what they covet because it serves their self interest. It serves their covetous nature. People CHOOSE to take each other as slaves. People CHOOSE to destroy and take what they covet.

Being a nihilist is not a replacement for justice. Turning a blind eye is no replacement for justice. It simply makes you worthless to liberty.

I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER using force to defend liberty. I don't lose one seconds sleep over it. Justice is not about ruling you through violence. It's about opposing those who would, and as I've stated, and you've just reinforced, Murray Rothbard is less than worthless in the fight.

Not only will he not lift a finger to oppose slavery, rape, murder, and injustice in all it's forms; he hopes to unleash mans covetous nature in a free market of violence. What he wants is power, and to create a world filled with injustice, yet he needs to somehow do it while pretending to believe in the NAP. He'll be happy to watch others do his destroying for him. He just needs to eliminate what's standing in their way.

Like I said; wherever that Anarcho-Piece-O-Garbage is, I have no doubt that justice is being served.

Rothbard wrote extensively about justice

He was very clear that he believed initiating force against another individual was morally wrong, and that defending yourself against the initiation of force was morally right and justified.

But governments, regardless of their 'ideal' purpose, initiate force all the time and call it 'moral.' They tax, they mandate, they regulate, they imprison, they destroy the lives people who have done nothing to deserve destruction. The greatest mass murderers have not been the crazed drugged-out gun slinging misfits and ne'r-do-wells who barge into movie theaters and schools and spray bullets into innocent men, women, and children. No, they are pikers compared to the well-spoken, mainstream, politically correct, and awesomely persuasive people who regularly get elected to public office and have been granted the power to kill hundreds of thousands, even millions, and call it morally right.

Governments, far from being the protectors of our lives and property are by far the greatest destroyers of lives and property. George Washington understood the danger of government power when he called it a dangerous servant and a fearsome master. Jefferson understood the danger in government when he said it was the natural order of things that governments would grow and liberty would yield. Millions died at the hands of governments in the 20th century. And you think governments bring justice and security? More like death and destruction.

If government, by it's nature, is about force that will almost certainly become oppressive force (such as we live with today), then was Rothbard really so wrong in saying that the root of injustice is the very concept of government? Was he really wrong in advocating that we all adopt an individualist philosophy and look to voluntary arrangements to achieve justice and security?

Rothbard came to anarchism because he could see no way of keeping the destructive government genie in the bottle. Our Founders thought they had found a way by drafting a Constitution and Bill of Rights, but that strategy has clearly failed. It failed because the People gave up their individualism to embrace the State, and the State did exactly what States always do: they oppress.

Substitute the word Jew with

Substitute the word Jew with Globalist? Generalizations make me cringe, and I think it is safe to assume that all jews are not zionists.

that is wise--

but most of the Jews aren't globalists at all, and definitely all globalists are not Jews, anymore than most Christians are globalists, etc.--

The fact that a very small group of Jewish men (and women) back in the 1800s came up with the Zionist movement and pushed it on their fellow Jews, many of them not agreeing with it--

and got many of their fellow Jews killed by ignorant collectivists--

is a huge problem--

However, the Jews Against Zionism don't flinch; they call it like it is--

they don't want to see anyone oppressed--

Definitely don't use the word "Jew" in connection with Zionism or globalists, etc.--

because so many Jews have no sympathy with any of that--

but the word Zionism is tricky, because the philosophy was mostly supported (150 years ago) by 'elite' Jews--

who, like many other 'elites' of every group/race/religion . . . do not mind sacrificing their 'own'--

That's not to say that some Christian leaders didn't pick up Zionism and run with it and turn it into the most virulent form of Zionism--


Probably for gain; why do most evil people do evil things?--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Agreed; or "Zionist". A majority of Jewish voters opposed the..

war in Iraq, most of the bravest opponents of Israel are Jewish and Israel's media is infinitely more critical of their government than any in the West.

BTW, 85% of the Jewish vote goes to Democrats and the Democrats have been far less willing to dance to Israel's tune than the freakin' GOP.

I agree--

Christians are some of the most virulent Zionists--

most definitely--

There are a lot of brave Israelis right now who know something is not right in their government circles/military.

And there are many Jews who do not want to be identified with Zionism--

and fight against it.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Zundel is correct, adap2k,

however we must realize that the israeli-firsters and fake liberty lovers on this site are gonna be along shortly to call you Hitler's son.
We were taught this in school many years ago, before the zionist changed the history books.

Oh boy, blatant anti-semitism.

Crawl back into whatever hole you crawled out of, you Nazi prick.

(I mean this in the most offensive way possible)

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

try midol

truth hurts pal,

Should be watched by all Americans.

I love this interview and have seen it many times. You will be labeled an anti-Semite by some for posting it. Not me though.