by GILAD ATZMON
History is commonly regarded as an attempt to produce a structured account of the past. It proclaims to tell us what really happened, but in most cases it fails to do that. Instead it is set to conceal our shame, to hide those various elements, events, incidents and occurrences in our past which we cannot cope with. History, therefore, can be regarded as a system of concealment. Accordingly, the role of the true historian is similar to that of the psychoanalyst: both aim to unveil the repressed. For the psychoanalyst, it is the unconscious mind. For the historian, it is our collective shame.
Yet, one may wonder, how many historians really engage in such a task? How many historians are courageous enough to open the Pandora Box? How many historians are brave enough to challenge Jewish History for real? How many historians dare to ask why Jews? Why do Jews suffer time after time? Is it really the Goyim who are inherently murderous, or is there something unsettling in Jewish culture or collectivism? But Jewish history is obviously far from being alone here: every people’s past is, in fact, as problematic. Can Palestinians really explain to themselves how is it that after more than a decade of struggle, they wake up to find out that their current capital has become a NGO haven largely funded by George Soros’ Open Society? Can the Brits once and for all look in the mirror and explain to themselves why, in their Imperial Wars Museum, they erected a Holocaust exhibition dedicated to the destruction of the Jews? Shouldn’t the Brits be slightly more courageous and look into one of the many Shoas they themselves inflicted on others? Clearly they have an impressive back catalogue to choose from.
The Guardian vs. Athens
The past is dangerous territory; it can induce inconvenient stories. This fact alone may explain why the true Historian is often presented as a public enemy. However, the Left has invented an academic method to tackle the issue. The ‘progressive’ historian functions to produce a ‘politically correct’, ‘inoffensive’ tale of the past. By means of zigzagging, it navigates its way, while paying its dues to the concealed and producing endless ad-hoc deviations that leave the ‘repressed’ untouched. The progressive subject is there to produce a ‘non- essentialist’ and ‘unoffending’ account of the past on the expense of the so-called ‘reactionary’. The Guardian is an emblem of such an approach, it would, for instance, ban any criticism of Jewish culture or Jewishness, yet it provides a televised platform for two rabid Zionist so they can discuss Arab culture and Islamism. The Guardian wouldn’t mind offending ‘Islamists’ or British ‘nationalists’ but it would be very careful not to hurt any Jewish sensitivities. Such version of politics or the past is impervious to truthfulness, coherence, consistency or integrity. In fact, the progressive discourse is far from being ‘the guardian of the truth’, it is actually set as ‘the guardian of the discourse’ and I am referring here to Left discourse in particular.
But surely there is an alternative to the ‘progressive’ attitude to the past. The true historian is actually a philosopher – an essentialist – a thinker who posits the question ‘what does it mean to be in the world and what does it take to live amongst others’? The true historian transcends beyond the singular, the particular and the personal. He or she is searching for the condition of the possibility of that which drives our past, present and future. The true historian dwells on Being and Time, he or she is searching for a humanist lesson and an ethical insight while looking into the poem, the art, the beauty, the reason but also into the fear. The true historian is an essentialist who digs out the concealed, for he or she knows that the repressed is the kernel of the truth.
Leo Strauss provides us with a very useful insight in that regard. Western civilization, he contends, oscillates between two intellectual and spiritual poles – Athens and Jerusalem. Athens — the birthplace of democracy, home for reason, philosophy, art and science. Jerusalem — the city of God where God’s law prevails. The philosopher, the true historian, or the essentialist, for that matter, is obviously the Athenian. The Jerusalemite, in that regard, is ‘the guardian of the discourse’, the one who keeps the gate, just to maintain law and order on the expense of ecstasies, poesis, beauty, reason and truth.
Spielberg vs. Tarantino
Hollywood provides us with an insight into this oscillation between Athens and Jerusalem: between the Jerusalemite ‘guardian of the discourse’ and the Athenian contender – the ‘essentialist’ public enemy. On the Left side of the map we find Steven Spielberg, the ‘progressive’ genius. On his Right we meet peosis itself, Quentin Tarantino, the ‘essentialist’.
Spielberg, provides us with the ultimate sanitized historical epic. The facts are cherry picked just to produce a pre meditated pseudo ethical tale that maintains the righteous discourse, law and order but, most importantly, the primacy of Jewish suffering (Schindler’s List and Munich). Spielberg brings to life a grand epic with a clear retrospective take on the past. Spielberg tactic is, in most cases, pretty simple. He would juxtapose a vivid transparent binary opposition: Nazis vs. Jews, Israeli vs. Palestinians , North vs. South, Righteousness vs. Slavery. Somehow, we always know, in advance who are the baddies and who are the goodies. We clearly know who to side with.
Binary opposition is indeed a safe route. It provides a clear distinction between the ‘Kosher’ and the ‘forbidden’. But Spielberg is far from being a banal mind. He also allows a highly calculated and carefully meditated oscillation. In a universalist gesture of courtesy he would let a single Nazi into the family of the kind. He would allow the odd Palestinian to be a victim. It can all happen as long as the main frame of the discourse remains intact. Spielberg is clearly an arch guardian of discourse – being a master of his art-form, he will certainly maintain your attention for at least 90 minutes of a historic cinematic cocktail made of factual mishmash. All you have to do is to follow the plot to the end. By then the pre-digested ethical message is safely replanted at the hub of your self-loving narcissistic universe.
Unlike Spielberg, Tarantino is not concerned with factuality; he may even repel historicity. Tarantino may as well believe that the notion of ‘the message’ or morality are over rated. Tarantino is an essentialist, he is interested in human nature, in Being and he seems to be fascinated in particular in vengeance and its universality. For the obvious reasons, his totally farfetched Inglorious Bastards throws light on present Israeli collective blood thirstiness as being detected at the time of Operation Cast lead. The fictional cinematic creation of a revengeful murderous WWII Jewish commando unit is there to throw the light on the devastating contemporary reality of Jewish lobbies’ lust for violence in their relentless push for a world war against Iran and beyond. But Inglorious Bastards may as well have a universal appeal because the Old Testament’s ‘eye for and eye’ has become the Anglo American political driving force in the aftermath of 9/11.
Abe’le vs. Django
What may seem as a spiritual clash between Jerusalemite Spielberg and Athenian Tarantino is more than apparent in their recent works.
The history of slavery in America is indeed a problematic topic and, for obvious reasons, many aspects of this chapter are still kept deeply within the domain of the concealed. Once again Spielberg and Tarantino have produced a distinctively different accounts of this chapter.
In his recent historical epic Lincoln, Spielberg, made Abraham Lincoln into a Neocon ‘moral interventionist’ who against all (political) odds, abolished slavery. I guess that Spielberg knows enough American history to gather that his cinematic account is a crude Zigzag attempt, for the anti slavery political campaign was a mere pretext for a bloody war driven by clear economical objectives.
As one may expect, Spielberg peppers his tale with more than a few genuine historical anecdotes. He is certainly paying the necessary dues just to keep the shame shoved deep under the carpet. His Lincoln is cherished as a morally driven hero of human brotherhood. And the entire plot carries all the symptoms of contemporary AIPAC lobby assault within the Capitol. Being one of the arch guardians of the discourse, Spielberg has successfully fulfilled his task. He added a substantial cinematic layer to ensure that America’s true shame remains deeply repressed or shall we say, untouched.
Needles to mention that Spielberg’s take on Lincoln has been cheered by the Jewish press. They called the president Avraham Lincoln Avinu (our father, Hebrew) in The Tablet Magazine. ‘Avraham’, according to the Tablet, is the definitive good Jew. “As imagined by Spielberg and Kushner, Lincoln’s Lincoln is the ultimate mensch. He is a skilled natural psychologist, an interpreter of dreams, and a man blessed with an extraordinarily clever and subtle legal mind.” In short, Spielberg’s Lincoln is Abe’le who combines the skills, the gift and the traits of Moses, Freud as well as Alan Dershowitz. However, some Jews complain about the film. “As an American Jewish historian, writes Lance J. Sussman, “I’m afraid I have to say I am somewhat disappointed with the latest Spielberg film. So much of it is so good, but it would have been even better if he had put at least one Jew in the movie, somewhere.”
I guess that Spielberg may find it hard to please the entire tribe. Quentin Tarantino, however, doesn’t even try. Tarantino is, in fact, doing the complete opposite. Through a phantasmic epic that confesses zero interest in any form of historicity or factuality whatsoever, he manages, in his latest masterpiece Django Unchained, to dig out the darkest secrets of Slavery. He scratches the concealed and judging by the reaction of another cinematic genius Spike Lee, he has clearly managed to get pretty deep.
By putting into play a stylistic spectacle within the Western genre Tarantino manages to dwell on every aspect we are advised to leave untouched. He deals with biological determinism, White supremacy and cruelty. But he also turns his lens onto slaves’ passivity, subservience and collaboration. The Athenian director builds here a set of Greek mythological God like characters; Django (Jamie Fox), is the unruly king of revenge and Schultz (Christoph Waltz) the German dentist turned bounty hunter is the master of wit, kindness and humanity with a giant wisdom tooth shining over his caravan. Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the Hegelian (racist) Master and Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) is the Hegelian Slave, emerging as the personification of social transformation. To a certain extent, the relationships between Candie and Stephen could be seen as one of the most profound yet subversive cinematic takes on Hegel’s master-slave dialectic.
In Hegel’s dialectic two self-consciousness’ are constituted via a process of mirroring. In Django Unchained, Stephen the slave, seems to convey the ultimate form of subservience, yet this is merely on the surface. In reality Stephen is way more sophisticated and observant than his master Candie. He is on his way up. It is hard to determine whether Stephen is a collaborator or if he really runs the entire show. And yet in Tarantino’s latest, Hegel’s dialectic is, somehow, compartmentalized. Django, once unchained, is clearly impervious to the Hegelian dialectic spiel. His incidental liberation induces in him a true spirit of relentless resilience. When it comes to it, he kills the Master, the Slave and everyone else who happens to be around, he bends every rule including the ‘rules of nature’ (biological determinism). By the time the epic is over, Django leaves behind a wreckage of the Candie’s plantation, the cinematic symbol of the dying old South and the ‘Master Slave Dialectic’. Yet, as Django rides on a horse towards the rising sun together with his free wife Broomhilda von Shaft (Kerry Washington), we are awakened to the far fetched cinematic fantasy. In reality, I mean the world out of the cinema, the Candie’s plantation would, in all likelihood, remain intact and Django would probably be chained up again. In practice, Tarantino cynically juxtaposes the dream (the cinematic reality) and reality (as we know it). By doing so he manages to illuminate the depth of misery that is entangled with the human condition and in Black reality in America in particular.
Tarantino is certainly not a ‘guardian of the discourse.’ Quite the opposite, he is the bitterest enemy of stagnation. As in his previous works, his latest spectacle is an essentialist assault on correctness and ‘self-love’. Tarantino indeed turns over many stones and unleashes many vipers into the room. Yet being a devout Athenian he doesn’t intend to produce a single answer or a moral lesson. He leaves us perplexed yet cheerful. For Tarantino, I guess, dilemma is the existential essence. Spielberg, on, the other hand, provides all the necessary answers. After all, within the ‘progressive’ politically-correct discourse, it is the answers that determine, in retrospective, what questions we are entitled to raise.
If Leo Strauss is correct and Western civilization should be seen as an oscillation between Athens and Jerusalem, truth must be said – we can really do with many more Athenians and their essentialist reflections. In short, we are in a desperate need of many more Tarantinos to counter Jerusalem and its ambassadors.
#1 by Thomas Lotts on February 18, 2013 - 9:16 pm
An outstanding piece by Gilad Atzmon which must be promulgated to all open-minded, clear-thinking, reality-living, freedom-loving, AIPAC/ Jewish Lobby/Rothschild Zionism-abhorring individuals. TUT has become one of my daily must reads.
Semper paratus Semper fortis Semper fi!
#2 by Harri Karri on February 18, 2013 - 9:55 pm
I honestly don’t know what the hell Atzmon is getting at calling Tarantino an “Athenian” – and I’ve taken more than enough lit and other liberal arts classes that I ought to know. This is the second movie that hack has made showing whites getting slaughtered by non-whites – so IMO he knows exactly what Hollywood is looking for – more race baiting. If he’d been true to history, the large scale slave owners would have been mostly Jewish, but financing for such an endeavor would have been very difficult to come by. Tarantino is a sellout and a shit stirrer, nothing more.
#3 by Duma on February 19, 2013 - 12:37 am
Excellent piece. Tarantino is much more than just the ‘comic book violence’. It’s no surprise that many of America’s great ‘Athenian’ directors, eg. Scorcese, Coppola, Leone, DePalma come from the Greco-Roman world.
#4 by Abdurrahman on February 19, 2013 - 11:22 am
@ Harri Karri, with regards to your claim that ‘the large scale slave owners would have been mostly Jewish’, that’s just a lie. Yes Jews had a role in the slave trade but the majority of the primary actors and slave owners were white Europeans. Do not use the Jewish issue to ‘white wash’ the crimes of Europeans. Historically you have to accept that what the Europeans did to the native Americans and the Africans is much worse than what the Jews have done to the Palestinians.
The reason Americans find it so hard to condemn the Jews is because they have done far worst, just ask any native American or Aborigine if you can find one.
#5 by Michael Mann on February 19, 2013 - 5:45 pm
@Abdurrahman: The slave trade was primarily a Jewish enterprise and the truth of that is revealed even by some Jewish historians.
It’s easy to verify who controls most of our media and that publishing articles on slavery and racism in America and producing race-baiting movies is among their favorite pastimes. It should surprise no one who is aware of this why there is never any mention of the Jew’s role in the slave trade. The truth that they so cleverly conceal is the fact that they were not only behind the transatlantic slave trade, but thoroughly dominated it. Even knowledgeable blacks are aware that the slave trade was primarily a “Jewish enterprise.” Back in 1992, the Nation of Islam published a book revealing this: “The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews.”
There are a number of books, many of them written by Jews, that reveal this dark secret:
“They came with ships carrying African blacks. The traffic in slaves was a royal monopoly, and the Jews were often appointed as agents for the Crown in their sale. They [the Jews] were the largest ship chandlers in the entire Caribbean region, where the shipping business was mainly a Jewish enterprise. The ships were not only owned by Jews, but were manned by Jewish crews and sailed under the command of Jewish captains.” – New World Jewry 1492-1825: Requiem for the Forgotten, by Seymour B. Liebman
Marc Lee Raphael’s “Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History”; Jacob Marcus’ “United States Jewry 1776-1985”; Solomon Grayzel’s “A History of the Jews From Babylon Exile to the End of World War II,” and Walter White’s book, “Who Brought the Slaves to America?” all document the role of Jews in the slave trade. Their control of the trade wasn’t just in North America, Jewish merchants also dominated it in all of the colonies of North America, France, Netherlands, and Great Britain.
Arnold Wiznitzer, in his book, “Jews in Colonial Brazil,” wrote, “The buyers who appeared at the auctions were almost always Jews, and because of their lack of competitors they could buy slaves at low prices.”
And it isn’t just in recent times that they have controlled this trade. The dominance of Jews in the slave trade goes back at least 2000 years: “The trade in slaves constituted the main source of livelihood for the Roman Jews.” (Funk & Wagnall’s The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, pg. 48)
The Jews’ view on slavery was shaped in large part by passages in the Bible, such as in Leviticus 25:44-46: “And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.”
So, any mention about slavery in the West that neglects to point out the Jew’s domination of it, or the fact that there were free Negroes who owned black slaves, or that Blacks in Africa not only practiced slavery themselves but sold their fellow blacks into slavery, or the fact that it was white Christians that brought an end to slavery in the West, really needs to be treated with suspicion since it puts the entire burden of this horrible institution on the “white man.”
#6 by Abdurrahman on February 19, 2013 - 6:24 pm
@ Michael Mann, I fully aware of the book produced by the ‘nation Islam’ The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews, but that book does not claim Jews dominated the slave trade but merely that they had a role. If you disagree please correct me.
I am fully aware that history is changed to suit the tribes agenda however, I am also fully aware that some other groups including whites throw their crimes on the Jews to absolve their sins.
I have to disagree with you, in all this mess not only the slave trade or the genocide of native Americans the white European has had a large part to play as they did in the establishment of Israel. I am not a racist (I am also a Caucasian) nor do I hold the sins of the father against the son but we have to acknowledge what is what.
#7 by Harri Karri on February 19, 2013 - 9:47 pm
Jewish Slave-Dealing in the United States
Jews were twice as likely to be slave owners as the average Southerner. Rabbi and historian Bertram Korn, the acknowledged expert on 19th-century Jews, wrote: “It would seem to be realistic to conclude that any Jew who could afford to own slaves and had need for their services would do so … Jews participated in every aspect and process of the exploitation of the defenseless Blacks.”
The very first Jewish communal settlement in the United States was a Florida sugar plantation supported entirely by the labor of dozens of enslaved Africans.
According to documents, when the earliest settlers in New York decided to enter the slave trade, they contacted “the jobbers and the Jews,” who were the recognized international dealers. The largest shipments of Africans arriving in New York in the first half of the 18th century were commissioned by Jewish merchants.
Jews owned slave pens where they warehoused Africans and sold them wholesale. They smuggled slaves to places where slavery was illegal, rented them when they did not want to buy, and bred African women for sexual purposes. Jews ran jails and imprisoned and punished Black slaves; they served as constables, sheriffs, detectives, and bounty hunters. Jewish peddlers traveling the countryside were known to search for and capture runaway slaves and bring them in for the bounty.
The founders of Richmond, Virginia’s Jewish community were all slaveholders. When slavery was outlawed in Georgia, Jews left; they returned only when slavery was reinstated.
In Newport, Rhode Island—the center of the rum and slave trade—every Jewish family owned Black slaves. Their synagogue was built by Black slaves “of some skill.” Of the 22 Newport distilleries serving the triangular slave trade, all were owned by Jews. American rabbis owned and rented slaves. The leading abolitionist organization bitterly complained that Jews “have never taken any steps whatever” against slavery.
rabbi_raphall04-20-2010.jpg
Rabbi Morris J. Raphall
The nation’s highest paid clergyman, Rabbi Morris Raphall of New York, defended slavery and claimed God Himself had sanctioned it. The one rabbi who forcefully attacked slavery, Baltimore’s David Einhorn, was thrown out of his own Jewish congregation and forced to flee the city.
The Jewish writer Mordecai Manuel Noah was such a virulent racist that the very first Black newspaper, Freedom’s Journal, was started in 1827 just to combat his racist attacks.
Jews helped to suppress slave uprisings and in 1831, Jews were involved in hunting down the great Nat Turner and his freedom fighters. More than 3,000 Jews fought for the slaveholders in the Civil War, and a Jewish owner of a 140-slave plantation, Judah P. Benjamin, was secretary of state for the Confederacy.
His picture is engraved on Confederate currency. Jewish bankers like the Erlangers financed the Confederacy. Benjamin financed the Ku Klux Klan after the war.
Jews willed Black humans from one Jewish generation to another, and sold Black babies away from their parents. One Jew stipulated in his will that the sale of his slaves should be used for his son’s Yale tuition. When their slaves grew elderly and infirm and were unable to work Jews “freed” them, forcing them to fend for themselves in their old age.
d.l.yulee04-20-2010.jpg
David Levy Yulee
The first Jew elected to the U.S. Senate, Florida’s David Yulee, was one of the most strident haters of Indians and defenders of slavery in American history. The distressing reality is that nearly all the Jewish slave dealers enjoyed prominent and honored places among their co-religionists. The profits from their slavery-based enterprises helped finance Jewish community development, built synagogues, homes, schools, businesses, and institutions, and in many untold ways enriched their lives and communities. Actually, one is hard-pressed to name a single prominent American Jew in the slavery era who did not own slaves or profit directly from Black African slavery.
In his 1983 book Jews and Judaism in the United States, Rabbi Dr. Marc Lee Raphael, the longtime editor of the most prestigious Jewish historical journal wrote in two paragraphs (p. 14) one of the more definitive statements on Jewish involvement in the Black Holocaust: “… Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the “triangular trade” that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and there exchanged them for molasses, which in turn was taken to New England and converted into rum for sale in Africa …”
Given the extraordinary history of Jewish involvement in the Black Holocaust, it is a wonder how any Jew could call any Black person “anti-Semitic.” But it gets worse—Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation didn’t stop Jewish merchants and traders from their oppressive ways during the Jim Crow and sharecropping era and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan.
For more information visit http://www.blacksandjews.com.
#8 by Joe on February 20, 2013 - 12:41 am
@ Harri Karri
With all due respect Judah Benjamin didn’t finance the KKK, as far as I know. Judah Benjamin fled to London when the Yankees took Richmond. As far as I know, Albert Pike, also a jew [ a jew satanist from Boston who moved down to New Orleans ] financed and started the KKK.
Also, this may be of interest to you and the readers : It was in Charleston.SC where the jew slave dealers started the B’nai B’rith and the ADL in the 19th century. Both serve as cover for the jew mob in the States.
Google : ” ADL + The Golden Circle + Whale.to”
There’s a long article about the subject [ it's in pdf ]. It’s worth the read.
The jews down South wanted a Golden Circle Empire. That’s how they referred to it. They wanted to break off from the North and join together with Mexico, Central America, the West Indies, and Brazil and have for themselves a giant slave/opium empire.
Albert Pike, Judah Benjamin, and the jews in Charleston,SC started the Confederate Secret Service to help foment the War Between The States. I guess they thought they could win the war and go on to have a Golden Circle Empire.
After losing, many jews high-tailed it to Wall St and Washington and started agitiating for empire from the North. They won a big victory with Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s was a Southern Bullock on his mother’s side. He was very much a golden circle boy. He gained the presidencey via the assassination of McKinley.
Google : ” Judah Benjamin + The Golden Circle + Whale.to”
” Albert Pike + Judah Benjamin + The Confederate Secret Service + Whale.to ”
” Judah Benjamin + August Belmont + Whale.to”
Whale.to is an excellent source of unabridged history.
Thanks for your post. I learned some things I didn’t know before. I appreciate it.
#9 by Michael Mann on February 20, 2013 - 2:51 am
A point that shouldn’t be missed in Spielberg’s and Tarantino’s fictional accounts of slavery in America is what the purpose behind them is. Like the many fictional accounts of the holocaust, Jew-dominated Hollywood continues to portray the slave industry as if it were a “white” invention, and in some cases at least tries to give the impression that slavery by whites was much worse than slavery by any other people. In the case of the holocaust, whites in America, Great Britain, and other countries in the West that were not involved in this fictitious slaughter are made to feel guilty for not having done more to stop it.
A favorite expression of Jews is, “We never forget, and we never forgive.” Elie Wiesel, in his book Legends of our Time wrote, “Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate – healthy, virile hate, for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German.” This is essentially the same attitude that Jews want blacks to have toward whites.
The accomplished deceivers that control what we see on TV and at the theatre treat us to frequent “documentaries” and movies that are aimed at keeping ignorant whites feeling guilty about an industry that only a small fraction of their people partook in, and help to keep ignorant blacks feeling like whites have a debt that they can never repay. The vengeful and merciless attitude that dwells in the Talmudist is skillfully instilled in unsuspecting blacks through the media, especially in the entertainment industry. The main purpose and effect has been balkanization.
To see an example of just how effective Jews are in the race baiting element of their grooming of many blacks check out the following clip of Jamie Foxx on Saturday Night Live, which was broadcast just before Tarantino’s Django Unchained was released:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/09/jamie-foxx-jokes-about-killing-all-the-white-people-in-new-movie-how-great-is-that/
#10 by Ingrid B on February 20, 2013 - 4:48 am
I suggest that when the jewish supremacists are finally rounded up, that they be made slaves of, and made to work in reparation of the countries which they have raped, and pillaged..
#11 by Harri Karri on February 20, 2013 - 5:10 am
Benjamin did in fact finance the KKK, see http://tinyurl.com/al74d5v
#12 by Harri Karri on February 20, 2013 - 8:45 pm
“I suggest that when the jewish supremacists are finally rounded up, that they be made slaves of, and made to work in reparation of the countries which they have raped, and pillaged..”
The Egyptians already tried that. The Jews twisted the story around to make it look as if Egyptians were the bad guys, and that story stuck for 5000 years.