Times of Israel Scrubs Revisionist David Cole’s Work!


When I started blogging for The Times of Israel, I knew it would be a risky endeavor. Risky in terms of wasted effort. Sure, I had to provide links to blog editors Hannah Fink and Miriam Herschlag (“Fink n’ Herschlag”…I can’t decide if that sounds like a wacky sitcom or a position from the Yiddish Kama Sutra). So, I provided them with links detailing my revisionist activities, my book, and my Taki’s Magazine columns, all in the name of honesty and full disclosure (if I was going to lose this gig, it wouldn’t be because I lied on my application).

I was approved. My first op-ed was pummeled by trolls (“He’s a denier! He’s a denier! Burn ‘im, he’s a warlock!”), but the Times stuck with me. The second piece was blessedly free of troll comments. Both pieces garnered hundreds and hundreds of shares, likes, retweets, etc. I thought to myself, “I might just be able to keep this going for a few months.” I mean, my pieces were successful, they were pulling in readers, and the admins had approved me knowing my history. Plus, I liked the challenge of “toning down” my voice. My steady gig at Taki’s Magazine gives me the opportunity to speak my mind, uncensored. But with the Times, I enjoyed the game of “how revisionist can I make this without being too revisionist?”

Ah, but never underestimate the power and tenacity of my former “Friends of Abe” pals, the Hollywood conservatives who declared me Public Enemy #1 when they learned I had an opinion about Auschwitz. There are a good dozen of them out there who refuse to leave me alone, even as we approach the two-year anniversary of my “outing” (April 20th, a very important date: the birthday of Judith O’Dea, star of “Night of the Living Dead”). The passing years don’t matter. These tiny-brained furious folks are still just as agitated and crimson-faced in anger now as they were in 2013. Bottom line – on Friday I picked up some “chatter” that something was going down with the Angry Abes, and by Monday my Times of Israel page had been scrubbed cleaner than Howard Hughes’ hands after touching a hobo. My bloggers password was revoked, and I was permanently barred from the site.

Blog editor Miriam Herschlag was blunt when I requested an explanation:


I learned about you only after you joined our blogs. Your contributions are not welcome on The Times of Israel and your blog has been deleted.

The decision is final and I have nothing more to add.


My Republican former-buddies had won a victory. Amazingly, a few of them continued to brag on their Facebook pages about how “brave” they are for opposing leftist censorship, while actively seeking to ban my work from the public sphere. One of them even still has “Je Suis Charlie” as his profile pic!

I’m not going to lie. I enjoy the fact that I still make the Abes angry. And I like the fact that they continue to attack me, because it validates a hatred against them that I don’t want to let go of. It’s a comforting hatred. It’s what Elie Wiesel called (in a different context) “healthy, virile hate.”

As long as the Angry Abes continue to come after me, I can allow myself this hate without being troubled by the fact that I’m still holding on to it. These people took everything from me, everything I’d built up in my life, and they have since gone out of their way to attempt to continually ruin me at every turn. It’s not a matter of them winning – I’m smarter than they are, and I’ve gotten past much worse. It’s that I don’t want to be through with them yet, and they oblige me by not being through with me either. So I enjoy being able to parry their continued advances. It’s like a workout; it keeps the anger from bottling up.

Look, I never claimed to be Gandhi (although I do admire his disdain for shirts).

I’m expecting a complaint or two from my readers that this post has focused more on the Angry Abes than the Times of Israel. Well, I’m not going to feign shock or surprise that the Times editors acted exactly as I assumed they would when their feet were put to the fire. What I find more interesting, as an overall story, is the level of blind, unreasonable wrath that basic, reasonable historical revisionism has provoked in a supposedly “rational” group of Hollywood Republicans (comprised of people who are Jewish and non-Jewish).

Not to mention the proof this episode provides of the simple truth that “free speech”-loving conservatives will resort to exactly the type of censorship and bullying they decry in the left…you just have to strike the right nerve.

The Times of Israel acted exactly as I expected The Times of Israel to act. I could make a rather cogent point about the irony of the Times censoring an essay about free speech, but my regular readers get the humor without me having to say anything. However, if you want to say something to The Times of Israel, by all means do!

Miriam Herschlag: miriam@timesofisrael.com

Hannah Fink: hannah@timesofisrael.com


Censored Piece #1: “Can the Jews Survive Free Speech?” (view cached version)

There exists, in many Jews individually, and in the Jewish community as a whole, an internal struggle, a civil war of sorts, between two very basic and fundamental Jewish instincts: the impulse to be civil libertarians, and the desire for self-preservation.

In law, in government, in the media, Jews have always been a loud and unapologetic voice for basic human rights such as free speech (arguably, in my opinion, the most fundamental human right). But when Jews feel threatened, and where the law allows (as in Canada and most of Europe), there has been a tendency to demand governmental protection in the form of laws that punish “hate speech.”

Free speech versus “protection.” We see this debate raging full force in Western Europe these days, especially in France, as anti-Jewish incidents, predominately carried out by Muslims, are on the increase. Typical of the duality I described above, in the past few months I’ve seen individual Jews, and Jewish organizations, band together to chant “Je Suis Charlie,” while at the same time demanding the prosecution of people who make anti-Semitic comments or deny the Holocaust.

Needless to say, some Muslims call out the hypocrisy. And they’re not entirely wrong, although there is hypocrisy on their end as well, as many of Europe and Canada’s Muslims, in the name of prosecuting “Islamophobes,” invoke the anti-speech laws that were in many cases initiated by Jews.

Anti-speech laws thus become a double-edged sword for Jews. Jews get the protection of the state, but so do other groups. Jews get to see Holocaust deniers thrown in prison, and Muslims get to take legal action against activists who favor restricting Muslim immigration, or who criticize Muslim crime or culture.

In the end, I’ve always believed that laws restricting speech do more harm than good for the Jewish community. They turn anti-Jewish fringe-dwellers into martyrs, they provide ammo for the propaganda of those who claim that Jews are controlling and conspiratorial, and eventually they become exploited by the very people Jews are supposedly trying to protect themselves against.

The “free speech vs. protection” debate among Jews is older than you might think. In the April 1947 issue of Commentary, distinguished legal scholar Milton Konvitz reviewed the book “An International Convention Against Anti-Semitism” by Mark Vishniak (Research Institute of the Jewish Labor Committee, 1946). And damned if the debate hasn’t changed one iota in seventy years. Vishniak argues that anti-Semitism can, and should, be kept down by law. Konvitz is skeptical. If the date on the magazine wasn’t 1947, I’d think I was reading the current issue.

Konvitz writes:

Dr. Vishniak sees the issue as one between the right of Jews to live a life of dignity and honor, and the right of persons to express their opinions of groups by written or spoken word. The right to honor and the right to free expression of opinion may clash. How is the conflict to be resolved?

“A citizen’s right to express his dislike of the Jews or other minorities,” says Dr. Vishniak, “and to single out for criticism their negative traits, is as inviolable in a democratic state as is, on the other hand, the undeniable right of the state to prevent and to punish actions at the point when they deprive individuals and groups of their rights, worth and dignity. We must look for and we must find a balance. It is no restriction of the freedom of speech, for example, to forbid a false cry of ‘fire’ in a crowded cinema.”

Konvitz is unconvinced. He makes two cogent points, one of which I’ve already voiced in more contemporary terms:

Dr. Vishniak would, I take it, support the Lynch Bill, which was considered in Congress in 1944. This bill provided that the criminal code be amended to declare non-mailable all written matter and pictures containing any defamatory and false statement which tends to expose persons, designated by race or religion, to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or tends to cause such persons to be shunned or avoided, or to be injured in their business or occupation. The American Jewish Congress sponsored the bill. On the other hand, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People opposed the measure because of their apprehension that enactment of the bill would lead to a stifling of free expression of grievances (grievances, e.g., of Negroes against white persons), and would impair the constitutional right of free speech and freedom of the press. To my mind, if one takes one’s position on the Constitution, then the ACLU and the NAACP are right, and the American Jewish Congress and Dr. Vishniak wrong.

In other words, the “Lynch Bill” could have been turned around and used to stifle what black Americans said about whites. Konvitz predicted the “turnabout is fair play” aspect of anti-speech laws back in the ‘40s, yet many Jews today seem shocked that Muslims have figured out how to use Jewish-backed anti-speech laws to their advantage. Only a fool couldn’t have seen that coming.

Konvtiz’s other cogent point is that these kinds of laws don’t work:

Dr. Vishniak’s book itself provides partial proof that legislation against group defamation is not the cure. The Criminal Code of the Soviet Union provides that incitement of national or religious enmity and disunity shall constitute a crime against the state. A person convicted of the crime may be sentenced to imprisonment for a period up to two years or, under certain circumstances, he may be sentenced to death by shooting. But the author admits that “the most recent news from U.S.S.R. testifies that the scourge of anti-Semitism has not disappeared.”

So even under threat of firing squad, anti-speech laws don’t work.

The time has come to lay this shopworn debate to rest. There are no decent arguments for imprisoning writers, artists, polemicists, pamphleteers, bloggers, historians, pseudo-historians, comedians, and street-corner agitators.

Jews are a people of history. Study the history of this debate, and you’ll see the overwhelming common sense of one side of it.

Jews are a people of faith. Have faith that yes, we can absolutely survive free speech.


Censored Piece #2: “American Jews and the Crisis of Bad Faith” (view cached version)

An October 2013 Pew Research Center poll delivered alarming news regarding the state of the U.S. Jewish community. Judaism as a religion, as a faith, is fading. One in five American Jews (22%) now consider themselves to be “Jews of no religion.” That number rises to 32% among Jews born after 1980.

Much has been written about that poll, but I’d like to address it from a perspective that’s uniquely mine. As a former Republican Party activist, and as a man who’s adult life is bookended by Holocaust research, I think I have a distinctive point of view on this subject.

It’s easy for atheists and secularists to jump for joy at the news that a non-religious form of Judaism seems on track to become the majority American Jewish belief system within a few decades. But before you break out the Penn Jillette party favors, it’s important to understand what the religious aspects of Judaism are being replaced with. It’s not worship that’s being rejected; it’s worship of God specifically. The desire to worship is still there, but the divine has been replaced with the temporal and vulgar. As the only human being ever dubbed a “meta-ideologue” (“an existentialist on a quest to understand how ideologues invent their realities,” according to Dr. Michael Shermer in the L.A. Times), if there’s one thing I understand, it’s that the urge to believe never goes away; it just gets transferred.

According to the Pew poll, a whopping 73% of all respondents believe that the single most “essential” thing about “being Jewish” is “remembering the Holocaust.” Coming in at 56% is “working for justice and equality.” “Observing Jewish law” limped in at 19%, and “believing in God” came in at 29%.

Why is this not good? Well, let’s start with that 56% “justice and equality” figure. In my years as a GOP activist, I saw Jews cling to the Democrat Party with a zealotry normally reserved for religion. In a lifetime of living in one of L.A.’s most heavily Jewish areas, I have never once been frowned upon or chewed out by Orthodox Jews for ordering crab legs or pork. Never. Not once. I’ve never been given a dirty look for driving on the Sabbath. Never. Not once. But being a Republican? Secular Jews have attacked me so many times for that, I’ve lost count.

“Social justice Jews” have replaced their faith in God with a faith in politics, which is, by extension, a faith in man, which is always a very bad idea. Politics is dirty, politicians are crooked, and this is coming from me, a die-hard partisan. If you’re looking to take all the fervor that might have otherwise gone into religious worship and direct it somewhere else, politics is just about the worst place you could put it.

Or is it?

That the Holocaust is now the defining factor for American Jews is something that experts in the field have dreaded, and warned against, for decades. Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt – no friend of mine – called it with impeccable foresight back in 1981, in Judaism: A Quarterly Journal (issue #119). Remember, this is thirty-four years ago:

Isolating the Holocaust from the historical continuum is, in measure, a problem of methodology and perspective and results in a misreading of history. It is dangerous, but not as insidious as the tendency among Jewish lay and religious leaders to use the Holocaust as a means of arousing feelings of latent Jewish identity. They “invoke” it and make it a code word for a series of Jewish experiences.

In these instances the Holocaust becomes a means of achieving communal cohesion and accelerating the process of identification. Not only is it exploitative of both victims and the Jew whose “conscience is being raised,” but it reinforces the historically inaccurate message that anti-Semitism and persecution are the glue that has bound the Jewish people together, and it is because of the ever-present threat of anti-Semitism that Jews must remain Jews.

Lipstadt saw it coming.

Among those who have reacted negatively to the increasing emphasis on the Holocaust have been members of the Orthodox community, who believe that the Holocaust is being used as a means of fostering lapsed tribalism … They (the Orthodox) already possess a myriad of positive symbols on which to rely and they reject the suggestion that Jewish suffering might serve as an agent for the maintenance of communal cohesion. When the Holocaust becomes the focal point for preservation of Jewish tradition, it is virtually transformed into a religious symbol.

Some Orthodox Jews contend that the Holocaust is used as a means of legitimizing a pre-existing denial of the existence of God. They argue that those who have already rejected the notion of a just and powerful Deity find the Holocaust a convenient means of rationalizing their decision. This argument is – at least in certain cases – correct.

Jews replacing God with the Holocaust. Jews using the Holocaust to justify their lack of faith. Jews turning the Holocaust into a secular religion. Say what you will about Lipstadt, but she nailed it…in 1981.

In 1994, “progressive” rabbi and author Michael Lerner was even more direct, in his book “Jewish Renewal:”

Israeli philosopher Adi Ophir predicted that eventually a Judaism will emerge whose primary focus is on the Holocaust. It would have its own commandments: “I am the Holocaust. Thou shalt have no other Holocausts before me. Remember the Holocaust and keep it holy.” His exaggeration highlights a tendency that has distorted Jewish life.

Lerner’s only mistake was in calling Ophir’s sardonic quote an “exaggeration.”

Just as in the case of the “Democrat Party is my God” Jews, I witnessed firsthand the intolerance of the “Holocaust is my God” Jews after I was “outed” in 2013 for my controversial Holocaust research in the early ‘90s. All of a sudden the rational secular Jews on the right, some of whom were among my closest friends, reacted with the same fanaticism as the Democrat Jews we used to collectively deride.

The greatest danger in turning any historical event into a religion is that no one is born with a pre-existing knowledge of history. People learn about history by reading the work of historians, and historians can be wrong. Yes, even the really good ones are fallible. If you make history your God, then by definition every historian becomes your pope, a vessel through which holy wisdom is dispensed.

Faith belongs to the divine. It has no place in politics, or in history. If you want to have faith, have faith in God. If you want to pretend you’re Penn Jillette, then be Penn Jillette and cast a skeptical eye toward all man-made institutions and ideologies, including politics and history.

Which brings me to a closing bit of hopeful news. In the Pew poll, following the Holocaust and “social justice,” 49% of respondents said that, to them, being Jewish means “being intellectually curious.” If Judaism as a faith is fading among young Americans, if the religious trappings of Judaism must be replaced by something, better it be intellectual curiosity than politics or the Holocaust. It might not be the best solution to the current crisis in Jewish spirituality, but, as my bubbe used to say, “you could do worse.”


14 Responses to “Times of Israel Scrubs Revisionist David Cole’s Work!”
  1. Guy says:

    As Gandhi said….. even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth!

  2. Greg Gerdes says:

    David “Mr. Physical Evidence” ( http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/5348 ) Cole/Stein:

    “So I enjoy being able to parry their continued advances. It’s like a workout;”

    Well David, if you call that a workout, you must be exhausted running away from the challenge to answer:

    The National Association of Forensic Historians – 40 Definitive Questions About 4 Dubious WW II Era “Huge Mass Grave” Sites (See The N.A.F.H. website at – http://nafcash.com/ – to view said questions.)

    Come on now David, we’re all still waiting for you to back up this statement of yours:

    “regarding my belief that the camps [Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka] were one-way stops for the majority of jews sent there, that I can prove with exceptionally strong evidence” ( https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8575&hilit=republican+party+animal )

    What are you waiting for David? (Do the questions have you stymied?)

    What are you so afraid of?

  3. Greg Gerdes says:

    David “Mr. Physical Evidence” ( http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/5348 ) Cole/Stein:

    “…if there’s one thing I understand, it’s that the urge to believe never goes away; it just gets transferred.”

    Yes David, you not only understand it – you live it.

    Your urge to believe in the Auschwitz and Majdanek, tall-tales has been replaced with your urge to believe in the Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka tall-tales.

    Since you lack the courage, integrity and character to answer – The National Association of Forensic Historians 40 Definitive Questions About 4 Dubious WW II Era “Huge Mass Grave” Sites (See The N.A.F.H. website – http://nafcash.com/ – to view said questions.), perhaps you can muster the courage, integrity and character to answer – The N.A.F.H. $74,000.00 Question:

    How many of the 74 so-called “huge mass graves” claimed to exist at Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka II can you prove – with the utmost certainty – contain the remains of at least 19 bodies?

    Now that shouldn’t be such a hard question to answer for a guy who fancies himself as “Mr. Physical Evidence.”

    What are you waiting for David?

    What are you so afraid of?

    Are you afraid that you will be exposed as a hypocrite and liar if you do?

  4. Billy says:

    If you want to get back at liberals then why not expose some of their most sacred icons such as the Roosevelts ?
    The book above demolishes the recent Roosevelt documentary on PBS by Ken Burns.

  5. Gordon Pratt says:

    The alleged murder of six million Jews (I do not use advertising slogans as names for historical events) is not about Jews. It is about camouflaging the Nazis who have taken over the western world.

    How do western leaders, Jewish or otherwise, who oppose free speech and equal rights, who rig markets to enrich their friends and who attack defenceless countries escape being identified as Nazis?

    Simply by redefining Nazism as Jew gassing. Constant and unending repetition of the extermination myth ensures the public never forgets Nazis are not the blow dried liars on our TVs, Nazis are people who gas Jews.

    The continued exploitation of historical Jewish suffering means that, for Jews, WWII never ended. Some Jews like this. Perhaps they secretly fear they are not good enough and need the public support implied by the status of official victim. Others wish dearly the whole problem would go away.

    The good news is it did go away a long time ago. The only reason ninety year old invalids are dragged into court in our time is for our criminal leaders to deflect criticism of their current behaviour.

  6. John Weston says:

    All we need is a public and free debate on the “Holocaust” and the Nuremberg Military Tribunals (described as Nuremberg Trials).
    Give us the forensic evidence and methods of how this industry of death was achieved while the fierce and devastating 24/7 World War was waged against Germany.

    • Aba says:

      It would be great but some people refuses to accept that history is a work in progress and must be revisited.
      It is a shame. Mass media is there to remember that the official version might not be questioned.

  7. stauffenberg says:

    I live on Westside. In 34 yr old attorney. Just learning about you recently and the whole revisionist thing. Neither nazi nor zionist. Always interested in hearing unorthodox viewpoints and facts. My buddy went to SC Film and I’m trying to interest him in a documentary about this whole 3rd rail

  8. Christine says:

    David Cole is a true hero, because he is passionate about the truth, and puts a lot of energy into disseminating whatever truth he has come upon.
    I would like to mention something that is possibly not known about internment camps. Many years ago, I was holidaying along the Murray River in northern Victoria, Australia, and I visited several graveyards from WW2 internment camps. I was shocked to see how many people had died. I suspect the people were isolated, but not brutalized or mistreated in any way, by the standards of those times.
    I think it would be a very useful exercise to juxtapose deaths in all WW2 internment camps, worldwide. I suspect the German capacity for keeping internees alive and healthy could easily exceed that of Australia. I am confident the deaths in Australian camps were unintentional. Australians had no experience with internment camps.

  9. Aba says:

    Hi David,

    I can imagine how you suffered because of your work.
    I’m an average person but just infuriated people just by saying I was reading David Irving and saying I was watching some videos about the Holocaust.

    Dear Lord! It is amazing that just mentioning that some “historical facts” might not have happened the way we were told is so problematic.

    Revisionist! Well, in my humble stupidity some fact have always sound strange to me and I always had feeling that something strange was in the horizon.

    It is forbidden to touch history and we have to buy whatever the official version says?
    Ok, 9/11 was a terrorist attack and Bib Laden was the one to blame.
    Everybody happy?
    Not me.
    Thank you for your work.

  10. King Minos says:

    What DELICIOUS irony. You Neocons spend all your time complaining about how WE leftists are anti-free speech(and, to be fair, I must admit that there are many of my fellow leftists that are) and “intolerant” but now YOU are on the receiving end of the intolerance of your fellow Neocons. The truth is that you people are only “brave” and “politically incorrect” when it comes to nice SOFT targets. That’s why you can POSE as “fiscal conservatives” when it comes to using American taxes to help Americans and yet approve of sending billions of American tax dollars to Israel every year. That’s why post WW2 Neocon “intellectuals” have been at the forefront of condemning WHITE GUILT with respect to former third world colonies while simultaneously and seamlessly also shamelessly push GOY GUILT when it comes to Israel. One of your fellow Neocons named Ben Shapiro has recently been getting his panties in an uproar over Trump. It’s comical….you help unleash this “politically incorrect” wright wing golem that you THOUGHT you could control and now it’s turning on you. A recent article on “Morgoth’s Report” sums it up nicely…

    “One of the problems Jews on ”The Right” have is to perform the juggling act of attacking Political Correctness while making sure their own ethnic group is shielded by a titanium like umbrella of social taboo and possible legal action if the gentiles get too uppity. It’s a boon for Zionist Jews to drip pearls of anti PC wisdom into the conservative mind, a mind which is literally dying for anything even resembling a release from the Marxist-Jewish infection of Political Correctness. It also serves a purpose, the more Hank in Alabama believes in a Muslim/Feminist alliance to take away his guns and freedom of speech while Islam invades the West, the more likely Hank is to send off Hank junior to die in the desert for Israel.  In order to perpetuate this narrative it is necessary to allow Islam to be pilloried relentlessly, we might also get some juicy articles about Black criminality which hint at race realism. In other words, the more Zionist leaning Jews on the Right have been throwing other protected groups under the bus for geopolitical gains and they have done this as being anti-Political Correctness, seemingly having forgotten why Political Correctness was invented. Shapiro now seems to be realising what his brethren on the Left could have told him from the start, once you allow the goyim a certain level of intellectual freedom it’s only a matter of time before they come after the people who took away that freedom in the first place. “

  11. PadaCore says:

    You may probably have that kind of memory from your own childhood: a kid that was presumably very smart, always in front of the teacher, always satisfying the teacher expectations, always putting the finger in the air and screaming loud “Me! Me! I know the answer!! Meeee!”. Occasionally, this same kid could denunciate his mates for doing this or that, what was not top-notch in the school rules or morals. He did so to get some good feed back from the teacher, for his own emotional retribution maybe.

    Well, this kid you wanted to slap in the face, is a perfect representation of the mediatic jewish people of today, imho.

    I live in France, I’ve no particular proudness of being an authentic “french man” with ++centuries of french ancestors and solid traditions or roots, I’m not valuing people on origins nor skin color. I value them to the inverse level of bad impact the can generate on the rest of nature.

    If you want to figure out this scale, from the best person, to the worst one, this could be:
    – 100%: A person with solid morals spending energy, physically, for the good of others
    – 70%: A person with solid morals spending energy, intellectuallty through books or speeches, for the good of others
    – 50%: A person doing nothing for others, nothing good but most importantly nothing wrong. Someone selfish standing on his own let say
    – 20%: A person arguing himself to be a 80-100%, but masquerading his actions for his own goals and selfish interests
    – 0%: A person willingly aiming at evil for others

    And damn, those popular jewish claim to be those 80-100% people, but they range in the 20% in real: intellecuals claiming for the journalism free speech indeed (“I am Charlie”), hence accepting the muslim religion to be made fun about (I agree with that, and that fun can be made with any religion and anything, but not with life and suffering, and I mean occidental or african or other animal species than humans, all life), but screaming like wet pussies as soon as another one claims front (media) jewish people are always thinking for their own little person, always complaining for their own problems (they take out history out of their pocket to help, any time, the sheriff star if you can find that funny).

    But those same jewish intellectuals have no problem with the capitalism mecanics and oppression it generates on much of the western populations. They know how to behave well-educated, they master the “political correctness”, they make and use money not to help those in need of, but to enforce their power at higher social scales.

    For a few years, we are spammed with huge TV propaganda, pretending jewish people feel in danger in France, that they are more and more willing to leave this country and go back to Israel. If they were behaving good to others, those mediatic ones (I insit on this subset), we would have compassion. Truth is that no one cares, except people hoping for a golden coin falling in their follower hands. And media will never say “Romanian people are unhappy in France and cannot get ends meet”: the jewish population have some top mediatic priority, and money and power is the obvious reason for it.

    Damn, France is a republic, and by definition supports no particular religion. History shew catholicism dominated in France and finally melt into culture, well it probably brings some unequality towards other religions as of now, and I regreat that lack of fair play for religious people, but deal with it: a republic would at best extinguish catholicism to flatten the ground, but would certainly not rise other religions to the same level.

    Now we’re more than pissed off by all this so called “news”, where a journalist interviews a jewish pretending to be assaulted in the street (one was publicly condemned for having lie) in super unusual ways. A normal problem in the street, in here, would be an insult, a bad word, a punch in the head or a knife in the worst drunk situation. And to drive your mind a little further, there is some stupid and flat sad piano notes and music starting in the background, to tell you, in front of TV, that “now” is the moment you should feel emotion and compassion for what you see on screen. Damn, those people driving the world must have had a pretty dry childhood, to get into such pathetic sympathy surgery.

    But no, the jewish agression facts “must” be bigger, all must be better, bigger than you, when it comes to jewish people : a few monthes ago, a teacher in Marseille, south of France, was allegedly assaulted in the street. This time seemed real. But media made a great bunch out of it: “A muslim ran on him with an axe, for no reason! He had his ‘Tora’ religious book in his backpack, and the thickness of the book saved his life when the axe smashed in the holy millenary and wise paper!”. Ths story of the magic book protecting from death, you see what I mean? Damn, this was in public media, that kind of propaganda.

    And I don’t get why jewish people are behaving this way: being dishonest and slave-friendly in the economical field, hypocrite in the intellectual one, and spamming people with the jewish sadness and shame for ages you all wiil still be responsible for in 1 000 years if mankind is still there. “waterproof” you know, it’s written on the watch.

    Think again of the perfect child with selfish intentions I described at first, and understand how this is similar, and how the more those mediatic cries go on, the more people get angry. And laws will enforce nothing about that for the true change of the situation: being pissed off by this is all “natural”. Or prove me wrong, I love to compare views.

    So, I wish influent and front jewish people could be as humble as standard people are. One friend at work has jew origins, and he’s nothing similar to those mediatic and hungry evil ones. And it’s already a pain in the ass having to justify myself that “I’m not racist”, just because I dare to say that mediatic jewish people are constantly trying to get all lights and favor on them. This is no brotherhood, this is no equality, this is no republic way of life.

    Excuse my english, I hope ideas presented here are understandable as well. It being agreedable is another topic.

  12. PadaCore says:

    As well, could you bring me some insights on this topic:

    In the power/money/influence fields of society, many jewish people are involved. I hold this for a fact. This seems true worldwide. However, jewish people initially appeared in Israel I believe.

    Similarly, consider american, swedish, polish or any country people: probably some of them flew to other countries and made their life in there, probably a few of them climbed the social ladder that high. But there is most probably nothing as much significant and consistent that what is observed with jewish people.

    Nature probably did not gave additional super abilities to particular monkeys located in “that” very geographical location, now called Israel, so that many centuries later, they would become masters of mankind.

    Consequently, how is that possible for jewish people to be originated from a single place, as it is for every country, then spread all over the world and countries in such a way to be consistantly involved in the top levels of those societies anywhere?

    Side-note: I’m not at all in the Illuminati and UFO stuff, this question is all as much serious as it can be.

    My idea is that money has no country, has no origin nor belong. Consequently, a lot of those people holding the power roles in our societies would pretend to be jew, but are not. Saying “I’m jew” in this social context would be some kind of badge, of proof of good understanding and cooperation: “We understand the world the same way, we aim at the same achievements, we can work together”.

    But I’m not very confident in this idea.

    What is yours?

Leave A Comment