Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Holston, your posts just keep getting funnier - I am no fan of the 'Tea Party', but I think calling them 'imposters' is really very silly indeed.
And I've no idea what you're babbling about with London: you seem to have mistaken someone here for a Brit, but no I'm from NEW England......
But, unlike me, most of the Sixties generation still hold the views I used to hold and – with the recent, honourable exception of David Goodhart, the Left-wing journalist turned Think Tank boss who recognises he was wrong – they will not change.
The worst part of this is the deep, deep hypocrisy of it. Even back in my Trotskyist days I had begun to notice that many of the migrants from Asia were in fact not our allies. They were deeply, unshakably religious. They were socially conservative. Their attitudes towards girls and women were, in many cases, close to medieval.
Many of them were horribly hostile to Jews, in a way which we would have condemned fiercely if anyone else had expressed it, but which we somehow managed to forgive and forget in their case.
We have recently seen this in the distressing and embarrassing episode of Lord Ahmed’s outburst against a phantom Jewish conspiracy.
But I recall ten years ago, in a Muslim bookshop in the backstreets of Burnley, seeing on open display a modern edition of Henry Ford’s revolting anti-Jewish diatribe The International Jew, long ago disowned by Ford himself. It is unthinkable that any mainstream shop in any High Street could sell this toxic tripe.
Many of these new arrivals, though we revolutionaries welcomed them, knew and cared nothing of the great liberal causes we all supported. Or they were hostile to them.
Many on the Left still lie to themselves about this. George Galloway, the most Left-wing MP in Parliament, owes his seat to the support of conservative Muslims.
What is he ranting about? None of it makes the least little bit of sense.....it's almost like 'word salad' there.
MHunterB Holston, your posts just keep getting funnier - I am no fan of the 'Tea Party', but I think calling them 'imposters' is really very silly indeed.
And I've no idea what you're babbling about with London: you seem to have mistaken someone here for a Brit, but no I'm from NEW England......
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."That should clear things up for you. At least it should make it easier to understand why so many people seem "hysterical" about the prospects of a New World Order that is run by Globalist Banksters.
What is he ranting about? None of it makes the least little bit of sense.....it's almost like 'word salad' there.
MHunterB Holston, your posts just keep getting funnier - I am no fan of the 'Tea Party', but I think calling them 'imposters' is really very silly indeed.
And I've no idea what you're babbling about with London: you seem to have mistaken someone here for a Brit, but no I'm from NEW England......
Numen said that Tory was derogatory and he preferred the term Loyalist.
I was just wondering who he was loyal to? By the tenor of his comments I doubt if it's the US.
But we need to differentiate here between the US as it once was and the Zionists who now control the government and media. The same thing is true with Merry Old England.
These Zionists are practically synonymous with the International Banksters who dominate the financial districts of New York and London.
That should clear things up for you. At least it should make it easier to understand why so many people seem "hysterical" about the prospects of a New World Order that is ran by Globalist Banksters.
People who use the word "zionist" a lot are usually anti-semite bigots. Blame the Jews? It worked (for a while) in Germany.
People who use the word "zionist" a lot are usually anti-semite bigots. Blame the Jews? It worked (for a while) in Germany.
People who call others anti-semitic bigots for critcizing the Zionists are usually Hasbara, Neo-cons, Marxists, or Libs.
In short, anything under the sun *but* Nazi fascists ...... It wasn't about 'criticizing Zionists': it was critical of the bigotry.
"There are lots of Good Nazis you know. Some of my best friends are Nazis. "
Holston, I'm sure they are. Only they're not good.......
[emphases added]No time was wasted as he called Paine a "political quack" and took offense at the man's attack upon the English constitution....
"The demogogues to seduce the people into their criminal designs ever hold up democracy to them.... If we examine the republics of Greece and Rome, we ever find them in a state of war domestic or foreign....
Mistrustful of France and her intentions, Chalmers was compelled to remind his readers of the great debt owed England by the colonies. Citing William Penn and the Pennsylvania Quakers as settlers who brought "toleration, industry, and permanent credit" to the colonies, Chalmers says England took proper notice. "The people of England, encouraged by the extension of their laws and commerce to those colonies, powerfully assisted our merchants and planters, insomuch, that our settlements increased rapidly.... "
Chalmers felt that a simple desire for liberty wasn't enough to keep the colonists from losing a war with England. Alone, they didn't stand a chance. To win, they would have to have a great European power such as France or Spain on their side.
Here, Chalmers made an important and often overlooked observation: he found it illogical for any foreign power to side with the colonists against England, and with good reason. "Can we be so deluded, to expect aid from those princes (France and Spain), which inspiring their subjects with a relish for liberty, might eventually shake their arbitrary thrones.... Can we believe that those princes will offer an example so dangerous to their subjects and colonies...?"
One can't help but think that if King Louis XVI of France had read this passage of Chalmers's pamphlet, he might have saved his own life. On this point, Chalmers couldn't have foretold the future with any greater exactness. France was deluded enough to aid the colonists, the French people were inspired with a relish for liberty, and they did shake the arbitrary throne by relieving the king of his head in the French Revolution.
For his part, Chalmers couldn't imagine that a country like France would be foolish enough to join the fight. Against the expectations of loyalists and rebels alike, France leapt into the war effort with money, arms, and troops.
.When Washington assumed command, he wrote letters describing the patriots as rabble and "scum."
Washington was an extremely arrogant and aristocratic man, known in Virginia and at the continental Congress for his aloofness and coldness....Having no great inheritance, he set himself to making a fortune - he became one of the richest men in the Colonies. He achieved that in two ways :
One was through land speculation, on a grand scale in the very territories, further west, that the British government was trying conscientiously to keep for the native people. He would claim and survey land and then sell parcels to new immigrants. He had a reputation as a sharp trader who left more than a few with a sour feeling over their business.
Two, and most importantly, he married the richest woman in the Colonies, the widow Martha Custis, who had been left a good fortune. Theirs was not a warm and loving relationship, but kind of a cordial business deal....
Washington was a terrible general, losing virtually every battle in which he was engaged....A French aristocrat who came over to take a commission...remarked that there was more enthusiasm for the American revolt in the cafés of Paris than he observed in America.
[Washington's] poor soldiers never even received all their back pay. Eventually they were given scrip, which many sold at huge discounts to the face value because they could not wait so long for their little bit of money, that canny old Washington [was] one of the dealers in buying it up and eventually profiting handsomely.
This is a sample of what will be taught to youngsters in the future as the Jews rewrite History more to their liking. They depend on the ignorance of Goyim to pass it off as factual and trust that he will be to spineless too demand conformation and too lazy to look it up.
I noticed the author who claimed credit just gave his name as "Chuckman".
I don't know about his being Jewish. His biographical information indicates that he was an American who moved to Canada to avoid military service during the Vietnam War. He now makes his home in Canada. Also he does a lot of Chistmas themed photography.
Historian David Hackett Fischer of Brandeis University has vigorously documented in his book Washington’s Crossing (Oxford University Press) that,
“In Congress and the army, American leaders resolved that the War of Independence would be conducted with a respect of human rights, even of the enemy. This idea grew stronger during the campaign of 1776-1777, not weaker as is commonly the case in war.”
John Adams in particular knew very well that his enemies used cruelty on prisoners, yet he wrote a letter to his wife lamenting that such behavior should never be taken place among his soldiers. He wrote,
“I know of no policy, God is my witness, but this—Piety, Humanity and Honesty are the best policy. Blasphemy, Cruelty and Villainy have prevailed and may again. But they won’t prevail against America, in this Contest, because I find the more of them are employed, the less they succeed.”
If you doubt that Adams was wrong, more recently Morris Davis, a former Air Force colonel with more than 25 years of military experience under his belt, said that “during the first Gulf War, Iraqi soldiers surrendered en masse because the U.S. military would not torture prisoners and would provide food and water.”
George Washington put Adams’ principle to work. Some even persuaded leaders in Congress to adopt the British way of treating prisoners, but Washington refused. Washington “never threatened to deny quarter to an enemy.
This difference persisted through the war, with some exceptions in the southern campaign.” When quarter was denied to American soldiers, many pressed Washington to follow the “eye for an eye” principle, but still he never gave up to pressure.
For example, Lieutenant William Kelly was wounded and captured with his men by the British. They attempted to surrender, but
“British troops refused quarter and murdered them all. They ‘dashed out their brains with their muskets and ran them through with their bayonets, made them like sieves.’ As the Americans lay dying, the British troops brutally plundered their bodies with great violence.”
Not only that, Fischer continues to say,
“After the battles in New York, thousands of American prisoners of war were treated with extreme cruelty by British captors. Some Americans were confined in the churches of New York City, which were desecrated by scenes of cruelty, suffering, and starvation. Other Americans went to prison hulks in New York harbor and died miserably in large numbers.”
In other words, Washington had all the excuses and right justification to return the favor to the British. Yet Washington treated British troops differently and “with the same human rights for which Americans were striving.” Washington’s prisoners were expected that he would treat them as the British treated the American prisoners. Yet they were astonished when Washington treated them as human beings.
Whenever some British soldiers were captured, Washington would send letters to the specific town saying that the prisoners “were innocent people in this war, and were not volunteers, but forced into this war.” In another letter, Washington asked that the British prisoners be treated
“with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British army in their Treatment of our unfortunate brethren…Provide everything necessary for them on the road.”
Not only that, he asked that the prisoners should be treated as friends. One prisoner, Johannes Reuber, wrote later that “conditions improved for us. Old, young, rich and poor, and all treated us in a friendly manner.” As a result, many of the former British soldiers—some 3,194 of them—chose to stay in America.
This has characterized one of the central issues in American history, and it is this ideal that America was built upon. Legal scholar Robert F. Kennedy of Pace University declared that it was the Founding Fathers’ “disciplined adherence to those values that helped them win a hopeless struggle against the best soldiers in Europe.”
The point here is that the neoconservative movement has unleashed perpetual wars upon us and in the process had to adopt torture as a legitimate way to get so-called information. As the old saying goes, every action produces a reaction. The reaction to perpetual wars and torture is universal hatred of the United States.
Dear Rabbi,
I have been under the impression that “turning the other cheek” to your enemies is not a Jewish approach. But recently a friend pointed out the verse in Lamentations (3:30), “Let him offer his cheek to his smiter; let him be filled with reproach.”
So now I’m confused:
Is it or is it not a Jewish value?
If it is, how does that jibe with the Talmudic dictum, “If someone is coming to kill you, kill him first?”
Answer:
Don’t Turn The Cheek!
It is clear that “turning the other cheek” to a violent aggressor is not the Jewish way.
There is no doubt that there are times when it is necessary to battle adversaries.
In fact, throughout the Biblical account of history, the Jewish people were commanded to strike at their enemies, sometimes even preemptively. As you pointed out correctly, our sages instruct, “If someone comes to kill you, you should rise up and kill him first.”
See The Jew's Double Standard.
Double standards are supposedly unethical. Yet Judaism -- the ethos contained in the Bible and expounded by the sages of Israel -- abounds with double standards. In fact, these double standards are at the heart of how we live and what we have taught the world -- and at the heart of what makes an ethical person.
