4th Reich On The Rise In Europe?

Can we stop calling it isolated incidences yet? Looks like a common held worldview if you were to ask me.

 

Please supply sources for these quotes. In particular, the Menachim Begin quote looks quite spurious -- he was definitely an unpleasant man -- a Jewish fascist, in fact -- but I am very skeptical about that quote.
But ... just supply the sources. (Except for the Tim Wise quote -- that, I can believe, since I know about this guy.)

 

It was a reporter, Amnon Kapeliouk, that published that quote which came from a speech that Menachem Begin gave to the Israeli Parliament in June 1982.

However with that being said many have denied Menachem said any of that at all and as for the reporter Amnon Kapeliouk he was an Israeli journalist with close ties to Yasser Arafat.

He died in Jerusalem 2009.

The quote was attributed to "Amnon Kapeliouk's article "Begin and the Beasts" (New Statesman, June 25, 1982)

Apparently he never apologized for the fabricated quote which is interesting as he was a French Israeli himself.

Upon further posting here on the forum I will have to research the authenticity of all quotes as to not to make that mistake again. If there is anything I can't stand it is making mistakes.


Noel Ignatiev on the other hand is easy and simple enough.




Barbara Lerner Spectre also is an easy and simple reference.

 

As for Count Richard von Coudenhove Kalergi one of the original architects of the European Union we have this.

https://archive.org/details/PraktischerIdealismus1925

Pages 26-27

Translated into English.

 

https://archive.is/SwCAO

 

Can't find any reference at all to a Ishmael Levitts concerning quotes.
[Is he even a real person? I don't know.]

Rav Touitou quote might be more difficult to find because he's a French rabbi and I don't speak French. He's a Youtube religious preacher.

Can't find any reference for this World Jewish Congress in 2011 of a rabbi Abbaron Haviv anywhere.

 

To Doug1943,

I've been at least able to verify 4 out of 8 quotes, 50% ability anyways of backing up my claims concerning quotes. 50% are verifiable in evidence and the other ones are either deliberate falsifications [ intentional works of fiction] or are very randomly vague concerning reference that it literally becomes impossible to prove/disprove their authenticity.

I'm glad we had this conversation because I've learned some things from this two and half hours of researching quotes. First I've learned that my side so it would seem puts out some disinformation intentionally which if anything angers me to the point of being furious because I am a man that values truth above all else. I get it that they're angry and want to lash out at the world with such antics but I don't like falsification of anything nor do I approve of such things myself. For now on I've learned that perhaps it is best to research the authenticity of such quotes from others before posting them. Rest assured that I will be very vigilant in that going into the future. I never like making the same mistakes twice.

I believe in utilizing truth to go after my adversaries or opposition not lies and slander, I have more class than that.

 

Yeah, it sounded phoney to me. Good for you for correcting it. (I'm like you in that respect: I hate to be wrong. I'd like to think this is just a noble characteristic in me, but it's probably just egoism.)

In your quest to convince us of the Worldwide Historic Jewish Conspiracy, you ought to do the following:

Separate your quotes into two categories:

(1) The really insane Jewish nationalist/fascist stuff -- the "kill all the goyim" quotes, etc. There, you can start with the Old Testament -- some hair-raising advice from God to the Israelites from time to time --- and go on through the pre-modern Talmud, where the Jews matched the Christians in bestial attitudes towards their rivals. Plenty of absolutely true, hair-curling nastiness here.

The problem for "Great Jewish Conspiracy" believers is that the most penetrating expose of this nationalist/fascist tradition was the late Israel Shahak .... now that name alone should set the antennae of anti-Semites quivering and ..yes ... he was a Jew! An Israeli, in fact. Here is the first paragraph of the Wiki article on him:

Here's the Wiki summary of Shahak's book mentioned in the previous sentence:

Whoa!!! Some people here think YOU are "inflammatory" ... what would these would-be censors make of this Jew??? (I guess they'd agree with you ... he's part of a conspiracy, just a different one.) Full Wiki article here. (Everyone should read about this man -- a remarkable person.)

(2) All those quotes from liberal and leftwing Jews promoting 'multi-culturalism', toleration, racial equality. (These are not synonyms, but I think from your point of view they're equally objectionable.) There are plenty of those, and, unlike the grotesque medievalism of ultra-Zionists and Orthodox Jews, these quotes can more fairly said to be typical of the Jewish population worldwide, since the Enlightenment (or a few decades after it). Jews tend to be liberal ... who knew?

There is a problem here, of course: The ideas of (2) (liberalism, toleration, multi-culturalism, equality) are flatly in contradiction to those of (1) (Jewish tribalism, ultra-nationalism, racial [Jewish] supremacy). Can't these Jews get their act together?

But perhaps we can save the Great Jewish Conspiracy Thesis this way: they save the liberalism for societies in which they're a minority, but practice the tribal supremacy stuff in the country where they're a majority. There might be a grain of truth in this: I know of people who are pretty hardline Zionists with respect to Israel, but relatively 'liberal' with respect to their own countries. Alan Dershowitz springs to mind. (He's not uncritical of Israel, but definitely a reflexive defender of it.)

But ... I also know of MANY Jews who are absolutely consistent: they are just as fierce critics of Israel as they are of their own countries -- in a few cases, even more so. How do Great Jewish Conspiracy people explain all those hard-line anti-Zionist Jews? (I suppose a really nutty explanation -- which I am sure you don't hold to -- is that it's all part of the Great Conspiracy -- they're just pretending. There was a Soviet defector in the early 60s who argued that the Russian/Chinese split -- where they were even killing each other fighting over some stupid island on their border that was under water most of the year -- was actually just a great act to deceive the West. Oi veh!)

And ... what about those Jews who are conservatives, who are against mass immigration, who are not just hard right wingers re Israel -- ie hardline Zionists -- but also rightwingers when it comes to the societies they are a minority in? David Horowitz, a multi-culturalist?

Surely all this evidence should convince any intelligent person that the Great Jewish Conspiracy theory is simply wrong.

But ... here is the grain of truth in it: Jews tend to be liberal, broadly speaking. Many of them embraced the Enlightenment, for obvious reasons: it promised equality of treatment for everyone. Plus: Jews are generally intelligent, so they found a natural home in the awakening of the human mind represented by the Enlightenment.

In Europe, and especially before the 20th Century, 'conservatism' meant the traditional ruling groups -- King, Church, Army -- and was associated with prejudice against the Jews, not only on old-fashioned religious grounds, but because they were the bearers of modernity. (This can be exaggerated: Leftists do so, for instance, with respect to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, where the ruling monarchy, of necessity, tried to keep all the national groups within the Empire happy. But in general, in the past, the Right was anti-Semitic -- not in a gas-chamber way, but definitely anti-Semitic.)

One more argument: Jewish jokes. No other people on the planet are so good about laughing at themselves. I think this is a reflection both of their intelligence, and the circumstances in which they have found themselves for nearly 2000 years. (As Mel Brooks said, "If they're laughing they can't bludgeon us to death.")

And incidentally, you are right about one thing: it's wonderfully ironic to hear highly intelligent Jewish Lefties arguing that intelligence is just a function of the environment -- that if you are discriminated against it makes you stupid: racism produces low scores on IQ tests. Don't they listen to themselves?

Anyway, you should think again about your views. They are anomalous, given your obvious intelligence and knowledge and commitment to intellectual honesty.

 

Doug1943,

Never heard of Israel Shahak before but my interest is peaked where I'll have to look into this writer. Yes, neo liberal, communist, and leftist Jews are easy to spot in their views regarding globalism or foreign immigration.

Neo conservative Jews in my opinion are a bit more trickier in that I view them as crony capitalists. While neo liberal and leftist Jews will defend globalism or foreign immigration in the name of a total global egalitarianism neo conservative Jews will defend globalism along with foreign immigration in the name of profit acquiring capitalism.

Neo conservative Jews are the kind to argue foreign immigration not on the grounds of egalitarianism so much like their leftist counterparts but rather instead on the grounds of cheap labor, economic competition, and financial profit.

The great hypocrisy of course is that neo liberal and neo conservative Jews both agree on one thing, foreign immigration of population replacement in all nations except Israel.

On a further note, I've always been curious concerning the politics of Jews on who makes more of their majority, neo liberals or neo conservatives?

I think I've heard that a majority of neo conservative Jews live in Israel where a majority of neo liberal or leftist Jews live outside of Israel, something to that effect.

I find it interesting when Jewish persons critical of their own religion, politics, and people like Shahak also get labelled with the same anti semitic canard. As an outside observer I find this fascinating.

 

In the US, neo-conservatives tend to be ex-liberals: exemplifying the saying, "a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged." [Of course liberals counter with "A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested."] Some were even ex-Trotskyists (from the 30's/40's). You would probably enjoy reading the autobiography of their 'godfather', Irving Kristol, and his other books, which you can find here. I don't think you can find a financial motivation behind the neo-conservatives -- they're just the most consistent advocates of the 'New American Century' idea, and are now pretty discredited because of the Iraq disaster.

David Horowitz, to whom I linked above, cannot really be called a neo-conservative. He's an ex-Red Diaper Baby (as we used to call the children of CPUSA members) who became disillusioned with the Left -- I think the triggering event was when the Black Panthers murdered their own accountant, a nice liberal lady and friend of Horowitz who had volunteered to do their bookkeeping. Apparently she found out about the corruption (and possibly major drug-dealing) in the Black Panthers so they did her in. He's a hard-line Zionist and generally too conservative for my taste, but he's an independent thinker and always worth reading. His main focus is on the US Left, about which he (and some of his associates) know a lot, having been Leftists themselves.

I suppose you would enjoy seeing Jews fighting each other, so reading Horowitz and his rightwing friends polemicizing venomously against Jewish Leftists, and vice versa, should prove entertaining.

 

Certainly like any group or identity of people there is political infighting however with neo liberal and neo conservative Jews I'm willing to bet there are mutual common interests between both. I will also have to look into this Horowitz.

 

Well ... sure there are. Both Horowtiz and the neo-cons are Zionists, for one thing. And they're both on the Right. But if you then added to the pot all the liberal and Leftist Jews, including the drive-em-into-the-sea anti-Zionist Jews, what do they have in common? Just this: They don't want to be persecuted as Jews! They would all have been in the Camps together (except for those half- and quarter- Jews that Hitler made into honorary Aryans so they could support him). But I'll be very surprised if you can find anything else in common.

 

Religious beliefs? Do you know much about Judaism? Fascinating religion especially studying it as an outsider.

 

Religious beliefs?

I know lots of Jews. Every single one I know is an atheist, like me. The Jews are a tribe. They share DNA, not superstitions. But maybe my sample is biased.

So, let's look at Wikipedia. Here's what they have to say:

[ SOURCE ]

It's their higher-than-average IQ, I guess. Plus the fact that their historical experience, starting with the Romans, tends to undermine the idea that there is a benevolent invisible man in the sky looking after them. (As Tebye [?] in "Fiddler on the Roof" says ... "Please, God ... choose someone else!")

Of course, the 'shared DNA' fact might seem to bolster your idea of the Great Jewish Conspiracy. And, definitely, if you're Jewish, there will no doubt be an impulse to have some special sympathy for people who have the same ancestors as you do. Japanese Americans must have felt that same impulse in WWII, German Americans the same, Chinese Americans the same.

But an impulse is not the same as systematic action. When I encounter a pretty girl, I have a certain impulse. Can't help it, baked into my genome. But weighing down and suppressing that impulse are tons of cultural inhibitions, mediated by my knowledge of how society works and how, therefore, to successfully conduct the war between the sexes should I want to, which is not the way my caveman ancestors would have conducted it.

So I am sure that most Jews living outside Israel feel some special sympathy for it. How could they not, especially given its circumstances. But, again, although I know there are extreme hardline Zionists who endorse every thing the Israeli government does, and even some who think its' far too liberal and soft -- the fact is that this view is a shrinking minority within American Judaism. (I don't know how Jews outside Israel in the rest of the world feel, but I would guess it's similar to the attitudes of their American cousins.)

Here's an article worth quoting from:

[SOURCE]

Interesting, no? Note especially that sentence in the next-to-last paragraph about "interfaith marriages". It shows us that DNA-impulses, while present, are pretty feeble: half of all Jews marry non-Jews, thereby 'diluting' their DNA. Even if their children are 'culturally Jewish' ... they're only half-'biologically' Jewish.

And what does 'culturally Jewish' mean? So far as I can see, it means having intelligence, valuing education and knowledge, having a sense of humor, and being a bit quarrelsome -- enjoying arguing. And, yes, that 'universalism' which favors equal rights for everyone. (Not the mark of a Giant Conspiracy, just an embrace of the Enlightenment.)

In that sense, I am 'culturally Jewish', although my DNA and original culture is white Southern Protestant with a sprinkling of Choctaw.

And I know another guy on this forum who is intelligent, likes to argue, reads a lot, thus revealing his love of knowledge, and who seems to have a sense of humor, as revealed by a spurious tag-line about 'being the change you want to see in the world'. Almost there, absent the universalism.

 

Which Germany owns.

 

Nope, Bank Of London.

 

That's interesting because most of the Jews I've known in the past in the workplace were very religious but then again most of my interactions with Jews have been with those that adhere to Orthodox beliefs. The things they would say about Christianity, Islam, Zionism, rebuilding the temple, and Palestinians after they had a couple of drinks in them I found very interesting or sobering. I of course never had much interaction with non-Orthodox or secular Jews but from what I've always heard they almost always lean more towards the left in politics.

I once had a Jew at a past workplace call me the face of evil for my criticism of oligarchy, financial elitism, and there being too many monied interests in politics calling me envious but once again I would never reveal my true beliefs or identity around them. In public settings I put on a nice disguise in order to remain and be seen as innocuous.

I of course never reveal my true beliefs around them being the workplace and all that.

Of course me being me I am a big critic of universalism especially in regards to philosophy. There are so many contradictions with universalism I wouldn't know where to begin in conversation.

 

How I would love for you to meet some of my Jewish (or 'Jewish') friends! Especially the ones the hardline Zionists call 'self-hating' Jews. (Which is ironic, since the early Zionists, some of them, often agreed with the anti-Semites, as I've been learning while reading Lorri (?) Brenner's Zionism in the Age of the Dictators.)

Yes, universalism is a word worth discussing. Here's a brief compressed summary: the human chimpanzee is not just the vector sum of his genetically-based impulses -- none of the higher animals are entirely, but our species has made a qualitative leap away from that situation.

My animal impulses tell me, when my band sees a rival band with some good things that we don't have, and there are more of us than there are of them, to rush in and take those good things.

Which, if we win, gets us those good things ... once. (Plus some of us will be killed or injured.)

Somehow, our intelligence/consciousness worked out ways of getting a steady supply of good things from other bands. Enslave them is one way. Conquer them and bring them into an Empire and tax them is another. Work out how to make/get other kinds of good things they don't have, and trade with them is a third way.

The history of our species has been one of slowly and unevenly figuring out better ways of getting good things. Now the first way is gone. The second way is almost out. The third way remains. It works pretty well: I wouldn't trade my lifestyle for that of any Roman emperor or Turkish sultan. (Well ... maybe where, er, romance is concerned. But not in respect of anything else.)

This evolution has not stopped. It's horribly uneven. The iPhone in your pocket with which you can talk to someone in Australia about the impending trade (and possibly real) war with China proves that our technology has outrun our ability to arrange our social and political affairs in such a way as to maximize the production of iPhones.

But my interest is how we can push forward that social evolution. Not out of idiot-liberal "we're all alike, we're all equal, all cultures are equal" blah blah. I use 'universalism' to mean carrying on getting beyond my-band/your-band ways of doing things. Because I am selfish and would rather have an iPhone that I have traded my labor-power for (via a thousand intermediary institutions), than a haunch of smelly meat and a couple of spears that my band gets when it defeats the one across the valley.

But of course no one can leap over their own head. Our whole species is still strung out along a spectrum, with some of them still in the tribal raiding stage, and not many 'universalists' around yet. But that's no reason for us to glorify backwardness. Let the Left do that.

 

Somehow I don't think they would like my presence or my interaction with them. I get it that a handful of Jews have their own opinions, thoughts, and beliefs but a majority of Jews seem to only care about their own interests discarding everybody else and this creates a lot of contention or conflict.

I have a very nuanced view on technological progressivism, on the one hand one cannot deny the great deal of innovation or convenience technology has brought. On the other hand technology has brought upon a lot of negative consequences with it like nuclear war, weaponized diseases, and chemical warfare. I am a big critic of transhumanism, artificial intelligence, and the total automation of all of society. Ultimately I view it as an anti human philosophy.

Technology has radically transformed the world in the last 150 years and human nature is having a hard time catching up to it in adaptation. Technology can change over night but human nature cannot. It takes thousands of years for human nature to alter and change itself in regards to social evolution.

I believe human beings have the possibility or capability in advancing as a species however I don't think global government and globalism is the answer. We can be a brotherhood of humanity while keeping our separate and distinct nations intact independently of one another.

My thought process of human nature is Hobbesian in regards to Thomas Hobbes in that I view human nature as amoral, selfish, and hedonistic where in order to curve all of that justifies the existence of the state to force everybody into cooperation even if their natural instinctual impulsive human nature desires the complete opposite. I believe in a sort of fascist utilitarianism in order to achieve that, the best possible world that benefits the majority of people.