If you don't understand the concepts, then you likely don't need to be here. I do think your comment was fully intended to become disruptive, and that you do understand enough of the Royalist UK connections to the Talmud religion to want to try to dupe the America people into underwriting all the bad concepts in the Jewish religion. Else, like most everyone with common sense on religions, they'd express reservations toward agreeing with the Talmud's hate for others.
That you appear to not recognize the Talmud's hate speech tells most you have a bias. So, where does this bias stem from?
If there are lots of Jewish factors in the JFK assassination, it is a factor in the discussions. The history of Europe is loaded with Jewish History, some good, some not so good. The Feudal system of Europe only allowed the Jewish Folks to be educated and learn to read and write. So, tell us why you'd like to not have that history told?
After all, isn't the whole UK concept based upon this same system of the Line of David kinship King and Queen supported by their Talmudist religion supporters. That is also part of history of Europe. Does history offend you too? Is too much truth and association offensive for you?
The US well knows about Canada's kinship to the UK and how much they are controlled by Talmudic religion concepts. The UK King and Queen own all the minerals in Canada and all their money has the King and Queen pictured. Somehow I don't get the idea Canada is free of UK control.
After all the entire King and Queen right to rule concepts stem from the Talmudic issue of Royal Linage from King David's line. Most of the Jewish know exactly why that came to be from the Talmud. Is that offensive to tell?
We also know the exact wording that leads to this Royal concept and it is hate speech in every sense. It tells that only Talmud followers are close to God, fit to lead others, everyone else are Beasts to be used. It speaks to factors like only Jewish believers are people and all others are Beasts or Animals. These is a whole lot of extremely hate oriented speech toward non-Jewish types in there and others all over the Internet speak to these hate speech concepts. But you don't? That your readings don't see those highly offensive issues toward the masses, tells us a lot about your "Council Against Discrimination". You appear to have a bias, an obvious bias. A Bias that the rest of the Internet doesn't seem to have in talking about all the Jewish issues.
I see that you claim to be on a "Council Against Discrimination", but your very actions of omission of these hate speech issues in the Talmud say that you appear more for discrimination and going against the very factors for which the American Colonists took up the Revolution and dumped the Royalist King and Queen of England, and wanted the US Govt. to be separate of religion.
Since you appear to be hear to speak out of both sides of your mouth on discrimination, trying to take up for the religion language that promotes Royal King and Queen methods, you can't be for the American system. Support of the Talmudic beliefs is the system of Royalist control and not Constitutional support.
It is my observation of you that you can't seem to see the hate speech in religion and are here to support concepts that go against America's Constitutiuon that dumped the Royalist games, gave everyone equal rights, and wanted sepatation of church and state to avoid these evil concepts from religion.
Since you appear to support all the Talmudic issues, you do appear to be content with calling non-Jewish people as Beasts and Animals, unfit for anything, and so on.
I'd say such support is un-American. IMHO
I don't think you'll find much support for going against America's Constitution, except for a few of the UK types that seem to promote the King and Queen ideals.
I don't find you to be on the level with your concepts of descrimination, nor this book focused on the bit part that Dave Ferrie had on the JFK assassination. This forum gets all kinds of authors trying to promote themselves and stirring up things and you appear to fit the mold.
Since I seem to get the idea that you are not here to contribute in a positive fashion, and you claim you can't grasp the issues, then perhaps there are other areas of the EF that fit your bias better.
It is very common for the disruption intending types to do exactly what you did, and it obviously was disruptive toward telling the PERMINDEX, Prince Bernhard, Bloomfield and other issues.
Since you say you don't grasp the issues in this thread, perhaps I question why are you here. Spend your time reading to catch up so you might understand the history of relgions, the European history, and so on. I don't get the idea that your quips are of value here, as they appear due to poor understanding of the history involved.
Edited by Jim Phelps, 01 October 2011 - 01:44 AM.