anti-Semitism Finland Finland and Israel Gideon Bolotowsky SALOLAINEN-GATE

HELSINKI JEWISH COMMUNITY COUNCIL CHAIRMAN GIDEON BOLOTOWSKY: SALOLAINEN SHOULD EXCHANGE MEIN KAMPF FOR LIGHTER NIGHT TIME READING MATERIAL………

 

MP Pertti Salolainen still maintaining ‘his struggle’

The golden quote: 

“Salolainen should change his night table reading for some other books than the Protocols of Zion and Mein Kampf, in which Jewish domination of the world is very much on display.”

NOTE: I only translated the more interesting part of the HS article. The rest has already been published here on prior occasions.

Salolainen refutes accusations of anti-Semitism

HS: Bolotowsky: You should change your night table reading for some other books than Mein Kampf.

[…]

Gideon Bolotowsky President of the Central Council of the Jewish Community, the criticism Salolainen has received is “absolutely” justified.

According to Bolotowsky, Salolainen’s words has caused a frost on Finland’s foreign political relations in Washington as well as in Jerusalem, and that he should draw his own conclusions and resign.

“Salolainen should change night table reading for some other books than the Protocols of Zion and Mein Kampf, in which Jewish domination of the world is very much on display.”

Protocols of Zion is a world-scam book, which describes the Jewish plans to conquer the world. Mein Kampf, written by Adolf Hitler, is the basis of the Nazi ideology.

Conservative Party Member of Parliament Ben Zyskowicz has known fellow party members 40 years and does not hold him in any case, to be anti-Semitic. Instead Salolainen word choices were in his view, failed.

45 Responses

  1. Salolainen has screwed up big time with his anti-Jewish conspiracy theory. His party colleague Ben Zyskowicz knows this but is covering up for him because of Zyskowicz’s loyalty towards his party.

    So Zyskowicz is in a damage limitation mode trying to play down Salolainen’s statements and thereby lessen the damage they have done to the National Coalition Party.

    The fact remains that you can find similar anti-semitic statements in the Kansallinen Vastarinta (National Resistance) web page that is eager to provide a platform for the likes of David Duke.

  2. Well said Mr. Bolotowsky! It’s time to take Salolainen to school or better yet, first off to the woodshed for an attitude adjustment. 🙂

    Sorry Salolainen! You can wrap silk around it and cover it in flowers but it’s still a big steaming pile of manure you’ve produced. Stop being such a hateful hard head and correct yourself!

    1. So you don’t stop on just accusing Salolainen being a nazi, but you go further and threat him by execution!!!????!!! Why don’t you stop first yourself being hateful hard head.

      1. I never called him a Nazi, you are putting words in my mouth, I said he’s guilty of making antisemitic statements.

        1. Maybe you should learn how to read. Perhaps your lacking of understanding sentences has led you to believe that Salolainen is antisemitic. I never claimed you calling him a nazi, if anything I implied that you didn’t. Bolotowsky implied that Salolainen is a supporter of nazi ideology, on which you agreed. But you were even more straighforward in your hate, you actually threatened him, implying that someone should execute him – as the metaphor you used includes in Finnish.

          1. Simon says: “So you don’t stop on just accusing Salolainen being a nazi, but you go further and threat him by execution!!!????!!!”

            Care to backtrack on that, or do your own words fail to materialize when you read your own comments. As for the threat to execute anyone, please provide the text for that claim.

  3. I’m really hoping this guy gets fired or resigns. He’s exactly the kind of person who would sell Finland to Islam.

  4. Salolainen is only saying, what everyone already knows. Truth hurts!

    1. So what your saying Jackie (juhani vallila), is that you approve of antisemitism. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

      1. Why is the criticism towards Israel always considered antisemitism?

        1. criticism using the Protocols of Zion as a basis for the argument is in fact antisemitism.

      1. Salolainen never used the word “control”, he used the word “influence”, which isn’t the same thing at all. Don’t put words in his mouth, and stop creating something out of nothing!

        1. He used influence pertaining to ”Jews” and they had money in their hands and the media. Control. Don’t lecture me on word use, that is exactly what he meant.

          1. KGS:

            What’s interesting is that anti-Semites have routinely held “the Jews” collectively responsible for the acts of one Jew or a small group of Jews. This has happened no matter how isolated the individual or small group of Jews have been.

          2. You are absolutely correct in all of your points TINSC, in both comments posted. This is as bad as it gets.

          3. Someone should lecture you on word use, because you obviously can not translate words from Finnish to English. Salolainen never used ‘control’, he said ‘in their hands to some extent’, which means that they have position of influence in finance and media – which is true. And still, you can not see inside his head and tell ‘that is what he meant’. Yes, he forgot to mention the Christian side of influence, but still the point was that US politicians are not objective in their decisions, since they want to please their supporters.

          4. I need no lecture, other Finns who follow these issues are of the same opinion.

  5. Criticism is criticism. Spreading lies is another thing. See?

    1. So why is Salolainen being attacked, then? Like I said before, he is just telling the truth.
      Remember when US used the veto in UN? Now, why do you think that happened?

      1. Because of prior signed agreements between the two sides at Oslo. Obviously you believe along with the Arabs and other Euro states that signed agreements mean absolutely nothing. Thanks for clearing that up.

        1. Well, it’s Israel that constantly violates the laws and agreements, by building more and more settlements.

          1. You mean laws passed by the UNGA, the same kind of body one could have found in a segregated south passing all kinds of laws on blacks? That kind of governing body, and its fraudulent courts? As for the settlements, they’re not building ”more settlements” as you wrongly depict, but more units within the area of the towns due to growth.

  6. The disturbing thing here is that Pertti Salolaisen is supposed to be a professional diplomat. Therefore, he should know by conversations with his American peers why our country voted against the UN GA resolution. The U.S. vote had nothing to do with anyone’s control over the media and everything to do with witnessing bi-lateral agreements between the PA and Israel that clearly stated that all matters would be settled by bi-lateral face-to-face negotiations.

    Pertti should also have SOME appreciation for the investment the United States has put into fostering peaceful coexistence between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews. The PA, in seeking UN recognition was deliberately breaching their agreement to settle matters by direct negotiations with Israel. It was under this agreement that the PLO was allowed to enter Judea, Samaria and Gaza to begin with. Were it not for this commitment by the PLO, Mahmoud Abbas and his crew would still be in Tunisia.

    That a Finnish diplomat doesn’t understand this is bad enough. That he prefers to explain U.S. policy formulation through a classical anti-Semitic thesis is worse.

    This is a diplomat who clearly is not in touch with the United States and the U.S. State Department’s official position on the matter. The bottom line is that he isn’t doing his homework; he isn’t doing his job.

    1. The only thing that US of A has done, is showing a total disrespect of democracy by using the veto.

      1. This has nothing to do with ”democracy” and everything to do with the Arabs and Europe arbitrarily reading what portions they want to adhere to, and what portions they don’t want to, while demanding Israel to adhere to every word and jot in the OSLO agreements. That’s what is in question here.

        1. You are right, it has nothing to do with democracy, when one country can kill the DEMOCRATIC vote by using veto. Let’s just call it a disgrace, scam or a fraud.

          1. Yeah…whatever. You’re not making any sense only in your own mind.

      2. I can do nothing but laugh at your comment. Have you ever done just a little research on the UN? Just look at the current Human Rights Council, which is just one example: http://www.un.org/en/ga/67/meetings/elections/hrc.shtml

        Really, Saudi-Arabia and Cuba are known for their smashing records on human right, LOL. And why not genocidal Sudan for the next time around?http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1289203/apps/s/content.asp?ct=12493987

        When it involves the UN, you might want to look at those who judge, instead of those who are judged. Just because the UN allows dictatorships and genocidal regimes to vote in the name of democracy, doesn’t mean it is justified.

      3. The USA has the legal right to veto. Bring that up with the UN and tell them you have made a unilateral decision the rules must change. I’m sure they will bow to your demand.

        1. The thing is, that not a single country should have the legal right to use veto, because it destroys all the credibility of UN.

          1. The UN has no credibility. it should be disbanded. and cell phones passed out to all who exit the building.

  7. Blotowsky is being outrageously rude and disgusting here. Salolainen is not antisemitic nor was his comments. But this Blotowsky basically accuses him being a nazi. That is so childish and uncivilized behavior and language. It is easy to see who is the grown up here and who is not. I would not call this debacle that Tundra Tabloids has created out of nowhere an intellectual discussion. Only place where ‘Salolainen-gate’ exists is in Tundra Tabloids. Nobody else cares your lies.

    1. GB is spot on in his analysis, being called out for an antisemitic statement has really caused many to have a conniption fit, instead of reflecting on the fact that his points raised on YLE Aamu TV were in fact outrageous from the git go.

    2. Salolainen is the one who has been incredibly rude and disgusting. He was repeating Jewish blood libel and when called out for it by the Simon Wiesenthal Institute and even a leading member of the Jewish community in Finland, Salolainen digs in his heels on his slanderous statement. You cannot attack a people with such ugly slander and not expect a strong response.

      Salolainen made a very stupid mistake and his ego is too large to correct it. Many people care and are watching.

      1. 90% of the world’s population agree with Salolainen. He was just telling the truth. He’s very far from being an anti-Semite. People are not stupid! Stop the holocaust in Gaza!

        1. Ahhhhhhhh…now we get closer to your mindset. You’re anti-Israel from the git-go.

          1. I’m just anti-holocaust in Gaza. It was terrible what Hitler did, but now the Israel is basically doing the same.

          2. Let’s just say, that I’m in the same boat with Norman Finkelstein. Great guy!

  8. You say it’s raining, but you’re pissing down my back! That’s not the EU’s definition, but rather the definition of…to use your term, some nutcase(s).

    1. You’re wrong, it clearly is the EU’s own working definition, agreed upon by the labors of its own organizational group the EUMC.

      That you disagree with it is one thing, but the fact that this EU sponsored group came to this conclusion, is beyond dispute.

      http://www.european-forum-on-antisemitism.org/working-definition-of-antisemitism/

      Working Definition of Antisemitism
      How do we define antisemitism?
      [Click here for the list of translations]
      In 2004 the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) released its first comprehensive study of antisemitism in the EU. Although it relied heavily on its focal points in the then fifteen member countries for its information, a majority of those focal points had no working definition of antisemitism and of those that did, no two were the same.
      As a result the EUMC, in collaboration with key NGOs and representatives of the newly-formed Tolerance and Non-Discrimination section of the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) drafted a single, comprehensive definition for use in the field. It employs plain language to enable the definition to be easily accessible to a wide range of law enforcement, justice and government officials, as well as to NGOs and experts who assist in the monitoring process.
      This “working definition” was adopted in 2005 by the EUMC, now called the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and disseminated on its website and to its national monitors. Units of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) concerned with combating antisemitism also employ the definition. The US State Department’s report, Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism, released earlier this year, makes use of this definition for the purpose of its analysis.

    1. Threat? You’re threatening me now? I also see you masked your IP, perhaps your original one showing you’re from Helsinki on a sonera line might provide too much of a link to where you live.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *