My take on the jews

NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
edited July 2011 in Spurious Generalities
This review I'm about to write up may shock a few of you and it may anger and infuriate many white trashionalists (a bullshit movement, I'll go into in another thread). But this is the way I feel on the issue. As a race realist and nationalist (not "white nationalist") I feel it's ideal that I speak on that old time classic question of "The jewish question".

First of all a lot of my thoughts over anti-semitism/anti-jewishness can be summed up within this old BNP article by John Bean.
Why we must reject Judeo-obsessivism

John Bean explains

Some nationalists are so fixated on the enemies of our people that the search for these enemies consumes their energy and becomes a cause in itself, taking precedence over their understanding of nationalism. Craving a well-defined and theatrical concept of the enemy, they buy into elaborate myths designed to set one up as the absolute evil, and then spend their lives battering away at it.

Thus some nationalists have become 'hooked' on the Jews as all-purpose villains, responsible for everything that's wrong with Britain, and whose destruction is the master key to putting things right. The fact that some Jews really are villains, who have done us harm, makes this very tempting, because there is always real evidence of Jewish wrong-doing available, even if it doesn't prove that all Jews are wrong-doers.

The BNP is not politically correct, and makes no apology for saying that it is strategically useful, and morally legitimate, for us to fight genuinely bad Jews. The idea that no Jews ever do anything bad, contradicts observable fact, and the idea we have no right to fight back is unilateral disarmament. But to generalise this into the assumption that all Jews are like the Marxist, multiculturalist , and globalist ones who are genuine enemies, is neither factually true, morally right, nor useful to our cause.

The master key to a sensible attitude towards the Jews is this: treat them like any other foreign people . They are different from us, and sometimes our friends and sometimes our enemies, at different historical moments, but they are neither intrinsically evil nor always the enemy.

Consider the French, Germans, Russians, Americans, and Japanese. All have done Britain benefit and harm at different points in history. We have been on the same and opposite sides of each in wars. But this doesn't make anti- Frenchism , anti-Germanism, or anti-Russianism sensible: i.e. the assumption these nations are permanent enemies, simply because of who they are, rather than what they may be doing at a given moment.

This we can call ethnorealpolitik . Its essence was famously expressed by Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston in 1848:

'Britain has no permanent friends or permanent enemies; only permanent interests.'

Any other attitude towards a foreign nation is strategically witless, and we cannot afford strategic witlessness in a dangerous world.

The same logic entails that there is no factual basis for anti-Semitism, i.e. the belief that Jews are intrinsically our enemy. The worst one can truthfully say of the Jews is that they are intrinsically opportunistic. To survive in other people's countries for 2,000 years, they obviously have to be. But this doesn't make them intrinsically bad; only people who will, like anyone else, pursue their self-interest according to the circumstances of the time. We shouldn't surrender to their pursuit of self-interest . We should, naturally, pursue our own, but in a calm and rational way in the same manner as we deal with other foreign societies, without hatred, mythology, or hostile intent.


Some Judeo-obsessives use passages in the Talmud to argue that Jews are not like every other nation, but have an intrinsic and eternal hostility to gentiles. But the Talmud is not holy scripture, or the purported word of God, but only commentary by famous rabbis. That it contains nasty passages, resembles the fact that the Summa Theologica of St. Aquinas, and other important works of Christian theology, contain nasty passages. There is nothing intrinsic to the Judaism that requires all Jews to believe in these passages - any more than a good Christian must believe the opinions of medieval theologians in favor of burning heretics at the stake. There is simply no comparison to the Koran, which Islam holds to be the literal words of God Himself, in which He imposes a Divine obligation on every Moslem to wage holy war against non-Moslems, making Islam intrinsically hostile.

Naturally, any Jew who really does believe in the anti-gentile passages, is a genuine enemy of ours, and should be fought. But such people are rare, as these passages are obscure and few Jews read them. Most Jews don't even read the Talmud, which is only of interest to the religiously orthodox, and most enemy Jews of our time have been fanatical secularists like Karl Marx.

Other aspects of Jewish religion sometimes found objectionable mainly concern the desire of the Jews to keep themselves separate, with a distinct ethnic identity, while living in foreign nations. As ethnonationalists ourselves, we accept their right to do so on two conditions: first, that they accept that our right to protect our identity is as valid as their right to protect theirs, and second, that they do not protect their identity in a manner that harms us.

In particular, British Jews must not undermine their status as persons assimilated to our nation, i.e. ethnically different, strictly speaking, but sufficiently similar that this difference is too small to give legitimate grounds for offense. British Jews have a long history of being better assimilated, and more loyal, than Jews in other countries, like Russia and the USA , and it is good for us, and good for them, that they should stay this way.


Three things identify a Judeo-obsessive:

1. The idea all Jews are evil.

2. The idea everything Jews do is evil.

3. The idea all our problems come from the Jews.

The idea that all Jews are evil is simply not supported by real evidence, and contradicted by the many Jews who have done us good . Let us take three examples. First, it was Benjamin Disraeli, Britain 's great Victorian Jewish Prime Minister, who made a key issue of race. He wrote:

"No one may treat the principle of race, the racial question, with indifference, for it is the key o world history. History is often confusing for the sole reason hat it is written by people who know neither the racial issue nor the moments connected therewith. All is race, there is no other truth."

Nationalists will also find much to agree with in the writings of Sir Alfred Sherman, now in his mid-eighties. Born the son of a Jewish immigrant in East London , he was a Communist in early life. It took him a decade 'before I realised what a cheat and liar Stalin was'. He became a right-wing Conservative, a co-founder of the Centre for Policy Studies, and a force behind Margaret Thatcher. For twenty years, he has consistently strongly opposed the immigration open door policy and has been a critic of the multiculturalism and the Islamic threat.

Also recall the wonderful 'Peter Simple' (Michael Wharton), the master of satire who exposed the sham of multiculturalism and the Marxist penetration of the establishment for nearly 50 years in his column in the Daily Telegraph until his death at 92 earlier this year. His real name was Michael Bernard Nathan and he was of German-Jewish origin. Nick Griffin and I both had the pleasure of corresponding with him in his latter years.

These examples show that the idea that everything Jews do is evil is where Judeo- obsessives lose touch with reality, because in order to maintain this, they must interpret every Jewish action as part of a grand plan for world domination. They can't admit a Jew would ever do anything good, or there goes their theory, so they have to interpret any contrary evidence as proof of the ability of the Jews to fake contrary evidence in order to cover their tracks! But if that's true, then all history is a giant hologram, projected by the Jews to further their diabolical aims, and no fact can be relied upon. And the Jews must have quasi-magical powers to manipulate people, at which point Judeo- obsessivism slides into outright fairy-tale.

The idea that all our problems come from the Jews is perhaps the most dangerous, because it blinds one to these problems' real origin, making it impossible to fight them effectively. Judeo- obsessives go blind to things like the nation-liquidating propensities of modern capitalism. After all, the capitalists aren't to blame - the Jews are! People who are congenitally naïve about the treacherousness of capitalism, like American followers of David Duke, are particularly prone to this.

There is no vast Jewish 'conspiracy' responsible for our nation's predicament. I made this clear in 1999 in my book Many Shades of Black:

'There was no conspiracy by Jewish international finance to destroy our power and to open the floodgates to Afro-Asian immigration. It's a theory that leaks like a sieve.'

Judeo- obsessivism blinds nationalists to the treachery our own people are capable of. Tony Blair has done this country ten times more harm than every Jewish Marxist who ever lived in Britain , but he is a nice British boy. Similarly with George Bush.

None of this is to deny, of course, that Jews like Paul Wolfowitz , who engineered a war in which British soldiers are dying to prop up a New World Order that plans the liquidation of Britain , are complete bastards. But who gives men like this the power to engineer wars? They obviously couldn't do it on their own, without the cooperation of our gentile rulers. If bad Jews bribe our gentile rulers, who accepts these bribes? If bad Jews bully our gentile rulers, why are they such wimps that they give in to it?

In fact, we can't help noticing that, just as medieval kings used to employ Jews as tax collectors, so they could divert peasant anger into anti-Jewish riots, something similar may be going on here. The anti-Semitic hysteria over the Iraq war certainly has taken quite a bit of heat off of certain higher-ups, hasn't it now? How many people, who ought to be baying for the impeachment of Bush and Blair, are howling instead about how the Jews snookered them into it? The real powers are quite likely laughing their heads off.


  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited November 2010
    Article continued...

    Consider the drive for world government, the liquidation of nations, the subordination of societies to faceless global capitalism, the destruction of distinct cultures and peoples, and the end of their democratic self-determination. And suppose that the people behind it really are Bush, Blair, the United Nations, the Trilateral Commission, the Davos gang, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the Council on Foreign Relations, etc. - the usual suspects, in other words.

    Wouldn't it be awfully convenient to keep nationalists baying about The International Jew instead?

    Thus the true powers behind globalism (which of course includes some Jews) could guarantee that nationalist movements are ghettoised, preach only to the converted, and are thereby doomed to failure.

    There's a very simple reason there can't be a giant Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. If there were, do you really imagine all the other greedy and powerful people in the world would just say to its Jewish masters, 'OK, gents. You can have it. Take over the world. Be our guests.' Of course not . They'd want in. Being powerful, they'd get in. Therefore:

    Is there a vast Jewish conspiracy? No, it's much worse. They're all in on it.

    It's clear the nexus of global power - call it a conspiracy if you like, so long as you don't get silly about it - has a Jewish faction. But it also has a Catholic faction, an American faction, and British, French, German, Mexican and Arabian factions. This is for the simple reason that there exist Jews, Catholics, Americans, Britons, Frenchmen, Germans, Mexicans and Arabs who think they're going to get money and power out of it.


    Lest anyone misunderstand, the BNP has not 'embraced Zionism', 'sold out to the Jews', or anything like it. We remain well-aware that subversive Jews exist, that Jews have a characteristic style of (materialistic and scheming, like Karl Marx and George Soros) subversion, and we remain committed to fighting them, when this is really the case . But it is an entirely different matter to say that some Jews make themselves, by their behaviour , the enemies of our people, and to say that all Jews, simply because they are Jews, are the enemy.

    We do believe it is the morally right thing, but our reformed Jewish policy has mainly been adopted for our own benefit. We gain nothing by attacking Jews who are not actually our enemies - and there are key drawbacks to doing so. If Jews know they'll be attacked by the BNP whether they misbehave or not, they will have no incentive to behave. They will feel they have no choice, for their own survival, but to fight tooth-and-nail against our party. Even if, minus the anti-Semitism, they like much of what we have to say. The mere fact of our opposition to the Moslem threat , which lusts to wipe them off the face off the earth, guarantees some do.

    If we attacked all Jews, this would give people the wrong idea of what the BNP is about. Because we have had some anti-Semitic extremism in our past, attacking all Jews would make the public think this is what we stand for today. It would give the upper hand to hidden dinosaurs in the party, who don't understand our new ideological model, and sabotage our necessary project of either converting or expelling them.

    If we attacked all Jews, this would waste our finite energies attacking imaginary enemies when we have very real ones to worry about. The war we are engaged in is a matter of national survival. If it were not, Judeo- obsessivism would still be a mistake, but perhaps one we could afford. As things are, it is not. Our energies must be devoted to real enemies only.


    The BNP's position on the Middle East is very simple:

    Britain is not a party to other people's wars.

    This does not mean that Britain ought to have absolutely nothing to do with Middle Eastern countries. A BNP government would continue normal commercial relations, air travel routes, counter-terrorist cooperation, etc. But it would not let Britain become party to the political conflicts between nations in the Middle East - any more than we are to the conflicts between China and Taiwan , or India and Pakistan . We would not take sides.

    This does not mean we believe that the two sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict (or Arab-Persian, Arab-Kurd, or intra-Arab conflicts) are morally equivalent. We simply do not take a position on who is right. 'Moral equivalence' is the least advantageous position for us to take, in terms of the friends and enemies it makes us, because both sides would be annoyed at being told their position was morally equivalent to that of their enemies. The purpose of foreign policy is not to render moral judgments about foreign countries: it is to protect our nation's interests, and our interests are best protected by staying out of other people's wars. So we will not take ideological stands that could be used to construct a case for our involvement - on either side.

    In regard to the question of Israel 's right to exist, we are well-aware that Israel was founded at the point of a gun, on land formerly inhabited by other people. But so were the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, South Africa, and many other countries - even, if you go back far enough in history, countries you wouldn't expect, like Japan and the Arab states outside Arabia. So there is no basis for singling out Israel . It is an internationally- recognised state, a member of the UN, and to deny its right to exist is a bizarre and ultra-Arab position.

    Would such recognition violate our policy of not taking sides? No, because a future BNP government would either have to recognise Israel, as all normal countries do, or join Syria, Saudi Arabia and a few other Moslem fanatic states in refusing. It is not possible to be neutral concerning recognition: one either does or doesn't, the default position is to recognise , and Britain has no imaginable reason to side with Moslem fanatics. 'Not taking sides in other people's conflicts' means treating the parties to such conflicts like other normal countries.

    Concerning recognition of a possible 'Palestinian' state: the BNP has absolutely no desire to take the Arab side by actually pushing for the creation of such a state. It is not Britain 's business to draw the borders of the Middle East , and we oppose the current attempts of the EU to drag Britain into the conflict on the Arab side by funding the Palestinian Authority and its government of admitted Islamists and terrorists. But if such a state comes about, and ends up being recognised by most other nations in the world, given a seat in the UN, and acquiring the other attributes of a normal country, then we will accept this as fait accompli . Just as we - and most of the rest of the world - will accept whatever is the outcome of the Taiwan-China conflict, or the Indo-Pakistani conflict over Kashmir .

    The left-wing canard that 'Zionism is racism' - or even quasi-Nazi - is false. ( Having been ideological extremists of similar stripe ourselves at one time, we know whereof we speak here.) Zionism is just another ethnonationalism , of which there are as many in the world as there are ethnic groups to espouse them. Nobody considers it illegitimate when the Japanese, Zulus, or Costa Ricans do it. Considered as pure ideology, Zionism is no more or less objectionable than anyone else's ethnonationalism . Considered as applied ideology, this gets into all the rights and wrongs of the Middle East , and as we said, it is neither our responsibility, nor in our national interest, to take a position on these questions. Our only concern is whether Zionism harms Britain , so if Zionists will accept we won't fight their wars for them, and don't start claiming God gave them Shropshire, the rest does not concern us.
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited November 2010
    I reject the idea of anti-semitism, however, some Jewish leaders are manipulative both to their own people and to non-Jews and need to be fought. That is what we should all agree on. One thing I think they're missing with the article is that Zionism is not a struggle for a people to create their own borders and homeland, but a struggle to bring back the past whilst using religion as a justification. It is a form of imperialism.

    That being said, there are many Jews who dominate media, finance and politics, notably in the United States and Britain. So basically, I don't hate Jews as a group. I am just against the ones mentioned above. Not for who they are (their ethnic group), but those for what they do (because there are also many WASPs and other ethnic Europeans who do the same things); dual citizenship should also be abolished. I reject the ZOG label, but instead I say MOG, which is Monotheist Occupied Government. The christians are to blame just as much for what's wrong with the world today as are the muslims.

    Now, I know a lot of white trashionalists and national-socialists reject the idea that most jews are white.

    [highlight]This idea is completely laughable, and as it was in NS-Germany it is completely a political motive to class them as a race of their own or as non-whites.[/highlight]

    The below article can sum my views up on race entirely.
    DNA studies have permitted to categorize all humans on Earth in genealogical groups sharing one common ancestor at one given point in prehistory. They are called haplogroups. There are two kinds of haplogroups: the paternally inherited Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) haplogroups, and the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups. They respectively indicate the agnatic (or patrilineal) and cognatic (or matrilineal) ancestry.

    Haplogroups are divided with different letters, and then with numbers. Thus, we have haplogroup I, which is then further subdivided into I1 and I2. They could be (and are) further divided to achieve more specific definitions and you can arrive at something like Q1a3a1 (Tinuna and Wayuu Amerindians).

    In this blog I will try to define the “borders of whiteness”, where the white race begins and ends geographically and which populations should be classified as Caucasian.

    Let’s begin by saying that religion should not be used as a guide on race. Chechens, for instance, were once Christian but are Muslim today. When they converted from Christianity to Islam, they did not change their DNA, just their beliefs. Similarly, when Indians in Mexico converted to Catholicism, they did not become genetically similar to the Poles.

    Arguments have also been made that only those originally from Europe could be classified as white. The argument is false, genetically-speaking.

    The same mtDNA haplogroups (Six Daughters of Eve that derived from haplogroup R as well as haplogroups X, I and W) that are present in Europe are also present in the Near East.

    In Europe and the Near East, mtDNA haplogroups are quite evenly spread over the continent, and therefore cannot be associated easily with ancient ethnicities.

    It is impossible to decide to classify a person’s race based on arbitrary geographic borders of a continent or a country. Two people in the same mtDNA and Y-DNA haplogroups must be part of the same race.

    For that reason, Europe and the Near East must be part of the same race.

    Even the distribution of haplogroups is very similar. Among just about everyone in Europe and the Near East, H is more common than U which is more common than J. (One major exception are East European Jews, about a third of whom belong to haplogroup K, which normally is highest in western Europe and British Isles, but isn’t present in such high numbers among those populations, indicating a recent, West European, female founder. Otherwise, everyone else I’ve researched shows very similar distribution patterns.)

    The most common haplogroup among Europe is H, with about 40% of the population. About a quarter of Near Eastern Arabs are part of haplogroup H and the Jews are between the Arabs and the Europeans (about 40% of Russian Jews and 33% of Romanian Jews are in haplogroup H or the closely related HV).

    People of different races (Pacific Islanders, for instance) belong to completely different haplogroups.

    The distribution is somewhat different when it comes to Y-chromosome DNA and not as evenly spread.

    Haplogroup I is in northern Europe as well as in the Balkans, R is in the middle of Europe and J stretches from western Portugal and southern Spain along all of southern Europe and into Israel and the Arab states.

    It has been argued by some amateur “racialist” geneticists that J1 haplogroup should be classified as non-white because while it is very common among the Arabs, it is not common among the Europeans and somewhere in between among the Jews. (Ashkenazim are 19% J1 and 23% J2;. Sephardim are 12% J1 and 29% J2, but also 29.5% western European R1b.)

    This is false logic, however, based on the idea that arbitrary geographic definitions determine genetics.

    J2 Europeans (many Greeks, Italians, Spanish and Portugese, as well as southern French) are closer to J1 Arabs than to R1a Europeans, so classifying J2 with R1a as one race, and J1 as a separate race makes no sense at all. It makes even less sense to classify as separate races a J2 Italian and a J2 Lebanese just because they are on different continents.

    Whatever differences may exist between J1 and J2, they pale in comparison to real racial differences with Orientals, Amerindians and sub-Saharan Africans. For people to be part of another race, at the very least they shouldn’t be part of the same haplogroup.

    Also, the southern J haplogroup and the northern I haplogroup both descended from IJ and are therefore closely related, closer in fact than either is to haplogroup R.

    Arabs, therefore, should not be defined as non-white due to their Y-DNA. Instead, they should be classified as a mixed (Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid) race of people due to the high influx of African and (east and south) Asian DNA.

    About 20% of Arab mtDNA comes from Africa and another 18% from the East, with only 62% being white. With so much outside DNA, I would classify the Arabs as the first “border” population, a mixed race between whites and non-whites.

    (The so-called Arabs in northern Africa are a different issue. They belong mostly (50-80%) to the E haplogroup, which is indigenous to the region. Being Arab seems to be more a matter of tradition than genetics for the North Africans.

    Sephardim, on the other hand, are white despite theories pushed on Stormfront. A mix of mostly J2 and R1b is white whether we are talking about Spaniards or Sephardim.

    Classifying Sephardim as non-white and the Spanish as white also flies in the face of genetic studies that show that 23% of Spanish mtDNA is non-white, more than among the Sephardim.)

    In the North, the Asian N haplogroup is present among 58.5% of Finns, 42% of Lithuanians, 38% of Latvians and 34% of Estonians.

    About 23% of Russians are also in haplogroup N. However, these 23% aren’t spread evenly among the whole Russian population.

    Just as Turks from the east of their country have more Asian blood than those from the west, the same is true for Russians. Russians west of Ural, where R1a haplogroup is largest, should no doubt be classified as white in most cases. Those east of Ural, on the other hand, are mostly a mixed race Caucasoid-Mongoloid people, more mixed in some regions than others.

    Likewise in Finland, those in the south of the country are Caucasian (I1 haplogroup), while those in the north are a Caucasoid-Mongoloid mix.

    Again we see that drawing the genetic line along Europe’s borders makes no sense. Northern Finland and northwestern Russia are in Europe, yet the populations there are racially mixed.

    So looking at the genetic map, I would classify the “borders of whiteness” from northern half of Finland stretching along northern Russia, going down along eastern Russia in Siberia and the Far East, stretching back southwest into to eastern Turkey and the Arab states. These people (northern Finns, northern Russians, eastern Russians, eastern Turks and the Arabs) are predominantly a mix of whites and others. On one side of them are whites. On the other are non-whites (sub-Saharan Africans, Central Asian Orientals, and so on).

    All the people inside the map I just drew would have to be classified as white, including not just Europeans but also Anatolian Turks, Jews (Ashkenazi and Sephardi), Kurds, Dagestanis (who are technically in Europe, are are culturally Middle Eastern) and others.
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited November 2010
    Be truly racially aware through unbiased anthropology, not rooted in political motives. The German National Socialists sucked at anthropology and national socialist today still suck at it.

    Here is another interesting post about the jews.
    This is a question worth breaking down, for the sake of putting a stop to any mudslinging.

    In my opinion Jews are not specifically european or middle eastern, but an intermediary. Genetically, they are most closely placed with people from the southern Caucasus such as Armenians, Turks, Kurds. They clearly show a closer proximity to this area than to peoples of the levant or other parts of the semitic speaking world. This misconception was further compounded during the 19th century, when romantics erroneously placed the birth of Abraham in Sumerian Ur, in modern day Iraq, while the true location was in fact at Ur Kaśdim or Ur of the Chaldees, in modern day eastern Turkey. The jewish philosopher Maimonides knew the correct birthplace of his people, but sadly many people people in judeo-christian faiths do not realize this today. Perhaps this is in part due to the sensitive environment that it would upset pertaining to the Jewish people's origins or the justification for the nation state of Israel.

    In my opinion, the Jewish people are a west eurasian caucasoid sub group of a highland origin, who in their ethnogenesis moved down the levant corridor from the southern caucasus to eventually settle in the areas around Canaan. In the process they became literate by cultural proximity and exchange with local semitic speakers who ultimately interbred with the newcomers to some degree, this laid the foundation of the Hebrew people. The later diasporas of Jewry were but yet another period of ethnogenesis, whereas the majority of the population bloomed in Europe after babylonian and roman captivity and banishment. Even among this european founding group, two sub groups arose to distinguish one from the other, carrying slight pigment and morphological variation to express geographic and climatic variation, while still maintaining common origins and highly related genetic signatures, plus some degree of european admixture.

    This brings us to the greater point of the thread, in regards to being part of Europe's heritage, in the period of antiquity we cant say the jews had any role or part in europe, however if we consider that the birth of europe in the contemporary ethnic landscape north of the alps took place only during the past 1500-2000 years, the introduction of jewry into the rhineland via roman powers, was barely later than germanic and slavic expansion from southern scandinavia and the baltic down into the continent of europe. I find it striking that these early jewish populations took in a 'foreign' tongue even as outsiders with strong tribal/ethnocentric tendencies. In a way they arrived so early, that wether significant or not, the jews were the original and indigenous 'others' of europe, being there since the tribes of europe themselves settled in their semi final resting places.

    I'd also just like to add that Northern Russians have more mongol blood than Ashkenazi Jews and Portuguese have more negroid blood than Sephardic Jews.

    I also think it's funny how white trashionalists will use studies which prove that Egyptians were white (which they were) when debating Afrocentrics, but don't actually realize that in these same studies Jews also cluster with Egyptians, or do they conveniently miss that out?

    Egyptians cluster as one end of the semite spectrum and Jews right between Europe and Semites. They are basically all similar.

    Ethnically they're jewish, racially they're white.

    The difference between ethnicity and race is that ethnic differences are group distinctive. If you see 10 Russians and 10 Germans grouped separately you can probably tell the difference. But if you see an individual Russian, you wouldn’t necessarily know he was Russian. The same applies to most jews.

    But racial differences are individual distinctive. You'd never mistake a China man for a Briton or a nigger.

    But, but, but das j00s were heavily involved in the bolshevik movement you bastard, negrophobe!!!

    [highlight]SO FUCKING WHAT?[/highlight]
    All that tells me is that jews were able to drop Judaism better than other ethnic groups can drop their religions, it infact makes me laugh to see more and more ethnic Europeans adopting judaism. Jews originally supported Italian fascism too, until Mussolini was forced by the national socialists to express anti-semitism, which bodes well for them in my eyes. Also the average Jewish-origin bolshevik didn't align behind Trotsky, but Lenin and Stalin. Trotskyism had Zionist influences, but I do not think the average jew supported it. Stalin supported Zionism to begin with but stopped eventually and went against it. I do however support communist zionism (as described in The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel, by Jack Bernstein). Red zionism is different to religious zionism. Atheist jews are better than religious ones. You also have to keep in mind that the Tzar was anti-semitic, it was only logical for the jews to support bolshevism.

    Anti-semitism is retarded, most jews are not behind some conspiracy, those who are doing damaging things to their people, our own and children should be condemned and fought; I like the fact that jews have adopted a more atheistic approach in Israel, it's a shame that under the circumstances zionism is infact rooted in Judaism. A good number of jews are revisionists e.g. Norman Finkelstein as well as many others when it comes to the holocaust and many other issues.

    Straight up anti-semites are intellectually lazy; this does not mean organizations such as b'nai b'rith, AIPAC, the british Israel lobbies and the ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE are acceptable, these are often much worse than any anti-semite. The term "anti-semitism" I believe is overused, just like the buzzwords "neo-nazi", "fascist" and "white supremacist" and most innocent jews have just been brought up into using those words commonly.

    The point I am making on the race part is that most white trashionalists only consider white europeans to be white when this is not the case.

    There are some more points I'd like to make, these will be on what we should oppose such as religion, internationalism, capitalism, liberalism and feminism. But I'll come to them in another threrad, as I have other things to do.
  • TCO420TCO420 Regular
    edited November 2010
    My take on you, closet gay that wants to ride a fat black cock.
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited November 2010
    TCO420 wrote: »
    My take on you, closet gay that wants to ride a fat black cock.

    Stop projecting, dumbass nigger. Have my comments about niggers upset you?
  • Gary OakGary Oak Regular
    edited November 2010
    Your fucking stupid necrophobe.
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited November 2010
    Don't get cheeky with your superior, nigger lover. I know your attention span is low and your reading comprehension is probably of the same niggers you love so much, but atleast give me some entertainment and try to refute a single thing I have said, or are you just that retarded?
  • KatzenklavierKatzenklavier Regular
    edited November 2010
    Subscribed, this could get interesting...
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited November 2010
    Not with bleeding heart air head retards like Gary Oak it won't. So I'll just wait to see an actual opinion on this from someone like FATTY_MCFUCKFACE or Sanchez, who don't get nervous talking about race and ethnic issues.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited November 2010
    I think you make a good point about people being Judeo Obsessed. I've talked with a lot of so called WN who when I bring up the fact that Muslims are a threat they'll say there just a symptom of the Jews. No there not Muslims are a symptom of multiculturalism and tolerance. The idea that if the Jew went away all race problems would be solved is fucking stupid and really pretty delusional.

    My problem with the Jews is Zionism (the religious not the atheist). I wouldn't have a problem with this because I generally support most Nationalist movements. My problem is that they really aren't overwhelming force in the Media and in organizations promoting multiculturalism. Then they hypocritically support Nationalism in Israel because there the "chosen' ones. I can't say I blame them for this and I view the whites who support this agenda as worse then any Jew but this fact does make the Jew an enemy imo.

    As far the DNA goes I don't know enough about that to really argue against it and it's probably true. Even if they are racially white you have to admit they themselves have tried to make themselves there own race. They will always stand with a Jew before a European so they are a separate race because they made themselves one if that makes sense.

    My other problem is that they lie about the holocaust to get special treatment. They know that 6 million didn't die yet they use that lie to assure nobody will criticize them for fear of being called an anti Semite. The argument WN use as far as them being Bolsheviks doesn't faze me because I actually admire Lenin a lot even if I don't necessarily share his views.

    Good thread though and that DNA evidence is something I've never heard of so it does provide some food for thought. I think your position is reasonable on this but I think they're a larger threat than you suggest. Once again though the idea that there the only problem or even the biggest problem is stupid. I actually see Islam as the biggest threat right now.
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited November 2010
    Islam is definitely a bigger threat than any jew, so are globalists as said in the BNP article (some of which are ethnic jews).

    On the racial question, it does not matter what jews see themselves as, it is what they are, the majority of which are white-caucasoid, although you have people who identify as jews who are Black, Ethiopian (intermediate between caucasoids and negroids), Chinese, and every other race/ethnic group. These are converts to judaism.

    Internationalism and globalism must be fought at every chance, and calling these people who are responsible is not wrong if they identify themselves as jews. Outright anti-semitism is retarded.

    Despite what the intellectually lazy Dr. William Pierce has said (although saying some things I agree on too, but not much), jews are NOT hyperethnocentric. They are often more liberal than they are "right-wing" or zionist in America. As polls indicate, Jews as a collective support abortion, Islamic immigrants, Barack Obama, Mexicans, atheism and homosexuality. This is because they INTEGRATE with the majority. They opposed the Iraq War at a higher percentage ratio than non-Jews (which was a good thing to oppose). These stances are liberal, not hyperethnocentric. Caucasoid Jews consider themselves to be white and this is correctly so. Race is ONLY biological and NOT cultural, and ALL indigenous Western Eurasians are members of the same race.

    When I was in the BNP they all identified themselves as white but ethnically jewish and their nationality as British, a few ethnic jews in America do this as well.

    As for the holocaust, a lot of it is believed without anything happening to them because of Chinese whispers being passed through and tales just taken wrongly so at face value, those who tell bullshit stories about their survivalism are very often found out to be liars. There are also some jewish revisionists who deny aspects to the mainstream stories. Norman Finkelstein is one of my favourites, he speaks out against those ethnic jews who are doing wrong.

    I will say that the atheism in Israel is somewhat thin layered at the moment but it's becoming stronger, it's a different story outside of Israel where the atheism is much stronger.
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited November 2010
    spazz wrote: »
    I dont read these threads.

    Refrain from posting in them then.
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited November 2010
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited November 2010
    Yes if they identify as a separate race it wont effect them scientifically but it does have an effect because if they view themselves as Jewish instead of white then they will naturally work in the favor of Jews only and that puts them at odds with whites a lot of the time.

    The ones who assimilate and consider themselves to be white I have no problem with but there Is a very vocal number of Jewish Supremacists are very dangerous. These supremacist types are the ones who do follow the Talmud and absolutely see gentiles as the enemy.

    The protocols of the learned Elders of Zion is a great example of what I'm talking about. That book shows step by step what these supremacists want to do and it's coming true. Your average Jew isn't a problem but because Jews are generally very intelligent that vocal minority of supremacists has accomplished a lot and they are a very real threat.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited November 2010
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited November 2010
    "identifying as a jew" can be a matter of physical racial material.

    In other words, if you have a 4 german ancestors as grandparents, you identify as a German.

    If you have 4 Jewish ancestors, you'd identify as a jew, even though you do not necessarily support what some other Jews are doing.

    Identifying as a jew is different to identifying with judaism and those people doing wrong. Ethnicity is just as important when identifying yourself, this is what every group does. I believe the protocols to be legit, I believe like with the holocaust that more jews should look into the authenticity of them and fight against it. They seem in direct accordance with the globalization/NWO which is happening. It wouldn't surprise me if America was using these protocols themselves even.

    I don't usually watch many MacDonaldite propaganda videos because they are laced with half truths and false accusations (such as jews being hyperethnocentric, which I have already rebuked in this thread), but I'll give it a watch later. It's my opinion that anti-semitism is intellectual laziness and missing the bigger and much clearer picture. Don't get me wrong though, the term anti-semitism is overused, as I explained earlier and why that may be.
  • TCO420TCO420 Regular
    edited November 2010
    Negrophobe wrote: »
    Stop projecting, dumbass nigger. Have my comments about niggers upset you?

    Ye the internet makes me furious, man :facepalm:
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited November 2010
    You sure do sound butthurt. Now run along to zoklet where no intelligence is required.
  • fanglekaifanglekai Regular
    edited November 2010
    spazz wrote: »
    I dont read these threads.

    Saw the quadruple post and thought, "tl/dr".
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited May 2011

    Here's more elaboration on John Bean's position. This one is written by Griffin himself. I agree with it 100%

    I no longer believe the protocols to be a jewish conspiracy. Upon reviewing the evidence, they appear to be a forgery taken from a critique of Napoleon III, whose rule was a prototype of the modern centralized state.

    The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu is available in English and you can see for yourself:

    HOWEVER, I am still fascinated by the contents of the protocols, because they seem to fit very closely what is happening today. I think the Protocols are a good analysis of the elites in a Liberal capitalist society and if it is read in that way, it is useful. I don't believe in jewish supremacists bent on world domination conspiracy theories. Nick Griffin's and John Bean's articles should help anti-semites understand why I take this view.

    I no longer believe zionism to be a form of imperialism, although I have few problems with imperialism, so long as it actually is in the interests of expanding a nation, rather than in the interests of globalism or serving the elites. I find it ironic when fanboys of Hitler and Mussolini speak out against so-called imperialism by U.S.A, when Hitler and Mussolini practiced real imperiaism and colonization. I am pro-Empire, but it must be done tactically (no good comes from invading Islamic countries... now Zimbabwe, South Africa and Sierra Leone are another story).
  • SeitzySeitzy Acolyte
    edited May 2011
    In all honesty, I think the Jews have the right idea.
  • edited June 2011
    Seitzy wrote: »
    In all honesty, I think the Jews have the right idea.

    kick mudslime ass and tell the UN to cry harder
  • blink182blink182 Acolyte
    edited July 2011
    tl;dr but my cousin was adopted by jews and he is now in prison for trafficking heroin and his jew dad died because he was 600+ pounds, was pushing 700 at death I believe. The jew family was very very wealthy, I'm talking multi millionaires, and the jew bitch once bought me a nice ass shirt. so whatever.

    lol @ necropost
Sign In or Register to comment.