The key fundamental point uniting the alt right is that all men are not created equal, nor women equal to men. There are important differences between individuals, groups, categories, and races.
And among those differences are differences which cause Jews in exile to be irritating and a problem. No one in the alt-right, including the many Jewish members of the alt-right, can or should deny this. But Jews are not the big problem.
Chan has done an analysis of the antifa officer and organization core, and even though antifa is backed by Jewish money and spreading Jewish memes, its leadership and organization is just not all that Jewish.
And if you point out that antifa is a wholly owned subsidiary of George Soros, well, George Soros is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Permanent Government in the State Department. Native ruling elites have a long history of hiring Jews to do the dirty work against their own people, and then discarding those Jews when things got rough. Started with Jewish tax farmers. Then when the peasants got pissed with the tax farmers, the ruling elite would encourage them to knock over a pawn shop.
Don’t be one of the idiots who gets distracted by the shiny broken glass and the shiny stuff in the pawnshop. That is just the Matador’s flashing cape.
If you gassed all the Jews, antifa would only be mildly inconvenienced. Cthulhu would continue to swim left. If you take all the progs in government and quasi government institutions for helicopter rides to the Pacific, there would be quite a few wet Jews, but, more importantly, antifa would be out of business and Cthulhu would no longer swim left.
But they remain Cthulhus battering ram over which mores leftisms flows into society, you can’t oppose one without first locking horns with the other.
If Jews are Cthulhu’s battering ram they should be running the antifa attack on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but they don’t seem to be all that overrepresented there.
B: Whatever happened to J and his water blog?
I saw J recently in the comments section at Cochran’s blog.
No idea why he deleted his.
[…] Not the Jews […]
“Native ruling elites have a long history of hiring Jews to do the dirty work against their own people, and then discarding those Jews when things got rough.”
The difference is that the previous times the state church did not proclaim the superior holiness of Jews and niggers.
So if they discard the Jews and niggers, they must also admit the falsehood of their religion, which is what we want.
So for once the unreasoning nativist sentiment is actually useful, and should be exploited to the hilt.
They cannot discard blacks, but they can discard Jews no problem, and it looks to me that they are getting mighty close to doing so – not all Jews, not at first, just badJews, like the ones in “settlements” find themselves classed with badwhites, much as the conspicuously non white George Zimmerman got classed as an honorary white.
Them discarding Jews is a big problem.
It wakes up the Alt-Lite, which includes many American Christian Zionists, who are the real military power base of the Union empire.
I have seen it on Gab. When these Christian Zionists suddenly find themselves abandoned by both Left and Right, looking increasingly unfashionable, they are apt to Jew Pill, or at least recognize Jews as foreigners.
Once the Jew Pill is taken, like the Nigger Pill, there is no going back to the Left, no home there anymore.
Because the Jew Pill inherently contains knowledge of holiness spirals, which is the ultimate inoculation against Leftism.
That is what we want.
…contains knowledge of holiness spirals AND racial identitarianism / tribalism
both of which are Cultural Marxism killers, and represent massive defeats for the Left.
The momentum of which victory can then be used against Anglo progressivism.
Why would they discard the blacks when the Hispanics are busy driving the blacks out already? Aztlan rises from the ashes.
“The difference is that the previous times the state church did not proclaim the superior holiness of Jews and niggers.”
It absolutely did – e.g. the Naturalization Act of 1870 which extended naturalisation to specifically Africans, but not Indians or Orientals.
“Native ruling elites have a long history of hiring Jews to do the dirty work against their own people, and then discarding those Jews when things got rough.â€
I know those poor innocent Jews. Evil Whitey set them up. Damn English Protestants, French Catholics, and Nordic Pagans – it’s all their fault. It’s the Enlightenment liberals. Also the Puritans. It’s pretty much everyone’s fault except for the Jews.
I hope we can finally elect a Jewish President to do what’s right for Israel, I mean America. Oh wait, I forgot the is NRx, no democracy. OK, I hope we can finally be ruled by a Jewish King with absolute power, only He can destroy the Cathedral once and for all!
The “not the Jews” statements I’m interested in are that 50 years ago the supreme court with only one Jew passed interspecies marriage and integrated schools. Hillary Clinton’s early days as a civil rights lawyer may or may not have been Jew-inspired, but the people who were actually in charge 50 years ago were White and wanted niggers fucking human women. Blaming the Jews means letting the christcucks off the hook.
Today’s left lacks young or intelligent men. They posess institutions that they didn’t so much take over as inherited from very sympathetic christcucks and they don’t really know what they’re doing. While they make themselves ridiculous demanding that no one draw frogs, it’s more possible than ever to contradict them without violating their speech codes.
The only thing that could possibly restore the left today is a christcuck revival that somehow manages to get all the intelligent young men to say the Christian shahada. But the left can’t offer marriage so that’s impossible.
I hope you are right and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Witches float.
theres pros and cons about jews, the big pro is they are no less white than many other types of whites and have a contributed a lot and could contribute more.
However if you can not see they will never ever fucking assimilate and so will always be using that potential for their own agenda at our expense then you are hopelessly cucked.
what you dont seem to get jim is that the very presence of an outside group which they are by their own insistence and despite heroic efforts, makes them a multicultural cancer.We simply can not have a nation built upon ethnic equality when ethnic equality is a myth.Asians are another example they have to go or they will end up ruling us.The jews were given a chance to merge into us, its impossible a 1/8th jew still acts like a jew.
Its not even what they do to us which BTW you pass right over. its what their presence causes us to do to ourselves.We can not assert a national pride a cohesive culture an ethnic competitiveness, because that offends our guests.This means we can not discipline our own slackers, women, etc
That said I doubt nazism is the way to go about it. but somehow we must move to white nations for white people, hopefully as simply common sense. obviously there will be a war the left will not go quietly.
As to you head counting its bullshit. first there is a difference between white leftism and jewsh leftism, white leftism is do goodism, jew leftism is decontruction anti white ism. And the very existence of white leftism despite your jew master Moldbugs assertions is a jew project. those of us of a certain age that grew up in the urban centers know all too well the history of the migration of cog elite whites from the rural areas to the urban and the jewish radicals that met and indoctrinated them from the 1900s to the present. Those prairie communists learned that crap from jew radicals in NY chicago etc.But even despite this most could only go as far as do good leftism the jews have had more success with the anti white leftism with the minorities they imported and created since the 60s
》no less white than many other types of whites
Naive PCA genetic clustering shows a White cluster which Jews are near but not in. Ashkrnazim are something like 40% White.
》 its impossible a 1/8th jew still acts like a jew.
1/8 ashkenazi is 93% White, which passes the reasonable Anglin threshold but probably isn’t permitted to join the SS or the higher ranks in the Party.
my point wasnt really actual genetics but yeah ashkenazis are the only jews we care about and they are in fact pretty genetically white too. My actual point is bulgarians greeks georgians armenians etc are probably as middle eastern as your ashkan but ashkans have actually contributed quite a bit more to west civ.The point being its not actually the jews whiteness we have a problem with its not their lack of ability or civility. Its their own insistence on being and acting other coupled with their talent that makes them a problem, if they would assimilate they would be an asset not a problem and pretty soon we and they wouldnt even be able to distinquish. its their refusal to assimilate that makes them able to identify 1/8 ashkans that are 93% white its also dangerous because we cant be bothered to keep track of them so they pass themselves off as white unless some nazi does us the parentheses thing for us.
》white leftism is do goodism, jew leftism is decontruction anti white ism. And the very existence of white leftism despite your jew master Moldbugs assertions is a jew project
Explain the War of Northern Aggression and the order that niggers are allowed to rape White women who don’t voluntarily allow it in New Orleans.
It is true that the Jews reshaped American morals in the 20th century through mass education with the then-new media. It is it also true that the Left wasn’t in power, anti-White, and anti-male before then.
civil war is do goodism, naive certainly, christ cuckery yes but it wasnt intended to be what it became, that was jew mischief.
if you know the intellectual history of the big cities you know a lot of really smart but hayseed whites were met in the cities by wily jews who were glad to educate them
Look one thing that moldbug and many of us overlook is how inevitable leftism was to a certain extent. This is not to say to the extent the jews managed to steer it, but rather given the evolution of european man and the evolution of his philosophy to explain himself, and the environment that co evolved with those; it was probably inevitable that city states and parliaments and free serfs were going to happen. Forces like population dynamics, the development of capitalism and firearms, science. These things made the breakdown of feudalism inevitable and frankly on the whole made white men the rulers of the world.Its also really hard to imagine how the 20th century then could have unfolded much differently, universal suffrage feminism, socialism multiculturalism etc almost had to be tried once an idea has taken hold it tends to play out to its reductio ad absurdum. No doubt the jews recognized it and weaponized it to its most lethal expression, no doubt christianity was an ideal host as was democracy later.
One of leftisms best weapons is the lesser of two evils argument, so for instance the only sane thing to do after the civil war was to ship all the africans back to africa. but in 1960 eastern whites having little experience with niggers are naturally going to assume mistreating “humans” is wrong. Yes sure jews framed and managed the entire civil rights movement for maximum evil but it was probably bound to happen, for so many reasons.
reactionaries are monday night quarterbacking. yes sure we can point to the people who in the past turned out to be right , for instance white southerners told us the nigger was an animal and he was correct, but he was shouting against the zeitgeist.Its way to large a topic for me or a comment. but the point is the eugenicists progressives BTW were probably the best shot we had historically and we blew it. blame the christians or the jews or whoever you please it doesnt matter anymore.
what matters is that we know HBd as fact now, we now multiculturalism and feminism are deadly and yet niggers and bitches have us down for the count.Sure we can point out how they or the jews got us to this point or blame ourselves but I think really iot was inevitable, the european evolution that made us so successful turned out to have an achilles heel. The same thing that led to our world rule led to our present dilemma. Our openness christianity when the altruism acrues to ourselves works wonders when exposed to the outside world becomes an open wound. The examples abound. Forget the blame plan the war. Dont cry over the jews simply decide how to win, i think the jews should be last just as they attack us white males last in their march so as not to trigger us too soon we too should start just as insidiously, But no matter Im too old to be a general. But generals are what we need we need to explicitly plot hot to overthrow the cathedral and seize control and restore white nations to white nations and abolish feminism.
》Forces like population dynamics,
red herring
》the development of capitalism
not necessarily leftist
》and firearms,
armies are more highly trained than ever before
》 science.
you are totally pwned. Science opposes leftist ideas consistently, even in the abstract fields of physics, where leftists asserting a democracy of states are the most common many-worlds crackpots, and math, where the leftist refusal to recognize the existence of talent means everyone gets common core which appeals to no one.
》 These things made the breakdown of feudalism inevitable
The breakdown of feudalism is only leftist if leftism is defined either as chaos or as the breakdown of the christcucked order. But it isn’t, leftism is the ideas that institution controllers and young future institution controllers hold in order to increase their power and make themselves look smart.
》and frankly on the whole made white men the rulers of the world.
Whites should rule the world and will again, we just need to suppress leftists and jews.
I guess thought you would figure out how these forces worked.there were population explosions in europe which made fuedalism unworkable and peasants a force to be reckoned with.Capitalism made a middle class a competitor to and inroad to the noble class, and again a force to reckon against an agrarian noble class.Firearms broke the knightly hold on warfare, armies not small groups of barrons and their pledges were what controlled a states interests, again the noble class attacked from above and below and once those guns made it into private hands every peasant becomes a one gun one vote.
science wedges religion from the ruling and intellectual classes middle class aspirationals follow suit.soon reason applied to every thing people wonder why do kings rule, why can niggers be slaves if child of god etc.
I am certainly not pwnd, and I am not anti rreason science. in fact i agree cuckchrist has to be eradicated it cant be saved. and yes now the dust has settled science does support the right at least it doesnt support leftism. but that doesnt mean in the historical context we could have jumped from serfdom to peppermintism.inbreeding the offspring of once great wariiors while relegating 99% of the population to serfdom was a stupid waste, capitalism was a good idea even if it has problems today.kings have had their day nrx is stupid if they seriously think we are going back to kings. there are other ways of solving democracies problems that are far more likely to be implementable.yes kill all the leftists, its tough killing the jews as you point out many of the most problematic jews are 93% white hitler had this problem.we are close to the point where we could just selectivly breed everyone and so jews will not be having any jew babies anyway and once enough lefties are killed the rest of all persuasions will behave or be killed
I don’t agree. Looks to me that if the King George the fourth had been slimmer, more industrious, and had a cuter mistress, and if Beau Brummel had not had such excellent taste, Kings and aristocrats would still rule the world.
Leftism has triumphed before, has self destructed before. It is nothing to do with modernity. What is happening today is pretty much what happened leading to the collapse of Bronze Age civilization.
yes an element of leftism is simply decadence that follows every successful civilization, war and the struggle to build a civilization is what produces the character we wish but successor generations become sissified but they also become scientists and artists. theres a sweet spot, but nothing stays the same.
but my point is that what was actually different this time is in the last 500 years or so we actually genetically changed and we developed reason science and we transcended environment. and these forces were bound to make it impossible for the new rome to collapse and revert to feudalism ever again. kings can never be again, we now know there is no god no divine right that ability may be hereditary its also way to distributed to ever again submit to a few families that once threw a great leader. capitalism is a force so is meritocracy.property rights can o longer be maintained by a few, you gve the idaho farm boy manning your nuclear subs a fair cut for protecting amazons cargo ships or someone else will pay him the salt hes worth to renegotiate the terms bezos will pay to operate within the territory of west civ.This need not and should not lead to socialism, but your idea of kings and peasants surely will lead to socialism.All you are suggesting is allowing Bezos to become a king and use that power to continue to squeeze that white soldier or coder into the role of serf rather than the yeoman he is.Hes not going to settle for that indignity for long and you will not end of with the arthurian larp you yearn for but instead a commie matrix. you want a reason based world reason says whites rule and capitalism is whites servant not master and whites must be paid fairly and ruled fairly one way i have suggested is only allow net taxpayers to vote and outlaw fiat debt, and of course expel non whites and strip females of the vote.
The issue of Mischlings doesn’t receive nearly enough attention. Let’s give it some attention now.
Ostensibly, there are 6 million American Jews. This number includes Gentiles who converted to the “pluralistic” strains of Judaism, however, by and large, most members of those “pluralistic” strains are still biological full Jews, and furthermore, most or half of “converts” are Jewish-feeling Mischlings who wanted the stamp of approval by Jewish institutions. Which means that of these 6 million individuals officially listed as Jews, the vast overwhelming majority are full biological Jews, and the rest are also significantly Jewish. So far, so good.
But in addition to those, there are probably at least 4 or 5 million half-Jewish Mischlings not officially listed as Jews, and likewise, 4 or 5 million quarter-Jewish Mischlings not officially listed as Jews. That would mean, assuming my estimations aren’t too far-off, that in the US there are between 14 million to 16 million people with substantial, not insignificant Jewish blood.
If this is correct, then the percentage of Americans of substantial Jewish extraction may be closer to 5% than to 2%. Seems about right, doesn’t it?
If so, there are plenty of ramifications relevant to our debates here, and to all alt-right debates and musings about Jews. If, for the sake of discussion, we back down from the “all Jews must die” position and adopt instead the “all Jews must be expelled to Israel” position, then for every one full Jew you kick back to Israel, there are 1.5 significantly-Jewish individuals you still have to contend with by some measure.
It seems that the Jewish problem in America is more complicated than it has been hitherto perceived by most people mentally grappling with it. As I’ve elucidated in previous comments, this problem is not at all “on the road to solve itself”. On the contrary; if current trends continue, this problem is only destined to exacerbate.
What do we do?
What you’re asking boils down to the age-old question: What, exactly, is a Jew?
Is the half-Jew a Jew? The quarter-Jew? Where does one draw the line? Is cultural participation in Judaism a factor? Is it purely genetic? Does the fact that, culturally, Judaism is matrilineally inherited matter at all? Should phenotype be taken into consideration?
More interestingly still, are “Jews” from Yemen and Morocco Jewish at all? Genetically, they share little-to-nothing with their Ashkenazi brethren… or false-brethren, as the case may be. Their behavior patterns & cognitive abilities are also, of course, markedly different. (Notwithstanding B’s emphatic — and ridiculous — declarations to the contrary.) As the population of Israel will be substantially mixed in the very near future, the implications of this are worth a few moments’ thought.
For the purposes of the Ethnostate in the future, a Jewish has primarily Jewish mud dna and total mud percentage greater than 12%.
For our purposes now a Jew has a significant amount of mud dna and identifies with the Jews. In the future there will be no mass of Jews to identify with, except historically.
I expect that st some point White polarization will get to the point where, as in Haiti, the sand nigger Jews of Israel murder the white-colored Jews of Israel, and subsequently murder the remaining Christian a.k.a. Greek Palestinians alongside their sand nigger brethren, which, even if it doesn’t give Greece causus belli to crush the Jews as they should have done milennia ago, nevertheless ends Jewish distinctiveness from the other brown mud slimes.
This is an “effort post”, beware.
European Jewry is divided into the Ashkenazim and the closely-related non-Ashkenazim: 3 groups which are the Greek Jews (basically extinct), Italian Jews (rare), and Iberian Jews – who still exist, but subsequent to their expulsions from Spain and Portugal, have largely intermingled with both Ashkenazim in Europe, and Mizrahim in Turkey and North Africa. The Sephardim in Europe also carry some Mizrahi admixture, but not enough to warrant separating them from the other European Jewish groups. These 4 groups: Ashkenazim, Romaniotes, Italkim, and Sephardim, are basically all “Jews” as we know them.
The Mizrahim, meanwhile, are a largely heterogeneous group, whose different subgroups share in common little to nothing with each other. Let’s analyze them briefly.
First and foremost, there are North African Jews. These are Jews from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. Egyptian Jews are an exception here, as they are mostly related not to their fellow North African Jews, but to the Jews of the Levant: Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria (and Turkey). So let’s put them aside for now.
Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, and Libyan Jews have some admixture from Sephardim who were expelled to their lands, and to a lesser degree, from Ashkenazim who also settled there. Howerver, by and large, these North African Jews are distinctly Berber in origin. A Jew from one of those countries who doesn’t have admixture from European Jews, is essentially foreign in all his features and aspects to European Jews. To argue that they are the same “nation”, not to say the same “race”, as European Jews is preposterous. Other than religious Judaic practice, they have none in common with European Jews. They are for all intents and purposes “Judaized” Berbers.
This North African group makes the majority of Israelis.
Then, there are the aforementioned Levantine Jews. They seem to be somewhat, distantly, related to European Jews. Of the Mizrahim, they make a minority. Historically speaking, after the Romans expelled the Jews from Palestine, there were little Jews in Palestine and in Lebanon, while the Jews of Egypt and Syria (and Turkey) were always relatively more numerous. Some Syrian Jews have been “joined” by Ashkenazim throughout the ages, but they are mostly homogeneous. Also, Syrian Jews have settled in the US (New York) more than any other Mizrahi group.
This Levantine group has — or rather, used to have — a deep cultural affinity to Arabs (the obvious exception, of course, being the non-Arabized Turkish Jews), but racially they are not Arabs; needless to say, they are pure Semites, just not Semites of the Arabian variety.
Next, the Jews of Iraq and Iran. They are even more distant in genetic terms from European Jews than are the Levantine Jews, yet, there is an ancient relation in there. These 2 subgroups are closely related to each other genetically, but culturally each has its own traditions – Iraqi Jews were under the spell of Arab culture, and often called themselves Arabs; Persian Jews did not consider themselves Arabs. Both subgroups were deeply embedded in their respective societies. Numerically they exceed the Levantine group. You can find some Persian Jews in America, and they usually keep apart from the Ashkenazim there, but are not as zealous as Syrian Jews about seclusion. You can also find them in Iran. A much smaller subgroup from the same region is Kurdish Jews.
All in all, these Middle-Eastern (or Mesopotamian) Jews bear some semblance to Ashkenazim, but not all that much.
Next, Central Asian Jews. Genetically related, to an extent, to the Middle-Eastern group. Their genetic relation to European Jews is not clear. Could be a Khazar connection, but as stated, it’s not clear what exactly is going on here. Numerically they are not far behind the Levantine group. These communities were mostly secluded from the rest of Jewry. Small Jewish communities trace their origin to Armenia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan. The 3 major subgroups, however, are Bukharian, Georgian, and Mountain (Kavkazi) Jews. Each is culturally distinct, and each has not insignificant admixture from the local populations.
Of the 3 major subgroups, Kavkazi Jews are the most primitive and genetically distant from world Jewry, while Georgian Jews are the most developed and genetically related to other Jews. But again, all of them are “suspect” if we’re looking for communities whose descent is rather local and autochtonous.
Next, Yemenite Jews. Genetically, as with the previous group, there seems to be a very ancient (and as such, dubious) and unclear relation to Judea. Not genetically related to European Jews in any significant way, and to claim they are “the same people” is utterly retarded. This group is probably mostly descended from Southern Arabian proselytes to Judaism, and has some Ethiopian admixture. They were probably closely related to Saudi Jews, but Saudi Jews don’t exist, because Mohammed exterminated and expelled them – 100% success rate, no Jews left in central Arabia!
As I said, Yemenite Jews are mostly proselytes to Judaism, like the Berber Jews. If they resemble superficially the European Jews, that’s because both have Semitic admixture. But the similarity is largely overstated by Zionist propagandists. In reality, the non-Jewish Druze, and even Arab Palestinians, are genetically by far more similar to European Jews, than Yemenite Jews are genetically similar to them. Again, as in the case of Berber Jews, their features and aspects are radically dissimilar to European Jews. Numerically they are rather large, but are not as numerous as North African Jews. Culturally, they are more or less on the same level as North African Jews.
Before I move on to the next group, let me mention in passing that there exist Indian Jews, whose origin is ancient, they are mostly autochtonous proselytes, and they’re not at all genetically related to European Jews; there are the Cochin Jews of China, whose origin is unclear, but again, are mostly proselytes, and genetically quite dissimilar to other Jews; and there are the Karaites, chiefly from Crimea and Egypt – the former subgroup is vaguely genetically related to European Jews in an unclear way, while the latter is closely genetically related to Egyptian Jews, and IIRC, there used to be more Karaite Jews in Egypt than Rabbinic Jews at some point. These 3 groups (Indian, Chinese, and Karaite Jews) are so insignificant right now that there isn’t any point discussing them here.
Finally, there are the Ethiopian Jews, about 2% of Israeli society. Indigenous Africans, with such a meager Semitic admixture as to be practically not related to other Jews at all, other than Yemenite Jews perhaps. Definitely no genetic relation to European Jews, and anyone who claims that they are “the same nation” as your blond, blue-eyed Ashkies belongs in an asylum for the mentality ill. Even their religion had been an eclectic mix of absolutely-unorthodox Christianity-inspired Judaism and vaguely-Pharisaic Judaism (closer to the former than to the latter), before they were brought to Israel that is.
Ethiopian Jews are Ethiopians, plain and simple. If 2,200 years ago, some Temple priests had come to Ethiopia to proselytize; and if later on, in the 3rd or 4th century AD, some rabbis had visited this community again; well, to claim that this establishes them as perfectly Jewish is ridiculous. At any rate, you shouldn’t be surprised that their involvement in the Israeli crime scene is vastly disproportionate for their numbers; they are notorious for not getting along with police.
(if you think the fact that the Israeli average IQ is only 90 is due solely to Arabs and “Slav imposters”, well, now you know better)
Before I finish, another division exists among the Jews – that between Central European Jews, mainly the Ashkenazim of Germany and Austria, and the Ostjuden, Eastern European Jews. The most brilliant Jewish geniuses of the 20th century were German and Austrian Jews: highly assimilated, and the most competent of all Jews; the Ostjuden have historically been considered (and rightly so!) pauperized, backwards, unassimilable, and religiously the most strict and fanatical, though the late 19th and early 20th centuries have thoroughly modernized and secularized many, but not all of them.
The last division I’ll refer to is the intra-Ostjuden division: Litvaks (Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian Jews) and Galitzianers (from parts of Poland and Ukraine). The Litvaks, a majority of whom were exterminated during the Holocaust, were the more intelligent, less primitive of the Ostjuden – relatively competent and assimilable. The Galitzianers, in contrast, are considered spirituality-inclined, irrational, superstitious, and unintellectual, and to use Aaronson’s phrase, “shtetl optimized”. Those Litvaks who survived, like non-Ostjuden Ashkenazim, are primarily atheists; while the Galitzianers make for the most hardcore of Ultra-Orthodox and Hassidic Jews, though there are also secular ones, of course.
This intra-Ostjuden division between Litvaks and Galitzianers is still recognized by American Jews, while Israeli Jews, including Jews from those very regions, are unaware of it, at least not in these specific terms.
Overall, Israeli society is majority Mizrahi, with the most religious and irreligious Jews alike being Ashkenazim. Of the Mizrahim, some groups are clearly more fit for civilization than others, and in terms of religiosity and politics, pretty much all Mizrahim are “traditionalist” and “right-wing” (not of the intellectual type of right-wing, but of the “death to the Arabs!” type).
Among Ashkenazim, there are 3 main groups separated religiously and politically: secular, religious-Zionist, and Ultra-Orthodox. Secular Ashkenazim tend to be Progs; religious-Zionists constitute the core of the “extreme-right settler movement”; Ultra-Orthodox are for the most part self-interested, exclusionary parasites.
That’s a pretty general overview of all historical Jewish communities and the main Jewish divisions within contemporary Israel. That’s probably the most important comment I’ve posted on this blog. Now we can proceed further to analyze the Jewish-White relations.
Truly you have an encyclopaedic knowledge of contemporary Jewish and Israeli society. Thanks for taking the time and effort.
And I see your posts below… But the question stands: What is a Jew?
If Jewishness is genetic — an issue of blood — then any claim that the Yemenites and the Ashkenzim (“true” Jews) are both Jewish cannot be taken seriously. It simply doesn’t follow. Those Yemenite and Moroccan Jews are less Jewish, in this case, than a German with a faint drop of Jewish blood, contributed by a distant ancestor. I therefore do not see how the various tribes of modern Israel can be lumped together on racial grounds.
The Yemenites are, of course, culturally Jewish. I’m not sure to what extent this matters.
Is the Jew defined by blood and genetics, then, or by something else? And if the Jew is defined by blood, how do you consider the likes of the Yemenite Jews?
A difficult problem, wouldn’t you say? The only satisfactory and consistent resolution, or so it seems to me, would be to consider the likes of the Yemenites and Moroccans not Jewish at all. Considered in this light, Israel is not a Jewish state so much as it is a North African one — as you’ve stated earlier — which is interesting.
A Jew is someone whose mother is a Jew or who has converted to Judaism in accordance with the law of Moses and Israel.
We pre-date the time when there was a distinction between ethnicity, nationality and religion.
So your position, then, is that it’s entirely cultural? Surely you can see why this may seem inadequate, especially to the likes of Kevin McDonald. It is also troublesome insofar as Mischlings are concerned; a child with a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother is Jewish to a significant degree — in a great many cases, even culturally and in terms of religious adherence — and is not utterly non-Jewish, as you’d have it.
The Nuremberg Laws, in contrast to your own position, define who is a Jew solely on grounds of blood and race. I need not remind you that most of the ethno-nationalist right wing, of which the Alt Right is a part, subscribes to this definition. And although time has proven that Nazi science was, essentially, correct — at least to the extent that Ashkenazi Jews can be genetically identified — the definition of the Nuremberg laws also seems totally unsatisfactory to me, for the simple reason that it, implicitly, only applies to the Ashkenazim. To stretch the case so that it covers genetically-unrelated Jews from other lands would be simply ridiculous. They share the same religion, but not the same blood. They share no closer bonds than the French Catholic shares with the wretched Peruvian Catholic. The implications of this for Israel are, again, interesting.
To be quite honest, I see nothing but unsatisfactory — and in some cases contradictory — definitions.
My position is that it predates the split of identity into cultural, genetic, religious etc.
I’m sorry to leave Kevin McDonald disappointed.
Yet that position is itself a cultural artifact. And it seems to me that the notion of matrilineal descent is not so old, besides. The ancient Israelites appear to have held the view that Jewish tribal identity can be transmitted by patrilineal descent. Modern Karaites apparently go a step further and hold that Jewish tribal identity can only be transmitted through the male line — that is, solely and exclusively.
When was the rule of matrilineal descent adopted by the majority of Jews?
Besides all of that, it seems to me that if there’s no genetic common ground among the Jews of modern Israel, the “founding myth” of your people becomes somewhat ridiculous. At the same time, scientific anti-Judaism (I won’t use the misnomer “anti-Semitism”) doesn’t have a leg to stand on, at least with respect to Jews who are not Ashkenazim. So I suppose it cuts both ways.
How many Karaites are there? 500?
Tribal descent always went by the male line. Being part of the People of Israel, however, was matrilineal. When we went out of Egypt, the “erev rav,” the “mixed multitude” came with us. The Torah does not expand on them very much, but our tradition is that these were people whose mothers were daughters of Israel and whose fathers were Egyptian.
We can see by one instance that they were held accountable for behaving according to the Torah, specifically, the law of taking G-d’s name in vain-but Moses had to seek clarification on what standard to judge him by. In Leviticus 24:
10And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp; 11And the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the name of the LORD, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan:) 12And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be shewed them.
Then in the Book of Ezra, you have Ezra telling the men who came out of Babylon and had married non-Jewish women to send the women and their children away, which was very traumatic-he would not have done this if the children were considered Jewish (or if the women had converted, of course.)
There are about 60K Karaites in Israel, and much less in the US. Their biggest problem seems to be holiness escalation regarding prohibited relationships and kinship as well as elevation of status of wife and relative lowering of husband’s, both in ritual and vis-a-vis divorce proceedings and property right:
https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/karaite-women
So, even though Karaites are patrilineal, they are not as patriarchal as Rabbinic Jews. Jim, are you reading this?
This is the kind of information I sought from B, and did not get.
The old testament confounds and confuses social incest, sex between people raised as brother and sister, father and daughter regardless of whether they are biologically related, with biological incest, sex between between people who actually are brother and sister, father and daughter, regardless of whether they are raised together or not.
Social incest creates psychological problems and messed up sex lives regardless of whether they are biologically related, biological incest creates children with genetic defects, regardless of whether the child’s parents were raised together. Different problems, though they tend to be co-morbid.
People engaged in social incest but not biological incest, for example with an adopted sister, produce healthy children but have messed up sex lives, people engaged in biological incest but not social incest, as for example father reunited with a daughter he has never met until she was a teenager, have healthy normal sex lives but messed up children.
The Old Testament permits step sibling marriage. Further, you can see traces of the ancient Semitic custom of permissible marriage between half-siblings, a custom which fell latter into disuse and became prohibited (hence Torah contains contradictory precedents).
However, the Jerusalem Talmud (haven’t seen it in Babylonian), explicitly discusses what you refer to as “social incest” — i.e. marriage between step siblings, ie the appearance of incest, and recommends against it where people know the “brother” and “sister” as “brother and sister,” but allows for them to marry if they moved out of their community.
Normally, in those times and circumstances, marriage would be happening soon after sexual maturity (for both boys and girls), avoiding all kinds of weirdness.
But it bans such things as marrying your father’s wife even if not biologically related. Suppose the old man marries a girl younger than you are, then drops dead. The prohibition makes no sense in this case. But it does make sense if your Dad’s numerous wives raised you as a child.
Disagree. Look at it differently: it removes a hidden reason for a son to (secretly/conspire to) murder his own father to gain access to father’s other wife(s).
My pregnant girlfriend is younger than my youngest son, and I am not much worried about him murdering me to steal her.
Pretty sure it is already illegal to kill your father. It is a highly unusual crime, despite the fact that everyone has a substantial motive to do so, since they are likely to inherit. Allowing sons to marry Dad’s hot young wife is not going to make a substantial difference.
I think you just have to chalk up a lot of the Old Testament incest taboos to the writers of the Old Testament being confused about incest, overreacting to Egyptian incest, plus holiness spiral, purity spiral, wanting to distinguish themselves from Egyptians as much as possible.
Bottom line is that the Old Testament cleanliness, Old Testament plague control, Old Testament feces control, Old Testament marriage laws, and Old Testament incest laws were damned good social technology for the times, and were damned good social technology all the way to the mid nineteenth century, but on incest, cleanliness, and plague control, we now know better, and on incest we have known better since about 1550AD. Our marriage laws and social mores relating to marriage however, represent a loss of social technology, the collapse of Chesterton’s fence, civilizational decline.
The astonishing survival of the Jews is the result of them having superior social technology up to the mid nineteenth century – indeed they still have superior social technology on marriage, though Chesterton’s fence has half fallen.
Note that when Ebola ravaged Africa, and the medical professionals fled, the locals got it under control with methods lifted wholesale from the Old Testament. Worked pretty good.
Besides, keep in mind, in those days, a father could have a wife(s) that was as young (or younger) as his oldest son.
The example of your girlfriend (technically, a concubine who can run away and, under modern law, not even get punished*) and son is really bad. That’s because you’re looking at it from the eyes of a modern Western man. If women are truly simple property, then harem of father might be expected to be passed to oldest son. Killing the father is certainly illegal. But killing can be done in many ways, and much easier to do in an “accidental death” kind of way when victim knows and trusts the perpetrator.
All simple property, animate and inanimate, immovable and movable, would be divided between sons, with oldest getting the double portion. E.g. if the deceased is survived by five sons including the firstborn, the estate would be divided into six portions with the first born taking two-sixths of the estate, and the other four heirs taking one-sixth each.
While it is possible that children can quietly arrange for their father’s death, it’s much harder to conspire among multiple sons, and, more importantly, non-human property does not speak, and even further, non-female property does not evoke strong feelings of lust. Hence, woman/wife is different from a plot of land, sheep, or slave*. Thus, legal wife, even if not primary, should not be inheritable to sons.
Again: combine the fact that oldest son is in the same household, when you have lust, ie evil inclination, especially female evil inclination (a young wife might secretly dislike her older husband, but be quite excited about the prospect of becoming legal wife for his son), and you have recipe for trouble in the household. Hence a wife is not a simple property. A wife is a special kind of property, and when her husband dies, and she doesn’t remarry (via levirate or not), she stays as widow and is supported by ketubah — does not become property (wife or not) of oldest son. Typically, stays in the same house, supported by her son(s) (said the son(s) can also be technically “adopted” from a concubine, as in the case of Sarah and Hagar).
*Related to this issue is the status of the concubine. The concubine is technically a slave. But even if sexual slave, a property of the father of the household, she cannot be transferred via a sale (since betrothed (ie has kiddushin)). But because a particular concubine can evoke strong sexual feelings in son(s) etc, having sons able to inherit a concubine presents various temptations (as the Bible attests). Hence, the need for enforced protections (legal and actual martial) etc. Hence why ultimately concubinage is discouraged since at least the time of Maimonides. Concubines/harems introduce the need for fathers to worry about their kins’ attempts and various rivalry. Concubinage is now, halakhically, reserved to the King only. But again, even a concubine is not a simple property, even not a regular slave.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilegesh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery#Sexual_and_conjugal_slavery
Btw, another non-trivial facet: in hypothetical case of son taking ownership of deceased father’s wife(s) via marriage, the status of that wife’s sons becomes endangered, if they’re minors. Another reason to not permit marrying one’s father’s wife.
Got through some more sources, and there is an interesting addendum: in case of concubinage, Jerusalem Talmud claims that not just the kiddushin, but also kettubah *can* exist, but there are no divorce stipulations. In other words, as far as the woman is concerned, there is no dowry protection. In fact, in this case such ketubah can be used to make a *free woman* into a de facto concubine. Moreover, said kettubah can be written up so that the husband is financially supported *by the wife* (concubine), which in Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud is actually illustrated: a man marrying a woman, with the woman financially maintaining him and supporting his Torah studying objective, and then, come divorce, she is faced with getting nothing, even parting with the property she brought into marriage due to certain circumstances during marriage).
In other words, according to Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud), it is possible to stipulate in the ketubah that the woman gets nothing and, furthermore, children from her receive nothing for inheritance (other than possible gifts) — which makes said woman into a concubine.
The Babylonian Talmud differs in that it doesn’t stipulate the need for either kiddushin or ketubah for a concubine. From the point of view of concubine, there is no difference, of course. But I like the Yerushalmi’s position better, because it actually encompasses both free and slave women under a consistent framework and makes it flexible enough for the husband.
>When was the rule of matrilineal descent adopted by the majority of Jews?
By Pharisees, or proto-Pharisees to be exact, probably circa mid first century BC. By collective Jewry, between 70 AD and 200 AD.
B misinterprets the book of Ezra.
Ezra, or the author who invented him, wanted to eliminate anti-Hebraic cultural influences, so the Hebrew Torah (Pentateuch) could be accepted by the Jews, who “strangely” were not at all familiar with it. If Jews don’t know Hebrew, probably don’t follow the Hebrew Torah. There were not enough scribes back then to translate the Pentateuch to Ashdodite, Amonite, Moabite, Philistinite, and all those other languages that kept Ezra or whoever invented him up at night. And also no rabbis. And also the majority was illiterate.
So you can see the problem Ezra wanted to solve – the Jews needed Hebrew to access the Torah, and foreign women who were not only not-Jewish ethnically, but also *not-Hebrew-speaking*, hindered the promotion of Hebrew and Hebraic culture, thereby hindering the acceptance of the Torah. *That’s* why they had to be sent away. He thought that men follow women, leaving their own tradition behind, and that these women were a bad influence. A common Biblical theme, which is not related to the question of descent.
Nothing to do with Jewishness being matrilineal. That’s a much later concoction.
Not so.
Rather, some texts that exile Jews tortured to justify matrilineality were written mid first century BC
Attributing the Matrilineality rule to pre exile Jews is like attributing the rule on using strollers on the Sabbath to pre exile Jews. There is a pre exile hook that later Jews hang their new rules upon.
It is entirely cultural. But, culture never exists in a vacuum.
A jew is whatever jews decide it to be.
If you take the children of jews and raise them by non-jews and never have them even know what a jew is, they won’t become jews in the operative sense.
Read 200 Years Together by Solzhenitsyn. It’s good insight in how these people used to live. The reason they’re good in comerce is because they weren’t allowed to learn any occupation by their elders. Jews exist because their rulers enforce segregation and prevent them from learning anything which might attach them to a land – thereby ensuring their rule.
>If you take the children of jews and raise them by non-jews and never have them even know what a jew is, they won’t become jews in the operative sense.
Their Jewish brain will think Jewish thoughts, conceive and perceive reality in a Jewish-typical manner, lead its carrier to behave and feel in a Jewish way, and manufacture Jewish memes. Yes, Judaism is a parasitic meme (see: foreskin-removal), but Gene-Culture Co-Evolution is real, and only Jewish brains would come up with Jews ideas, and are prone to come up with Jewish ideas.
Culture matters. Race matters much more. And the Jewish problem — European Jewish problem — is fundamentally a racial problem.
This is not the prologue to another “and that’s why all kikes must be gassed” essay. But the problem has to be understood for what it is, if we have any intention at all to solve it. It is a race issue primarily, culture/religion issue secondarily. Jewry is a biological, racial entity. Now, is the European Jewish race compatible with White civilization? Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But another problem, if the latter is true, arises: Zion is full of non-European Jews. Mud Jews. That, too, ought to be considered. And it will.
>A Jew is someone whose mother is a Jew or who has converted to Judaism in accordance with the law of Moses and Israel.
Your position is a tautology. There are objective measures for deciphering and determining one’s Jewishness or lack thereof, which do no require the tautology of “Jewish if mother is Jewish”. Of course, by definition, these measures do not accord with Halacha, so you are religiously obligated to disregard them.
For instance, according to simple Halacha, a person who is, say, 7/8 or 15/16 Ashkenazi, whose great-grandmother or great-great-grandmother on the strictly maternal line was a Shiksa who did not convert to Judaism, and whose other genetically part-Ashkenazi maternal progenitors also did not convert to Judaism, is a non-Jew. This despite being genetically a definite Jew. To extend it further into absurdity, a person may be a 31/32 or 63/64 biological Jew, and if it’s proven that his Shiksa progenitor along the female line did not convert, and neither did her female descendants, then he’s still a Gentile.
(Of course, if you told that to ancient Hebrews, they’d poke you)
Not saying such cases are common. But this simple thought-experiment demonstrates that from the perspective of non-Jews, or rather, from the perspective of those who aren’t Orthodox Jews, there’s no reason whatsoever to take Halacha into consideration, much less adopt it wholesale. Simply put, we have recorded genealogies, we have DNA analysis, we have phenotypic manifestation, and we have common sense. No need to give a shit what Judaism the religion says. None of our business. Let Orthodox Jews sort out their own absurdities.
My position, in the abstract, on Whites who convert to Judaism is similar to my position on Whites who convert to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, or any religion tied to specific tribes or ethnicities. Namely: they’re Whites. Again, Orthodox Jews, who believe that the Jewish soul is qualitatively different than the Gentile soul, can convince themselves, and convince the “converts”, that upon “conversion” these Gentiles receive a new soul, or hilariously, that their “hidden Jewish soul” has awakened. We have no reason to accept this Jewish-supremacist metaphysics:
I don’t know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It’s asked: “which is worse: ignorance or indifference?” And it is answered: “I don’t know, and I don’t care.” Same thing here. If you’re genetically Whites, all the metaphysics in the world won’t excise your White DNA. Debates about “inner soul” are pointless and futile. Scrub a nigger, still a nigger.
“A cow don’t make ham.” – Frank Zappa
“Our descendants may witness the day when Israel will pogrom the Ashkenazim out of the country.”
https://blog.reaction.la/politics/the-wicked-flee-when-no-man-pursueth/#comment-1461885
When I have time I’ll write another effortpoastering about these issues.
Since I’ve finally got to making the effortpoast explicating my position, I’ll go over these questions rather curtly.
>But the question stands: What is a Jew?
A Jew is someone with a DNA that is more than 1/8 Ashkenazi OR someone who practices some form of Judaism. Two definitions, which may not be all that connected. The threshold for entrance into Whiteness should be 6% non-White blood. A 1/8 nigger is an octoroon, not a White. A 1/16 nigger is, well errr umm, a White. Since Ashkenazi Jews are about half-White when fully Ashkenazi, a 1/8 Ashkenazi is basically 94% White, and so can enter, but with caveats. A 1/8 Ashkenazi is White, unlike 1/8 nigger or 1/8 gook.
>Those Yemenite and Moroccan Jews are less Jewish, in this case, than a German with a faint drop of Jewish blood, contributed by a distant ancestor.
If we adopt the racial-biological conception of European-Jewry, and exclude the impertinent religious conception, then indeed, a hypothetical Heinrich Braun who has a few drops of Ashkenazi blood is more Jewish than some amulet-kissing Yosef Abutbul.
>I therefore do not see how the various tribes of modern Israel can be lumped together on racial grounds.
Well, some of them are tied by genetic proximity, while many other are not. Those who don’t behave or look like European Jews, are unsurprisingly not genetically related to them. Arsim, discussed elsewhere in this thread, are not “the same people” as Ashkenazim. Once you see it, can’t un-see it.
>The Yemenites are, of course, culturally Jewish. I’m not sure to what extent this matters.
Insofar as it leads Ashkenazim to race-mix with them, it matters.
>And if the Jew is defined by blood, how do you consider the likes of the Yemenite Jews?
Arabs who practice the Jewish religion. More importantly, a racial threat to the European-Jewish collective in Israel.
>The only satisfactory and consistent resolution, or so it seems to me, would be to consider the likes of the Yemenites and Moroccans not Jewish at all.
If our definition of “Jew” is “someone with substantial European-Jewish DNA”, then indeed, Yemenites and North Africans are not Jews. It’s very consistent and coherent when thus conceived.
>Considered in this light, Israel is not a Jewish state so much as it is a North African one — as you’ve stated earlier — which is interesting.
Incredibly interesting, yes. One has to wonder which trend Israel will go – darker and worse, or lighter and better. I’m not sure yet. Orthodox Ashkenazim are very fecund, albeit they’re of very low quality relative to secular Ashkenazim (all the Ashkies with half a brain ceased being religious decades ago, and consequently ceased reproducing. B is a smart religious Jew, but he was born to a secular family, which proves my point. The other Jews here are all from hiloni, that is “secular”, backgrounds AFAIC). Plus, there could be mass aliyah from Ashkenazi America. Overall, historically, the country only got browner and worse. Without Soviet immigrants, would have become a Hell Hole.
Second effortpoast. Enjoy. And sorry for the delay, Erebus – I’m not a NEET, and these are serious questions requiring serious reflection.
>What you’re asking boils down to the age-old question: What, exactly, is a Jew?
First, let’s separate between Jews in the religious sense — “people who follow a form of Jewish religion” — and biological Jews.
People who follow some sort of Judaic religion can be biological Jews of any kind (can be Mischlings), or they can be converts from all ethnicities and races. In the latter case, the converts could be ancient, from millennia ago, or modern, from yesterday, or anything in between ancient and modern times.
What interests us specifically is biological Jewry, so the issue of modern conversion to any form of Judaism is quite impertinent to our purposes here, but the issue of ancient conversion is pertinent, because ancient converts *have come to define* Jewry in its biological sense. See: Eli’s comment classifying different types of Jews according to their amount of Israelite blood, or lack thereof.
More specifically still, what we care about is Jews as Europe historically has known them. As such, groups that have little to no genetic similarity to European Jews are, from our point of view, an anthropological curiosity. These would be, chiefly speaking: Ethiopian Jews, Yemenite Jews, Berber Jews (the ones with no significant admixture from European Jews), Indian Jews, Chinese Jews, and everyone who claims descent from “the 10 tribes”. All these groups are not genetically related to European Jews, except in the most vague of senses, if even that, so let’s put them aside for now.
European Jews stem from the breeding of Judean men with Italian women whom they presumably converted to Judaism. That’s what DNA analyses keep telling us, so let’s accept that as broadly true. Now as I’ve written here in other comments, European Jews can be found in 4 varieties: Ashkenazim, Italqim, Romaniote, and Sephardim. You can also add Karaite Jews from Crimea here, who apparently are related to mainline Jewry and are not primarily converts, so let’s make that 5. All these are “European Jews”. Anyone with substantial admixture from these 5 populations is someone with substantial biological European-Jewish admixture, and as such, we can debate his Jewishness. If you don’t have substantial admixture from these 5 groups, you’re not a biological Jew in the European sense, and so you aren’t relevant here.
Ashkenazim are the largest group of European Jews, by far. Romaniotes, Karaites, and Italqim are small in number, and insignificant consequently. There are simply not enough of them to care about them. That leaves us with Ashkenazim and Sephardim. Unlike Ashkenazim, Sephardim have failed to preserve their racial distinction, for various historical reasons, yet their DNA persists, and they’re still here in significant numbers. The thing is, Sephardim everywhere have mixed with other Jews, be they Ashkenazim in Europe or Mizrahi Jews in other continents, and furthermore, mixed with plenty of non-Jews, going crypto in Spain and Portugal, and arriving as “Catholics” in South America. So while the amount of Sephardic blood circulating in the world is not insubstantial, it has become extremely diluted and obscure in many cases, thus rendering the issue of Sephardic Jewry rather marginal. I believe “pure Sephardim” are today primarily the Turkish Jews. And, the Sephardim in Europe not only mixed with Ashkenazim, but in many of cases, adopted the Ashkenazi culture, embracing Yiddish and Ashkenazi cuisine, and so it’s difficult to untangle these two groups, and not much point in doing so.
The Ashkenazim have begun as 350 people, and a millennium later, came to define European Jewry and as such, world Jewry, numbering millions of people, at least a dozen million of people if you’re counting Mischlings among them, worldwide. When we ask “are Jews white?” we refer to Ashkenazim. When we reference high Jewish verbal IQ, it’s the Ashkenazim we speak of. When we complain about Jewish misbehavior, in the modern sense, not in ancient times, it’s the Ashkenazim we take issue with. The blond, blue-eyed, non-Semitic-looking Jew is always an Ashkenazi or part-Ashkenazi. But most Ashkenazim do look Semitic, though not, I would say, fully Semitic.
From all this, it follows that, for our purposes here, the Jewish Question is the Ashkenazi Question. That is, when we speak about the JQ as opposed to the closely related Israeli Question. As I said, we are interested in European Jews, which the majority of Israelim are not. The Israeli Question is interesting in its own right, if there was any doubt. We will get to it. Now let me briefly address some of your questions.
>Is the half-Jew a Jew? The quarter-Jew? Where does one draw the line?
Since I’ve concluded that the JQ is the Ashkenazi Question, or at the very least, the “European-Jewish Question”, what you’re asking is this: how much Ashkenazi admixture does one have to inherit in order to count as a Jew. And I think that, if we ask many non-ironic Nazis, and many ironic Nazis, the answer would be “more than 12%”. That’s because there emerged a consensus on the alt right, based on historical precedent, that “Jews are not white”, but at the same time, it is recognized that Ashkenazim do carry white admixture. So the question is: how much is enough?
You see, the question is not about Jewishness, but about the Whiteness of Jews. Nobody cares all that much about hybrids of the Ashkenazi-Negroid type or the Ashkenazi-Mongoloid type. It’s the Ashkenazi-Caucasoid types that require addressing. And it seems that the answer many are content with is that genetically 1/8 Ashkenazim, whose other 7/8 parts are genetically White, are themselves Whites. The autism is strong on the alt-right, but those of a more sound mind realize that a few Ashkenazi alleles, like a few alleles of other non-White extractions, aren’t the end of the world. Half-Jews are very substantially Jewish. Quarter-Jews, too, are rather Jewish. When we reach Eighth-Jews, 1/8-Ashkenazi Whites, the admixture is diluted enough to become practically irrelevant. You’re still not considered an ideal White, but no reason to expel you to Israel (or gas you). You’re a second-rate White. If you breed with full Whites, there’s no danger of racial contamination, but it’s probably for the best if the most “high quality” Whites will be off-limits for you. Your children, if you breed with a full White, will be for all intents and purposes full Whites.
That’s my position. Admittedly, I’m not a real Nazi. People of a more sperglord persuasion can argue that unless 100% of your DNA is White, you should be exterminated. I don’t believe that. A waste of precious human blood, precious White blood. Far better to accept, with some caveats, the 12% threshold.
>Is cultural participation in Judaism a factor? Is it purely genetic?
I’ve answered it elsewhere. To repeat: European-Jewry is primarily a racial issue, rather than a cultural/religious issue. If you have 12% or less Ashkenazi DNA, and the rest is White, but alas, you grow up surrounded by Jews, you can still be “de-Jewed”. If you’re a first or second degree Mischling, you can’t be de-Jewed, because the Jew is deeply entrenched inside of your blood. Of course, if a 1/8 Jew insists with all his vigor to be a subversive kike bent on the annihilation of Western Civilization, count him as a Jew. Normally, that shouldn’t happen. It’s theoretical.
>Should phenotype be taken into consideration?
Not much. There are Jews with 96+% Ashkenazi DNA who have blue eyes, blond wavy non-kinky dense hair, a rosy healthy-looking skin, a straight aquiline high-bridge nose with delicate nostrils, a dolichocephalic skull structure, broad shoulders, a tall stature, and non-inbred facial features – to name some key physical aspects; and there are Ashkenazim who are fine with manual labor, have a sexually-puritan attitude (extremely rare among Jews), a fine visuo-spatial IQ and some artistic talent, who hate coons, bitches, and faggots, and never engage in subversive behavior – to name a few key mental characteristics. Doesn’t matter: “you are what you is, and that’s all it is.”
>More interestingly still, are “Jews†from Yemen and Morocco Jewish at all? Genetically, they share little-to-nothing with their Ashkenazi brethren… or false-brethren, as the case may be. Their behavior patterns & cognitive abilities are also, of course, markedly different.
In the religious sense, may as well be “Jews”. In terms of genetic proximity to European Jews, all Yemenites and most Moroccans are not “Jews”. Southern Arabian & Berber proselytes to Judaism. Same thing with Ethiopians. The Jews of Central Asia are also of dubious origins – it’s not at all clear how related they are to European Jews, if at all. All this has been addressed.
>As the population of Israel will be substantially mixed in the very near future, the implications of this are worth a few moments’ thought.
Israeli Jewry (not getting into the question of the non-Jewish Israelis or the Mischlings here) is best classified into 4 large “camps” based on genetic civilizational fitness. Note that these are “pure types”, not accounting for racial mixing.
Camp 1: European Jews. The Ashkenazim are the most competent of the bunch. Notice I said “competent”, not “nice” or “pleasant to deal with”. Annoying people – who get stuff done, if stuff has to be done. Pure Ashkenazim are a minority of Israelis, but without them, the Mizrahim would have to take “long distance swimming lessons”, if you know what I mean. Yekkes (German and Austrian Jews) are the best of all – most talented, highest IQ, no time for egregious bullshit. Next, Ostjuden – whom I distinguish between Litvaks, who are the more competent of the two types, but not very numerous, and Galitzianers, who are less competent, but more numerous.
Among non-Ashkenazi European Jews, there are few Karaites from Crimea (most Israeli Karaites are from Egypt), few Italqim and Romaniotes, and Sephardim who made aliyah from Europe, the Western Hemisphere, Turkey, Morocco/Algeria (where they mixed heavily with the Berber Jews, but some have retained their DNA in more-or-less intact form), and some other places. For “European Jews”, all these are second rate. Not as intelligent or industrious as (non-ultra-orthodox) Ashkenazim, but still pretty productive, and on the whole, Israel is better-off having them, than not having them. One advantage they have over Ashkenazim is relative mental sanity.
Camp 2: Levantine and Mesopotamian Jews. Without getting distracted by myriads of tiny communities, the bulk of these people are from Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran, and we can also add those Turkish Mizrahim who don’t have too much Sephardic admixture. They are, in case there’s some ambiguity about it, Semitic Middle-Easterners. In their own way, they too can get stuff done. But not the same stuff that Ashkenazim do, or at least, not with the same faculty.
Surely they have their own talents. Also surely, they are genetically related to Ashkenazim – all DNA analyses have confirmed it. But objective metrics indicate that they are inferior to Ashkenazim, and it’s not advisable to breed with them. They are not useless, they have their own niches. But don’t expect them to build colonies on Mars.
Camp 3: Maghrebi, Yemenite, and Central Asian Jews. Very weak to nonexistent genetic relation to European Jews. The descendants of en-masse proselytizing, or in the case of the Central Asian (primarily Bukharan, Georgian, and Mountainous Jews), gradual assimilation of autochtonous elements over millennia. Obviously, visibly, and distinctly inferior in all regards to European Jews. Numerically, they make the majority of Israelis, which is essential to grasp if you want to discuss the state of affairs in Israel. Won’t colonize Mars, and will prevent their “brethren” from going there.
Will stab you for trivial reasons, such as offending their “sense of honor” in some vague inexplicable way. For these types, “honor” is always something you demand, never something you bestow. Pdimov described it as “Arabs minus Islam plus Judaism”, and that’s literally what it is. Dunes gonna dune. Violent, stupid, superstitious bunch. Ashkenazim meekly accept whatever abuse these barbarians inflict upon them, because leftism is a mental disease. B, ever a holiness-signaller, would never utter a word against these “brethren”, even as they would treat him like shit.
(The reason they don’t — according to his oh-so-believable account — treat him like shit, assuming he isn’t lying about it, is that he’s a religious Jew, and I guess, being somewhat observant, they respect religious Jews, especially if they are religious Jews themselves – not unlike Muzzies, basically. If B were a secular Jew, or a Goy, he’d probably speak more truthfully and accurately about them. He has an emotional incentive to lie in order to defend their honor, you see)
Camp 4: Ethiopians. Much like camp 4, though these niggers are actually less annoying than the camp 3 types, but otherwise, low IQ crime-prone folks. The reason they’re less annoying is that they are less “in your face” about their bixnooding. They accept their lot as inferiors, I guess. Also, there are not nearly enough of them to acquire “dat attitude, nigga.” Still, they’re going to steal your bike, or beat you up to steal some money. True, they’re not like American niggers. American niggers would rape your wife, then pour acid down her throat, then shoot your kids’ brains out, then shove an iron pole up your anus, then cut off your ears and nose before setting you on fire, and with a smile on their face fall asleep on your couch. Ethiopians aren’t doing *that*. And yet – nigs gonna nog.
And do the Israelis really want to risk having these “disfigured and scorched piles of bodies” scenarios? Yes, B would take the risk. “Muh brethren.” Israel is obviously better off without any fake-jew dead-eyed black-souled creatures.
B wants the Pashtuns and the Igbos. There are also “Jews” in India and Indonesia, which I’m sure he wants in Israel, too. Anti-racist Hitler is real, it seems.
It is primarily Jewish memes that are a problem. Nothing very wrong with Jewish blood, other than an alarming propensity to holiness and sophistry, both of which can be adequately dealt with by culture and state religion. Teach everyone to discount holiness announced with cymbals and trumpets, which is already standard Christian teaching, and make the the fellow who presents a too clever by half argument for something that is clearly false a stock comic figure in video comedy. Similarly the person with clever arguments that what is virtuous happens to be what is in his personal interest.
We can then assimilate those who do not return to Israel smoothly enough. Genetic assimilation is happening quite rapidly and smoothly right now. It is memetic assimilation that is causing problems. People should not get hung up on racial purity. There is constant and quite rapid degeneration due to random mutations. It is eugenic fertility we need, not racial purity.
The Jews were far less represented in the corridors of power 60 years ago than today. The ones who were mostly went out of their way to avoid any appearance of being loyal to their fellow Jews vs. the WASP elites.
Example: Frankfurter’s response to Karski’s story.
The US was run not by ZOG but by Skull and Bones (a purely WASP thing.)
Did it work out well?
The US had three massive wars (Civil War, WW1, WW2) and two large overseas interventions (Korea and Vietnam) during this period.
Were these wars better than what the US has had since? Was Vietnam (THE Bones war, set up by the CIA and run by guys like McGeorge Bundy) better than Iraq (the neocon war, set up and run by guys like Perle, Wolfowitz, etc.)? They were both botched failures, but one of them cost an order of magnitude more American lives and money.
The dysfunctional US education system was built not by Jews but by WASPs as an instrument of class warfare against “white ethnics” who threatened their grasp on power through higher birthrates and social cohesion.
The US housing policy, where underclass blacks are used as a weapon of class warfare, was also built by WASPs.
The US monetary system was built by WASPs. From Jekyll Island where the Fed was established in a conspiratorial fashion by six guys (one of whom was a Jew) to the New Deal reforms.
Are these instruments good for America? Are they good for whites? If every single Jew leaves America today and all the changes made during the last few decades of Jewish dominance are rolled back, and America is left with its WASP-built military-industrial complex, educational system, monetary system and race relations setup (class warfare through race proxies,) will this leave Americans better off?
I think within five years you’d see another world war involving America, followed by/concurrent with race war and class war internally.
In all of Anglo-led American history, only white races (Englishmen, Irishmen, Germans, Scandinavians, Scots-Irishmen), and near-white races (Polacks, S. Italians, Jews) were imported. One nonwhite slave race was imported by the Scots-Irish into their own territory when they were still sovereign on their own soil. If all changes made during the last few decades of Jewish dominance are rolled back, 100 million foreigners will depart and America will be a 90% white country again, as it last was in the 1950s. Does this leave Americans better off? I leave that for you to decide.
I guess the Southern aristos weren’t Scots-Irish, really, so a point in favor of the Puritan-Industrialist axis and a point against the Southern plantation lords and their pretensions to nobility.
Look up Bacon’s Rebellion.
Cavaliers had a rebellion of cracker slaves on their hands (some black slaves joined in), which they put down with a mercenary army of blacks plus their Indian allies.
They couldn’t find 100 free white men willing to join the suppression of the rebellion.
You think your white masters want you living free?
>You think your white masters want you living free?
I do not. Competing power center. Jim says we don’t have segregation, apartheid, serfdom, and slavery, but we do, and we’re the cracker serf slaves. That wasn’t the point, though; the point is that our previous Anglo masters identified with us, their countrymen, in a way that our present Jewish master do not. It is rather striking that immediately upon Jewish ascent to power America started getting less white, is it not? Of course, that’s just the most stark example of the deliberate and systematic debasement of American culture of dissolution of American civilization. Just see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGLxoKOvzu4. Yes, that’s 100 million views in 1 month.
>our previous Anglo masters identified with us, their countrymen, in a way that our present Jewish master do not
Hence they allied themselves with everyone from cannibal Indian tribes whom they paid to be their slavecatchers when you ran away to the “emancipated” blacks of the South, whom they put in charge of you during Reconstruction.
Hence they killed vast numbers of you in foreign wars which consolidated their power over you.
You, like a Russian defending Stalin, have Stockholm Syndrome.
I don’t know what the old preppy New English WASP elite you have in mind imagined. I do know what their English cousins imagined. Read Brave New World. Compare that to what you have today. You’ve come a long way, baby…but you’ve got a ways to go.
I’m no Southerner, lol.
I’m no Southerner, lol.
>the point is that our previous Anglo masters identified with us, their countrymen, in a way that our present Jewish master do not.
Exactly. When whites rule, their subjects are, ar least according to some metrics, better off for it. Jewish rule, in contrast, always worsens the conditions of the subject people. Unsurprisingly, the subjects opt to violently revolt.
Anglos have their hearts in the right place, but their thinking is often misguided. Jews don’t have their hearts in the right place – ethnocentric assholes.
Never in their most intense, bedsheet-wetting nightmares could the old preppy New English WASP elite have imagined something such as the link above.
Also: *Of course, that’s just the most stark example of the deliberate and systematic debasement of American culture AND dissolution of American civilization.
Here, have one with NINE HUNDRED million views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXiSVQZLje8&list=RDQMOyj1Z7D1Wok
And make sure to watch it the entire way through. Force yourself to witness.
Pretty sure Anglo leftism is responsible for sexual degeneracy, not Jewish leftism. Compare Soviet feminism with Anglo feminism, or even the 19th century experiments like the Oneida community.
You can blame the snivel bads movement on the Jews, but I’m pretty sure you can’t blame the New Deal and feminism on the Jews. Once the New Deal occurred, snivel bads movement and feminism was inevitable, otherwise how would Harvard social science grads find 300k jobs as government experts?
Degeneracy in the old-school definition is mostly the result of White memes, especially Puritan memes, setting forth from Britain and from America into the entire world. When Stoddard wrote about degeneracy in “the revolt against civilization”, what he had in mind is not exactly what alt-righters have in mind when writing about degeneracy.
Degeneracy in the newly popularized definition, the alt-right definition, as in “sexual perversion as arbitrarily defined by myself”, is indeed very Jewish. Tellingly, one is now called a degenerate by melancholic 40 and 50 year-olds with 0 children (such as Brian Uecker), and by all manner of profligates who engage in premarital sex, sterile sex, with their “girlfriend” whom they probably won’t even marry, and the irony is lost on everyone.
“Chastity—the most unnatural of all the sexual perversions, he added parenthetically, out of Remy de Gourmont.” (Aldous Huxley, Eyeless In Gaza)
>Degeneracy in the newly popularized definition, the alt-right definition, as in “sexual perversion as arbitrarily defined by myselfâ€, is indeed very Jewish.
Judaism forbids homosexuality, sex out of wedlock, masturbation, etc.
By your logic, science is a very black thing-after all, look at Neil DeGrasse Tyson! Literacy, too, is black-look at Maya Angelou.
The Englishman Aldous Huxley was commenting on near, what he knew about his fellow countrymen, that when Englishmen do sexual perversion they invent chastity belts and fetishize blue balls in general. When Kellogg decided to hack off the best part of every little baby boy’s penis for generations, it was because he got off on denying millions of men sexual pleasure.
When Jews do sexual perversion they fuck like rabbits, anything and everything, preferably accompanied by reams of coke and acid.
Aldous Huxley was best friends with the Bloomsbury Group and taught at Eton. Those guys knew a bit about perversion. The amount of upper and middle class Brit sodomites was beyond belief.
Huxley was presumably getting the plan for the future from the horse’s mouth-Orgy Porgy etc. The decoupling of sex from love and childbearing on a social scale.
I’ll take your word for the details of Jewish perversion, and won’t ask how you know.
>Judaism forbids homosexuality, sex out of wedlock, masturbation, etc.
Law is relative to the people it governs.
Early American law trusted its citizens to regulate themselves, because they were from populations with that ability.
Islam forbids men to let their women to go to the grocery because they’ll be raped by horny Arabs—any Semite man, at the wrong place and wrong time, is a potential rapist.
Judaism forbids masturbation, female extramarital sex, masturbation, and et cetera because it’s attempting to regulate the libidinous nature of Semites.
>Judaism forbids masturbation, female extramarital sex, masturbation, and et cetera because it’s attempting to regulate the libidinous nature of Semites.
So why does Christian law forbid it?
I’m not a faggot myself, but a bit of discreet buttpiracy isn’t really all that perverse.
>So why does Christian law forbid it?
Well, firstly, >Christianity, not a Semitic cult.
Secondly, Christianity doesn’t ban masturbation.
Thirdly, what I’m really talking about is the amount of effort expended in trying to regulate it. Whites can be mostly trusted to look after themselves (provided that they’re receiving the right programming from their moral leaders) in the same way as whites can be trusted not to defect from the cooperate-cooperate equilibrium — that only whites create high-trust societies.
I’m not a Christian, but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#Christianity
>Whites can be mostly trusted to look after themselves
Yes, clearly.
Cavalier is correct on all points here.
Whites tend to be sexually apathetic, more so than other races. Semites are “anything but” sexually apathetic; Pman says that Jews are sexually neurotic, and that’s largely true.
In this regard, the Semitic manner is probably superior to the White. If you get off on being sexually teased while in chastity belt, you’re really not going anywhere. If you get off on breaking taboos, might actually lead to reproductive sex.
Whites, particularly Anglos, love them some chastity. Jews love orgasms. In evolutionary terms, the Jews are more fine-tuned, have a sharper self-preservation instinct, as noted by Hitler. A sharp self-preservation instinct must be related to hypersexuality.
>Well, I’m not a Christian
Well, that’s nice. Coincidentally, I’m not either. We’ll be able to talk prog to prog!
>,but:
You bring up an interesting question: What is Christianity? Is Christianity that which Christians practiced from the time of Jesus to about 1950, is Christianity that which organizations that call themselves Christianity dictate, or is Christianity that which is found in the Bible?
The word “Christianity”, at least when I use the term, is some combination of #1 and #3, never #2. So when you link to a Wikipedia article that says — “Today, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians consider masturbation to be a sin.” — I scroll up the page and find:
“””
The biblical story of Onan (Gen. 38) is traditionally linked to referring to masturbation and condemnation thereof,[1] but the sexual act described by this story is coitus interruptus, not masturbation.[2][3][4][5][6] There is no explicit claim in the Bible that masturbation is sinful.[7][8]
According to James Nelson, there are three interpretive examinations why Onan’s act is condemned: the Onan story reflects firm “procreative” accent of the Hebrew interpretation regarding sexuality, a constant of the “prescientific mind” to consider that the child is contained in the sperm the same way a plant is contained in its seed, and masturbation as well homosexual acts by men have been condemned more strongly than same acts by women in the Judeo-Christian tradition.[9]
Ilona N. Rashkow states: “it is questionable whether masturbation is considered a category of ‘negative’ sexual activity in the Hebrew Bible” and that Lev 15:16 “refer to the emission rather than its circumstances.”[10] Jones and Jones state James R. Johnson’s biblical view on masturbation: “treating a solitary sexual experience, whether wet dream or masturbation, as a purely ceremonial cleanliness issue and not as a matter of morality.”[11] They state: “Johnson suggest that Leviticus 15:16-18 should set the tone for our dealing with masturbation. Verses 16 and 17 say that a man who has an emission of semen should wash and be ceremonially unclean until evening. Verse 18 goes on to say that if a man and woman have intercourse, the same cleanliness rules apply. By bringing up intercourse separately, the passage surely does imply that the emission of semen in verses 16 and 17 occurred for the man individually. The passage may be referring to a nocturnal emission, or wet dream, rather than masturbation, but the passage is not specific. Johnson suggests that this Leviticus passage is significant for treating a solitary sexual experience, whether wet dream or masturbation, as a purely ceremonial cleanliness issue and not as a matter of morality. The passage also puts no more disapproval on the solitary experience than it does on intercourse. Since Christians today commonly view the Old Testament ceremonial law as no longer valid, this author suggests that masturbation is not in itself a moral concern from a biblical perspective and is no longer a ceremonial concern either.”
T.J. Wray explains what the Bible actually states (and does not state) about masturbation: “Returning to the Levitical list of sexual taboos, curiously missing from the list is any mention of masturbation.”[12] Then she goes on discussing Gen 38 and Lev 15 and concludes “None of this, however, represent a clear condemnation of masturbation.”[12]
Carl L. Jech stated “Masturbation is never mentioned in the Bible”.[13] M.K. Malan and Vern Bullough have stated “nowhere in the Bible is there a clear unchallenged reference to masturbation” and “masturbation is not mentioned in the Bible or Book of Mormon”.[14]
According to The Oxford Handbook of Theology, Sexuality, and Gender, some scholars suggest that the word ‘hand’ in Matthew 5:29-30, Mark 9:42-48, and Matthew 18:6-9 may implies masturbation as in the Mishnah (m. Nid. 2.1).[15]:204 Regarding those biblical passages, The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Gender Studies states Will Deming’s view: “The sinning by eye, hand, and foot may come from a tradition of formulaic warnings against lustful gazing (by the eye), masturbation (by hand), and adultery (by ‘foot’, the Hebrew euphemism for genitalia).”[16] In addition to the eye, Deming argues that “the hand plays a major role in lust as well through masturbation”.[17]
“””
Yeah…
>Yes, clearly.
Remember how I said “(provided that they’re receiving the right programming from their moral leaders)”?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=YQ2xtWgBlzk
Moral leaders.
degeneracy is a fine word because it is defined. Sex is degenerate if it doesn’t aid in family formation. Drug use is degenerate if it harms family formation or career. Conversely, what used to be listed as vices by puritans are not degenerate and beneficial if they don’t harm or aid family formation.
Sex with a girlfriend you’re not going to marry may build you sexual market capital which could aid in your family formation, while the chick would just have damaged her sexual market capital with someone else anyway.
As a special case, cuckoldry must be absolutely forbidden, because it helps parasites to survive. Degeneracy merely needs to be mocked.
>What is Christianity? Is Christianity that which Christians practiced from the time of Jesus to about 1950, is Christianity that which organizations that call themselves Christianity dictate, or is Christianity that which is found in the Bible?
[proceeds to, in typical prog fashion, quote “scholars” proving that TRUE Christianity, viewed correctly at the right angle, was nothing like Christianity as actually practiced by the vast majority of Christians throughout history, and that masturbation was considered dandy]
You could do the same to show that Christianity has nothing against homosexuals-oh, just a second-“I’m not a faggot myself, but a bit of discreet buttpiracy isn’t really all that perverse.”
You gay, yo.
>proceeds to, in typical prog fashion, quote “scholars†proving that TRUE Christianity, viewed correctly at the right angle, was nothing like Christianity as actually practiced by the vast majority of Christians throughout history, and that masturbation was considered dandy
YOU referenced that Wikipedia page as an authoritative source.
If you don’t want to be pwned by your own source material, try actually reading what it says before posting.
>buttpiracy
Christians hate sodomy, admittedly not without good reason, but I personally don’t really give a shit. Granted, were I king, those paraders would be shot, but it’s the parade that’s really egregious, not that some full-grown men feel compelled to pack each other’s poop. Their appropriation of the rainbow also pisses me off.
B, what matters with faggots is the political agenda. Do not care if men insert their penises into other men’s anuses, behind closed doors. Which is why, coincidentally, the dyke problem is infinitely more severe than the faggot problem. The problem is the war against sexuality, male sexuality, heterosexual sexuality. Perversion, sextoys, porn, prostitution – as long as it’s private, as long as no (((social messages))) are conveyed, no reason to intrude into people’s life for it.
> Do not care if men insert their penises into other men’s anuses, behind closed doors.
I care, and if I have reliable witnesses to it, I’d stone the perverts publicly, ISIS style if need be. For this reason, even though I worked with some “openly gay” men, I always avoided befriending them, even if otherwise they seemed OK.
No, it’s not OK to do sodomy, neither private nor consensual nor any other kind between men. It’s not a metaphorical prohibition, there is no allegory here. The spirit of the Law and the Law speak in unison.
As I said earlier: Gays prevent regular males from expressing affection to each other and thus undermine social cohesion. If gays are not put to death, David cannot express his love for Jonathan, in which case it is hard to maintain the social cohesion necessary for King David to maintain order and peace.
Btw, by allowing “behind-closed-doors-faggotry” have you thought about the (((implications)))? Jim rightly brought up those. Faggotry should not be allowed. Period.
Exactly, as Jim said. Often, I feel uncomfortable publicly kissing my own father or brother.
Heck, some men tell me they’re uncomfortable if someone (another male) walks with them closer than a foot apart. A guy at work went ballistic when I came close to him, in order to see better what was going on his screen (we were trying to debug/understand a problem). Need for “personal space” — mental hospital grade stuff.
These are just some personal observations of the disgusting social dynamic in the Western world because of acceptance of “merely private sodomy.” All the need for straight men (those with healthy pride) to go extra step merely to ascertain they are not thought of as fags.
I want to be rid of faggots and dykes and trannies and “noncomformers” because these mutants harm society, not because poop-dick or menstruation-slurp disgust me (which, to be clear, they do). Since the reason these people exist is rooted in genetics, genetic engineering can be utilized to prevent them from being born. Yes, there are “gay genes”. Let’s delete them.
For this, need to defeat political correctness absolutely.
Cavalier-the Wikipedia link I provided clearly shows that Christianity as traditionally practiced forbade it and that prog Christianity, the same kind of Christianity which permits all other perversions, permits it.
>Since the reason these people exist is rooted in genetics
This is an assumption which the progs have been selling for 20 years. I don’t buy it. It is contrary to common sense, and no gay genes have been found thus far.
>the Wikipedia link I provided clearly shows that Christianity as traditionally practiced forbade it and that prog Christianity, the same kind of Christianity which permits all other perversions, permits it
lolwut?
》I want to be rid of faggots and dykes and trannies and “noncomformers†because these mutants harm society, not because poop-dick or menstruation-slurp disgust me (which, to be clear, they do). Since the reason these people exist is rooted in genetics, genetic engineering can be utilized to prevent them from being born. Yes, there are “gay genesâ€. Let’s delete them.
White genes are sacred and driving variants to fixation without fully understanding them is sacrilege. It is much easier to make the case for driving red hair to fixation, but that would fundamentally change the White experience of physical pain and make the Classics less accessible
>make the Classics less accessible
Physical pain I understand, but the Classics? Plenty of ancient Greeks and Romans had red hair: Achilles, Troy, the Thracians, Pyrrhus of Pyrrhic victory fame, etc. It’s a bit like how the Celts are the extant population most resembling the ancient Romans, especially that super-high nose bridge.
Rampant female promiscuity doesn’t precede substantial Jewish involvement, and power’s drive for social acceptance of rampant female promiscuity doesn’t occur until well after significant Jewish power.
Whites have had the same strict monogamous mating system for many millennia, and Hajnal whites have experienced selection under an even more strict system for many centuries. Jews are notorious sexual degenerates. The assimilation of Jews into the ruling elite perfectly coincides with widespread degeneration _in the real world_. It really is not that hard to put 2 and 2 together.
You are grossly under estimating Victorian immorality and overestimating Victorian chastity. When she was hot Florence Nightingale seems to have spent a remarkable amount of time in private with a long succession of wealthy alpha males.
Yes, Jews clearly made things worse, but the direction was obvious before Jews were allowed into the ruling elite.
There have always been sluts readily available to comfort a long succession of wealthy alpha males. One notable protofeminist slutting it up with the hottest males around doesn’t seem especially significant to me.
To the nearest percent divisible by 10, how many brides were virgin at marriage in 1800?
In 1900? 1950? 1960? 1970? 1980?
I know what it is in the current year.
P.S. It seems to me that the so-called Sexual Revolution coincides with the change in Harvard admissions, namely Anglos being supplanted by miscellaneous other whites, one-third to one-half of whom were Jewish.
As for 1800, close to 100%. In 1900 far lower. In 1936, alarmingly low.
I am pretty sure that the number of virgin brides in 1950 and 1960 was far higher than the number of virgin brides in 1900 or 1936.
When the state realized it needed men to fight wars, we had a minor and partial restoration.
The driving force behind elites supporting patriarchy, monogamy, and female chastity has always been the need to draw beta males into working for the social order, and fighting for it, and never was this more conspicuously obvious than in the interregnum between first wave and second wave feminism.
Exactly this.
Saying that “Jews aren’t responsible for feminism” sounds quite crazy to someone who knows lots of Jews socially. Jews are plainly:
1) Less sexually dimorphic – effeminate men, masculine women
2) Overall, less physically attractive but more professionally accomplished – which is exactly the formula for making women less attractive to men who are at least still valued on the marriage market if not valued on the mating market
3) More prone to sexual deviance
Put those together and what are the results? A feminism that’s driven by resentment by masculine, unattractive women who solipsistically believe that their career “achievements” should make them attractive and are angry at the world that they don’t. They’re higher drive and so end up getting pumped and dumped by men out of their league more often and so build up more anger and resentment. Even if they do settle down and marry a Jewish man they’re infuriated by his passive behavior so they henpeck and nag – which increases the passivity, which ramps up the bitchiness.
All of this exactly matches what you see out of modern feminism and modern culture.
Quite true. But the shit hit the fan when Parliament refused to let George the fourth divorce his slut wife. That was when marriage was smashed and monarchy was smashed. Everything since then has just been mopping up operations – mopping up operations in which Jews have been rather prominent, disturbingly prominent, but hardly causative.
>Jim, virgin marriage
If I recal correctly, the actual stats show a straight downward trend. There’s a plateau, but it doesn’t actually go back up.
>The driving force behind elites supporting patriarchy, monogamy, and female chastity has always been the need to draw beta males into working for the social order, and fighting for it
You’ve hit the nail on the head with this one. Two parts: first, the military conquest of the world; second, the complete transition from energy derived from farmers farming land to energy derived from oil pumped out of the Middle Eastern desert. Consider what might happen if 90% of men were economically useless, dead weight driftwood. Might it not look rather like it does now?
P.S. Did you know that 10 kcalories of oil energy go into the production of 1 kcalorie of food energy? Yup.
Perhaps. Could you link to those stats?
“I am pretty sure that the number of virgin brides in 1950 and 1960 was far higher than the number of virgin brides in 1900 or 1936.”
No way Jim. Didn’t you read that chapter in LKY’s bio about how he was on a British ship and there was a room littered with condoms because the soldiers and nurses were fucking in a huge pile? I think you vastly discount the Victorian period relative to the 1950s. Maybe victorians talk more about immorality because to them it was still something rare, which was not the case for the 40s and 50s.
If memory serves, that was well before the 1950s.
— P.S. Did you know that 10 kcalories of oil energy go into the production of 1 kcalorie of food energy? Yup.
this is totally irrelevant and nutty to bring up. we are up against the left and industrialization only correlates with leftism because more resources means more opportunity to waste resources on leftism. industrialization does not imply leftism.
>Perhaps. Could you link to those stats?
The last time I looked it up was a few years ago. I’m pretty sure it was just a simple Google search, but I don’t see anything on Google now.
>this is totally irrelevant and nutty to bring up.
No it isn’t.
>we are up against the left and industrialization only correlates with leftism because more resources means more opportunity to waste resources on leftism. industrialization does not imply leftism.
Two parts: firstly, it matters where the energy (resources) come from, how, and who seizes it; secondly, it matters that total wealth is ever-growing.
Power and money are two sides of the same coin. When a man accumulates a fortune, the first thing he does is use that fortune to purchase power. When a man acquires power, the first thing he does is use that power to accumulate a fortune. Separation of powers is an illusion.
When you are using 2 to 5 to 7 percent more energy each year than the year previous, you are generating 2 to 7 percent more wealth, and that wealth will be concentrated in the hands of the men producing it. Hence, John D. Rockefeller, the man who ruled the energy wellspring at the height of the Industrial Revolution, died with a net worth of 350 billion dollars in today’s dollars. The king of England was never that wealthy.
And then you see what happens to it after the founders die, as in the case of the Ford Foundation, or even while they’re still living, as in the case of Gates, which is even more egregious.
But the main point is that an ever-growing economy equals a continually replenished class of new wealth, and obviously they’re going to agitate for lefty causes, like the billionaire oil heiress alumna who wants to give vast sums of money to your college to “involve” more wymen in the engineering programs. You should see the way the academics trip over themselves to suck the moneyed dick.
Some Jews, being religious or otherwise puritan, are less sexually degenerate. Elite-accepted Jews tend to have fewer children. “Strict monogamy” sounds like a myth, given that behaviors can’t change so quickly from chastity to lasciviousness. You’re ignoring most of the facts, not that I know all of them myself.
Source? From what I remember Bacon’s rebellion succeeded, Bacon just died, leading to Berkeley’s restoration. Pretty sure armed Indians and Blacks in Virginia would have resulted in Haiti.
James LaFond has a lot on the subject, look through his archives or drop him an email.
Armed Indians and Blacks did not lead to Haiti. The Indians were always on the Western frontier, preying on the free crackers. The blacks were not a problem, for the same reason that the Romans and Spartans had no problem using slave soldiers (Augustus, Pompey, Brasidas.)
Regarding the educational system:
http://www.returnofkings.com/64892/why-is-the-united-states-still-using-the-prussian-education-system
Names not groups.
B, you just defined Jewish rule broadly to include prog Jews, as Nazis correctly do. During the fifties, people had families and fathers, husbands had wives. Now we don’t. Even if you marry, she is still only a girlfriend, and you are lucky if she is that.
And it is largely Jewish conversos to progressivism, who did not get the joke, who proceeded to enforce progressivism for real, instead of a hypocritical pretense, that destroyed the family. The hypocrisy of the Wasps, from the start of World War II to 1963, was restoring the family.
The same exact social changes have happened in places which are short on Jews. For instance, Japan.
The conversos to progressivism may not have gotten the joke, but the proggiest progressives did not get the joke either, going back decades, suggesting there was no joke. See: Bloomsbury Group, Oneida Community, etc. You want the wholesome family morality of Virginia Woolf?
You should ask yourself why modern family structure increasingly resembles what Aldous Huxley described in Brave New World. Is it a coincidence? Was Huxley secretly a Jew?
The social changes in Japan were progressive memes abruptly, violently, and suddenly imposed by the progressive MacArthur at gunpoint, and they are being wiped out faster than anyone.
So yes, Jews did not do it. I agree entirely. Notice the title of the post to which you are responding. The big problem is prog memes imposed by progs. But in this conflict Jews are for the most part on the wrong side, and you are not exactly on the right side.
I don’t see your side as being the right side.
“Drinking strong acids is bad for you, therefore, we should drink strong bases.”
The social order of 1790 England worked, therefore not analogous to drinking a strong base.
The Nazis want to return to the New Deal, but the New Deal failed to address the problem of family formation.
Dalrock wants to return to the 1950s, but the 1950s were doomed, because social pressure needs to be backed by legal coercion, and the law was at war with society. 1790 England, 1800 Australia, and Japan before MacArthur are societies where patriarchy was backstopped, rather than undermined, by the state.
And 1790 England went on to achieve very great things, except it was undermined by a hostile belief system that it failed to adequately suppress.
Well, it worked until it didn’t. The social order of 1790 England led straight here, in a way that was not predictable to anybody at the time.
Took a while.
And getting here started with overthrow of the social order of 1790: Parliament getting fiesty and not giving the King his way, aristocratic military heroes being demonized by beta males, marriage attacked.
That’s an arbitrary point. Compare to the Parliament that William of Orange had to deal with, not to mention hi predecessors…
What? Japan has a reactionary trend, restoring the family? Since when?
I thought they had a decline in marriage, because of picky women being unrealistic about whom they may marry, a loss of masculinity, and economic stagnation.
What am I missing, Jim?
>B, you just defined Jewish rule broadly to include prog Jews, as Nazis correctly do.
I don’t believe this to be correct, but am doing so for argument’s sake.
“If every single Jew leaves America today and all the changes made during the last few decades of Jewish dominance are rolled back, and America is left with its WASP-built military-industrial complex, educational system, monetary system and race relations setup (class warfare through race proxies,) will this leave Americans better off?”
Quite probably.
The more interesting question is whether it will leave you better off. Where do you prefer your ‘brethren’ be located?
I would prefer for them to be here, of course. But as a result of a free, uncoerced choice.
Agree completely.
Names not Groups.
Go for names problem solved.
Go for groups you’ll miss your chance by missing the names.
As an addendum to my comment to Erebus here:
https://blog.reaction.la/culture/not-the-jews-2/#comment-1583954
Allow me to make the following observations:
Pure Ashkenazim in Israel are more rare than the average alt-righter imagines.
To be continued shortly.. (phone hits reply against my will)
Pure Ashkenazim in Israel running things and in power are as common as the average alt-righter imagines. For example, Judaism in Israel is Ashkenazi Judaism. All other branches have been reduced to an Epcot style display.
>Pure Ashkenazim in Israel running things and in power are as common as the average alt-righter imagines.
Right, because there is no one to step in and replace them. But how long could they run a country whose majority is Third Worlders and unemployed bums?
I do not notice many third worlders or unemployed bums around.
I see people working harder than anywhere else I’ve been.
I also notice that when I use the library at Ariel University (the closest thing we have to a State U) that most of the kids in there are of middle color (not white and not brown-something like the Spanish)-and are talking in formulas and comp sci speak. Meaning, mostly engineers and programmers.
Since people have been intermarrying here for the last 40 years without much concern, we should expect to see, according to your hypothesis, a drop off in patents, STEM prizes and startup exits (normalized globally.)
Name a time horizon.
The percentage of pure Ashkenazim dwindles, or rather, has dwindled for the last 50 years, but the absolute number of pure Ashkenazim has increased. Thus, no drop-off in startups and patents.
Likewise, the percentage of incompetent Mizrahim has increased, and the percentage of competent Mizrahim decreased, but both kinds have grown in absolute numbers, thus no drop-off in startups and patents.
Ariel University, you say? I say: selection bias. Universities of the real kind, not the ebonics-gender-studies kind, attract intelligent people of all races. Maybe you should take a vacation to Eilat, as a woman I know did last winter when her country of origin was freezing cold and she needed some sunlight, and report on the SCIENTIFIC FORMULAS spoken by the Moroccans there (kek), be they locals or vacationers from other places in the country. And that’s not, by any means, the only city with brown, dumb, aggressive Mud Jews everywhere you look.
You do not notice Third Worlders because you don’t want to notice them, and because you live around the more competent kind of people Israel has to offer, rather than the less competent. Also, I suspect that you do, in actual fact, notice them, but lie about it for Hasbara purposes.
Google pics of “Eilat pool party” for reference.
(No, the sun, while it tans your skin, doesn’t give you Berber facial features. It’s not Ashkenazim in the pictures)
I’ve heard it said that Greeks look similar to Israelis. Been to Greece – Israelis are on average swarthier, and also on average, look less like Europeans. Pale-skinned lightly-pigmented Ashkenazim are more of an exception than a rule.
Google pics of Ios beach party. Don’t look Moroccan.
Google pics of Mykonos beach party. Not Moroccan.
Google pics of Rhodes beach party. Not Moroccan.
You’re living in a North African country.
Ariel and many other experiences suggest to me that the Sepharadim/mixed populations are producing plenty of people who can productively work with their heads.
I live around all kinds of people. I also work in Tel Aviv and have worked in Petah Tikva and Bnei Brak.
I don’t care about facial features, I care about actions. The actions of the people I live around are such that I don’t lock my car or house. Despite the fact that more than half are Sepharadim or mixed. I don’t lock the car when I go down to Bnei Brak, either.
I can find crime-ridden neighborhoods if I want, sure. For instance, Pardes Katz is North Bnei Brak, and was infamous for decades for being Bronx-ish. Today, it’s mostly colonized by Haredim from Bnei Brak, around whom I leave the car unlocked, who don’t even cross the street at a red light, even if there are no cars coming, despite many of them being brown-ish. Some of the old arsim are around, but there are less and less of them, and they are feeling the social pressure.
First of all, your use of “Sephardim” as substitute for “Mizrahim” is absolutely misleading. It’s absolutely misleading, because you’re doing this for liturgical reasons — Mizrahim pray like Sephardim, not like Ashkenazim — while we’re discussing genetics and ethnicity here.
Actual Sephardim are originally European Jews from Iberia, and there aren’t all that many of them. I wrote a lengthy post about Jewish divisions ITT (it’s like you haven’t even read it. It took me some effort, y’know), where I briefly explained this. There are plenty of crypto-Sephardim, or more precisely, descendants of crypto-Sephardim, in the world, but actual Sephardi Jews are quite rare.
Secondly, as I explained above in the lengthy comment, there are all kinds of Mizrahim, and they are quite dissimilar to each other. You can separate the Mizrahim into 2 camps based on civilization level:
The first camp would be Levantine and Mesopotamian Jews, who are not, in case there was any doubt, on the same level of Ashkenazim, but are pretty “a-okay” overall. These are Egyptian, Palestinian, Lebanese, Turkish, Kurdish, Iraqi, and Iranian Jews. They are all more-or-less medium functioning. Not horrible people, but it’s better to keep an eye on some of them, just in case.
The second camp would be North African, Central Asian, and Yemenite Jews, who fall far below the level of Ashkenazim, and are inferior in relation to the former group of Mizrahim. These are Jews from Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Yemen, and sundry Central Asian groups, chiefly speaking, Georgian, Bukharan, and Kavkazi Jews. All of these are pretty darn low-functioning. They are also the majority of Mizrahim, and the majority of Israelis.
(And as I explained, some European Jews, mostly Sephardim, and a few Ashkenazim, have settled in North Africa. When discussing North African Jews, or Judaized Berbers, I perforce refer to the ones who don’t have any significant admixture from European Jews – I refer to the direct descendants of the Judaized Berbers who lived in North Africa before the 15th century and subsequent centuries brought European Jews there)
Now, if you want to argue that my assessment of pure-specimens vs. hybrids is off, and that there are more hybrids than I think there are, I can readjust my estimation to be as follows:
45% pure Mizrahim
40%-35% mixed Mizrahi-Ashkenazi hybrids
20%-15% pure Ashkenazi
This, of course, is if we pretend the Ethiopians don’t exist. There are cities and neighborhoods in Israel where the vast majority is Berber-Yemenite-Centralasian Jews (Mizrahi camp 2), and you won’t leave your car unlocked around them, nor around Ethiopians. There aren’t cities and neighborhoods where Mizrahi camp 1 are the majority, because Mizrahi camp 1 is the minority of Mizrahim in Israel.
I encourage Erebus or anyone else who follows this discussion to research these things out, and after preliminary research at the very least, tell me what you make of my elucidations ITT.
Lastly, the issue is not old Arsim. It’s young and fecund Arsim – it’s your average Mizrahi being an Ars, and worse still, average Israeli being an Ars. If you look for Arsim in the university, won’t find them there. Probably won’t find them in your Samaria community. Cross the Green Line into regular Israel, there you’ll find more than enough Arsim.
This is not meant, to be sure, to imply that Ashkenazim aren’t themselves problematic for many reasons. But we’re all familiar with the Ashkenazi and his antics. If we want to discuss Israel, must understand the Mizrahi problem. It’s vital.
What you’re doing, by denying the state of affairs on the ground, is hindering rational debate. My intention is to foster rational debate with as accurate facts and observation as I can procure. It’s an extremely interesting and pertinent issue on our hands here, and I’m perfectly justified in being autistic and obsessive about it.
(Of course, forgot to add Syrian Jews to Mizrahi camp 1)
I use the term Sepharadi as it is used in Israel, meaning, everyone who is from the Muslim world except for Yemenites, Bukharim and Caucasian Jews.
The places I mentioned are within the 1948 borders.
I have no problem leaving my car unlocked in religious neighborhoods, despite the fact that half the residents are Sepharadim and Yemenites.
Similarly, when I used to hitchhike to school/work, I did not notice that Sepharadim and Yemenites picked me up less than Ashkenazim.
>I use the term Sepharadi as it is used in Israel
Israelis tend to be quite confused about that stuff. Perhaps deliberately confused. The Zionist regime doesn’t want its sheeple asking too many uncomfortable questions. As with Trump’s rhetoric, you are allowed to veer outside of political correctness – but not all the way outside. To suggest that the difference between European Jews and Mizrahi Jews may be more than merely “cultural” is to come dangerously close to thoughtcrime.
>meaning, everyone who is from the Muslim world except for Yemenites, Bukharim and Caucasian Jews.
Use your brains, B: how does that make any sense? Surely, you don’t suggest Sephardic (Iberian) Jews fled all the way to Iraq and Iran, so as to warrant including Iraqi and Persian Jews within your illogical “Sephardic” category, do you? As I said, Israelis are quite confused, and are kept in a state of confusion, but do try to break out of the Matrix for once, will you.
>I have no problem leaving my car unlocked in religious neighborhoods,
Most Mizrahim aren’t “religious” as much as “traditionalist”. You’re evading the issue here. Evasive!
>despite the fact that half the residents are Sepharadim and Yemenites.
Okay, so let me see. Firstly, for some strange reason, you choose not to specify which “Sephardim” (Mizrahim) constitute the population of these neighborhoods. Is it relatively-civilized Syrian Jews, or “Coco from Morocco” types? B doesn’t say.
Secondly, whatever the origin of these Mizrahim, according to you, they only make “half the residents” there. So presumably, the other half is law-abiding Ashkenazim. In other words, you’re bullshitting me. The omission here is egregious.
And again, since most Mizrahim aren’t religious, but traditional, your anecdote just isn’t representative of the broader state of affairs. Not really the “phenomenon” which I’m tackling here.
>Similarly, when I used to hitchhike to school/work, I did not notice that Sepharadim and Yemenites picked me up less than Ashkenazim.
Irrelevant, and again, you don’t specify which specific Middle Eastern Jews these were.
Your debate tactic here is known as “damage control”. Instead of addressing the issue in earnest, you provide a weak-sauce, imprecise anecdote in order to stifle the conversation.
Do you *feel* like the readers are convinced by you?
> since most Mizrahim aren’t religious, but traditional
They’re traditional enough that I can leave my vehicle around them as well, and they’re getting more religious.
>which “Sephardim†(Mizrahim) constitute the population of these neighborhood
The ones you assure me are subhuman.
>you don’t suggest Sephardic (Iberian) Jews fled all the way to Iraq and Iran
Don’t be an idiot. When I say “a white neighborhood in New York City,” everyone understands that this includes all sorts of whites, right down to the Russians.
>They’re traditional enough that I can leave my vehicle around them as well,
So you won’t say whether they were traditionalists or actually religious (datiim). Just sorta-kinda-maybe “traditional enough”. Nice.
>and they’re getting more religious.
Impertinent social commentary, lol. The question is what they were at a specific point in time, not what they are gradually becoming. And it’s clear from your answer that they tended toward religious observance beyond mere traditionalism, hence, not representative of Mizrahi population, which is generally not religiously observant beyond basic tradition-keeping, regardless of whatever the future may hold.
>When I say “a white neighborhood in New York City,†everyone understands that this includes all sorts of whites, right down to the Russians.
Just how dense are you? Let me put this in clear terms, I’ll even add numbers to help you follow through:
1) Sephardim were the Jews of Spain and Portugal. Sepharad literally means “Spain”.
2) In 1492 and 1497, Spain and Portugal respectively kicked their Jews out. Those Jews dispersed to many regions.
3) Many of them came to North Africa, and established their Sephardic liturgy and religious practice as dominant.
4) Therefore, even though North African Jews are mostly Judaized Berbers, and their genetic Sephardic admixture is not great, for “cultural reasons” North African Jews were called Sephardim.
5) The situation is similar in Turkey, where in fact, the Sephardic admixture is quite significant, so Turkish Jews may be regarded as more-or-less legitimate Sephardim, not just “culturally”, but also genetically.
6) Originally, however, neither Turkish Jews nor North African Jews (to say nothing of other Middle Eastern communities) were called Sephardic. They got this name only *after* Sephardic Jews had settled in their lands.
7) If you’re clinically retarded, let’s spell it out together: before the time of fin-de-siecle 15th century, before the expulsions and subsequent settlement in North Africa and other places, no Jew outside of Spain and Portugal was “Sephardic”. North African Jews were called “Western” – Maghrebis.
8) Furthermore, the Syrian Jews, whom you also call “Sephardic”, themselves have not accepted this foreign terminology, and remained, actually still remain, Halabis and Shamis. If you came to Damascus in 19th century looking for “Sephardim”, people would be rightly confused. Today, you are confused, and I’m trying to help you come to your senses.
9) Only after Sephardim from Iberia settled in North Africa, did the Maghrebi Jews discover they were “Sephardic” (Spanish).
10) But Sephardic Jews did not settle in Iraq and Iran. Because they didn’t settle there, could not have “Sephardized” (Iberianized) the Jews of those regions.
11) Thus, even if you insist, for “cultural reasons”, on calling North African and Turkish Jews “Sephardim”, even though the former group doesn’t carry too much Sephardic DNA, this reasoning can’t apply to the Mesopotamian Jews who were not visited at all by Sephardim.
12) Lo and behold! Iraqi and Persian Jews did not know they were “Sephardim” until their arrival to Israel. (Iraqi Jews were more likely to see themselves as Arabs than to culturally identify with Maghrebi Jewish customs) In the same way, and for the same reason, Centralasian Jews are not “Sephardim”. At least you’ve got *that* right!
13) Henceforward, unless our discussion will revolve around liturgy and synagogal practices, the correct terminology, from the perspective of European Jews and Europeans in general, is not to call all the ME/NA Jews “Sephardim”, which is ridiculous, and shows how deeply confused the speaker is, but to call them Mizrahim. “Mizrahim” may not be a perfect term, after all, the Maghreb, home to Berber Jews, is “West” while Mizrahim means “Easterners”, but it still makes more historical and ethnic sense than to lump all those groups as “Spanish”.
Even the Sephardim in the narrow sense are largely descended from Berber converts. Queen Dahia followed the Jewish religion and fought off the Muslims for decades.
Many Sephardim have Rh- blood, just like Basques and Berbers.
Dihya/Kahina, assuming she was real and not fictitious, was an Algerian Berber. Her descendants and followers, as such, would be spread throughout the Maghreb. Are you saying that the origin of Sephardim, Jews of Iberia, is from the Maghreb, rather than the Judeans who passed through Crete and Anatolia, settling in Rome, and constituting the “founder population” from which all the Jews of Europe derive, spreading from Italy in all directions?
Because that’s new to me. (And most likely false)
Certainly, Maghrebi Jews have crossed the Mediterranean into Iberia and other parts of Southern Europe, adding some admixture to Sephardim, mainly, and also to the other European Jews; but the Jews in Spain and Portugal are genetically close to Ashkenazim, closer, I believe, than to their Moroccan co-religionists on the other side of the Gibraltar; and the historical account, AFAIC, doesn’t report on mass immigration of Maghrebi Jews to Iberia. Little immigration.
Furthermore, the Jews of Tunisia and Libya form a separate cluster from Moroccan and Algerian Jews, because Sephardim settled mainly in Morocco and Algeria, adding their admixture to the Jewish Berbers there; the Jews of Tunisia and Libya seem to carry no Sephardic DNA, so among them you can find the most Berber of Berber Jews. That is unless they carry large amounts of Israelite DNA, but I’ve read that Libyan Jews can’t be genetically distinguished from Libyan non-Jewish tribes, so that can’t be it.
At any rate, the bulk of Maghrebi-Jewish blood is from Berber proselytes, not Sephardim. And conversely, actual Sephardim, like Moses Montefiore and Baruch Spinoza, do not seem like Berbers.
Pure Ashkenazim in Israel are rarer than the average alt-righter imagines. They definitely exist, and counterintuitively, may actually be increasing, but at the moment, are far outnumbered by the Mizrahi majority, and are equal in number to the mixed Ashkenazi-Mizrahi segment.
It’s noteworthy that, for all the attempts by the regime at “melting pot”, pure Mizrahim — albeit intermixed between different groups of Mizrahim — are more common than Mizrahi-Ashkenazi hybrids. You’re more likely to meet a fully-Mizrahi Moroccan or Moroccan-Tunisian Jew at random than to meet a Mizrahi-Ashkenazi hybrid or a pure Ashkenazi. Excluding the Ethiopians, who don’t count as Mizrahim, the state of affairs among the rest of Israeli Jewry is approximately as follows:
40% pure Mizrahim
30% mixed
30% pure Ashkenazim
Another thing to note is that the most primitive Mizrahim: Berbers, Yemenites, and Central Asians (in addition to the Ethiopians whom I separated here), are the ones who reproduce most rapidly. That is, the Mizrahi Jews of Mesopotamia and the Levant, who are generally okay-functioning or “meh”, are losing demographically to the overall-worse, more criminal, aggressive and violent, and less intelligent, Mizrahim of North Africa, Yemen, and the Caucasus Mountains.
Simply put, your average Israeli is a Moroccan. It is the Moroccan Jews who have determined the “vibe” of Israel, by sheer demographic victory. The stupidity, superstitiousness, criminality, and hostility you’ll find on your trip to the Holy Land can be mostly attributed to those. This is not meant to imply that the Ashkenazim aren’t a problem in their own right. But the Ashkenazi problem is familiar, while the Mizrahi problem has not attracted nearly enough attention, and Zionists will make sure it never will.
However, I wrote above that pure Ashkenazim are actually increasing. How can that be? It’s because while secular Progressive Ashkenazim are not particularly fecund, the religious-Zionists, and most of all, the Ultra-Orthodox, are breeding like rabbits. Alas for Israel, while these Ashkenazim are more civilized than your typical Mud Jew, these are not the Ashkenazim who win nobel prizes and impress you with their blogposts. They are low-quality, mediocre-IQ Ashkenazim:
Not as brilliant as the original Austrian and German Jews, and lacking the gifts with which White Gentiles are endowed, these mediocre Ashkenazim aren’t going to colonize Mars. The religious Zionists occasionally produce some interesting figures; the Ultra-Orthodox don’t produce anything of value at all, and of the 2, the latter has unequivocally the upper hand in terms of demography. So if you think that 20 years from now, those “pure Ashkenazim” are going to march humanity forward with their inventiveness, think again.
The pure Ashkenazim who actually get stuff done are usually secular, and being secular, and often leftist, are losing to the wombs of more fertile cohorts.
And that is without mentioning the Ethiopians, who are very fecund (but not yet numerous), and disproportionately likely to end up in prison, so while they aren’t a major threat, they are nevertheless a problem. Now, Ethiopian Jews aren’t as bad as the West African niggers in the US, but give it some time, and they are likely to create some very heavy chaos in their own African way.
The worse groups always out-reproduce the better groups. The Ostjuden are far more numerous than Yekkes, the Galitzianers are far more numerous than the Litvaks, the Mizrahim are more numerous than Ashkenazim, and the barely-to-not functioning Berbers are more numerous than the medium-functioning Semites, and the Ultra-Orthodox good-for-nothing parasites are outbreeding the rest. A “melting pot” of dysgenics.
Everywhere you go, the North African is there. Israel is a North African country. And as the last vestiges of competent, “normal” Jews are swallowed up in a tide of brown and black hues of dysgenic breeding, with the remaining Ashkenazim being either settler-weirdoes who chase around Palestinians on barren hills, or Haredi bums, the country will not be able to sustain itself for long.
Can you guess, gents, how this state of affairs might be reversed?
You describe a situation that fits your theory regarding the badness and irredeemability of Israel but does not actually fit the situation on the ground. Violent crime in Israel is very low – what are all these subhuman North Africans doing, if they’re so unworkable? Why aren’t they robbing and murdering people like NA blacks?
I’ve been all over the place, and can easily get along with plenty of Arsim – they’re well-meaning people in general really, perhaps you hold some sort of personal grudge against them? I’ve met and worked with many different kinds of Israelis, specifically in the IDF where one actually gets to see a more-or-less representative segment of our society. Assuredly, there aren’t many Ethiopians and plenty of Ashkenazim in the Bomb Disposal Unit, but that doesn’t mean that working and dealing with less IQ-optimized segments of society has to be a problem. People naturally select mates of similar mental capability, so we’ll keep on having babies and many of them will have plenty of IQ.
It would be more productive for you to worry about the lack of births amongst high IQ whites than to waste your time worrying about us – I promise you, we’ll be fine!
>googles arsim
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Police-and-Thieves-In-praise-of-arsim-454391
>googles Mizrahi pop
LOL. How familiar.
Looks like you have an Arab country minus Islam plus Judaism. Let nurture triumph.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that per se. I wish Israel the best.
What comes up when I google is that B’s account of Israel is as accurate as his account of America, and his account of his sources.
Jews are not breeding. Mud Jews are breeding and the orthodox minority is breeding. But mostly, mud Jews are breeding. Democracy, therefore Venezuela. Suddenly B’s progressivism becomes apparent. B is a race denialist.
I have often remarked that B is holier than Moses.
What statistics exactly are you talking about? Looking at Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics and demographer Yoram Ettinger, the average Jewish Israeli birth-rate for 2015 was at 3.13 (3.4 for native born couples) – with secular Jews trending upwards and the ultra-Orthodox actually trending downwards.
As you know, Ashkenazim tend to be secular. Now, what makes you suspect that Ashkenazim are specifically exempt from this trend? I don’t believe that there is an ethnic breakdown at such level in any official statistics – at least I haven’t found such a document – so what I have to go on are overall trends and what I see and hear around me. It seems to me that the old “magic number†that couples (of all ethnic Jewish backgrounds) aimed for was 3, and that today 4 is the new 3; the only people exempt from this seem to be harcore Progressive Tel-Avivians, but isn’t that a good thing? Tel Aviv is the district with one of the lowest birth rates – at the extremely inadequate 2.68.
That’s all just anecdotal, so perhaps you can enlighten me regarding the upcoming dysgenic catastrophe? I’m a bit skeptical you see, since our own media and politicians have been constantly mentioning the demographic time-bomb, although with different motivations and targets.
The Ashkenazim who adequately reproduce are the very religious Ashkenazim, not the very secular ones. If your elite is not breeding fast enough to compete with the general population, it will be swallowed up by it. That which cannot continue, will stop. And the general population is approximately 40% fully Mizrahi, and another 35% are hybrids.
Under the category of “Ashkenazim” you have USSR Jews and part-Jews whose TFR is around 2. In 30 years, they’ll be demographically extinguished. You may think that’s a good thing – “goodbye pork-eating Slavs! Hardly knew ye!” Actually that’s a horrible thing for Israel, because without Soviet Jews and Soviet “Jews”, lots of stuff that gets done, won’t get done.
Some premises:
– In the modern world and specifically in Israel, individuals tend to select their mates according to similarities, especially similarities in mental capacity.
– In Israel, even higher IQ couples reproduce at significantly above replacement level.
– Significant ethnic groupings amongst Jews in Israel are disappearing and likely to completely disappear in the future, due to miscegenation. (CUCKS!)
– Israel will be much more religious in the future.
If these premises are true then I don’t see a dysgenic catastrophe in Israel’s future. There will remain a miscegenated intellectual elite, composed of self-selected individuals of high mental capacity. Population segments of lower IQ will remain a thing – like in every country – but they will hold no grudge against the elite, because Israeli society is bound to become more ethnically and religiously unified.
There will be no significant swamping of the elite because the birth-rates of the religious, even of the high-IQ religious, are naturally very high – and this is where we’re heading, the replacement of secular values with religious values. The old elite is doubtless quite unhappy with that fact, but there’s not much they can do in the long-term to stop it – and I say this as a completely secular person from a family of (now no longer) socialists that came here in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Also, I hold nothing against pork-eating Slavs. They should really reproduce more – and truly, the best integrated amongst them indeed do so, just not necessarily with other USSR Jews.
Perhaps. I would like to see the evidence.
What makes Israel work is a minority of high IQ jews. Miscegenation is going to swamp them and pull them down.
If your really implement “everyone is a Jew”, your high IQ elite suffers relative and absolute diminution. If you only hypocritically implement “everyone is a Jew” you are at risk of the fate of Venezuela, where everyone was supposedly light brown, but one day the somewhat browner browns won the election and proceeded to take away control and goods from all the strangely untanned browns, with the entirely predictable result that everyone is starving, the electricity keeps going out, the sewers are backing up, and people are killing each other in the streets over a loaf of bread.
>Significant ethnic groupings amongst Jews in Israel are disappearing and likely to completely disappear in the future, due to miscegenation.
This premise is flatly wrong. Here you have the leftist Israeli Ofri Ilany explaining how mixed-marriages create the very opposite situation:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/ashkenazi-mizrahi-marriages-have-not-narrowed-ethnic-gap-1.210602
Basically, the smartest Mizrahim trend upward, marrying Ashkenazim. The dumbest Ashkenazim trend downward, marrying Mizrahim. This created 3 classes: the lower class Mizrahim, who get dumber and dumber as a result of smarter Mizrahim marrying Ashkenazim; upper class Ashkenazim, who may (or may not – keep reading) get somewhat smarter as a result of this boil-off effect; and a hybrid population of mediocres.
I don’t see any ethnic Jewish group magically “assimilating” into “general society”. For every Ashkenazi or Mizrahi marrying outside their camp, you have 2 who don’t. You are parroting neo-Zionist wishful-thinking by assuming that the bland, nondescript Israeli is becoming a majority. The bland, nondescript Israeli is a minority. With most Israelis, you can tell where their grandparents came from with great accuracy – very often, the same country, or at least same region. Mutts are 1/3 of population.
Whatever the case, the lower class is outbreeding the upper class. Maybe by a small margin, but for a country with an average IQ of 90 (inb4 “it’s the fault exclusively of Arabs”), you just can’t afford any further degeneration. The dysgenic catastrophe is indeed on the horizon.
>There will remain a miscegenated intellectual elite, composed of self-selected individuals of high mental capacity.
A small elite, which shall suffer what is known as “regression to the mean”. Because of regression to the mean, the children of an Ashkenazi-Yemenite couple, will resemble their Yemenite family, whose IQ is lower than that of their Ashkenazi family, more-so than is indicated if you look solely on the parents themselves. Simply, children will be like an average between the families, not average between the parents.
Furthermore, it is known that when an evolutionarily highly-specialized group mingles with a generalized group, the specialization goes in the crapper, and the resultant emergent population is not “in-between”, but is generalized. The generalized genes preponderate over the specialized ones. Brown eyes trump bright eyes, brown IQ level trumps bright IQ level. Specialized traits, if they remain at all, become recessive.
Therefore, this miscegenated elite is a biologically compromised elite. Not a good sign.
>Also, I hold nothing against pork-eating Slavs. They should really reproduce more – and truly, the best integrated amongst them indeed do so, just not necessarily with other USSR Jews.
If they reproduce with Ashkenazim, no problem. Slav-Ashkenazi hybrids are functional. If they reproduce with Mizrahim, the offspring would be of lower value than its purely Slavic predecessors. Because Slavs are shunned by the elite (the same elite which rushes to embrace the darkies), their access to Ashkenazim is limited, thus breeding is with Mizrahim, thus Slavs are degenerating.
I understand why the Ashkenazi elite shuns the Slavs. It’s not just Ashkenazi snobbery and religious bigotry, though these certainly do play a part. It’s primarily because the only group which had the capacity to replace the Ashkenazi elite had been the post-Soviet population which made collective aliyah in the 90s. Well, the Ashkenazim, those who founded Israel back in the day, made sure that it wouldn’t happen. Of course, it was never a likely scenario in the first place – pure Ashkenazim are a natural aristocracy, while Slavs and Slavic-Jews are not. But precautions were taken nevertheless.
So Slavs are now breeding dysgenically with Mizrahim. Bad move.
Sincere belief in an evil, crazy, and self destructive idea provides superior coordination to hypocritical, ironic, and half joking belief in an evil, crazy, and self destructive idea. Hence the propensity that one generation adopts a pious untruth, and quietly refrains from acting on it in self destructive ways, and the next generation finds itself ruled by true believers who do not get the joke.
If Israelis are, and are not, giving effect to the theory that everyone is a Jew, then it is likely that sooner or later, you will get a Venezuela style left wing victory which installs stupid people in charge of stuff that they are incompetent to handle.
A country as racially diverse as Israel really cannot afford democracy.
Indeed if B actually believes what he is so confidently telling us, he thinks that outcome would be just fine, though I have seen him change his purported beliefs mid paragraph, and assert one thing with indignation and insults, and the opposite thing with indignation and insult.
If the Ashkenazim theoretically believe in democracy, and theoretically believe that all Jews are the same race, but actually make sure that the smart people run Israel, chances are that they will be out cooperated by people who actually believe in democracy, and actually believe that all Jews are the same race, then hey presto, Venezuela, and your smart minority is no longer getting patents and Nobel prizes because they are too busy fighting in the streets for possession of a loaf of stale bread.
B is neither a race denialist nor a race reductionist.
B is a realist.
Meaning, if a heuristic works to explain and predict the reality B sees parsimoniously, he adopts it, and if not, he does not.
Race works well to explain what I see in America, and does not work well to explain what I see here.
Keep telling yourself that.
When your daughter marries a sandnigger Jew or a nigger Jew, I suspect you’ll have something else to say.
I have no problem with my daughter marrying any Jew who is appropriate in terms of observance and character.
Americucks: “at least I have the constitution.” *shot by nigger*
Israelicucks: “at least I have the Torah.” *doesn’t recognize his grandchildren*
Well, yours is better, to an extent.
But your supervisor holiness did not go unnoticed, so take comfort.
You: no children, no grandchildren, dies ranting about mud jews online, eaten by cats
Wouldn’t be relevant even if it were true. And it’s not true.
I’ve messed up your mind, haven’t I? All over this thread, you’ve made truly insane statements, a whole new level of craziness. You — an “right wing” Ashkenazi with high IQ — are okay with your daughter marrying a nigger, as long as he be a good boy, who ain’t done-do nuffin, gonno synagogue erry day.
When I said that I’m using you to prove a point, I didn’t realize you’d be that useful. Your services are well appreciated.
You are a cuck, and now it’s clear to everyone. Enjoy the niggerbabies and the sandniggerbabies. I’m sure they’ll take a good care of your geriatric self.
>Wouldn’t be relevant even if it were true. And it’s not true.
It would be absolutely relevant if it were true. The same way Shulamit Firestone’s life was a reflection of the folly of her ideology.
Believe it or not, race is not the most granular filter, especially here in Israel.
Ad hominems can move the discussion forward by facilitating mutual understanding, but standing alone, ad hominems are not at all relevant. I don’t care about “B” as a person, whereas I do care about what B’s positions say about him and about his kind. Thus,
If I denounce you, I actually denounce something much bigger than you, or at least that’s my intention. When you denounce me, you don’t denounce anything bigger than myself, you’re just trying to score points against someone you know nothing about. Predictably, you miss the target, because you aim at an individual who pisses you off. I don’t miss the target, because I aim at something much, much bigger than some dude on the internet – the dude on the internet is mere collateral damage here.
> Predictably, you miss the target, because you aim at an individual who pisses you off.
There are very few ways to be right, and many ways to be wrong.
Your thinking is representative of a larger class of people, which is becoming more prominent.
With the reductionist theory of the left having failed the test of reality, you guys are moving towards a different reductionist theory, which is just a different flavor of modernism.
The results its application will have will not be happy, functional families, but racist NEETs being eaten by cats alone in their apartments, in the same way that progressivism resulted in feminists and homos being eaten by cats.
A realist who does not appear to inhabit the same reality as me, nor the same reality as his fellow Israeli commenters.
Your America is not my America, nor your Israel the Israel of your fellows.
Religion and culture can make a mud substantially less likely to break into your garage and break into your car to steal your battery when his goes flat. Cannot make much difference to his capability to run a complex advanced society.
Israel is yesterday’s Venezuela. In yesterday’s Venezuela all Venezuelans were one race, and anyone who doubted this was likely to fall down three flights of stairs in a one story police station, but it just so happened that those who actually ran things were curiously untanned. Until a genuinely democratic election gave us today’s Venezuela.
For Israel to survive, needs a high IQ ruling elite (which it has) that has eugenic fertility (which it does not have) and a state religion that does not fetishize democracy (which it does not have)
What fellow Israeli commentators? Y. Ilan and Ron? You should ask them directly (Ilan is being sarcastic below).
You are full of useful advice on what we should do. Perhaps when you actually accomplish something on your turf, we will listen.
Our crime rate, when you take the Arabs out of the equation, is somewhere in the neighborhood of Switzerland’s.
But, please, feel free to continue predicting how we will soon turn into the Moroccan South Bronx and lecturing us on what we must, must do in order to survive.
>Our crime rate, when you take the Arabs out of the equation, is somewhere in the neighborhood of Switzerland’s.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Shut up, man, nobody cares about your “facts”-they’re all Jewish lies. These guys say that Israel is like the Bronx and getting more so, so it must be.
The only EOD guy I knew was a Moroccan MAGAVnik in Hevron. I suppose he must have gotten in on affirmative action, since I’ve now been enlightened that Moroccans are basically around the Congolese in terms of intelligence. He seemed fine to me, but what do I know?
That’s obviously because he was a Magavnik, they take all the riff-raff. The army EOD is filled almost exclusively with pure-bred Ashkenazim, tested for impurities during the gibbush – after all, it would be very foolish to trust subhumans with explosives.
Google pics of Margarita Lautin. Looks decent, normal.
Google pics of Yitzhak Abergil, the mobster whose assassins accidentally filled her with bullets. Then go ahead, Eli, and say these aren’t subhumans. I dare you.
Your criminals are North African Jews. Your mobsters, whatever their last names, are North African Jews, and usually their last names reflect that. Enough with the “damage control” tricks. Everyone can see the truth about Mud-Jewish Israeli society. It’s not just the Arabs who brought Israel’s average IQ to 90.
It’s the Jewish Arabs.
I’ve got it.
Bugsy Siegel and Meyer Lansky: Moroccans! Apes!
Richard Feynman: a Yekke!
You have about 30 Jewish mafias in Israel. Of these, 4 or 5 with Ashkenazi origins. The rest, apes.
And showing that there are Ashkenazi mobsters, won’t make Mizrahim look better. I’m not an Ashkenazi supremacist, so it’s pointless on your part. Yes, Ashkenazim succeed at underworld stuff. But the Israeli mafia is North African, not Ashkenazi, and we’re discussing Israel here.
Whataboutism status: failed.
With all due respect to the MAGAV and their reputation, he was actually an intelligent, decent guy. If any MAGAV guys are reading this, NAMALT, I know.
I’m sure that the gibbushim for all the elite units involve extensive craniometric testing to ensure no Africans get through. Unfortunately, it would seem that the tests are not very precise, and perhaps they are even designed or administered by Moroccans, because I know quite a few alumni of sayerot and the more technical units, including 8200, who are of Sepharadi background. Tunisian, Egyptian, Iraqi, you name it. One even claims he wrote code for the avionics of the F-16.
I am sure they are all lying and the military had them buffing floors and emptying wastebaskets, otherwise, how could those F-16s possibly still be flying?
> since I’ve now been enlightened that Moroccans are basically around the Congolese in terms of intelligence.
Moroccans (Jewish) are like Moroccans (Gentile) in terms of intelligence. The ones who do not have significant European Jewish admixture, that is. The ones whose ancestors lived exclusively in North Africa before the 15th century.
Gadi Eizenkott is a “Moroccan”. But he has a German surname, which tells us that he’s descended from Ashkenazim, at least to some degree. Some Ashkenazim came to Morocco, and obviously, the most competent “Moroccans” have Ashkenazi blood. When we speak of North African Arsim, who are on the same level mentally as regular Berbers, we speak of those without Ashkenazi, Sephardic (Iberian), Italqi (Italian), or Romaniote (Greek) ancestry. The pure Berber Jews, who lived in North Africa not for the last 500 years, but for the last 2,000 or 1,800 years, when they were proselytized.
If you want to argue that these Arsim, whose temperament is radically dissimilar to Ashkenazi temperament, and whose IQ is between 85 and 90, more like 85, and whose body structure and facial features perfectly resemble Berbers, and don’t resemble European Jews, are in fact “the same people” as European Jews – that goes to show how profoundly you’ve been brainwashed.
>I’ve now been enlightened that Moroccans are basically around the Congolese in terms of intelligence.
Did anyone here argue that Moroccan, Tunisian, Algerian, and Libyan Jews are nigger-tier intellectually? You’re strawmaning. The actual argument is that they are Berber proselytes, and as such, are basically Judaism-practicing Berbers. Like non-Jewish Berbers, they are aggressive, dumb, hostile, violent, and superstitious. Anyone with google, and anyone who visited the right places in Israel, knows that this description fits them perfectly.
You look at these Judaism-practicing Berbers and say “same people as Ashkenazim”. You’re insane. But that’s not new information about you.
Of course, all I’ve said here applies to other Mizrahi groups, and Ethiopians. Yemenites are genetically Yemenite, and look, act, and think like it. Same with Ethiopians. Same with Jews of the Caucasus. All those Mizrahim are visibly, markedly not like European Jews. All of them look “suspiciously” like the natives in the countries of their origin.
“But the Ethiopians are such nice people!” Sure thing. But if Ethiopians outbreed the rest, Israel looks like Ethiopia, in terms of its cultural level. Well, the North Africans, mostly Moroccans, have outbred the rest. Hence, Arsim being the majority.
Riddle me this, Nazi Batman-wasn’t St. Augustine a Berber?
These Berbers?
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/eurasian-origins-of-the-berbers/
Not these Berbers. There used to be civilized Hellenic Berbers, many of them with Teutonic roots from all the invasions of Germanic tribes southward. But they’ve been thoroughly “diversified” by dunecoon tribes, and even have Sub-Saharan African admixture today.
Look at your Moroccans. Not a trace of Nordic blood, not a drop. Total sandniggers. Whatever was millennia ago, is no longer.
ja, ja, das ist fantastisch-ze Berbers, zey vere Scandinavian, you see? Augustine, he vas a descendant of ze Berbers who invaded Africa a century after his birth! The Carthaginians vere Aryan Schwedes, ja? Und ze Berbers in ze pictures, zey are extinct Celts from 2290 years ago-took a wrong turn when invading Greece!
No True Moroccan, in short.
(and obviously, if I meet intelligent and decent North African Jews, they must be Ashkenazim in disguise. Or maybe a strain of exiles from Spain, who’d painstakingly preserved themselves from Arab admixture over the many centuries. Or a figment of my imagination.)
The Nordic race has indeed reached North Africa. It’s not “kangs” theory here. Berbers used to resemble Whites. Today, resemble Arabs. Berber Jews definitely resemble Arabs, rather than Whites.
Intelligent Maghrebi Jews are statistically more likely to be descendent from Spanish exiles or (much less common) Ashkenazim, yes. Arsim are statistically more likely to be descendent from neither, but rather, to be mostly indigenous tribesmen.
The intelligent Moroccan Jews don’t look very Moroccan, while the typical kind, looks very Moroccan. IDF’s Eizenkott is a successful “Moroccan”. Has Ashkenazi origins, German last name. So, that’s one small point in my favor.
Not only does your America bear little resemblance to my America, but I notice that your Israel bears little resemblance to the Israel of some other Israeli commenters.
Yeah, the Nordic race reached North Africa. It was called “the Vandal Invasion” and happened a century after Augustine was born.
Modern Berbers are frequently light-colored.
Any theoretical mass conversion of Berbers to Judaism would have taken place before the Muslim invasion (there was no mass conversion to Judaism anywhere under Muslim rule that I’m aware of.)
Typically, Muslim populations in the Middle East imported slaves and intermarried with them extensively. Dhimmi populations (Jews, Christians, Yezidis) did not.
TL;DR: You’re full of shit.
By the time the proselytizing was in full-swing, at some point between the failed Bar Kokhba revolt and Kahina, the Berbers were rapidly losing whatever traces of Whiteness they had.
The Tuareg and other tribes contributed their fair share of Mud blood to Maghrebi Jewry – Cyrenaica has been at the center of Jewish proselytizism. After Islamic occupation, Berbers kept joining Judaism, but you’re right, not en masse.
This passover, your Moroccan brethren thanked a Berber demoness (or luck-deity) named Mimouna for her kind treatment. No, your alternative etymology, whatever it is, is not correct. Mimouna is indeed a Berber demoness. Go ahead and deny the undeniable.
Berber proselytes.
Here is a relevant study which, albeit it qualifies my own theory, generally agrees with it. Key sentence:
“By principal component analysis, these North African groups were orthogonal to contemporary populations from North and South Morocco, Western Sahara, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. Thus, this study is compatible with the history of North African Jews—founding during Classical Antiquity with proselytism of local populations, followed by genetic isolation with the rise of Christianity and then Islam, and admixture following the emigration of Sephardic Jews during the Inquisition.”
http://m.pnas.org/content/109/34/13865.abstract
This means that while they have maintained some degree of separation from non-Jews, there was plenty of en-masse proselytizing going on *at some point*. To me, it seems more likely to have occurred somewhere between second century AD and eight century AD, not earlier.
>To me, it seems more likely to have occurred somewhere between second century AD and eight century AD, not earlier.
Well, the source you quote does not agree, and suggests that North African Jews mixed with the locals (Berbers, as you say) during their Nordic Kangz era: “founding during Classical Antiquity with proselytism of local populations, followed by genetic isolation with the rise of Christianity and then Islam”
From what I’ve read (largely Carleton Coon), Berbers were not Nordic or anything like that, but were a European isolate. The Sahara effectively blocked population flows from Subsaharan Africa until the Arab slave trade, and the Mediterranean facilitated population flows from Europe.
Your mimouna theory is funny, since the custom began to be practiced 300 years ago and the derivation of the word has nothing to do with any Berber demons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimouna
It’s either you can’t read properly, or just outright ignore those parts which disagree with you.
Seriously, I addressed your points, including your false etymology. Here’s Yigal bin Nun supporting me:
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/lady-luck-1.217597
You can’t be serious with that article.
What is that unsourced bullshit?
I remember when they brought those Ethiopian “Jews” into Israel. Many of them literally didn’t know what a toilet was (some allegedly drunk from it). A five star hotel had to be closed for an extended maintenance, after it started reeking.
When they were brought into my neighborhood, they started getting aggressive and stealing stuff. For instance, stole my bike. Niggers are niggers, even when they’re East African.
You should have heard American soldiers talking about their interactions with Russian soldiers in Kosovo and Ukrainian ones in Iraq.
Comments ran to: “they stink,” “they’re constantly shitfaced,” and “they steal everything that’s not nailed down.”
Obviously, subhumans-correct?
The Ethiopians may never produce any great physicists, but the religious ones I know (my age, not fresh off the boat) are decent. Not niggers.
I don’t dispute that the religious ones might be decent human beings, even if not intelligent. I am stating that those “group conversions” are a dangerous thing, in the context of application of the Halakhic principle of accepting these people into the Israeli communities.
Look, there is nothing insane about people wanting to convert to Judaism: it’s a superior system, a system upon which God can build an expand humanity, civilization. A great thing. While I am certainly not for compelling anyone, I’m not surprised when people see benefits.
But, having said the above, it is dangerous to have Judaism be a carrot for all poor people in the world, if it’s viewed as an entry ticket into modern Israel. Funny side-comment: where were all these people before Israel became a modern state? The only group I know of and which I hold in high regard were the Russian Subbotniks (formerly old Orthodox Christian) ,who converted into Judaism in 19th century en masse *on their own accord.* A lot of them moved to Israel in the late 19th century, many of whom dying while drying those nasty swamps around Tel Aviv. That’s what we can all agree constitutes “skin in the game.”
But the rest of the “newly found Jews?” There may be some rare individual exceptions. Mostly opportunists, nothing more. And, to me, one of the warning signs is when the Israeli lefties welcome their arrival. That’s usually when I know things are going in the wrong direction.
I think Russian drunk, marauding soldiery are second-class human beings. But I certainly view Ethiopians as lower than 3rd. Again, it’s possible for someone to change their ways, but it’s very rare for 3rd rate individual to become a first rate human. However, the reverse is true: it’s not that hard for a person who had all the potential to be a first-rate person to become second or lower rate. Which is what’s happening all over the Western world now.
Group conversions might be dangerous. However, I do not see religious Ethiopians as second rate Jews.
I do not know of many people who converted in order to get a better life. All the converts I’ve met struck me as earnest. I’m talking Russians, Bnei Menashe, Hispanics, etc.
Wait until the lost tribes start showing up-Igbo and Pashtuns, for instance. These guys will really be shitting bricks then.
If you bring Pashtuns — and Igbos. Igbos! — to Israel, soon enough, you’ll be shitting bricks. Why are you doing this to yourself?
You keep doubling down where you should just back off. Stereotypical.
Igbos have an average IQ of 107, like the Chinese. You should want to intermarry with them, no?
The reason we are back in Israel is that it’s part of the redemption, as prophesied to us. Another part is the return of the lost tribes.
In other words, just because there is a group conversion doesn’t mean someone should be classed a Jew.
Etiopian version of “Judaism” goes to pre-Samaritan-Judean split, with the difference that the Samaritans are mostly pure Israelites (the insinuation that they’re non-Israelite descended is mostly untrue — a result of political and religious disagreement between their priestly leaders).
In short, if we had to rank the amount of non-Israelite proselyte blood, from least to most, this would be the order, roughly:
Cat 0: Samaritans (the purest descendants of Northern kingdom aisraelites). Alas, the non-Muslim converted number at less than 1000…
Cat 1: Ashkenazi, Sephardi (which includes North African ones), Syrian, Romaniote, and Italian Jews, Egyptian Karaites might be in this category or even category 0 also but they haven’t been studied.
Cat 2: Babylonian (Iraqi), Persian, possibly Georgian (arguable)
Cat 3: (these are pretty pure converts, but some possibly descended from some Israelite-descended founders:) rest of Caucasian Jewry, especially mountain Jews, most Moroccan, other N African Jews with no Sephardi admixture, Crimean Karaites (not to be confused with the Egyptian Karaites above)
Cat 4: Ethiopian, Indian, Peruvian, lost tribes etc exotic varieties.
I’m planning on categorizing Israeli Jewry into 4 groups, perhaps 5, but unlike your classification, not based on amount of non-Israelite blood, rather on degree of civilizational fitness.
Jim and whoever shares his worldview don’t care about racial purity, but do care about civilizational fitness, and we can all benefit by understanding which Jews are superior to others according to this parameter. Obviously, the Yekkes must be at the top, and I’m pretty certain Ethiopians occupy the bottom. I’ll work out the details when I have the time.
It gets more complicated when we add Mischlings into the equation. Actually, extremely complicated, because Anglo-Ashkenazi Mischlings like Moldbug are not similar to 1/4 Ashkenazi Ukrainians. Perhaps we should just leave Mischlings for a separate occasion, and focus on “full”Jews first.
As I’ve hinted at above, such categories are not very helpful when people who have all the potential to be human beings choose to be second rate or lower, voluntarily.
Having said it, yes: Ethiopians, as a rule, are much less capable of civilized behavior than an Ashkenazi or an Iraqi Jew. Furthermore, as rough rule, next generation of well-behaved Ethiopian Jew has a higher probability of succumbing to their animal instinct than the next generation of a well-behaved Ashkenazi. Therefore, the well-behaved Ethiopian Jew has to work much harder at having his children stay well-behaved Ethiopian Jews (he might get luckier, if he marries a well-behaved Ashkenazi Jew).
Samarians are converts from tribes resettled here by the Assyrians from points further East.
Caucasian Jews speak Middle Persian, which suggests to me that they got where they are under the Sassanid Empire.
The Tunisians (at least the Cohanim of Djerba) got there during the times of the First Temple. Ditto the Yemenite Jews, or at least a large part of them.
A large part of the Pashtuns are the real deal-they have customs which are characteristically Jewish and not shared by Persians, Arabs, etc.
Don’t buy the bullshit.
>Samarians are converts from tribes resettled here by the Assyrians from points further East.
That’s the Biblical account. Not necessarily corroborated by any extraneous evidence. DNA analysis says they’re mostly indigenous.
>Caucasian Jews speak Middle Persian, which suggests to me that they got where they are under the Sassanid Empire.
Caucasian Jews are of very low quality, in terms of civilizational fitness. Could be descendants of Khazars.
>The Tunisians (at least the Cohanim of Djerba) got there during the times of the First Temple.
Tunisians are an old community, little to no Sephardic admixture. Old community, however, their source population was Israelite or Judean men proselytizing great numbers of local Berbers. If Josephus says that during the first century AD there were 500,000 Jews in Cyrenaica, that tells you that some “heavy” proselytizing activity was going on.
>A large part of the Pashtuns are the real deal-they have customs which are characteristically Jewish and not shared by Persians, Arabs, etc.
ITT, commenter B accepted having a nigger as a husband for his daughter – as long as “good boy”. Now, we have this. He wants Afghans in Israel.
What’s wrong with you?
You have a point about Pashtuns (I don’t know they’re all descended, but some clans certainly might). Here is an interesting article about this:
http://www.isra.com/lit-29937.html
http://cyclowiki.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%83%D1%88%D1%82%D1%83%D0%BD%D1%8B_%D0%B8_%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B8
Again, the fact remains: albeit they might be descended, their status as Jews should not be higher than category #3 I outlined above. There likely was a conversion of many early on, with some Israelite warriors taking Indo-Aryan women as wives. The question would still stand: what do you do with groups like this: do you move them into Israel or do you give them assistance where they are?
I’d much rather have Afghans as my neighbors than Ethiopians. Just btw.
However, you’re wrong about Samaritans. While some of their ancestry is indeed from the converted, brought-in Assyrian Empire groups, most of it comes from Northern Israelites. This is despite what the Jerusalem-derived Torah wants us to believe. Non-aristocracy, non-higher priesthood, and non-skilled tradesmen remained put after the Kingdom’s destruction. Assyrians neither could nor did relocate the entire Northern Kingdom of Israel — but only the most skilled and elite part. The numbers just don’t work otherwise, and the Samaritan tradition, which preserves sacrifice, with insistence on sacredness of Mt Gerizim is sui generis, and (more importantly) use of *original paleo-Hebrew* letters (as opposed to Western Aramaic) is not a modified copycat. Similar thing, btw, happened vis-a-vis Babylonian exile. I recommend these two books: “Early Israelites: Two Peoples, One History: Rediscovery of the Origins of Biblical Israel” and “Israel and Judah: How Two Peoples Became One” for a more in-depth look at Israelite historical dynamic.
It’s possible that some from this North Israel Kingdom Israelite elite ended up in modern-day Afghanistan.
(Assyrians, btw, seem to be the pioneers in people relocation as assimilation and punishment strategy. I haven’t seen any earlier evidence of such methods.)
>This is despite what the Jerusalem-derived Torah wants us to believe.
Sorry, meant Pentateuch more generally.
The whole Old Testament, that is.
>their status as Jews should not be higher than category #3 I outlined above
There is no “status as Jews.” It’s binary-you is, or you isn’t.
>There likely was a conversion of many early on, with some Israelite warriors taking Indo-Aryan women as wives.
This is a “just-so” story. Many Pashtun tribes are traditionally endogamous, and men who marry non-Pashtun wives are shunned and disinherited. On the other hand, it’s halachically valid to buy a female slave and then free her for the purpose of marriage, so who knows? Not relevant, one way or the other-the lost tribes will come back through conversion.
>This is despite what the Jerusalem-derived Torah wants us to believe.
This is what the Talmud says about them. We do not have a better textual source. Everything else is conjectural.
And don’t quote mitochondrial DNA-Tamar and Ruth were converts, all of Judah comes from the former and all of the Davidic line from the latter…
>Assyrians neither could nor did relocate the entire Northern Kingdom of Israel — but only the most skilled and elite part.
15And the LORD said unto him, Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus: and when thou comest, anoint Hazael to be king over Syria: 16And Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel: and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room. 17And it shall come to pass, that him that escapeth the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay: and him that escapeth from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay. 18Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.
It’s an open question how many people were left in the North.
>The question would still stand: what do you do with groups like this: do you move them into Israel or do you give them assistance where they are?
The ones who want to convert have the right to live here like any Jew/Israelite. The ones who don’t can stay where they are. We can help them, out of brotherly considerations.
>the Samaritan tradition, which preserves sacrifice
…and has a Sukkah set up in the middle of the living room floor, and whose Kohen Gadol is just some guy…
I’ve got nothing against them or the Karaites, personally, but it’s obvious that they’ve gone terribly wrong somewhere, because they are going extinct.
I’ve never understood what a Sukkah is, I hear Russians talking about them all the time though
Points mostly agreed with. But to reiterate: N Israel was way too densely populated for even half of it to be massacred or led out. Also: I put my categories above as a metric for genetic affinity. But Judaism is not simply genes, of course.
Btw, even though categorized the Samaritans as purest descendants of (Northern) Israelites, from Jewish perspective (Talmud), they are considered of doubtful status, like the shetuki and the asufi. While the shetukim, unlike mamzerim, are allowed to enter the congregation of the Lord, the shetukim, unlike mamzerim (who are allowed to intermarry between each other and gerim), can only marry gerim and freed (Jewish) slaves, and unfortunately for them, the status of their children remains doubtful (i.e. shetuki-like).
A mamzer man has easier way for his children to become non-mamzers: he can either father a child with a Jewish slave or (illegally) have child with a goy, and if the child later converts, the child is a clean ger.
Unlike mamzer, a shetuki/asufi man cannot have his children escape doubtful (i.e. shetuki-like) status. He can only illegally have a child with a goy woman, and if the child later converts, the child is becomes a clean ger.
Try hard as I might, I could not find information on the status of children of Jewish female mamzer (mamzeret) and Jewish female shetuki. If you have more insight, please let me know.
>N Israel was way too densely populated for even half of it to be massacred or led out.
I don’t see why you say that. After famine, Hazael, civil war and the Assyrians?
>Try hard as I might, I could not find information on the status of children of Jewish female mamzer (mamzeret) and Jewish female shetuki. If you have more insight, please let me know.
I don’t think the Rambam differentiates between a male and female asufi: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960663/jewish/Issurei-Biah-Chapter-Fifteen.htm
Notably, there are so many ways for an asufi not to be considered a suspect mamzer, that it should not be an issue except in really exceptional circumstances. He has to be abandoned in such a way that it is obvious that his parents did not care whatsoever if he survived or not, for instance, thrown in a remote field. Any sign of care makes him not a suspect mamzer.
Further, the Ra’avad says that if he immersed for the sake of conversion, he has the status of a convert:
“The Ra’avad rules that in such a situation, he is considered as any other convert and allowed to marry a native-born Jewesses The Maggid Mishneh explains the rationale for the Ra’avad’s position, stating that there is a multiple doubt involved: Maybe he is not of Jewish origin, and if he is of Jewish origin, maybe he is not a mamzer. Moreover, the entire prohibition against an asufi is Rabbinic in origin. (For according to Scriptural Law, only a mamzer whose status is definite is forbidden). The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:33) quotes the Rambam’s view. The Chelkat Mechokek 4:31 questions why the Ra’avad’s view is not cited, but the Beit Shmuel 4:54 explains that according to the Rambam, with regard to questions of lineage, we are stringent even in such situations.”
A mamzeret has no way not to pass her status on to her children, unfortunately.
>I don’t see why you say that. After famine, Hazael, civil war and the Assyrians?
Yes, even after that. I base this on:
1) Assyrian source, which claim that they led 27K people from Samaria. Assyrians are huge braggers (more than Babylonians who came after them), so that number is an upper bound.
2) Same sources also state that the Assyrians had to go back to North Kingdom of Israel a year later, to fight off another insurrection. I.e., obviously, there is no way that whatever people (Kutim) they transported into the territory could rise an organized insurrection so quickly, and it is even doubtful that any Kutim even arrived yet.
3) The Bible (Chronicles) itself mentions that just about 20-some years later the Judean King Hezekiah mercifully reaches out to and invites Ephraimites and Menassites to celebrate Pesakh together with the Judeans.
This all is in the latter book I mentioned: “Israel and Judah: How Two Peoples Became One”
>I don’t think the Rambam differentiates between a male and female asufi:
Thanks for the insight. I’ve looked into this situation further. Just FYI, while I hold the rishonim in high regard, I prefer to look at first sources when such a highly technical matter is under investigation. That is, the Mishna and Gemora (sefaria.org and I also use a Yerushalmi translation). What they claim is that there is a way for a *man* who is a mamzer or a shetuki or an asufi to have his children escape this status by marrying and impregnating a “lightly-converted” (she has to accept the mitzvot) eved knaani (gentile slave) woman – a maidservant. In this case, said children are born as slave Jews (eved ivri). If they are freed, they become freed Jews, their lineage free of defect, though they’re still not allowed to marry into priestly lineage (by virtue of being former slaves).
The fact that the Talmud is silent about female mamzeret, asufa, and shetuka implies that her children (on the female line) are forever tainted.
Btw, in Talmud, similar precedent exists with tainted priestly lineage: it is tainted on the female line to eternity.
Thanks to today’s sperm selection technology, a mamzeret/asufa/shetuka can be enabled to only birth male children.
Ra’avad’s and Rambam assertions don’t draw clear standards between care or no care. For instance, one can argue that (from the outside appearance) Moshe Rabeinu was not cared for when he was found floating in the river. Furthermore, the assumption is that a mamzer would not be basically cared for by his mother is faulty from the outset, as it assumes that this woman is so overcome by fear and/or guilt that her maternal instinct isn’t functional. Untrue. I am of firm conviction that Halakhah, while divine, is ought to be based on sound logic.
Further on mamzerim (I misstated: the Talmud isn’t quiet about offspring of female mamzerim). From Kiddushin 69a:
GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did Rabbi Tarfon state his halakha ab initio, i.e., a mamzer is permitted to marry a maidservant, or did he state it only after the fact, but he does not permit a mamzer to marry a maidservant ab initio? The Gemara answers: Come and hear proof from a baraita: The other Sages said to Rabbi Tarfon: You have thereby purified the male offspring of a mamzer, but you have not purified the female children of mamzerim, as your solution does not apply to them.
ו××™ ×מרת לכתחילה ק×מר ממזרת × ×ž×™ ×ª×™× ×¡×™×‘ ×œ×¢×‘×“× ×¢×‘×“ ×ין לו חייס
The Gemara explains the apparent proof from this baraita. And if you say that Rabbi Tarfon stated his halakha ab initio and permitted a mamzer to marry a Canaanite maidservant, a mamzeret should also be allowed to marry a Canaanite slave and her child can then be emancipated as well. The Gemara answers: A slave has no lineage. Even if she were to marry a slave, their child would not be considered his, but would be a Jewish mamzer like her. Consequently, this source provides no proof with regard to the Gemara’s question.
___________
So, yes, a mamzeret (hence, asufa and shetuka) is cursed to have her female line be an abomination ad infinitum.
This is all too clever by half rationalization, stereotypical of Jews. Judaism is in exile and out of power, it makes sense to trace Judaism in the female line, because Judaism is low status, and women have sex with high status men. When Judaism is in power and not in exile, it makes sense to trace Judaism in the male line, because Judaism is high status, and women have sex with high status men who decline to assist them in raising children. Right now, of course, Judaism is still out of power and in exile, even though Jews are no longer in exile and are in power.
>Assyrian source, which claim that they led 27K people from Samaria.
There were multiple waves of exile. After Sargon, who bragged about exiling 27K:
Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant, and gave him presents.
And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea: for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and brought no present to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year: therefore the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison. Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years.
In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes. (2 Kings 17:3–6)
And the king of Assyria did carry away Israel unto Assyria and put them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes: because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD their God, but transgressed his covenant, and all that Moses the servant of the LORD commanded and would not hear them, nor do them. (2 Kings 18:11–12)
>Same sources also state that the Assyrians had to go back to North Kingdom of Israel a year later, to fight off another insurrection. I.e., obviously, there is no way that whatever people (Kutim) they transported into the territory could rise an organized insurrection so quickly, and it is even doubtful that any Kutim even arrived yet.
So, there was a first partial exile, and then there was rebellion a year later. Followed by more exile.
>Ra’avad’s and Rambam assertions don’t draw clear standards between care or no care…For instance, one can argue that (from the outside appearance) Moshe Rabeinu was not cared for when he was found floating in the river.
1) Moshe Rabeinu had his sister watching over him, who’d been sent by his mother. He’d been set adrift on the main thoroughfare of Egypt, the Nile, in a box carefully prepared so that it would float. And it was a time of mass murder, so similar to the situation the Rambam describes when there’s a famine and a baby is found-the presumption is not that the parents abandoned him because he is a mamzer, but because they had nothing to feed him with and hoped others would take him in.
2) We are not Karaites. We have rabbis, whose job it is to exercise discretion in applying the law to a given context and set of circumstances. I do not even know if there is anyone today with the status of asufi. Because of, on one hand, the tragedy of that status, and on the other hand, its nature as a rabbinical ordinance, I’d expect rabbis to go out of their way to find loopholes to free people from it.
Even with mamzerut, which is a Torah ordinance and very severe, great rabbis would go out of their way to find a way to release people from it. For instance, Rav Moshe Feinstein: http://learningteshuvot.blogspot.co.il/2010/10/when-is-mamzer-not-mamzer-igrot-moshe_18.html
So, how much more so with asufi status?
There is enough wiggle room in the law to allow for discretion, and that’s not by accident. The law is not written for robots by robots.
Jim-
You really should try to have some modesty.
You know best how Jews should properly be Jewish, how the Japanese should properly be Japanese, how the Eskimos should hunt walrus…
When things are going well for us as a nation, we should be patrilineal, and when they’re not going well, we should be matrilineal, and when things are going well again, we should be patrilineal again. What could go wrong?
Torturing your texts has predictable consequences. Disdaining potential allies has predictable consequences. We observe these predictable consequences happening to Jews.
Do you want Judaism to be exile forever, or do you want it to once again be a state religion?
If and when Judaism replaces progressivism as the state religion of Israel, it will need to once again take on many of the characteristics that it had back when it was the state religion of Israel, one of these characteristics, one of a great many, being patrilineality. And the cleverer you are with rationalizations accommodating exile and explaining away the differences between exile Judaism and state Judaism, the harder it is to return from exile, the less you want to return from exile, the less you want the temple back, the more comfortable you are with being ruled by progressives.
Your verbal dexterity is self destructive, because you are primarily fooling yourselves. I am not fooled. You should not be fooled. You should say out loud that exile Judaism is different from state Judaism because of exile, not read your texts backwards and upside down to conclude that it really is no different.
Was explanatory, not prescriptive, if I understand correctly.
> the less you want to return from exile
You should speak for yourself. Not for others.
>Torturing your texts has predictable consequences.
We don’t have a common point of reference on the texts.
We approach the text with the idea that this is something from G-d, which is the source of our existence, and that every single word or phrase is there for a reason. And that we have thousands of years of the smartest people we had as a nation approaching the text with the same idea and writing down their insights.
You approach the text with the Modernist idea that this is something a bunch of Bronze Age herders who were nowhere near as informed as you made up, that a brief perusal tells you all you need to know about it, and that you can pick and choose the snippets you like and interpret them any way you wish to support your preconceived notions and hobbyhorses.
Your approach has the drawback of inherently being limited by your own perspective. You can’t learn anything fundamentally new from the text.
>Disdaining potential allies has predictable consequences.
What allies? An ally is someone who has something to offer in exchange for something else. When you have something to offer aside from arrogance, sweeping prescriptive statements, when you have a concrete ask (an ask is not “you guys should throw out what you’ve been doing and do what I think you should be doing with regards to your religion,” ) and when you speak on behalf of someone aside from yourself and a handful of Nazi LARPers, THEN you’ll be a potential ally.
>If and when Judaism replaces progressivism as the state religion of Israel, it will need to once again take on many of the characteristics that it had back when it was the state religion of Israel, one of these characteristics, one of a great many, being patrilineality.
Yes? You are an incredible expert on Judaism (as well as many, many other diverse fields), and your deep learning amazes me on a regular basis. And I definitely think that we all should tractate Judaism based on your ideas, whatever they are this week (Odin worship?)
I’m only a bit confused by the fact that not only does this idea fail to appear in the Talmud (and the rabbis who compiled it were only a few hundred years removed from the time we are discussing,) but it directly contradicts the Book of Ezra and Leviticus.
I am sure that you have a great explanation, which must have taken you all of two minutes to invent.
That is outrageously untrue, a barefaced lie, and outrageous chutzpah. Jews approach their holy texts as if they were a contract with someone you don’t much like and plan to swindle, or as if they are a law your client has broken and you are trying to get him off.
You snatch a single phrase out of context, and hang a lengthy program on it that utterly contradicts the material in which in that fragment is embedded.
Eli-here’s a good link (written in a very unique, Lakewood-style English) about a rare case of EXACTLY what we’re discussing: http://torahhalacha.blogspot.co.il/search/label/Rav%20Moshe%20Feinstein?m=0
As you can see, there is a lot of room for discretion.
Eventually, we will have a Sanhedrin which will issue a definitive ruling on the matter and then in the major applicable cases.
See my response below
Hi, B. Thank you very much for this interesting that you provided. R Feinstein was a great posek (decisor of Halacha), and his decision regarding the status of the Indian Jew is well argued.
I need to study this further but it appears to be an application of the principle of sefek sefeka. For those interested, it’s described here:
http://u.cs.biu.ac.il/~koppel/rov-traditionversion.pdf
Cthulu will continue to swim left as long as the vote has any effect whatsoever.
A rabbi-historian might interest readers here: David Dalin has written / edited 11 books. I think his ‘Religion and State in the American Jewish Experience’ is the place to start, intellectually speaking. If you can’t stand him, youcan’t know how Jews think and feel about governance, America, etc. So maybe the educational value of his books outweighs the ‘pain’ of reading a book wtritten by one of ‘Them.’ (No, I don’t find devotedly religious Jews to be a problem.)
We should also note the difference between Galician Ashkenazim, from Poland, Russia, etc., and German, Italian, French, etc. Jews. The Western European ones are arrogant, and are represented by J. Robert Oppenheimer, while his Galician fellow physicist (I forgot his name, but he was short and stout, so it was funny to see them together) represents that group. The newest long biography of Oppenheimer covers this well, frankly better than I thought editors would allow. And these two smart guys were friends, but there is strong antipathy, in prior generations naturally, mostly the 19th century I think, between different Ashkenazim.
The noted trend of Jewesses marrying white men, and Jews marrying Asian women, is peculiar, and perhaps eugenic. Like Jim, I don’t care for purity, only quality and morality.
I am reading the historian Dalin’s book on Jewish Justices of teh Supreme Court, all 8 of them. It is highly reviewed, and Brandeis University Press is reliably better as an info source than blogs or youtube videos. I don’t know why people are antagonized by openly Jewish media,such as Brandeis U.P.- it’s much better than secretly Jewish media, as in all the journalists who get parentheses around their names, because they lie about who they are.
Similarly, my favorite Supreme Court Justice is Brandeis, a southerner actually, but that’s because he was an admirable man, and I haven’t found any better ones. I don’t know most of them, and there have been very many despite their life-long terms. So… which ones were better?
Which WASP/ Anglo/ white/ rightist/ majesetically masculine unicorn / whatever you want role models do you like, personally and for your people to memorialize and emulate?
Any specific jurists, or other leaders? I get that Tesla is allowed to memorialize a white man, but you aren’t Elon Musk. Still, you can study history and biography, and I suggest doing so, to prove that your values can be lived out. The left totally pwns at MLK Day, idolizing Gandhi, etc, and also wage a fight against their perceived enemies, even trying to drop Columbus Day, and later, Presidents’ Day.
The right is too shy about its heroes to even know who they are. Why so? And why don’twe celebrate any good heroes, allowing the smear that Hitler’s birthday is somehow a big deal? Isn’t this a memetic failure, to not have heroes?
I suspect Madame Secretary Betsy DeVos will make American education patriotic again, with the pledge of allegiance every fucking day, patriotic songs sung and played by school choruses and bands, and a whole lot of civics renewal. The social studies departments might not need aggressive purging- justchange the curricular ‘standards,’ and they will either disobey and get fired, or get with the MAGA program. It wil be funny if we have various memes like ‘be brave again’ as part of the First Lady’s anti-bullying efforts. It’s easy to do unified campaigning, under the MAGA mantle.
And we could contribute to a better culture, even during this time of rising conflict, if we just read books, like Modlbug says- his greatest contribution to the world is that he reads old books, and asks other curious people to do the same. His ideas are intersesting too, but mostly, he reviews and analyzes old books. He’s a civics scholar, not a reactionary ideologue.
–
Jim, Monty Python’s Life of Brian is wonderful, my new favorite anti-heresy comedy film. Any other recommendations? I like French and Russian cinema, just for context.
Brandeis said that the states should be laboratories of democracy. The progressives who venerate him agree and demand that every state in the world have be a laboratory of what the call democracy.
The more I learn about him, the less I like him. The first biography I read was like a hagiography, as if he’s a saint. I was gullible. Brandeis was a suave, disciplined man, who got up very early in the morning, and socialized extensively, just to ‘network’ and know what opinions were high status, according to whom and why. That’s unusually attractive to the very incumbent Boston Brahmins he seduced, besides him agreeing to promote their next darling Zionist, Felix Frankfurter, and ethnoliberalism in general (called meritocracy).
Now I like the southern S.C. Justice Horace Lurton, nominated by his former colleague President Taft. He only served 4 years before dying of a heart attack, but I will look at his opinions.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Horace-H-Lurton
I hope there’s some Justice you like. I’ve already commented on another post that Trump is likely to nominate a Desi/ Indian judge, from Kentucky I think, to the S.C. after he is confirmed to the Court of Appeals, and secures a tenure there. I think he’ll take RBG’s seat- she seems like the next to retire, this summer, and the Indian judge fits, humorously.
–
There might be a trend of Trump pressuring judges he doesn’t like to retire. Or they somehow let him replace them, which is suspicious.
http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2017/01/26/chief-federal-judge-nashville-resign-donald-trump/97064322/
–
And the current S.C. cases are mostly about who can sue whom, undeer what circumstances.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/supreme-court-tackles-due-process-during-its-last-week-of-arguments/article/2620952
Kevin Sharp is resigning from the bench in order to receive a payoff for ruling in favor of lawyers from certain law firms. He is getting a position at a law firm that has been regularly in front of him.
It is likely that if Kevin Sharp delayed collecting his payoff, thus preventing Trump from appointing a right wing judge, Trump could have impaired his payoff in some way, either in his role as a billionaire businessman, or his role as president, or, very likely, by some quietly corrupt combination of these two roles.
That’s surprising; I’m naive.
Sharp might be made an example of anyway, as you note leftists are stricter about loyalty to their causes now. They still gang up on Bernie supporters, blame them for Hillary’s loss, and won’t admit Bernie would have been better for them. I expect Sharp to be treated like a lord, because leftists are still in judge= rabbi mode, but it won’t last for younger progs. The younger ones will not even know this is happening, because it is not news on their facebook feeds. It’s becoming elite to read newspapers.
This case remains interesting. Maybe he will be disbarred, and made an example of by Trump. That could quickly limit white-collar crime.
In reading bio’s of S. Court justices, I am quite shocked by their misbehavior. As for their Jewishness, they are all ambiguous about how converso they are, and how zionist they are, etc. This might be to fool the wasps, or because they can’t decide, and want to play both sides, especially with other Jews. They would only hire younger Jews as their clerks, not counting Felix Frankfurter’s first black clerk, and now, more diversity hires, presumably.
As justices, Jews are more involved in D.C.politics, such as haranguing the President on whom to appoint to federal courts, how to argue for policies’ legal justifications, etc. Frankfurter was one of the top 5 New Deal builders, and it was called the Jew Deal. Eleanor Roosevelt disliked Jews, feeling that they were greedy and vile, until gradually becoming an sjw. That’s funny, given that now, sjws have reversed her change, and agree with her early position.
B seems to not know much about elite Jews, but thinks they are total cronies of whites. They don’t think so themselves, though American zionists gave up on Israel, largely, and left it to the British and other European Jews. That’s interesting, in implying that American Jews anticipated the Holocaust, but pretended to no believe it was happening when the Polish government in exile told them, with first-person reports on how Nazis treated Jews.
I am wondering why Israelis put up with American Jewish misbehavior, which harms Israel more than it helps. Why is B so patient with Jews opposed to him?
I think this is the main question for B- why are you ok with shitlibs, in practice, just not in comments sections? And how’s the criminal case of the Israeli and U.S. citizen, American-born bomb threat kid going? Will he ever be extradited to the U.S.? How do Israelis view him?
You nazis (no insult intended) ask good questions.
Well? B?
>Frankfurter was one of the top 5 New Deal builders, and it was called the Jew Deal.
Look up Frankfurter and Karski sometime. “I didn’t say you’re lying, I said I can’t believe you.”
The New Deal was written by oligarchs for oligarchs, and largely represented the triumph of the new industrialist elites over the old banker elites (inflation vs. deflation.) Most of the industrialist elites connected to FDR at the time were not Jewish, although a few were.
>Eleanor Roosevelt disliked Jews, feeling that they were greedy and vile, until gradually becoming an sjw.
Pretty much all the SJWs back then disliked Jews.
>I am wondering why Israelis put up with American Jewish misbehavior, which harms Israel more than it helps. Why is B so patient with Jews opposed to him?
What does “put up with” mean? I dislike American leftists and Israeli ones. Should I be going “gas the kikes now…but only those bad ones”?
>I think this is the main question for B- why are you ok with shitlibs, in practice, just not in comments sections?
And, also, have I stopped beating my wife?
I am not ok with shitlibs.
But, in practice, they control the American government and largely the Israeli one.
I can’t do anything about the former.
What I can do about the latter is to try to convince Israeli Jews who are on the fence, make more Israeli Jews who are not on the fence, and wait. The government here has proven pretty resilient to violent subversion from the right, Kahane-style, and in any case I do not want a civil war-at least, not until the odds are heavily stacked in our favor. And they get more stacked every year.
>And how’s the criminal case of the Israeli and U.S. citizen, American-born bomb threat kid going?
I know exactly as much as you do, and from the same sources.
On a tangentially related note, the guys who got framed for the Duma arson and tortured into confessing still have not been sentenced, and it’s been over a year. There’s no right to a speedy trial here.
>Will he ever be extradited to the U.S.?
How would I possibly know?
>How do Israelis view him?
In my capacity as Spokesman for Israelis? As an idiot-the same way that anyone in their right mind would view him.
>Should I be going “gas the kikes now…but only those bad ones�
That’s an improvement over “no kikes should be gassed, not even the bad ones, not even Soros.” The kikes should indeed be gassed. The scope of this gassing is up for debate.
Google “Conservative Judaism Lilith”. For those who don’t know, Conservative Judaism is a lesbian Feminist sect of Judaism*, which purports to be stricter in terms of Halacha observance than the Reform (anally pozzed) Jews. And what do you know – they venerate Lilith the female demoness, familiar in Jewish folklore, as a Feminist icon. Hah! These dyke-rabbis have truly outdone themselves.
I really do want these “human” creatures gassed, you see. The emotion which I feel is known as “hatred”, and it is very sincere. The Nazism is mostly LARPing, but high-effort LARPing, because I want to establish my own credibility when discussing these matters. But I’m not kidding when I tell you that these Progressive Jews need to be literally gassed to death inside literal ovens. The Mizrahi Arsim are your problem as an Israeli. Lesbian rabbis, meanwhile, are *everyone’s* problem.
You don’t want them gassed because “brethren”.
No, we *will* gas to death your Satanic dyke rabbis who venerate child-killing demons, and if you want to stand in our way, equip yourself with a gas mask the sooner, because the composition of the air around you is gonna change dramatically, to your detriment.
And if Israel protects these Satanic dyke rabbis from the extermination they so justly deserve, Israel itself will be annihilated, and every single person on Earth with kike-genes over 12% of their DNA will be annihilated with it. If you defend the worshipers of child-killing demons, it is kike-kids who will roast in their own kike-moms’ blood. No dykes, no kikes, won’t even spare the tykes.
Choose wisely.
*That’s not necessarily how these dykes would define themselves. And yet, the carpet didn’t munch itself, did it?
You’re not gassing anyone. Stop being gay.
Americans didn’t gas Margaret Mead or the other abortionists, they didn’t gas the Kennedy clan which had their slightly retarded daughter lobotomized and stashed in a nuthouse, they didn’t gas their dear CIA which did experiments on them, and they didn’t gas their government which nuked them. Americans largely do not give a shit about anyone.
As to the lesbian “rabbis”, I feel about them the same way that I do about the “Women of the Wall.” There are very few of them, but they make a lot of noise.
They are not very relevant and will die out, because first of all they don’t have children, second, the ones they have run as far as they can as fast as they can the second they grow up, third, what they have to sell is very unappealing to secular Jews, let alone religious ones.
I feel about them the same way I imagine one feels about a brother who has become a junkie. You hope he recovers, despite knowing that odds are he won’t. You don’t want him in your house or around your kids, because you don’t want to expose them to what he has become. You don’t wish he would die.
I knew a girl back in the states who was in college and the local DA’s daughter. Majoring in communications, spouting nonsense about “gender is a spectrum.” A tragedy-she, like most women, wanted to be a good girl. And was raised in an environment where that involved believing all kinds of crazy and evil things.
420 blaze it
* 4/20 is Hitler’s birthday and ‘blaze it’ means cremate Jews and use their bones to make cannabis pipes
They reproduce by stealing your children.
I am sure that in Israel, as much or more than in the rest of prog ruled world, you have an “anti bullying” campaign that teaches ten year olds that intersexuality and homosex is cool and high status, that gays and lesbians are cool and high status, and that if they want to be cool and high status as well they should let same sex anti bullying counselors fuck them.
Prog Jews have not been reproducing since 1860 or so, and yet we have more prog Jews than ever.
>They reproduce by stealing your children.
The majority of children from the religious Zionist community remain religious Zionist when they grow up. At the same time, we have a constant inflow of people from the secular community becoming religious. So, actually we are stealing their children.
We have our own schools, by the way.
>Remember: in the US, there are more Conservative Jews than Orthodox Jews, and more Reform or Reconstructionist or Humanist or whatever than Conservative.
…and more atheist or not religious than ReformLGBTQXYZ. And more “dad/grandpa was Jewish, supposedly” that those.
Consider also the metrics by which someone is “Reform” or “Conservative.”
Rav Kahane of blessed memory quotes the joke that there are only three denominations of Jews: Orthodox, Reform and Conservative Rabbi.
>these Prog denominations are getting more popular in Israel as well
As measured by articles in English-language Haaretz, sure.
For instance, Modiin is the biggest center of American middle class olim (the target audience for Conservative/Reform.) There is a normal synagogue on every corner, just as there is in every Israeli city (including, for instance, Arad-which was explicitly planned as “a city where there not be a single synagogue.”) There is one (1) Conservative synagogue, and one (1) Conservative minyan (meaning they got ten male/female Conservative Jews together to pray on some sort of regular basis.) If ten more of them quit the synagogue and form a second minyan, there will be a 50% growth in Conservative congregations in Modiin, and an article in Haaretz.
>what they have to sell is very unappealing to secular Jews
In Israel? Sure, because Israeli hilonim aren’t really secular. If you slice off your sons’ foreskin, you don’t get to credibly call yourself “secular”, even if on the inside you’re an atheist. There aren’t many real secular Jews in Israel, just as there aren’t many real secular whites in America (well, there used not to be). Secularism, true secularism, is a European thing.
At any rate, American Jews, not Israeli hilonim, are very attracted to dyke rabbis. Remember: in the US, there are more Conservative Jews than Orthodox Jews, and more Reform or Reconstructionist or Humanist or whatever than Conservative. And btw, I’ve heard these Prog denominations are getting more popular in Israel as well, what with hilonim opting to add a flavor of poz to their purported “secularism”.
“Religious leftism.”
all leftism is religious leftism. religious rightism only happens with religions centered on patriarchs that don’t respect displays of holiness, like the religion Jim wants to bring back. Which worked until the colleges decided to morph it into utilitarianism.
Repeating myself: “and it was called the Jew Deal”
At the time, Americans did not feel that the New Deal was a WASP thing. They were alarmed by FDR calling Frankfurter the smartest man he knew, and letting him violate the constitution (bossing FDR around, actually). Frankfurter’s nomination to the Court was “the most significant and worthwhile thing the President had done” according to Interior Secretary Harold Ickes. This was Jan. 5, 1939.
As for being just like a WASP, Frankfurter hired 18 Jewish law clerks, in 23 years. Justice Brandeis hired 8 Jews in 23 years.
“Look up Frankfurter and Karski sometime”
I already did. I feel sorry for Karski, but I wouldn’t have believed him either- why would Jewish labor, and that of soldierly camp staff, be wasted during wartime, with stupid camps? To nazis, I would have said, if you’re rational nazis, just restrict Jews’ political freedoms, confiscate their wealth, and perhaps holocaust them later, if you really like ovenz and fetishize death.
Frankfurter was a Viennese Jew. When the Nazis arrested his uncle Solomon, a community leader and scholar, Felix asked his Nazi-sympathizer American-born friend, Lady Nancy Astor, to intervene through the German ambassador in London. She helped a Jew, because it was her friend’s uncle. She looks not so nazi, being nice to Jews, so why would SJWs back then not like Jews? Were nazis kinder to Jews? Maybe. I don’t think SJWS ever like Jews, because they often are self-hating Jews.
Frankfurter was the only good-enough Jewish Supreme Court Justice- others were corrupt (Abe Fortas) or stupid (Brandeis was vapid, Arthur Goldberg flunked out, the 4, counting Sotomayor, now aren’t effective in their goals).
He is a good example of an assimilated Ashkenazi man, who was religious about American goodness, not the synagogue’s holiness, and even ruled that jehovah’s witnesses can be expelled from public schools for not saluting the flag. Frankfurter’s many SJW friends were shocked, and disavowed him. He did much to combat the Court’s liberalism, and called his colleague, William Douglas, one of the “two completely evil men I have ever met.” So Frankfurter is B’s kind of Jew, I guess, with many exceptions however, mostly before he took the Bench in 1939.
I am wondering why Israelis put up with American Jewish misbehavior, which harms Israel more than it helps. Why is B so patient with Jews opposed to him?
Israelis let people think there is unity between all Jews of the world, one big kahuna. This is false, especially when American Jews treat Israel as a convenient vacation spot, but won’t even make it sound cool, fun, and good to their white friends.
> “What does “put up with†mean? I dislike American leftists and Israeli ones. Should I be going “gas the kikes now…but only those bad onesâ€?”
This was hilarious. At this rate, B might say “What does being a Jew mean? Is my dick not circumcised?” But you don’t need to prove your rightism, I meant rather that you could benefit your people by blogging about bad shitlib Jews throughout history, for example. Also, point out the hypocrisy of the ‘anti-semitic Jews’ cited by nazis. Just influence the political conversation, more and better than you do here (hint: barely). Perhaps neo-Zionism is needed, like the trend of Israeli libertarianism.
I think this is the main question for B- why are you ok with shitlibs, in practice, just not in comments sections?
> And, also, have I stopped beating my wife?
B, you comment here… wasting time, compared to campaigning for Israel on your own blog, which Jim might promote if it’s interesting. You’re not an effective Israeli citizen, I think. I also know Jews who made alliyah, but gave up, because Gaza was ceded, and that’s a big deal, still. Getting over that loss would rally your side- how about interviewing the ‘refugees’ from those razed Samarian/ Judean/ whatever settlements, and presenting them as victims of left-fascism? Crowdfunding the project?
Do I really need to tell you how to represent yourself? And yes, figuratively, you stopped beating your wife once a suitable bride fucked you and married you (not yet, but we’re patient fellows). But she still needs to cover her hair.
> “I am not ok with shitlibs.”
To not be ok with shitlibs, get Palestinian and/or prog women to convert to your own Judaism, with marriage. Be persuasive, perhaps by fucking them well. If JIm says progs steal your children, just protect your children from the kidnappers.
> “But, in practice, they control the American government and largely the Israeli one.
I can’t do anything about the former.”
No, you already do something about the former, by expatriating from the U.S. That’s effective protest. Getting 5 extra American Jews per year to make aliyah to your community would be huge for you. So, recruit better.
> “What I can do about the latter is to try to convince Israeli Jews who are on the fence, make more Israeli Jews who are not on the fence, and wait. The government here has proven pretty resilient to violent subversion from the right, Kahane-style, and in any case I do not want a civil war-at least, not until the odds are heavily stacked in our favor. And they get more stacked every year.”
Yeah, stack them more, with effective, true propaganda- I’m sure the kids kidnapped from their Gazan homes are going to be reactionary Israelis, eager to defend their interests. If you do a ‘Gazan razed and deported refugees’ thing, it’ll go viral. I know some Jews who would instantly convert back to Zionism.
And how’s the criminal case of the Israeli and U.S. citizen, American-born bomb threat kid going?
> “I know exactly as much as you do, and from the same sources.”
So, Israeli media are forgetting the case. Good to know.
> On a tangentially related note, the guys who got framed for the Duma arson and tortured into confessing still have not been sentenced, and it’s been over a year. There’s no right to a speedy trial here.
I’ll look it up. Making Israel treat citizens like you better includes a right to habeas corpus. Rightist lawyers are important to have- Alan Dershowitz, a tame moderate, is despised by prog Jews.
Will he ever be extradited to the U.S.?
> How would I possibly know?
I expected Jews to talk about this a lot, and demand extradition, in an even exchange for Jonathan Pollard. Aren’t you guys… smart? Does Trump need to make this great deal for you?!
How do Israelis view him?
> In my capacity as Spokesman for Israelis? As an idiot-the same way that anyone in their right mind would view him.
The kid appears to have desired to frame Trump as a nazi. My local Jewish community relations bullshitters were silent about the end to grannies running outside in their swimsuits involving a huge opportunity to get Jonathan Pollard, because they don’t care about him, and are stupid on strategy. You’re notthat stupid, so I’ll tell you, make a prisoner exchange happen.
You could, at least, publicize updates on the case, with commentary. I know Israeli police don’t do publicity well, and that’s wrong.
Thanks for being so obliging to my interview. If you like any of my suggestions, you’re welcome.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-jewish-threats-idUSKBN17Q18P
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/35244793/teen-suspect-in-jewish-center-bomb-threats-appears-in-court-lawyer-cites-bad-health
No extradition, because Israelis are stupid. They could get Pollard, I think. Instead, they get ruined relations with American Jews, who ‘suffered’ from fear of actual bombs.
Perhaps the point was to get rid of the burden of American Jews politically threatening Israel’s safety, by threatening them into minding their ethnic business, which did happen. Maybe it wasn’t about nazis at all, rather an expression of zionism.
I don’t think Israelis take Michael Kaydar very seriously. In fact, they probably don’t even care about Pollard all that much. Read Jew-to-Jew media: hardly a word on these issues. Other things to worry about.
Maybe they don’t realize acting like an Israeli terrorizing American, Canadian, and other Jews is ok will cost them. It is like a Chinese-American dual citizen in China sending bomb threats to Chinese community centers here… and that would be a far bigger deal. This was oddly small-potatoes news, as if everyone knew it was fake (not real nazis, no bombs, not local).
B did not say Kaydar is a traitor or dangerous, just an idiot. So, B assumes American Jews will either support Israel no matter what, or has given up on American Jews’ support. Weird either way- what else is there to worry about if your own people are divided?
B sees all Jews everywhere on the globe as “brethren”, hence, I called him a Judeoglobalist in one of the threads, and pitted his globalism against true ethnic-nationalism. Globalism *is* the Jewish Problem, because it’s what Jews are doing in goy countries, and how they support each other globally. B’s is an Orthodox Jewish flavor of globalism – he’s like a prog Jew, but with traditional religion instead of modern prog religion. He’s like a Muslim loyal to the globsl ummah, but with Yehudim instead of Muslimun.
They’ll shove cyanide down his throat, but he won’t resist them.
> I feel sorry for Karski, but I wouldn’t have believed him either- why would Jewish labor, and that of soldierly camp staff, be wasted during wartime, with stupid camps?
Read carefully. Frankfurter implied that he COULDN’T believe Karski, politically.
Anyone who wanted to know, knew. There were people like Rabbi Michael Dov Weismandl working in Europe to get the information out, and groups in America working to raise awareness. There were also converso Reform and assimilated Jews like Stephen Wise working hard to suppress awareness, and to block any action by the US govt, in order to prove that they were good, loyal American Jews and cared about America much more than about those embarrassing Yids in Poland.
>why would SJWs back then not like Jews?
Oh, all the usual reasons, plus worry about their striving to join the WASP position.
For instance, Walter Lippmann’s book, Public Opinion, says this:
“One kindly gentlewoman has confessed that the stereotypes are of such overweening importance, that when hers are not indulged, she at least is unable to accept the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God: “we are strangely affected by the clothes we wear. Garments create a mental and social atmosphere. What can be hoped for the Americanism of a man who insists on employing a London tailor? One’s very food affects his Americanism. What kind of American consciousness can grow in the atmosphere of sauerkraut and Limburger cheese? Or what can you expect of the Americanism of the man whose breath always reeks of garlic?” [Footnote: Cited by Mr. Edward Hale Bierstadt, New Republic, June 1 1921 p. 21.]”
Garlic, of course, is something stereotypically enjoyed by YKW.
>I meant rather that you could benefit your people by blogging about bad shitlib Jews throughout history, for example.
First, this reeks a bit of Wise’ and Frankfurter’s s position: “no, guys, look, I’m one of the GOOD ones! I hate those bad ones too!”
Second, Rabbi Kahane mentioned them in his books at length. It didn’t seem to do any good.
Third, I prefer to discuss what we are building here (even on my small scale) than what we’re trying to get away from.
>wasting time, compared to campaigning for Israel on your own blog, which Jim might promote if it’s interesting.
Israel already has hasbara propagandists (supposedly.) There are also plenty of non-sponsored bloggers (like ElderOfZiyon, etc.) and Israel National News. I am working in other directions. First, anyone who is my friend on FB/follows me on Medium gets a glimpse into what we’re building here (socially, for instance.) Second, I am working on building the economy here, and if my company succeeds, will leverage my share into building up the economic power of the Haredim and Religious Zionist sectors (by teaching them how to create valuable stuff.) Third, most importantly, I’m making kids here.
>who made alliyah, but gave up, because Gaza was ceded, and that’s a big deal, still.
Well, anyone who made aliyah based on positive illusions about the moral integrity and Zionism of the Israeli government was building a house on sand.
>interviewing the ‘refugees’ from those razed Samarian/ Judean/ whatever settlements, and presenting them as victims of left-fascism?
Anyone who cares already knows. And if they don’t, they can read Israel National News.
>To not be ok with shitlibs, get Palestinian and/or prog women to convert to your own Judaism, with marriage.
We don’t proselytize. Generally, though, the best way to convert women or get them to repent and start observing is to show them something they want: big, stable, happy families. Many kids.
> Getting 5 extra American Jews per year to make aliyah to your community would be huge for you.
That would represent a 40% growth for my settlement.
People who would be tempted to come based on how I live are sort of the Wild West Jews. Lots of young guys come out here because life for a young American Jew is stifling.
>I’m sure the kids kidnapped from their Gazan homes are going to be reactionary Israelis, eager to defend their interests.
Yes. The younger generation is far to the right of their parents and grandparents. Not talking about the Gaza expellees per se.
The secular ones grew up hearing propaganda about “the sacrifices that must be made for peace” interspersed with explosions and stabbings, and have witnessed the moral bankruptcy of secular culture (the Hollywood Religion.) Many are becoming religious, and even the ones who aren’t don’t really believe in leftism. Every high tech job I’ve had here, I’ve openly told anyone who mentioned it that we need to kick out the Arabs, establish a halachik state, etc. None of the secular people were shocked and outraged.
The Religious Zionist kids grew up witnessing the total bankruptcy of the old Religious Zionist worldview, which fawned upon the secular state. And now they want a halachik state and don’t believe in democracy or the rest of it.
>So, Israeli media are forgetting the case.
Saw an article about it yesterday.
> expected Jews to talk about this a lot, and demand extradition
Meh. I really don’t care if this guy sits in jail in Ramle or New Jersey.
>They could get Pollard, I think.
If they really wanted Pollard, they would have gotten him a long time ago.
In any case, he will be over here in a couple of years.
>B assumes American Jews will either support Israel no matter what, or has given up on American Jews’ support.
Some will support Israel no matter what, and some will not support Israel no matter what. It’s more important that they become religious than Zionist per se, because “supporting Israel” might mean being a Reform Jew who supports the Peace Process, or whatever.
>For decades now, the Greeks have been ‘collaborationists’ by not being anti-Zionist. Perhaps B likes these Greeks.
I differentiate between them.
On one hand, there’s this priest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Naddaf
On the other hand, there are these priests:
http://www.israellycool.com/2016/12/04/jerusalems-greek-orthodox-church-sacks-pro-terrorist-palestinian-archibishop-attalla-hanna/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilarion_Capucci
On the third hand, there is the bureaucracy is a whole.
The first is great, the second are shit, and the third is amoral. They see us as a reality which they can’t alter, and despite despising us in their hearts, are finding accommodations. This is not a principled stance, and it’s difficult to see why I should like or respect them. They collaborate with us while we’re strong. Fine, great.
B knows, and everyone knows, that these actions (false flag hate crimes committed by leftists) are part of holocaustism, rationalizing the hatred of white people and rationalizing harm done to them.
Issuing false flag bomb threats is just part of a campaign that B supports. He may not support that particular method of campaigning, probably does not support that method of campaigning, but he and bomb threat boy are on the same side.
The diary of Ann Frank is as much a forgery as as the bomb threats, and serves the same purpose. There almost certainly was a real Ann Frank, who lived much as depicted in the diary, and was wrongfully killed by the Nazis, though it is unlikely that she actually wrote the diary. But what is a great big lie is not the authorship of the diary, it is making Ann Frank archetypical, thus playing down the role of envy and covetousness, thus making the crime racism, when in fact the crime was socialism, which is covetousness, thus making the crime different from the crimes of communism, which killed far more Jews than Nazism, for much the same reasons. (Socialist envy plus socialist food shortages)
The man who pushes the “Diary of Ann Frank” is as evil, malicious, and hostile, as the man who makes false flag bomb threats.
Her dad forged it. People thought “no father would forge a diary containing a vivid description of his teen daughter rubbing her clitoris and claiming to be bisexual” but these are Jews, of course it’s possible and actually likely that a Jewish dad would do such a thing.
If you don’t like millions of people being murdered, you need to pay attention to how and why they came to be murdered, the reasons and motivations for their murder, rather than using their murder as a tool to pursue hateful ends.
Bomb threat boy was using their murder as a tool to pursue hateful ends, and you don’t seem too happy when I cast doubt on the validity of anyone using their murder in the fashion of bomb threat boy, for the same purposes as bomb threat boy.
B says no one cares about the Holocaust. Yet the Holocaust like the enslavement of blacks and the colonization of Indian land are the grand troika of reasons why group interests for whites are politically incorrect while celebrating the cultures explicitly (and interest groups implicitly) of Jews, blacks and indigenous peoples are almost more important than class conflict in the 2017 consensus. Obviously this affects the behaviors and lives of most white Americans yet B has the brass balls to argue that no one really cares about the Holocaust…
Nobody cares about the Indians or the Blacks, either.
Similarly, nobody who mattered in the USSR cared about the workers and the peasants.
Don’t be a dummy.
Jim-
If you want to reply to my comments, then reply to them instead of editing what I wrote.
Sorry to disappoint you, Jim, but I’m not a (national) socialist! I take umbrage! (just kidding 🙂 ). And my asking good questions about this comes from international experience and my amateur legal studies hobby, like reading rightist Supreme Court opinions (there are a few Justices we can like, such as James McReynolds).
I do, however, being Orthodox, have indirect contacts in Israel, where many (of other Churches, not my jurisdiction) churches and monasteries are. The news I hear is that the corrupt Greek bishops ‘oppress the Palestinians’ by keeping them out of the episcopate, because they know a Palestinian bishop would contribute to further war with Israel. For decades now, the Greeks have been ‘collaborationists’ by not being anti-Zionist. Perhaps B likes these Greeks. They don’t even let non-Greeks visit the churches they control on major (the 12 and Pascha, symbolically- like one holiday per Apostle, and the Jesus holiday is ‘Easter’) holidays, because only attendees with exclusive tickets can get into these small temples.
It’s all romantic to me- I’m that kind of Orthodox-nationalist/ Roman imperialist (whatever works out and is agreed to, empires or small states, it’s all good), but not a nazi.
I am appalled by the bad political philosophy of Nazis- Heidegger, really? Trace back his crap, and it’s caballalistic Christian-derived heresy as usual (and Jews love to complain about Hannah Arendt loving him. Her choice, though). Fools make Nazi mistakes such as believing in Indo-Aryanism, but without the castes and Vedas, which is like Christianity without bishops and the Bible, while I like to attend Holocaust survivors’ special events, and ask them… good questions. As many of my (nominally Soviet, but keeping the faith) ancestors died defeating the Axis, I can ask them whatever I want.
Speaking of nazis, don’t forget the well-informed, exceedingly rare kind who know about the post-Holocaust retribution by Ashkenazim, when hundreds of thousands of German civilians were killed. Anonymous, does that ring a historical bell? Or will you not read the book about it, because an honest Jew wrote it?
Knowing B, I am pretty sure he does not like those Greeks, and is full of terribly clever reasons for not liking them. Much as he does not like the man who punched Moldilocks.
Oh, well… of course, the Greeks need to build churches in the West Bank, on settler-occupied territory, and then, they need to use menorahs in their altars… and eat oil-free latkes during Lent. Or, B does like them, until I ask about them. Most Palstinian Christians have left the territories because of the Greeks, causing Hamas and co. to take over even further. Perhaps this is what you call Jews confusing their friends and enemies, in this case Christians and Muslims.
One Jewish convert to Orthodoxy, a priest, does use a menorah-style oil lamp in his church’s altar, with his bishop’s permission. That’s ok, I guess.
Jews have been fall guys at various points in history, yes. But there are no leftist movements without the Jews opposition to Logos (the second person of the Trinity). There is just no theory of them.
See E. Michael Jones’ masterful 1000-pg historical survey “The Revolutionary Jew – and its impact on world history”.