-48 votes

We Need to Stop the Anti-Jew Posts

Anyone who knows two of Ron Paul's economic influences would be stupid, ignorant, and disgusting to take up the Daily Paul's webspace with any anti-Jewish rhetoric or holocaust denial. I stand fervently against intolerance on this board which represents a community of peaceful, liberty loving, advocates of a free society.

Comment viewing options

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

Hey Library Sciences major......

See: "Question the facts" ..... From my statement.

Following that, get over yourself.

Years ago

I worked in a hospital in a predominantly Jewish location. I saw several elderly Jews with numbers tattooed on their arms. So, I believe there were concentration camps and atrocities against them. But there were the same atrocities carried out against other ethnicities and religions as well, sometimes in greater numbers. But those are ignored, down the Memory Hole and the atrocities against the Jews in Germany endlessly pushed and propagandized. Knowing what I now know about so many other historic events that went down completely differently from what I was fed in the indoctrination gulag as a kid I view the government version of the "holocaust" (a word that used to mainly refer to Christs sacrifice) very skeptically. The undeniable fact is that Jewish intellectuals were largely behind the Bolshevik bloodshed, atheistic communism and the slaughters of tens of millions in the pursuit of building "good" and just societies. I was never taught that in the gulag. I was also never taught about the Jewish double standards in what they force on us in the US through their control of media and government and what they allow in Israel. When enough people wake up to this duplicity I fear there will probably be a backlash...unless they can manage to kill enough "resistors" off, etc.

I knew a Holocaust survivor too

A friend of my dad's was a Holocaust survivor whose parents were both gassed to death in a Nazi concentration camp. He could work, they couldn't; so his life was spared and they were gassed.

The only people I see who are, to use your words, "pretending to know" what went on in those camps are the deniers themselves.

The holocau$t(tm) in a nut shell

You have totally nailed the entire Holocau$t(tm) argument in two small paragraphs.

Your dad's friends testimony is all of the 'proof' that exists to the story.

There is no physical evidence however, no forensic evidence supporting the claims exists, in fact just the opposite is true.

ALL of the actual physical evidence refutes the testimony.

The Jews of Europe were ALL communist 5th element revolutionaries who were guilty of providing aid and comfort to the USSR.

They were a true enemy living amidst the christian democracies of Europe.

Whatever happened to them they brought upon themselves because they were practically ALL traitors to their 'host' nations.

so what?you pretend to live in others countries

and refuse to mix and accept their traditions and history even after living with them incredible 500 years..what is this saying?it is saying that you live there and and demand that THEY CLEAN YOUR SHIT EVERY SATURDAY ..can you imagine how this is offensive?dont try to pass a rubber in all the offenses that you made to others people country and traditions and history only because YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE SPECIAL...ASO AFTER ALL THE BULLSHIT THAT YOU DO YOU COME HERE AND TRY TO CONVINCE OTHERS TO ACCEPT YOUR BULLSHIT LITERALLY AND METAPHORICALLY

Intolerance will not be tolerated!

I sometimes I really hate what people have to say, but I love freedom more then I hate their opinions, so I tolerate their free expression. That does not mean I agree with or promote their ideas.

Freedom is not always pretty.

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

Yep, as Ol' Ari said...

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” - Aristotle

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!


Me likey.

there is a big difference between

truth and propaganda. We have been taught about the European "jews" and the "holocaust"...but is it true?
There is a good chance, and scientific evidence that the "truth" may have been greatly exaggerated.
Every coin has 2 sides and both need to be explored.

By the way, to close the thread -

"We have to shut up Ron Paul because he is anti-Jewish!".

End of discussion, and no more needs to be said.

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.

How to kill your own children - Jewish Talmud

Here are some passages from the Jewish Talmud on how to go about in a legalistic fashion on how it is permissible to sacrifice your own chuldren to Molech. There is a *lot* of vile stuff like that throughtout the Talmud. I don't like reading quotes out of context, so when I was researching this, I gathered lists of evil stuff in the Talmud, and then read the original so I read them in context. The link below has a copy of the full Talmud. Take a few weeks to research it yourself. It's disturbing.


Sanhedrin 64a

GEMARA. The Mishnah (1) teaches idolatry and giving to Molech. (2) R. Abin said: Our Mishnah is in accordance with the view that Molech worship is not idolatry. For it has been taught, [if one causes his seed to pass through the fire,] whether to Molech or to any other idol he is liable [to death]. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: If to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he is not.

Abaye said: R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon and R. Hanina b. Antigonus said the one and same thing. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, that which has just been stated. R. Hanina b. Antigonus — as it has been taught: R. Hanina b. Antigonus said: Why did the Torah employ the word Molech? To teach that the same law applies to whatever they proclaimed as their king, even a pebble or a splinter. (3) Rabina (4) said: The difference between them is in respect of a temporary Molech. (5)

On 53a.
As two separate offences, proving that giving one's seed to Molech is not idolatry. The differences [sic] is, that if one sacrificed to Molech, or caused his son to pass through the fire to some other deity, he is not punished.
Molech is connected with the idea of kingship. This shews that he too regards any fetish as a Molech.
In his view they did not say the one and the same thing.
I.e., anything which was only temporarily worshipped as Molech, such as a pebble which would obviously not be a permanent idol.] According to R. Hanina b. Antigonus, he is executed even then. But R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon holds that the law applies only to a permanent idol worshipped as Molech.
Sanhedrin 64b

R. Jannai said: Punishment is not incurred unless one delivers his seed to the acolytes of Molech, (1) for it is said, And thou shalt not give of thy seed to pass through the fire to Molech. (2) It has been taught likewise: I might think, that if one caused his seed to pass through the fire to Molech, without first delivering it to the priests, he is liable: therefore the Writ teaches, Thou shalt not give. If he gave it to the priests, but did not cause it to pass through the fire, I might think that he is liable: therefore the Writ states, to pass through. If one delivered it [to the priests of Molech], but caused it to pass through to some other deity, I might think that he is punished: therefore the Writ teaches, to Molech. Now, if he delivered it to the priests and caused it to pass to Molech, but not through the fire, I might think that he is liable: but, as here is written, to pass through; and elsewhere it is stated, There shall not he found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire: (3) just as there, the reference is to fire, so here too; and just as here the reference is to Molech, so there too.

R. Aha the son of Raba said: If one caused all his seed to pass through [the fire] to Molech, he is exempt from punishment, because it is written, of thy seed implying, but not all thy seed. (4)

R. Ashi propounded: What if one caused his blind or sleeping son to pass through, (5) or if he caused his grandson by his son or daughter to pass through? — One at least of these you may solve. For it has been taught: [Any men … that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall he put to death … And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people;] because he hath given of his seed unto Molech. (6 ) Why is this stated? (7) — Because it is said, there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire. (8 ) From this I know it only of his son or daughter. Whence do I know that it applies to his son's son or daughter's son too? From the verse, [And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man] when he giveth of his seed unto Molech [and kill him not: Then I will … cut him off.] (9)

Now the Tanna commences with the verse, 'because he hath given of his seed', but concludes with 'when he giveth of his seed'? — This is to intimate another deduction. (10) Thus: [because he hath given] of his seed: From this I know only that the law applies to legitimate seed [that being the normal meaning of the word]; whence do I know that it also applies to illegitimate seed? (11) — From the verse, when he giveth of his seed. (12)

Rab Judah said: He is only liable to punishment if he causes his seed to pass through in the normal way. How is that? — Abaye said: There was a loose pile of bricks in the middle, and fire on either side of it. (13) Raba said: It was like the children's leaping about on Purim. (14) It has been taught in support of Raba. Punishment is incurred only for causing one's seed to pass in the normal fashion; if he caused him to pass through on foot, he is exempt. (15) He is liable only for his own issue; e.g., for his son and daughter, he is punished; but for his father or mother, brother or sister, he is not. If he passed through himself, he is free from punishment. (16) R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon ruled that he is liable. Further, whether to Molech or to any other idol, he is liable. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: If to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he is not.

'Ulla said: What is R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon's reason? — Scripture saith, There shall not be found among thee … (17) 'among thee' means in thyself. (18) And the Rabbis? Do they not interpret 'among thee' thus? Surely we have learnt: If one must search for a lost article of his own and of his father's, priority is given to his own. And we observed thereon: Why so? — To which Rab Judah replied: Scripture saith, Save that there shall be no poor among thee, (19) teaching that one's own loss has priority over that of any other man? (20) There the deduction follows from 'save that'. (21)

R. Jose, son of R. Hanina said: Why is extinction thrice threatened for idolatry? (22) — One teaches extinction for the normal worship of idols; one for abnormal; and one for the service of Molech. (23) But on the view that Molech worship is included in general idolatry, why is extinction mentioned in its case? — To apply to one who causes his son to pass through to an idol [not Molech], where such is not the normal mode of worship. Now, on the view that a megaddef (24) is a worshipper of idols, (22) why is extinction stated for it? (25) — Even as it has been taught: (26) That soul shall surely be cut off from among his people; (27) he shall be cut off in this world and in the next: this is R. Akiba's view. (28) R. Ishmael said: But the verse has previously stated 'that soul shall be cut off': (29) are there then three worlds? (30) But [interpret this:] 'and [that soul] shall be cut off' — in this world: 'he is to he cut off' — [of the following verse, and denoted by the infinitive] (31) in the next; whilst as for the repetition [the finite form of the verb], (32) that is because the Torah employs human phraseology. (33)

He explains this to be the meaning of the Mishnah UNLESS HE GIVES IT TO MOLECH.
Lev. XVIII, 21. This proves that the offence consists of two parts; (i) formal delivery to the priests, and (ii) causing the seed to pass through the fire.
Deut. XVIII, 10.
Probably because this would not be accounted a normal mode of Molech worship: cp. pp. 438, 440.
Is 'thou shalt not cause to pass' applicable only to a son who can naturally pass through himself, but not to a blind or sleeping son, who must be led or carried, or does it apply to all?
Lev. XX, 2f.
Since the passage commences by explicitly referring to this offence, why is it repeated?
Deut. XVIII, 10.
Lev. XX, 4. Hence the law applies also to grandsons.
I.e., from the first verse, because etc. we learn that the law applies to one's grandsons too; when he giveth is stated in order that another law may be deduced.
Not in the modern sense, but seed from a woman forbidden to him.
This is superfluous, since it has already been stated twice in that passage that the reference is to this effect. Hence it indicates the application of the law to illegitimate seed.
The victim walked along that pile to Molech, but was not burnt. The statement that Hezekiah was smeared with the blood of the salamander to render him fireproof (63b), shewing that the victim was actually burnt, does not refer to Molech, but to the divinities of Sepharvaim (Rashi).
Probably referring to a game played on Purim when children jump over a fire lit in a pit. According to this, a pit was dug and a fire lit therein, and the victim leaped over it (So Rashi). Jast. translates: 'like the stirrup (a ring suspended from a frame) thrust over a bonfire on Purim;' cp. Aruch.
This proves that the victim did not walk, but leaped to it.
This too proves that the victim was not burnt in passing through the fire to Molech.
Deut. XVIII, 10.
Hence his view that one is liable if he passes through himself.
Deut. XV, 4.
The questioner understood this to be deduced from 'among thee' — in thyself. Since this is not taught in the name of any particular Tanna, it should agree with the Rabbis too.
Heb. [H], implying an admonition to avoid any action which may lead to poverty. Naturally, this is not to be interpreted as permitting dishonesty, but merely insists that poverty must not be courted.
Twice in Lev. XX, 2-5: Whosoever be he … that giveth of his seeds to Molech … I will cut him off from among his people … And if the people of the land … kill him not: Then I will set my face against that man … and will cut him off. Once in Num. XV, 30f. But the soul that doeth aught presumptuously … the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord. This refers to idolatry.
Which is not included in general idolatry, as stated above.
In Num. XV, 30, the Heb. for 'he reproacheth' is megaddef.
The meaning of megaddef is disputed in Ker. 7b. By a 'worshipper of idols' is meant, e.g., one who sings hymns in a heathen Temple.
Since, being a normal part of idolatry, it is understood.
Num. XV, 31. Continuing the verses quoted in note 3. In the Heb, as usual, this emphasis is denoted by the repetition of the verb, [H]
He interprets the doubling of the verb as referring to two worlds.
Ibid. 30.
Rashi explains that this question is not put to R. Akiba, because he interprets megaddef in that previous verse as referring to blasphemy, not idolatry. But this question is rhetorically stated by R. Ishmael on his own assumption that megaddef means an idol worshipper.
In ordinary human spee

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.

By the way, Thomas Jefferson

By the way, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter on this. The gist of it when I read the letter was it shouldn't be remarkable to see this, because the old testament condemns Jewish people sacrificing children throughout the old testament.

What is remarkable is that that wicked religious practice survives in the Talmud today.

The Bible says the synagogue of Satan in Revelation 3. I think God's Word is perfect. It means what it says.

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.

Yes, there is some horrific

Yes, there is some horrific stuff in the Talmud. Now how does that justify some of the comments that have been floating around this website recently? Such as a link to a video of some guy saying that if Jews don't watch out, what happened in Germany is going to happen in America.

There's disturbing stuff in all religions. But I don't go around saying there's some vast Christian or Muslim conspiracy.

So what is your point? There's stuff you find horrific in the Talmud, and, therefore, what?

so what?muslims and christians are the only dominant religions

in the west..because the west was born around the mediterranean sea...and we are always brainwashed byt htis jewish dominated MSM to believe that there are 3 religions when in fact there are ONLY 2... such a incredible lie again ...and that is the fact..all the years between 630 AD and 1400 AD is about the ascension of WEST EUROPE as a next power after the islamic GLOBALIZATION...YES ISLAMIC GLOBALIZATION ...because all what was done after 1400 was to gain control over the commerce from the INDIA, INDONESIA AND south asia trading routes which by the way EXISTED since the roman empire in the hands of THE CURRENT SAUDI ARABIA TRADERS...AS POINTED BY THE ROMANS THEMSELVES ..so what is the result?we had Portugal and Spain trying to get this endeavor and by a chance ended up with america discoveries ..and this is the fact...ONLY 2 VERY BIG RELIGIONS POLITICAL PROJECT CHRISTIANITY WEST EUROPEAN STILE AND ISLAM..THE REST ARE NOTHING beyodb shadows and copycats ....

I have to catch myself from being angy at Jewish...

People because you are right in the sense that it is not Jewish people who are bad but those who are their leaders who are out to destroy our Country. Is it just Jewish gangsters? No, but there are quite a few Jewish banksters who control this Country.

Now do I feel all Jewish people are bad? No, but there are disturbing things about these people that I find scary. But then I remind myself about decent men like Aaron Dykes who works with Alex Jones and Michael Rivero and Norman Finklestein and so many other I can't count them who are doing more for freedom than I have ever done.

It is wrong for these Jewish gangsters to hold hostage a people who are from all my understanding not even Jewish but instead are Georgians and Armenians and people from the Caucasus. That is according to an Israeli Geneticist who did a Genome study at John Hopkins University. These people claiming to be Jewish are no more Jewish than me but hey, don't take my work for it...


Another non-sequential. I

Another non-sequential. I never said anything about bad comments nor justify them.

How does bad comments shut down posting truthful, well sourced links to information people may not know? The most dangerous racism is the one that flourishes without criticism and controls your foreign policy, and at the moment that racism is Jewish racism.

At least half of all bad comments on any subject is from one group trying to play both sides against the middle. It's relevantly easy to say something inane, and then try to shut down any discussion. In my opinion, some of the posts you are criticizing aren't even Americans posting. That's from THIRTY YEARS experience online, and seeing the same tactic used over and over again in many different subject areas.

I condemn all racism. At the moment, Jewish racism is controlling our society, and I will condemn that. At the same time, I've condemned moron occultism, the pedophile rapes of the catholic church, and so on. I have no interest in people who want to shut down discussion, which all these groups and many more have tried in the pass. Censorship so evil can flourish is not a good.

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.

FYI - how is murdering your own children

FYI - how is murdering your own children "just some bad stuff"?

That's as low as you can get.

And what is in the Talmud is completely relevant to discussing why there is so much Jewish racism. Because that is where it is taught.

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.

That is hysterical. So you

That is hysterical. So you think young Jews are going to Hebrew school and learning to murder their future children?

Since you can't discuss

Since you can't discuss things without using non-sequential, and haven't posting links to any information at all, I'm done talking to you. You're providing nothing worthwhile to read.

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.

Just to reiterate how this

Just to reiterate how this conversation went...

You quote the Talmud about killing children.

I ask how it is relevant to a thread on anti-Jewish comments on the Daily Paul.

You say that that's a "non-sequential." You then say it's because Jews are taught this.

I say it's hysterical that you think that Jews are taught that.

You say that I'm "using non-sequential".

Let's see, how is it relevant

Let's see, how is it relevant to post examples of true things that have been condemned as anti-Jewish to conceal them?

What you want is to assert things without debate. This isn't hypothetical, I've posted all these things in the past, and been told I am anti-Jewish.

No, I'm pro-Christ, and I love the Jewish people, and think they need to be saved. Judaism is a work of the devil.

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.

Jesus was a Jew.

It's kind of hard for you to get past that, isn't it?

Jesus was a Jew? Well,

Jesus was a Jew? Well, perhaps, but he was also very unhappy with Judaism as it was practiced in his day, and not much has changed.
He despised the hypocrisy of the Talmud embodied in the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan


this is another MAKE UP argument which is a sole lie since its inception ..this is a false myth and false historical fact...JESUS DID NOT BELONG TO THE TRIBE OF LEVY OR JUDDAH JESUS WAS FROM THE NROTHERN PART OF THE HEBREW TRIBE...WHICH WERE AMONG THE OTHER remaining 10 tribes that juddah clan and levy clan tried to exploit by joining force and exploiting the commerce and trade around the ONLY TEmple that was there and used to UNITE ALL THE 12 tribes descendants from JOSEPH...SO PLEASE I ASK YOU TO LIE IN OTHER SITES!!!!!!!!!!!!NOT HERE....JESUS WAS SO ADAMANTLY ENRAGED WITH THE TRADING EXPLOITING THE REST OF THE TRIBES INCLUDING HIS OWN THAT THAT PARTICULAR STROY WITH THE "VENDORS" at the temple TELL US THE REAL CAUSE OF HIS DEATH...THE PLOT MADE BY THE JUDDAHITES AND LEVITES...YES...IT WAS TRUE....DONT YOU THINK THAT THERE IS INTELIGENT POEPLE IN THIS MODERN WORLD WHO VAN BE DECEIVED AGAIN...You cannot lie this time your way out...

Voting this down doesn't change the fact.

That not only was Jesus jewish he was a direct descendant of King David on boths sides. In other words, he was the Jew's Jew. And there's just no way around it.

no sir ..he was not..you are not really familiar with the place

there..in ancient middle east and until recently the VILLAGE THING RULES...you ae born always related to the village..you are not welcomed if you marry outside your village ..this is so ancient as a costume that you people you are not i. contact dont know a dime of it...and believe me the NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN BY JUADDHITES SO YES THEY COVERED UP SLIGHTLY TO AVOID A BACKLASH...THEY NOT COINCIDENTALLY WERE FROM THE JUDAAH TRIBE WHICH WERE DOMINATING THE AREA AROUND JERUSALEM...THAT IS TRUHT TO THE BONES AND TRY NOT DENY ...You have to have deep understanding of the regional history and believe that myth was confirmed by other pseudo historian that emerged who was Josephus and he was NOT UNBIASED..he had hsi JUDAHITES AGENDA TOO

Thanks for the clarification.

Thanks for the clarification. You're not anti-Jewish, you just think Judaism is a work of the devil. Got it.

This thread is about

This thread is about anti-Jewish comments made on the Daily Paul over the past few days. In response, you posted a portion of the Talmud. My question to you was: what's the connection?

And then you respond that I'm going off on a "non-sequential".

There is a real pressing need to talk about *all* racism

A thread has a pro and a con.

I'm taking the opposite side. Which seems to be - there is already pc-speak everywhere else, talking about Jewish racism is a lot better than not talking about it.

There is, no doubt about it, Arab racism, black racism, white racism, and asian racism.

However, none of these groups are controlling our banking system, or making us go to war with their neighbors. And they are all already talked about sufficiently. But there is a pressing need to talk about racism when it exists and isn't talked about.

Especially when it's associated with child sacrifice, and the occult.

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.