PDA

View Full Version : RIP Eustace Mullins




rpindy
02-03-2010, 12:12 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xEw_wnCvE_0/RYSHq0a0_sI/AAAAAAAAAKA/aQ4iimwKVIQ/s400/eustace_mullins.jpg

http://www.barruel.com/federal-reserve.jpg

Legendary historian Eustace Mullins dies

Legendary author of hundreds of books and pamphlets demolishing the lies of warmaking mainstream media, historian Eustace Mullins died Tuesday, Feb. 2nd, 2010 at the home of his caretaker in a small town in Texas.

Mullins, who would have been 87 in March, suffered a stroke three weeks ago in Columbus, Ohio. He had been on an extended tour of his admirers for much of the past year, visiting and chatting with many of his thousands of fans who jumped at the chance to buy his books from him in person.

The author of such incendiary books as “Secrets of the Federal Reserve,” “Murder by Injection,” and “The Curse of Canaan,” Mullins was harrassed by the FBI for almost a half century, and had one of his books burned in Germany in the 1950s. These stories are recounted in one of his books, “A Writ for Martyrs.”

A protege of the imprisoned patriotic poet Ezra Pound, Mullins compiled a well-researched corpus of works that detailed the passage down through time of a hereditary group of banker killers who have essentially ruled the world from behind the scenes since ancient times.

“Eustace Mullins was the greatest political historian of the 20th century, and not just because he was not beholden to the power structure that deters candid reports about significant events, but because, guided by the greatest poet of the 20th century who was imprisoned for broadcasting for peace, his meticulous research eventually uncovered virtually every political secret of the last 400 years,” said Internet essayist John Kaminski of Mullins’ passing.

“It’s a pity so many people are afraid to believe what Mullins told them, because it was much more of the truth than has ever been seen in our schools or our media,” Kaminski added.

Funeral arrangements and appropriate memorial information have yet to be released.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustace_Mullins
http://www.whale.to/b/mullins_h.html
http://foems.multiply.com/
http://johnkaminski.info/




Video: Eustace Mullins presents: The World Order Duration: 98 minutes
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...57907453201814

Eustace Mullins argues that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, drafted by Paul Warburg and others in a secret meeting, defies Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 5 of the US Constitution by creating a "central bank of issue" for the United States. Mullins goes on to claim that World War I, the Agricultural Depression of 1920, the Great Depression of 1929, and Adolf Hitler's rise to power were brought about by international banking interests in order to profit from conflict and economic instability. Help support the producer of this video by purchasing the original on DVD.

Eustace Mullins is also in the Video below. This is a GREAT introductory video for people just starting to learn about the evils of Zionism, as you can pass it on to your friends with out fear of ridicule.

Video: The Monopoly Men: The Distant Murmuring of a Secret Government (Duration 47 minutes)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9387341337020#

The Patriot community, who are fighting a defensive war against Zionism and the Federal Reserve, just lost one of our all time greatest soldiers. Eustace Mullins will be missed.

YumYum
02-03-2010, 12:48 PM
Thank you rpindy for sharing. Eustace Mullins could have been another Hemingway. He could have enjoyed fame and fortune, but he chose to be true to himself. He was a great man.

erowe1
02-03-2010, 01:07 PM
Oh brother.

You're not another one of the trolls who came over here from Stormfront, are you rpindy?

YumYum
02-03-2010, 01:11 PM
Oh brother.

You're not another one of the trolls who came over here from Stormfront, are you rpindy?

erowel1....why would you insult rpindy in such a way? Repent! He/she is giving credit where credit is due.

Bruno
02-03-2010, 02:31 PM
erowel1....why would you insult rpindy in such a way? Repent! He/she is giving credit where credit is due.

Probably because of this "The Patriot community, who are fighting a defensive war against Zionism and the Federal Reserve"

and that erowe1 has been around long enough to have seen it happen before

erowe1
02-03-2010, 02:34 PM
Probably because of this "The Patriot community, who are fighting a defensive war against Zionism and the Federal Reserve"

and that erowe1 has been around long enough to have seen it happen before

It's not just that. But also, Mullins was notoriously antisemitic, not just anti-zionist and anti-fed.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 02:35 PM
It's not just that. But also, Mullins was notoriously antisemitic, not just anti-zionist and anti-fed.

Bullshit.

rpindy
02-03-2010, 02:37 PM
erowel1....why would you insult rpindy in such a way? Repent! He/she is giving credit where credit is due.

It's unfortunate, but a lot of them share a lot of the views that we do and turn legitimate issues such as the Federal Reserve and Zionism into anti-Semitic rants, and threaten to defame our message. I actually do have a friend who posts there that posted a similar thread in Newslinks, but mentioned things I felt were inappropriate (such as "German Jew banker" before Paul Warburg) so it's a fine line we walk on. I have no problem with Whites who want to live on their own or avoid miscegenation (since it destroys diversity), but group blame is not acceptable.

However if one places blame only on what is hurting our nation, such as a interventionist foreign policy (Zionism) and a private company printing our money (Fed), and blames everyone supporting them and not just one group such as Jews, we can bring a fringe movement back into a legitimate expose of the problems of this nation and be a guidebook to solving them.

erowe1
02-03-2010, 02:38 PM
Bulls--t.

No?

Did he not write this?

http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com/2009/06/biological-jew-pt-1-by-eustace-mullins_20.html

erowe1
02-03-2010, 02:39 PM
It's unfortunate, but a lot of them share a lot of the views that we do and turn legitimate issues such as the Federal Reserve and Zionism into anti-Semitic rants, and threaten to defame our message. I actually do have a friend who posts there that posted a similar thread in Newslinks, but mentioned things I felt were inappropriate (such as "German Jew banker" before Paul Warburg) so it's a fine line we walk on. I have no problem with Whites who want to live on their own or avoid miscegenation (since it destroys diversity), but group blame is not acceptable.

However if one places blame only on what is hurting our nation, such as a interventionist foreign policy (Zionism) and a private company printing our money (Fed), and blames everyone supporting them and not just one group such as Jews, we can bring a fringe movement back into a legitimate expose of the problems of this nation and be a guidebook to solving them.

Sounds like I jumped to a conclusion.

If this is where you're coming from, then I don't have a problem with it.

I'd be careful about Eustace Mullins, though. He fit much more in the kind of category you said you're not.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 02:43 PM
No?

Did he not write this?

http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com/2009/06/biological-jew-pt-1-by-eustace-mullins_20.html

If the truth hurts, feel free to writhe in pain.
Thanks for the link, I intend to read Mullins' works all day today and perhaps even for the rest of the month.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 02:44 PM
Sounds like I jumped to a conclusion.

If this is where you're coming from, then I don't have a problem with it.

I'd be careful about Eustace Mullins, though. He fit much more in the kind of category you said you're not.

You're beginning to fit into the category of Ben Stein.

erowe1
02-03-2010, 02:45 PM
If the truth hurts, feel free to writhe in pain.
Thanks for the link, I intend to read Mullins' works all day today and perhaps even for the rest of the month.

Fine. Just don't pretend he's not an anti-semite. And if you are convinced that what he writes is the truth, don't pretend you're not one either.

erowe1
02-03-2010, 02:46 PM
You're beginning to fit into the category of Ben Stein.

Oh really? Please define "anti-semitic" for me in a way that doesn't include the views of Eustace Mullins.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 02:48 PM
Oh really? Please define "anti-semitic" for me in a way that doesn't include the views of Eustace Mullins.

How about you define anti-semitic so we can all get a grasp on what might not offend you.

erowe1
02-03-2010, 02:50 PM
How about you define anti-semitic so we can all get a grasp on what might not offend you, .

How about "prejudiced against Jews"?

rpindy
02-03-2010, 02:51 PM
Sounds like I jumped to a conclusion.

If this is where you're coming from, then I don't have a problem with it.

I'd be careful about Eustace Mullins, though. He fit much more in the kind of category you said you're not.

Okay, I can respect that. I know there is a lot of paranoia here since a lot of WNs have posted here in the past.

Some of their newslinks are good, although they are shedding their "Neo-Nazi" image with the successes of Ron Paul and the Tea Parties. Although the fact that the head of SF gave $500 to RP's campaign did not make major headlines, I believe the MSM thought promoting SF was worse than any benefit they would get defaming RP, so they did not make much of a stink about it.

It might also be worth noting that many famous people such as Henry Ford and the non-interventionist Charles A. Lindbergh were anti-Semitic, the latter of which was shunned from his own America First Committee after he "named the Jew." We have to remember this and not let just anyone into our ranks, especially those speaking for and representing us.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 03:07 PM
How about "prejudiced against Jews"?

More like "Anyone the Jews Hate", these days.
The truth will set you free.

erowe1
02-03-2010, 03:12 PM
More like "Anyone the Jews Hate", these days.
The truth will set you free.

Nice trick. So now because some people make the charge of anti-semitism too lightly, now it can't ever mean anything anymore or ever be a legitimate charge against anyone, no matter what they say.

Or, we can disregard the false charges of anti-semitism, and apply it accurately to those who are prejudiced against Jews, and Eustace Mullins is still guilty as charged.

Seriously, you're the one who said he wasn't an anti-semite. I really want to know, what definition of "anti-semitic" could you be using that somehow does not apply to Eustace Mullins?

And just what truth is it that you think will set me free? The "truth" that Jews are biologically programmed to be parasites?

LibertyEagle
02-03-2010, 03:15 PM
Come on guys. Leave the fighting up to MsD and I. :p

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 03:20 PM
Nice trick. So now because some people make the charge of anti-semitism too lightly, now it can't ever mean anything anymore or ever be a legitimate charge against anyone, no matter what they say.

Or, we can disregard the false charges of anti-semitism, and apply it accurately to those who are prejudiced against Jews, and Eustace Mullins is still guilty as charged.

Seriously, you're the one who said he wasn't an anti-semite. I really want to know, what definition of "anti-semitic" could you be using that somehow does not apply to Eustace Mullins?

And just what truth is it that you think will set me free? The "truth" that Jews are biologically programmed to be parasites?


When you muddy the waters with inconsistent accusations, this is the price you pay.
If you don't like it, strive to fix it.
If you do like it, continue to muddy the waters.
Anyone the Jews Hate is the new definition of Anti-Semitic.

erowe1
02-03-2010, 03:27 PM
When you muddy the waters with inconsistent accusations, this is the price you pay.
If you don't like it, strive to fix it.
If you do like it, continue to muddy the waters.
Anyone the Jews Hate is the new definition of Anti-Semitic.

What inconsistent accusations are you talking about. I'm not Ben Stein.

Eustace Mullins was an anti-semite. You can't get around that. And the fact that you're working so hard to avoid actually defending him tells me you know that.

There are still 2 questions on the table for you if you're man enough:
1) What definition of "anti-semitic" would not apply to Eustace Mullins? Recall that you are the one who claimed he wasn't.
2) What truth were you referring to in those posts, about the truth that hurts and the truth that will set me free? Was it the "truth" that Jews are biologically programmed to be parasites? Don't dance around it now. Come out and say what you mean.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 03:31 PM
What inconsistent accusations are you talking about. I'm not Ben Stein.

Eustace Mullins was an anti-semite. You can't get around that. And the fact that you're working so hard to avoid actually defending him tells me you know that.

There are still 2 questions on the table for you if you're man enough:
1) What definition of "anti-semitic" would not apply to Eustace Mullins? Recall that you are the one who claimed he wasn't.
2) What truth were you referring to in those posts, about the truth that hurts and the truth that will set me free? Was it the "truth" that Jews are biologically programmed to be parasites? Don't dance around it now. Come out and say what you mean.

How about I just start copy - pasting the link you supplied me with and allow you to show me where he is spreading a falsehood or writing anything hateful whatsoever?

Would you like to start from the top and work our way down paragraph by paragraph?

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 03:32 PM
Chapter one: The parasite

I'll edit this post to include the text and you go through it and show us the hate, OK? Quote away whenever you are ready.


Most of us think of a parasite as something distasteful, whose role in life is to feed at the expense of someone else. As a result, the term, when applied to humans, is always one of disgust. In the animal and plant kingdoms, also, the parasite is universally disliked. The Oxford English Dictionary (1933) defines the term.

"Parasite–

1. One who eats at the table, or at the expense of, another; always an opprobrious application.

2. Biol. An animal or plant which lives in or upon another organism (technically called its host) and draws its nutriment directly from it.

3. (fig.) a person whose part or action resembles that of an animal parasite.


Thus we find that a parasite is one who is disliked, who feeds at the expense of another, and who lives in or upon another organism which is called the host. We also find that the term can be applied to a person whose life follows the classic life pattern of the parasite.


Now, in the study of mankind, we find that there is one group or classification of persons who appear persistently in the records of the great civilizations. They are always disliked, yet they remain in the midst of the people who dislike them, and if they are driven out, they insist upon returning, no matter at what cost to themselves. We also find that they always manage to live at the expense of others.


The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines parasitism as follows:

"Parasitism ~ a one-sided nutritive relationship between two organisms of different kinds, a relationship which is more or less injurious, yet not usually fatal, to the host; a relationship, moreover, that relieves the parasite from most of the activity or struggle which is usually associated with procuring food, and thus tends to favour or induce some degree of simplification or degeneracy."


In the record of many civilizations, we find that the presence of the parasitic group is in many instances fatal to the host people, because it effects fundamental changes in the life pattern of the host people, and diverts their primary energies to the feeding of the parasites.


This alteration affects every aspect of the host people’s existence, and inevitably weakens them to the point where they are destroyed.


Since the Encyclopaedia Britannica refers above to a purely biological parasitic condition in the animal and the plant kingdoms, it is true that the parasitic relationship can be injurious without being fatal, over a period of time, yet even in these instances, we find many examples of plants and animals being killed by parasites, a fact which apparently was not known to the learned scholar who authored the authoritative Encyclopaedia Britannica article on this condition.


We find, too, that the parasitic group is continually denounced by the more moral elements among the host people, because the parasitic group indulges in every known type of degeneracy. The reasons for this are obvious.


As the Encyclopaedia Britannica article points out, a parasitic existence leads to degeneracy. Since the parasite does not have to trouble himself with the active procurement of food, he has plenty of time and energy to devote himself to the vilest pursuits, and to the debauching of members of the host people.


The Encyclopaedia Britannica also paragraphs an important factor in the present study, the localization of the parasite within the host. The Britannica article points out that,

"Parasites are often localized to a particular site within the host."


Since the parasite has reduced its life aims to one goal, that of remaining upon the host and feeding at its expense, it must choose a location where this is possible. The location must be one from which the host cannot readily dislodge it, and it must be one which allows the parasite to feed without exertion. As a result, the parasite usually chooses a place in or near the reproductive organs or the excretory organs of the host.


Throughout history, the parasitic group has chosen to localize itself near the reproductive or the excretory organs of the host. In most cases, this has meant settling in the great cities of the host people, although, in nations which were primarily agricultural, the parasitic group managed to disperse itself among the villages.


Webster’s Third International Dictionary defines the parasite as "2a ~ an organism living in or on another living organism, obtaining from it part or all of its organic nutriment, and commonly exhibiting some degree of structural modifications.



THE ABILITY TO MODIFY


This is an important characteristic of the parasitic group in the history of mankind. It has exhibited an amazing ability to change or to modify itself in order to achieve its parasitic goal. It has developed extremely refined techniques for remaining upon the host, and sophisticated methods of continuing to feed at the host’s expense. It has adopted many guises, and it has shown a tremendous amount of adaptability for appearing in various forms, in order to remain in place.


To continue with Webster’s Third International Dictionary ~

"Parasite 3. Something that resembles the biological parasite in dependence upon something else for existence without making a useful or adequate return (illus. the great city is a parasite on the country ~ Francois Bondy)."


This is the last important key to the solution of our problem, the decay of human civilization. The parasite depends on something else for existence without making a useful or an adequate return. Throughout our study of history, we find that the parasitic group never makes any return or shows any gratitude for being allowed to feed upon the host. The parasite motto is "always take." Should we be surprised, then to find that this motto actually appears in the written literature of a known parasitic group?


We now ask the reader ~ what group appears and reappears in the history of one civilization after another? What group has always been actively disliked by its host peoples? What group has played an often decisive role in the decay and collapse of one civilization after another? What group indulges in every type of degeneracy?


What group always localizes to certain positions among the host peoples? And what group refuses to fulfill a constructive role in any civilization, but instead, remains true to its motto of "Always take," while refusing to make a useful or an adequate return?



KNOWN AS THE JEWS

ernie1241
02-03-2010, 03:32 PM
Nice trick. So now because some people make the charge of anti-semitism too lightly, now it can't ever mean anything anymore or ever be a legitimate charge against anyone, no matter what they say.

Or, we can disregard the false charges of anti-semitism, and apply it accurately to those who are prejudiced against Jews, and Eustace Mullins is still guilty as charged.

Seriously, you're the one who said he wasn't an anti-semite. I really want to know, what definition of "anti-semitic" could you be using that somehow does not apply to Eustace Mullins? And just what truth is it that you think will set me free? The "truth" that Jews are biologically programmed to be parasites?


Birch Society official Donald Gray informed American Opinion Bookstores as far back as February 1966, that there were certain authors whose publications should NOT be recommended or sold by Birchers and that included:

"...most of the books and pamphlets with an anti-Semitic flavor which we omit from our booklist (that) are not of sufficient value in substance or scholarship to rise above the level of anti-Semitic invective or propaganda. Frankly, in our opinion, this applies to most of the books or pamphlets by Marilyn Allen, Richard Cotten, Myron Fagan, Kenneth Goff, Wickliffe Vennard, Eustace Mullins, Gerald L.K. Smith, Robert H. Williams, and Benjamin Freedman."

And the current JBS President, John McManus, responded to Mullins' fabrications about Robert Welch and the Birch Society as follows:

"Before the Murder By Injection book had come to the attention of anyone on the staff of the Society, the monthly newsletter "Criminal Politics" had published the above charges as if they were truthful. A letter was sent to the Cincinnati office of this newsletter setting the record straight. The newsletter's editor sent the JBS-issued letter to Mullins who promptly responded with a threatening letter to the JBS official who wrote it insisting that the corrections of the charges he made in Murder By Injection were "prima facie evidence of an intent to injure and defame me."

And Mullins added: "You are hereby placed on notice that I intend to file suit on your vicious and underhanded smear attack against me and my work."

All this for calmly and accurately defending the Society and Robert Welch from completely false charges. Lawyers for JBS immediately advised that the threat issued by Mullins was merely a scare tactic that would not be carried out and should be ignored. ...

Mullins has frequently complained that the Society has "blacklisted" him and his books. He should hardly be surprised that JBS isn't about to endorse him and his works after he issued such defamatory nonsense about the Society and its Founder. In truth, Robert Welch who had read some of Mullins' publications before being attacked by the man had never wanted anything to do with Mullins, including not recommending any of his books. If others found value in the man's work, that was their decision. Even before Murder By Injection, JBS had a policy of refusing to review or distribute anything produced by Eustace Mullins. That decision had been made because the man's works were not considered reliable. This is still JBS policy.

John F. McManus, President, The John Birch Society,
April 8, 2008

More details about Mullins background at:
http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/mullins

erowe1
02-03-2010, 03:43 PM
I'll edit this post to include the text and you go through it and show us the hate, OK? Quote away whenever you are ready.

So you edit the text, carefully removing the anti-semitic parts, and then ask me to prove it's anti-semitic from your edited text. And if I can't then that means the original text itself, including the anti-semitic parts you edited out is also not anti-semitic?

Really? That makes sense to you?

For the sake of anyone gullible enough to base their judgment on your censored version, here's another part of Mullins essay "The Biological Jew," which you conveniently left out.

We now ask the reader ~ what group appears and reappears in the history of one civilization after another? What group has always been actively disliked by its host peoples? What group has played an often decisive role in the decay and collapse of one civilization after another? What group indulges in every type of degeneracy?

What group always localizes to certain positions among the host peoples? And what group refuses to fulfill a constructive role in any civilization, but instead, remains true to its motto of "Always take," while refusing to make a useful or an adequate return?

This group, as the reader may have already surmised from his own studies, is known throughout history as the Jews.

To the Admins: When is Dieseler going to be banned? This trash has been a recurring problem here, and he's repeatedly been one of the culprits.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 03:49 PM
So you edit the text, carefully removing the anti-semitic parts, and then ask me to prove it's anti-semitic from your edited text. And if I can't then that means the original text itself, including the anti-semitic parts you edited out is also not anti-semitic?

Really? That makes sense to you?

For the sake of anyone gullible enough to base their judgment on your censored version, here's another part of Mullins essay "The Biological Jew," which you conveniently left out.


To the Admins: When is Dieseler going to be banned? This trash has been a recurring problem here, and he's repeatedly been one of the culprits.

I'm copying and pasting directly from the link YOU provided, exactly as the text appeared.

erowe1
02-03-2010, 03:50 PM
I'm copying and pasting directly from the link YOU provided, exactly as the text appeared.

And skipping the incriminating parts. What I quoted is also directly from that link. Notice how you didn't provide that quote.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 03:53 PM
And skipping the incriminating parts. What I quoted is also directly from that link. Notice how you didn't provide that quote.

This is the link you provided, please give the paragraph number in which I skipped. I will put it in. I am making no attempt to deceive anyone as this is the first time I have read this material myself.http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com/2009/06/biological-jew-pt-1-by-eustace-mullins_20.html

I started at chapter 1

I double checked, I have left nothing out from chapter one until where I left off.
YOUR LINK.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 04:01 PM
I won't move forward until you show me what I skipped.
Paragraph by paragraph.
Just as I said.
I'm a lot of things but a liar is not one of them.
Have you perhaps made a mistake in your accusation?

erowe1
02-03-2010, 04:02 PM
This is the link you provided, please give the paragraph number in which I skipped. I will put it in. I am making no attempt to deceive anyone as this is the first time I have read this material myself.http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com/2009/06/biological-jew-pt-1-by-eustace-mullins_20.html

I started at chapter 1

I double checked, I have left nothing out from chapter one until where I left off.
YOUR LINK.

I already quoted the paragraph. I don't know or care what number it is. It's the paragraph where he reveals that everything he says up to that point about parasites, including everything in what you copied and pasted, is really about the Jews.

I don't know why you're still bothering to argue about it. It's right there. I quoted it. Case closed.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 04:04 PM
I already quoted the paragraph. I don't know or care what number it is. It's the paragraph where he reveals that everything he says up to that point about parasites is really about the Jews.

Because you are wrong.
I have not gotten to that paragraph yet.
I'll continue now.

erowe1
02-03-2010, 04:06 PM
Because you are wrong.
I have not gotten to that paragraph yet.
I'll continue now.

What are you doing? Taking 5 minutes to read and then copy it one paragraph at a time?

What's the point? I already showed the quote? What more is there to debate?

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 04:08 PM
What are you doing? Taking 5 minutes to read and then copy it one paragraph at a time?

What's the point? I already showed the quote? What more is there to debate?

Like I said, paragraph by paragraph.
Dispute anything you see as an untruth on the part of Mullins'.

erowe1
02-03-2010, 04:10 PM
Like I said, paragraph by paragraph.
Dispute anything you see as an untruth on the part of Mullins'.

Sure. There is no race of people, Jewish or otherwise, where simply being a part of that race makes a person a parasite, complete with all the qualities of parisitism you are quoting from Mullins and attributing to the Jews.

Do you disagree?

Out with it. Go ahead. Get yourself banned, please. I don't know how you have managed to stay here this long.

Also, you know you can copy and paste much longer sections at a time right?

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 04:14 PM
Sure. There is no race of people, Jewish or otherwise, where simply being a part of that race makes a person a parasite, complete with all the qualities of parisitism you are quoting from Mullins and attributing to the Jews.

Do you disagree?

Out with it. Go ahead. Get yourself banned, please. I don't know how you have managed to stay here this long.

Also, you know you can copy and paste much longer sections at a time right?

I'm quite aware that I could copy and paste most likely the entire thing all at once.
Context is the key however and if that portion you so choose to call Anti Semitic is taken out of context then you are allowed to prove your point due to just that.
However when taken in its entirety and in context,
You fail to make the man a liar.
Show me a lie.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 04:15 PM
Sad as it is...
Show me a lie.
Fuck anti Semitic, show me a lie.

Ban me if you want mods,
It would probably be in my best interest if you did. Probably yours to but I won't pull a Kludge.

erowe1
02-03-2010, 04:23 PM
show me a lie..

Sure. That's easy. After giving that lengthy description of parasites, he says that's what the Jews are.

You agree that that's a lie right? Yes or no?

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 04:25 PM
Sure. That's easy. After giving that lengthy description of parasites, he says that's what the Jews are.

You agree that that's a lie right? Yes or no?

It's a comparison and a telling one at that.
A lie?
No.

Why not do something to repair the problem rather than decry every man who shines a light upon it?

erowe1
02-03-2010, 04:30 PM
It's a comparison and a telling one at that.
A lie?
No.

It's not a comparison. He describes what he calls a social parasite and then says, the group that he's describing is "the Jews." There's nothing telling about it. It's a flat out lie. And it is clearly anti-semitic.

erowe1
02-03-2010, 04:31 PM
Why not do something to repair the problem rather than decry every man who shines a light upon it?

How is applying a series of slanderous charges to all Jews without any evidence shining the light on some problem?

By pointing out what Eustace Mulliins and you are doing here, I AM repairing the problem.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 04:35 PM
How is applying a series of slanderous charges to all Jews without any evidence shining the light on some problem?

By pointing out what Eustace Mulliins and you are doing here, I AM repairing the problem.

Well alright then.
Let us continue.




KNOWN AS THE JEWS

This group, as the reader may have already surmised from his own studies, is known throughout history as the Jews. Prior to the present study, human individuals or groups living at the expense of others were often called parasites, but this term was used purely in a sociological sense, without any biological point of reference.


Plantation owners were said to be parasites because they lived at the expense of their slaves, aristocrats were said to be parasites because they lived at the expense of the masses, armies were said to be parasites because they lived at the expense of the workers.


But, in every case, the supposed parasites were performing certain duties and fulfilling certain responsibilities in the society. Thus we find that in the purely sociological sense, it is possible to name many groups as parasitical, such as children and those who are too old to work. They are certainly feeding at the expense of others, performing no useful work, and making no adequate return.


But these groups either have done useful work in the past, or they are expected to do so in the future. Thus, they do not fall within the accepted framework of the biological definition of a parasite. Throughout this work, we will find that the biological references hold true to an amazing degree, in establishing the history and the presence of a parasitical group, and that in every instance, the records of the Jews prove that they are fulfilling the role of biological parasites.



OTHER BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS


In nature, we find that the parasite often attempts to disguise its parasitic life cycle, and to appear to be like ordinary plants and animals. Thus, a description of the biological plant, Krameria, in "The Conditions of Parasitism in Plants," by D. T. Macdougal and W. A. Cannon (Carnegie Institute of Washington, 1910):


"The Western United States desert bush Krameria is parasitic on a number of woody hosts. Krameria does not at first glance seem to be a parasite, for it does not grow directly upon its host, but its roots reach out beneath the ground and tap the roots of its host, drawing nutriment there from. Its favorite host is Covillea tridentate, although it is also parasitic on the acacia and a number of other plants. Its condition of parasitism was discovered after scientists were puzzled that it had no deep-going tap root. It is a grayish shrub, bearing fruit and leaves at certain seasons of the year."


The parasite in nature often finds it convenient to disguise itself and its aims, and to convince others that it is something else, in order to carry out its parasitic mission. Also, the parasite is not a species, but a form of life, which preys upon many other different species. In this regard, the Jew as a biological species is not so much a race, as it is a type which preys upon all other races. As Geoffrey LaPage points out, in his definitive work, "Parasitic Animals" (Cambridge University Press, 1951, page 1),

"A parasitic animal is not a particular species of animal,

But an animal which has adopted a certain way of living."


In regard to Krameria’s failure to develop a deep tap root, which is not necessary for its parasitic existence, we may note that the Jew never develops deep roots in any culture of a host people, but confines himself to the most superficial and the most quickly profitable aspects of its existence.


Therefore, a Jew is not so much a particular species in the civilized world, as he is a type which has adopted a certain form of parasitic life and adapted himself to exist upon a host which can provide his food.


LaPage continues,

"Unlike many other biological terms, the word parasite and its adjective parasitic have been taken into the every day language of men and women, and have, in the course of common usage, acquired emotional and moral connotations with which science ~ and therefore biology ~ has nothing whatever to do.


The biologist’s outlook is scientific, and because it is so, he does everything in his power to remove from his studies all human likes and dislikes and all human moral judgments. He neither despises nor admires, likes or dislikes, condemns or approves the parasitic organism. He studies it, its way of living as dispassionately as he can, seeing parasites as one of the various ways of living practiced by different kinds of animals."

Brooklyn Red Leg
02-03-2010, 04:37 PM
How about "prejudiced against Jews"?

Is not what Anti-Semitic means. Semites are an ethnic group that includes people who are religiously Jewish, Samaritan, Muslim, Christian, Atheist and Zoroastrian (I may have missed one or two others, not sure). To say that Anti-Semitic means 'prejudiced against Jews' is to equate Jewish with Ethnicity, which it is not. Judaism is a religion, not an ethnic group.

What I find most ironic is the claim that Palestinians (who are a Semite branch) are somehow Anti-Semitic when they protest against Israel (a Nation-State).

erowe1
02-03-2010, 04:44 PM
Is not what Anti-Semitic means.


Yes, antisemitic does mean "prejudiced against Jews."



Semites are an ethnic group that includes people who are religiously Jewish, Samaritan, Muslim, Christian, Atheist and Zoroastrian (I may have missed one or two others, not sure). To say that Anti-Semitic means 'prejudiced against Jews' is to equate Jewish with Ethnicity, which it is not. Judaism is a religion, not an ethnic group.

What I find most ironic is the claim that Palestinians (who are a Semite branch) are somehow Anti-Semitic when they protest against Israel (a Nation-State).

You're referring to an archaic usage of the word, I believe.

Antisemitic in current usage definitely does mean prejudiced against Jews.

But if you want to insist that that's not a legitimate usage of the word, then fine. Whatever word you want to use for someone who's prejudiced against Jews, that's what Eustace Mullins and Dieseler are.

Also, I never said anything about Palestinians or anyone else being antisemitic for protesting against the nation-state of Israel.

CharlesTX
02-03-2010, 04:47 PM
Is not what Anti-Semitic means. Semites are an ethnic group that includes people who are religiously Jewish, Samaritan, Muslim, Christian, Atheist and Zoroastrian (I may have missed one or two others, not sure). To say that Anti-Semitic means 'prejudiced against Jews' is to equate Jewish with Ethnicity, which it is not. Judaism is a religion, not an ethnic group.

What I find most ironic is the claim that Palestinians (who are a Semite branch) are somehow Anti-Semitic when they protest against Israel (a Nation-State).

Very true and ironic indeed. I have several Semitic friends from various parts of the Middle East and North Africa who are not of the Jewish faith that always complain about this. Why was the term Semitic solely owned and propagaded in the MSM as belonging to those who are Jewish?

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 04:48 PM
Should the writings and works of Eustace Mullins' be banned?

heavenlyboy34
02-03-2010, 04:51 PM
Is not what Anti-Semitic means. Semites are an ethnic group that includes people who are religiously Jewish, Samaritan, Muslim, Christian, Atheist and Zoroastrian (I may have missed one or two others, not sure). To say that Anti-Semitic means 'prejudiced against Jews' is to equate Jewish with Ethnicity, which it is not. Judaism is a religion, not an ethnic group.

What I find most ironic is the claim that Palestinians (who are a Semite branch) are somehow Anti-Semitic when they protest against Israel (a Nation-State).


This is exactly right. I was going to post this earlier, and I thank you for doing it. As wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic)correctly notes, "The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern Semitic-speaking peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites."

erowe1
02-03-2010, 04:52 PM
Should the writings and works of Eustace Mullins' be banned?

Banned from where?

If you mean banned from expression on somebody else's private property, then no.

If you mean should the admins ban those views from expression on this forum. Then yes, since forum guidelines explicitly prohibit racism.

Dieseler, I notice you came here in mid-December, right about when that spate of other anti-semites came here as part of an obviously organized group. Most if not all of them were members of Storm Front. Were you part of that group? Were you sent here by Trey Grayson (http://treygrayson.info) to discredit us? At any rate, wherever you came from, if you want to spew antisemitism, there are other places you can do that, and you know that. So why don't you just go back to wherever it is you do that.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 04:52 PM
Continuing.



THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH


We agree whole heartedly with Professor LaPage's admonition to be completely scientific and to follow the resolve not to be swayed by emotional judgments. It was precisely by this method of dispassionate study that this writer arrived at his definition of the biological Jew.


Only by studying him unemotionally as a biological phenomenon can we hope to learn how to combat the maleficent influence which the parasitic body inevitably exerts upon the more advanced human civilizations.


LaPage points out that we find, in general, two kinds of animal associations, those who belong to one species, such as herds, colonies of coral, communities of bees, etc., and two, associations of different species in the same area. To this second category, parasitism belongs, for we find groups with roots in an area entertaining parasites who have no roots in that area.


One of the more interesting facets of parasitism is that the parasite lives an existence which often goes beyond the customary laws of nature and of man. The parasite seems not to be bound by limiting factors of climate, geography, and other elements which play a commanding role in the lives of most groups. Thus we find that a parasite can survive in an area in which it has no roots, while its host does have roots in the area and has established its existence there over a period of time.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 04:52 PM
Banned from where?

If you mean banned from expression on somebody else's private property, then no.

If you mean should the admins ban those views from expression on this forum. Then yes, since forum guidelines explicitly prohibit racism.

Dieseler, I notice you came here in mid-December, right about when that spate of other anti-semites came here. Were you part of that group? Were you sent here by Trey Grayson (http://treygrayson.info) to discredit us?

December of 2007, :D

I have a pretty good history of fairness and also in speaking out against racism on this board. I'm not always right and when I find out that I've unfairly attacked someone I Always apologize and admit that I was wrong.

Continuing.



NOT COMMENSALISM
COMMENSALISM = the relation between two different kinds of organisms when one receives benefits from the other without damaging it

LaPage also remarks that parasitism is different from commensalism, a frequently-encountered biological term which means "eating at the same table." He cites as examples of commensalisms, the ox-picker birds which perch upon the backs of rhinoceros, elephants and other large animals on the African plains. These birds not only eat ticks, lice and other parasites which infest the animals, but they also warn the animals of approaching danger.

erowe1
02-03-2010, 04:57 PM
For those who think it's a misnomer for me to use the word "antisemitic" about prejudice against Jews, here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antisemite

But again, that doesn't really matter. Whatever you think would be a more appropriate word to use for prejudice against Jews, feel free to use that word instead. Whatever label you want to use for prejudice against Jews, that's what Eustace Mullins was, and what Dieseler is.

erowe1
02-03-2010, 04:58 PM
December of 2007, :D


Never mind. I looked at your old posts, and the oldest was from Dec. 22, 2009. But it only goes back to your last 1,000 posts.

erowe1
02-03-2010, 05:00 PM
I'm not always right and when I find out that I've unfairly attacked someone I Always apologize and admit that I was wrong.

Then admit that you're wrong for saying all Jews are parasites.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 05:04 PM
Then admit that you're wrong for saying all Jews are parasites.

I never said it. :D
I'm so happy that you and I are getting the opportunity to read this together.

Continuing.



NOT COMMENSALISM
COMMENSALISM = the relation between two different kinds of organisms when one receives benefits from the other without damaging it

LaPage also remarks that parasitism is different from commensalism, a frequently-encountered biological term which means "eating at the same table." He cites as examples of commensalisms, the ox-picker birds which perch upon the backs of rhinoceros, elephants and other large animals on the African plains. These birds not only eat ticks, lice and other parasites which infest the animals, but they also warn the animals of approaching danger.


In England, we find that starlings and sheep have a similar commensal arrangement. We also have the phenomenon of symbiosis, a biological term meaning "living together."


This is a somewhat more intimate living arrangement than commensalism, because we find in symbiosis a physiological dependence of each partner upon the other. Each one supplies some food to the other without which life would be more difficult, or even impossible, and neither lives an independent life.

4.5 Southern Iran, be back in a few, this could be atomic, never know!

erowe1
02-03-2010, 05:04 PM
I never said it. :D



You said that Eustace Mullins was telling the truth when he said it, so, yes, you did.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 05:08 PM
You said that Eustace Mullins was telling the truth when he said it, so, yes, you did.

This is what I said,


It's a comparison and a telling one at that.
A lie?
No.

Why not do something to repair the problem rather than decry every man who shines a light upon it?

erowe1
02-03-2010, 05:10 PM
This is what I said,

Exactly. So you said he was telling the truth in charging that all Jews are parasites.

Do you now say that's not true?

Go ahead. I'm giving you a chance to clarify your position if you're man enough.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 05:15 PM
Exactly. So you said he was telling the truth in charging that all Jews are parasites.

Do you now say that's not true?

Go ahead. I'm giving you a chance to clarify your position if you're man enough.

Once again, I challenged you to show me a lie.
Would it not be subjective to the reader as to whether one might discern what I have posted from Your Link so far as a Lie?
I think it would be.

That's twice you have called me a liar on top of calling me trash.
In all fairness I did call you a dipshit though, so no worries. :D
Carry on.


Continuing.


Parasitism, however, is defined by LaPage as similar to commensalism and symbiosis in that the association is based upon the need for an adequate food supply. He states that parasitism is an association between one partner, called the parasite, which obtains, by a number of different methods, its food from the body of the other partner, which is called the host of the parasite.


But, asks LaPage, does the other partner, the host, benefit? He answers that it never does. The host is always injured by the parasite. Thus parasitism differs from commensalism and symbiosis in two particulars; first, not both, but only one of the partners, the parasite, gains a food supply, and second, not both, but only one of the partners benefits, while the host always suffers some injury.

erowe1
02-03-2010, 05:17 PM
Once again, I challenged you to show me a lie.

That's easy. The claim that Jews by nature exhibit all those features that Mullins uses to define a parasite is a lie. We could go down them one at a time, and each and every one is a lie. And Mullins doesn't even bother to make the slightest attempt to substantiate any of them.

Do you repudiate what he says or not? I've answered your challenge repeatedly. You're not man enough to answer mine.

You either agree with him or you don't.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 05:23 PM
That's easy. The claim that Jews by nature exhibit all those features that Mullins uses to define a parasite is a lie. We could go down them one at a time, and each and call each and every one a lie. And Mullins doesn't even bother to make the slightest attempt to substantiate any of them.

Do you repudiate what he says or not? I've answered your challenge repeatedly. You're not man enough to answer mine.

You either agree with him or you don't.

I do not repudiate anything I have said in this thread.
Subjectively in my opinion Mullins' is making a very fair comparison.
Call me what you will, I do not give a shit. :D
I will wait for you to bump over the page before I continue.
Once again, I am so happy that you and I are getting the opportunity to read this together.

No bump?
Ok,
Continuing



MODIFICATION OF THE ORGANISM


LaPage conjectures that the first parasite may have been a non-parasitic organism which penetrated by some route the body of another kind of animal, and found some food there, such as blood, which was rich in nutrition and easily digestible, and that, in the course of evolution, the descendants of this first parasite liked this way of life, and maintained such an association with some other animal.


Eventually, these types became wholly dependent upon parasitism as a way of obtaining food and could not survive without following it. Thus it became an "obligatory parasite," completely dependent physiologically upon its host. As LaPage points out, the host does not tolerate passively this association with the parasite, but reacts to the injury which it is suffering. He says,

"The struggle between host and parasite went on according to the laws of evolution, and this battle is constantly being waged today.


Parasitism is quite different from the relationship of prey and predator, in which one body gets its nourishment by killing and absorbing the body of another. Here the predator is always larger and stronger than its prey, while the parasite is always smaller and weaker than its host."


VIOLATES NATURE


Thus we find that here once more the parasite violates a fundamental law of nature. It is a law of nature that the stronger survives at the expense of the weaker, the survival of the fittest, as the weaker is eaten to provide nourishment for the strong. In the phenomenon of the parasite, however, we find that the weaker survives at the expense of the stronger, the least fitted to survive becomes the victor, and the stronger is vanquished.


This too is a fundamental aspect of the life cycle of the biological Jew. Throughout history, he has always been smaller and weaker than his gentile host, yet he has often managed to subdue him. The puny weakling, as celebrated by the Jewish comedian Charlie Chaplin, always manages to outwit and to defeat his larger and stronger gentile opponent.


We find that this celebration is a fundamental approach in all Jewish humor, literature and art. The small David is shown defeating the larger Goliath, the cunning Mordecai is shown defeating the stronger gentile official, Haman. David, of course, is the small parasite, and Goliath is the large host, who is struck down from afar, before he has a chance to use his superior strength against the weakling challenger.

YumYum
02-03-2010, 05:36 PM
erowe1...I stand by you that I do not believe that all Jews are part of a conspiracy. But I do know for a fact that there is a conspiracy to take control of the world, and this conspiracy is led by Jews. I talked to my great uncle about this in length, and he admitted to me what is going on. It blew my mind! If you study Mullins you will find that the Jews attacked him first. He didn't even know what a Jew was till they burned his books in Germany. I am not a parasite, and I will take offense of anyone calling me that, but I do not understand why Israel is taking $30 billion of taxpayers money every year. Do you think we should continue to give Israel this welfare when America is going bankrupt?

erowe1
02-03-2010, 05:43 PM
Do you think we should continue to give Israel this welfare when America is going bankrupt?

Absolutely not. And like I said, I have no problem with anyone who wants merely to express opposition to zionism, foreign aid, globalism, or central banking. Eustace (together with cronies of his, such as Dieseler) does more than that, as you can see in his pamphlet, "The Biological Jew."

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 05:53 PM
I hate no man on this Earth.
To forgive completely would be my greatest wish now and on that day that I die.
Shine the light upon me.
Call me a liar, trash and a crony.
I follow no man living and fail miserably in following my Savior yet I will love truth above all things.
Shine the light upon me and my faults Lord for all to see.
Shine the light upon us all.
Shine the light.

Brooklyn Red Leg
02-03-2010, 06:02 PM
You're referring to an archaic usage of the word, I believe.

Antisemitic in current usage definitely does mean prejudiced against Jews.

No, that's how its been twisted.


Also, I never said anything about Palestinians or anyone else being antisemitic for protesting against the nation-state of Israel.

Nor did I say you did so. However, there have been numerous people who have publicly called Palestinians and others who protest against Israel 'Anti-Semitic'. Like I said, I find that wholly ironic considering Palestinians are a Semitic group.

YumYum
02-03-2010, 06:03 PM
Absolutely not. And like I said, I have no problem with anyone who wants merely to express opposition to zionism, foreign aid, globalism, or central banking. Eustace (together with cronies of his, such as Dieseler) does more than that, as you can see in his pamphlet, "The Biological Jew."

But would you not agree that his attacks on Jews was because they attacked him first? I have to laugh when I read "The Biological Jew", becuase it is absurd. On the other hand, we Jews do make fun of Christians when we are alone. We don't always put down Gentiles, but Christians are the butt of our jokes. I am glad that I am on this forum. You guys have helped me to come closer to Jesus, whom I adore. I appreciate you sticking up for Jews, but to be honest, I think we bring a lot of our misery on ourselves. I am here to change that.

Bruno
02-03-2010, 06:15 PM
erowe1...I stand by you that I do not believe that all Jews are part of a conspiracy. But I do know for a fact that there is a conspiracy to take control of the world, and this conspiracy is led by Jews. I talked to my great uncle about this in length, and he admitted to me what is going on. It blew my mind! If you study Mullins you will find that the Jews attacked him first. He didn't even know what a Jew was till they burned his books in Germany. I am not a parasite, and I will take offense of anyone calling me that, but I do not understand why Israel is taking $30 billion of taxpayers money every year. Do you think we should continue to give Israel this welfare when America is going bankrupt?

I may have missed this, but who is your great uncle, and what did he "admit" to you?

YumYum
02-03-2010, 06:35 PM
I may have missed this, but who is your great uncle, and what did he "admit" to you?

My great uncle is a Zionist. But he is a good Zionist. He hates no one; in fact he works as a volunteer to help the homeless. What he told me is alarming because I never knew of anything on the order of what has been presented on the net. He told me that Jews are fed up being hated, and they are fighting back. He told me that the Israel conspiracy to control the U.S. is a fact and that the Jews in banking are funneling billions of dollars into Israel. He said that you fight back with the enemy, you don’t compromise. He thinks that once the Jews have control of the world that all Jews, including myself, will benefit. I disagree. I think any takeover of the world will create more anti-Semitism. My uncle doesn’t see it that way. I love him to death, and he is a good man, but he is delusional.

Bruno
02-03-2010, 06:38 PM
My great uncle is a Zionist. But he is a good Zionist. He hates no one; in fact he works as a volunteer to help the homeless. What he told me is alarming because I never knew of anything on the order of what has been presented on the net. He told me that Jews are fed up being hated, and they are fighting back. He told me that the Israel conspiracy to control the U.S. is a fact and that the Jews in banking are funneling billions of dollars into Israel. He said that you fight back with the enemy, you don’t compromise. He thinks that once the Jews have control of the world that all Jews, including myself, will benefit. I disagree. I think any takeover of the world will create more anti-Semitism. My uncle doesn’t see it that way. I love him to death, and he is a good man, but he is delusional.

That's interesting, thanks. Does he "know" something because he belongs to a certain high level organization and that information has been shared with him, or is this just his belief?

erowe1
02-03-2010, 06:42 PM
No, that's how its been twisted.


The meanings of words are determined by how those words are used. Those usages, and thus the meanings, can change over time. Call it "twisting" meanings if you will, but that's the way language is, and the way it always has been. "Antisemitic" does normally refer to prejudice against Jews today. The etymology of the word doesn't mitigate against the fact that that's how it is used, and thus that that's what it means.

But again, that's a side point. If anyone objects to using that word with that meaning, then fine, but it doesn't change the fact that such a thing as prejudice against Jews exists and Eustace Mullins exemplifies it.

erowe1
02-03-2010, 06:43 PM
But would you not agree that his attacks on Jews was because they attacked him first?

I don't know enough about him to know that.

YumYum
02-03-2010, 06:50 PM
That's interesting, thanks. Does he "know" something because he belongs to a certain high level organization and that information has been shared with him, or is this just his belief?

He is a muti-millioniare who is very much "on the inside". That is why I talked to him. He was a Chazzan in the Synagogue. He told me he always thought I was special and that he loved me. He is a good man. I may love him, but I don't agree with him.

Bruno
02-03-2010, 07:01 PM
Thanks, YumYum! ^

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 07:17 PM
May I quote you from another thread Yum Yum?
I see you are offline and I can't see a reason why you would mind so I'm just going to go for it.


I knew that he had recently suffered from some strokes, but I didn't know he died till you posted this, bobby. I don't think people realize the contribution he has made.
He was 25 years old when he wrote "Secrets of the Federal Reserve".
He worked for the Library of Congress and he had access to all their files.
His works were edited by the literary genius, Ezra Pound.
He never once mentioned “Jews” in his book, and yet he was called “anti-Semitic” back in 1955 for this book that exposed the Fed.
He also wrote a book about the New World Order in the 1950’s.
Everybody has ripped him off and they have not given him any credit for his works. He was a great man and he was brave and honest as a historian; a rarity today.
Does anybody on this board acknowledge his greatness?




I think what impressed me most about him is that he was innocent when he did his research on the Fed.
He idolized Ezra Pound, who FDR had thrown in an insane asylum, and Mullins went to vist him in 1948 when he graduated from college. He told Ezra that he worked for the Library of Congress.
Ezra asked him "What are you currently working on?" Mullins told him "A romance novel". "No you're not" said Pound", you're going to write a book about the Federal Reserve System, and I will help you."

Mullins had no clue what the Federal Reserve System was until he started his research.
He opened Pandora's box.
They burned his books in Germany, calling him anti-Semitic.
He wrote his book on the New World Order from the notes he got from the Library of Congress while researching the Fed. Ever since he wrote his books those references have disappeared from the Library of Congress.
Griffin could not have written his book on the Fed if it wasn't for Mullins.
Even Ron Paul has borrowed from Eustace Mullins.
People have no clue what a great man he was. This is sad news, but I hope his work was not in vein.
There would be no HR 1207 if it wasn't for Eustace Mullins.

YumYum
02-03-2010, 09:53 PM
May I quote you from another thread Yum Yum?
I see you are offline and I can't see a reason why you would mind so I'm just going to go for it.

I stand behind what I posted. Eustace Mullins was a great man who told the truth.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 09:56 PM
I stand behind what I posted. Eustace Mullins was a great man who told the truth.

Thank you Yum Yum.

YumYum
02-03-2010, 10:03 PM
Thank you Yum Yum.

No problem Dieseler. While there are some pretty shitty Jews in this world, I hope you would agree with me that there are some very good Jewish people. Let's go after the shitheads! What do you say??

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 10:22 PM
No problem Dieseler. While there are some pretty shitty Jews in this world, I hope you would agree with me that there are some very good Jewish people. Let's go after the shitheads! What do you say??


Absolutely.
That is the spirit of cooperation that I seek.
Absolutely!

YumYum
02-03-2010, 10:28 PM
Absolutely.
That is the spirit of cooperation that I seek.
Absolutely!

We are off to a good start. First of all, did you know that the bombing of the Marine's barracks in 1982 was done by Mossad? I know this because my dad knows the guy who blew them up! Can you believe that shit? If my dad knew that I posted this he would disown me. But I don't care. I want the truth.

Dieseler
02-03-2010, 10:40 PM
That's pretty heavy man.
Would you dare approach the Attorney General of the U.S. with that information?
I'm changing my name to Ben Bennet.
Notice I didn't quote you there, least that I could do.

Haha, on a lighter note, this reminds me of an old Israeli guy that was a friend of my Dad's. This old dude could destroy ball bearings in a rubber room with a rubber hammer. Anyway, Dad said he was sent over here by the Mossad to destroy every piece of equipment he run across in America. Jokingly of course, he was a good old guy.

Edit: Good Lord Almighty, I do not know what someone might have done to this fellow but one thing is certain, whoever you are, YOU PISSED HIM OFF THOROUGHLY.
I have read my way down into chapter II of this pamphlet and at times have caught myself almost at the point of tears from laughter. I even asked myself one time during reading, could this all just be perhaps a case of comic relief? I must say however that I doubt the intent was comedy.
Mr. Mullins was on a mission.
Despite the over the top comparisons that Mr. Mullins brings to the table one must also take into consideration the reasoning behind his unsavory and must I use the term Anti... No, I'm not going there lol.
I think Mr. Mullins must see something that a lot of other people, he felt do not see and somehow felt that vulgarity and shock value through comparison to parasites might somehow hit home to those who sleep among us... No, fuck that, Mr. Mullins must have been grinning madly as he wrote this, shall I say warning?
Extremely complicated financial documents indeed. Far too complicated for the average man to understand, far too complicated for me, I know that. Who has the time?
Will the International Bankers kill their hosts? Are those bankers similar to parasites in many ways?
Is there a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world through fiat domination?
Despite Mr. Mullins' harsh method in attempting to wake the masses, their is some reason to be alarmed, whether one be Jew or Gentile and even without his brutal nudge.
Something has no doubt been brewing for awhile and one would be naive to think that what has become of America lately is nothing more than an accident. The Jews scream never again and rightly so while the gentile masses of Imperial America scream what the Hell is going on? ... All the while they search frantically for someone to blame.
Anyone just might do.
Yes, I must admit, Mr. Mullins does seem to paint with a very broad brush when it comes to the Jews and If I were a Jew, Eustace Mullins would not be my favorite guy in the world.
If you're a gentile with beef on the other hand, consider this,
In the immortal words of William Milton Cooper...
Who sold it to them?

I am done with this thread now.
Thank you for being tolerant.
__________________