/pol/ - ''(copied from an 8kun post concerning deliberately bad conspiracy theories)''Unironically? That jews hate jesus. That jews are magically repelled by jesus. Like all of the most effective shill campaigns, there's truth to it, but it's skewed in a way t


/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

[Return] [Go to Bottom] [Catalog]

File: slave theology.png (468.16 KB, 892x768, 223:192, 1596728030503.png) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

 No.1667[D]

(copied from an 8kun post concerning deliberately bad conspiracy theories)

Unironically? That jews hate jesus. That jews are magically repelled by jesus. Like all of the most effective shill campaigns, there's truth to it, but it's skewed in a way that it looks convincing to the hopelessly delusional.

Here's the basis of it. Some jews do hate jesus, and they're the orthodox jews. The equivalent of the amish in Israel do, because that's part of the LARP - what crossposting christian posters accuse everyone they don't like of doing. These jews are called the Haredim. They represent approximately 12% of all jews in Israel, but their political power is such that every candidate has to pander to them if they want their votes.

But wait you might be thinking, explain the kikel backstory and the no cross signs on keyboards and in the classrooms? First you should take a second to realize that even taken as whole, that's not enough to rationalize the shill narrative. After that, Haredim at different intervals have immigrated to the US. This is such that the kikel story is such an isolated incident that even going by the christian crosspoter story, it should be at least at the level of muslims hating pork. It isn't. You now realize the kikel story is virtually the entire basis of that narrative and always the first thing that gets posted.

After that, the rest falls apart. Israeli keyboards do contain a plus sign. The reason why? Haredim like the Amish abstain from electronics. This means the JIDF have no upbringing that would make them subsconsiously wary of LARPing like a christian. The challenge in Israel with dealing with autistic LARPers is containing different sets of classroom material since like the Amish the Haredim have different curriculum. The Haredim utilize the tactic of uprooting themselves and going to a different part of a city or Israel to change political favor, so sign makers must change the signs' contents based on their movements or lose business.

If any of that seems inconsequential, it actually should. That was the entire basis of the above myth. Christian crossposters want to sell you on that story, that dismantling it seems underwhelming. But the story doesn't end there. There's a reason why I'm posting this here and not in its own thread.

It's a retarded narrative for a very big reason. Why is it that after 2016 there was a massive surge of christian posting? Why did they try to convince /pol/ to go back to worshiping jews? For the same reason as many faux-advocates, it's to lead you back into the proverbial cave. If you focus your entire message based around jews hating christianity and worshiping them all the same, what separates you from conservatives? Christianity being inherently zionistic, and conservatives being a largely zionist demographic - they successfully tricked you into repeating the past mistake of the last generation.

Overall, the idea that you will somehow stop jews by worshiping them ala Chrsitianity was in itself a trap and a return to the controlled opposition. That in itself exemplifie the jewish inverse of truth, the quintessential jewish lie. If you have learned anything about jewish shills, you should have learned that they possess no boundaries. They're the same people prone to degenerate behavior just by genetics alone, why would you ever think they'd be afraid of a rabbi who is center to the religion that let them out of the desert?

If all of that fails to register with you, ponder on this: What do jews benefit more from? Convincing /pol/ to be christian? Or convincing /pol/ to not be christian? If you studied the practical uses of christianity from the 300s all the way throughout the medieval times, you should know the answer. Better yet, if you realized that that question wasn't a pagan/athiest versus christian statement, now you're aware of the false dichotomy they set you up with once you start criticizing christianity.

Stop worshiping jews.

 No.1668[D][DF]

(my commentary)
Muslims also say their religion is being persecuted by jews, even though that's patently false. They also say that the Quran apparently speaks of jews doing great evil toward the end times. So why then do they follow mostly jewish rituals, like circumcision and kosher/halal slaughter?

 No.1669[D][DF]

File: hebrew keyboard layout.png (17.56 KB, 900x300, 3:1, 1596728437195.png) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

Also, 'kike' was a slur originally started by other jews against their more fanatical tribesmen immigrating through New York. It makes me wonder if this slur even fits subversive jews who don't make their jewishness upfront all the time.

 No.1670[D][DF]

>>1669
As you can see, a standard israeli keyboard has the normal plus sign. The jews running your government, media, banks, academia, etc. aren't going to be afraid of a measly plus sign. Many jews even take on overtly Christian names like Christopher. Just do a search for "Chris Cohen" or "Christina Levy" and you'll find jews with those names.

 No.1671[D][DF]

File: Kikeriki_cartoon_Vienna_af….jpg (90.82 KB, 401x600, 401:600, 1596737062734.jpg) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

>>1669
I already knew that the Ellis island story was a huge component of the faux nationalist boogeyman narrative (a la, the church being a bulwark against jewry in general, "109 expulsions", jews are not the real jews etc.), though I believe the term "kike" itself may predate that instance. It probably comes from the German/Baltic phrase "kikeriki" (cock-a-doodle-doo), also a name of a Viennese newspaper with supposed anti-jewish tendencies, since the jewish demographic in the supposed Ellis island instance were mostly coming from Galicia in Austria-Hungary. It was hijacked by jews for the local Esau gambit in New York, and it's used so often by jewish shills, that I'm sometimes reluctant to use it. Then again, most pejoratives against the jews (or against heavily jewish agendas) have been hijacked by jews, including the term "queer" (adopted to become a pro-homosexual designation), "yid" (now that the jews call their bad dialect of German "yiddish"), etc.

 No.1672[D][DF]

>>1671
I noticed an uptick in the word 'kike' in the early 2010s by suspicious sources (stuff like Incogman and TF/DS) and posters on the imageboards, it felt like they were actually trying to avoid the word 'jew' when they made their posts or blogs or what have you. It's caught on so well now that it's used by regular posters, though.

 No.1673[D][DF]

>>1672
>I noticed an uptick in the word 'kike' in the early 2010s by suspicious sources (stuff like Incogman and TF/DS) and posters on the imageboards
This was similar to what was talked about in the Solzhenitsyn thread; I hold that Incogman (in opposition to other possible spook outlets that did hold that the jews are actually jews, such as red ice and renegade tribune, which wholly push a "WN boogeyman" narrative) probably represents this "ascetic" strain of faux-nationalism mentioned in this thread, with its excessive pandering to the church and belief in the long-refuted Khazar theory. I feel like their whole vendetta for using "kike" over "jew" was that they were trying to limit opposition to jewish domination via deconstructing jewish identity and opposing the "fake jews". It's sort of like the agenda used with the phrase "not all blacks are niggers", so an anti-jewish slur that was used by jews against other jews seemed fitting. It's probably why they didn't settle for something like "yid" (as it's related to "jew" itself).

 No.1674[D][DF]

>>1673
Now they've more or less accepted using the word jew and now try to throw their Esau gambit with the whole ancient jews were judeans crap.

 No.1682[D][DF]

>>1669
Kike comes from kikel which means circle because when the kikes came through Ellis Island most of them were illiterate and couldn't speak English, so they were asked to sign their name with an X instead of their name. But they refused to sign with an X because it reminded them of a Christian cross and they hated Jesus so much. So they would draw a circle instead of an X, a kikel,. which got shortened to kike. Kike is a constant reminder that they hate Jesus so much they couldn't even drawn an X on a piece of paper.

 No.1683[D][DF]

>>1682
You realise that this narrative was already mentioned in the OP, and that the entire section of the thread was dedicated to questioning the narrative that "kike" originated in Ellis Island? It was originally used by jews that already lived in New York to insult other jews that came from Poland, Lithuania and Hungary; and this was admitted by the jewish newspaper Der Morgen.
>It is not uplifting to see how confused the perceptions are, how little the immigrants have learnt, how happy some of them are to have escaped the life of a Jew [or: the Jewish fate], and how haughty many of them are. It is saddening that they are very unpopular in many circles, and bewildering is the stupidity of those who contemptuously call the Eastern Jews (who support them after all!) "kikes" […]
I've proposed here that "kike" does not originate from "kikel", but from the phrase "kikeriki".
I'm not saying that jews don't hate Jesus; but this story for the origin of "kike" and the excessive use thereof, extremely endemic to spook outlets such as Incogman, Christogenea, Stormfront etc. is a way to sneak in sympathy for the church, the same institution that historically did not oppose jewish domination, but allowed it in every single way.

 No.1684[D][DF]

>>1682
>completely ignores the entire content of the thread
>doesn't even type out 'jew', just 'they'
It's like this guy is doing exactly what we outlined with shills in this exact thread. They can't help themselves. "They" indeed.

 No.1685[D][DF]

>>1684
Is freedom of speach not allowed? it isn't your /pol/. you don't own it or run it, there isn't a rule for banning so called "shills" nor is there proof that he is one besides self defined rules. Quit witchhunting.

 No.1686[D][DF]

>>1685
Ari, I can smell the gefilte from across the screen.

 No.1687[D][DF]

File: 1403709348706.jpg (66.14 KB, 612x450, 34:25, 1596991706773.jpg) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]


 No.1688[D][DF]

>>1687
So now you're going to start spamming philosemitic image macros to derail the thread in the typical jewish shill fashion?

 No.1689[D][DF]

File: 49.png (41.65 KB, 783x90, 87:10, 1596992972183.png) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

>>1667
"Kikes" were also mentioned throughout the investigation of Kennedy's assassination, notably SHRIKE.

 No.1690[D][DF]


 No.1691[D][DF]

>>1689
Of course; the investigation into Kennedy's "assassination" assuming he was really assassinated. Good find nonetheless.

 No.1692[D][DF]

>>1688
>philosemitic
To be fair, Jewish appropriation of the term "Semite" is antisemitic, considering they are a minority group within the Semites and most Jews aren't Semitic at all.

 No.1693[D][DF]

>>1692
>considering they are a minority group within the Semites
This is true.
>and most Jews aren't Semitic at all.
More "jews aren't really jews" crap, intended to cause confusion and limit anti-jewish sentiment. If most jews aren't Semitic (which the ancient jews clearly had to have been), what are they and why do most jews, from Spain to the Rhineland all the way to Central Asia share similar Levantine characteristics? Why did they still all speak Hebrew?

 No.1694[D][DF]

>>1692g
And perhaps "minority group" is an understatement when taking into account all the mongrels with some jewish ancestry that still exhibit jewish traits, some of which I suspect are in this thread.

 No.1695[D][DF]

>>1688
Amazing detective work, obviously equating a diffrent poster to me must mean that i spam macros. Amazing how ideologyfags are somehow more cancerous then the SJW's.

 No.1696[D][DF]

>>1695
>Amazing detective work, obviously equating a diffrent poster to me must mean that i spam macros.
I never assumed it was you in particular.
>Amazing how ideologyfags are somehow more cancerous then the SJW's.
This is the same shit neocons say on a daily basis. "X non-kosher group are WORSE than SJWs!". Is this supposed to make you look more innocuous?

 No.1698[D][DF]

>>1693
>why do most jews, from Spain to the Rhineland all the way to Central Asia share similar Levantine characteristics? Why did they still all speak Hebrew?
Why did all European scholars and clergy speak Latin? To artificially set themselves above the common folk.
I think proving that most Jews can't be traced back to the Levant would help diminish the relevance of Israel. If modern Jews are pushing goyim to convert, then they probably have always have been. And if they always have been, they'd also want to suppress just how many of them have joined more recently.
Considering how central Vilna Gaon is to modern Jewish history, how devastating to Zionism would it be to prove that Ashkenazis aren't real Jews?

 No.1699[D][DF]

>>1698
>See, goyim? Jews have been white like you this whole time!

 No.1700[D][DF]

>>1698
>Why did all European scholars and clergy speak Latin? To artificially set themselves above the common folk.
They always spoke formal Latin in their own language's accent, it was never spoken as a vulgar language outside of Italy, France, Switzerland, Wallonia, Spain, Portugal etc.
All of these worldwide jews
>I think proving that most Jews can't be traced back to the Levant would help diminish the relevance of Israel. If modern Jews are pushing goyim to convert, then they probably have always have been. And if they always have been, they'd also want to suppress just how many of them have joined more recently.
>Considering how central Vilna Gaon is to modern Jewish history, how devastating to Zionism would it be to prove that Ashkenazis aren't real Jews?
1. you've done nothing to prove that the jews aren't jews, all you've done is babble on about how it for some reason delegitimises them (when in-reality, it only creates more confusion). The worldwide jewish community can be traced back to the Old Testament in some way. The Ashkenazi jews originated in the Rhineland, and can trace themselves back to 324 AD (see the Edict of Constantine), long before any gentile group ever properly converted to talmudic judaism.
2. Ashkenazi jews AREN'T the only modern jewish group. Why do Sephardi jews come from the same Middle Eastern strain of blood? Why do the jews of China and Central Asia also have that? Why do even the Lemba people of Zimbabwe and South Africa, whom claim jewish origins actually have Middle-Eastern DNA?
Because they're ALL JEWS. They're not "fake jews", Khazars (a theory that jews originally came up with), Edomites, Phoenicians, Babylonians or anyone other than the group of Semitic, Hebrew-speaking people that coalesced in Jerusalem and spread out from there.
In-fact; the fact that jews like Shlomo Sand and Israel Finkelstein love to deconstruct their identity alone shows where this "jews aren't jews" crap comes from. It only exists to make gentiles more susceptible to jewish subversion, since if you believe most jews are non-Semitic converts, you're basically denying that jews are a biological race.

 No.1701[D][DF]

All of these worldwide jews have been speaking Hebrew since they first arrived, and only switched to German and other languages to communicate with gentiles, and even then, they spoke jewish dialects of German, hence why it's often considered an entirely different language, Yiddish.
Meanwhile, the Latin languages of Europe went the other way around. Gauls spoke Latin, it became French. Iberians spoke Latin, becoming Spanish, etc., and of course in English, hardly anyone pronounces Latin words and phrases in Latin but in English. By this yids' logic, the differences between Hebrew dialects in Germany and Syria should be huge; yet there's no major difference between these Hebrew dialects, they've been mutually intelligible for millennia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Hebrew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardi_Hebrew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrahi_Hebrew

 No.1702[D][DF]

File: jeez.png (110.85 KB, 500x487, 500:487, 1597008577660.png) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

>>1700
>prove that the jews aren't jews
now this is getting real interesting

 No.1703[D][DF]

>>1702
Do you even have a near average reading comprehension or are you purposely muddying this thread?

 No.1704[D][DF]

>>1703
I am well aware that it's pulled out of context but the premise is hilarious

 No.1705[D][DF]

>>1702
No it isn't. Every single attempt to claim that the jews aren't really jews but are actually "x gentile group" is quite obviously either a jewish attempt to fit in with whites more easily or an Esau gambit smokescreen; and every single attempt to "prove" it (be it saying the jews are really Canaanites, Phoenicians, Edomites, Babylonians, Khazars etc.) has been shown to be historically inconsistent. There's a reason why so many of these different ethnic groups are used here; since none of them are the jews of today. The jews again, are the same jews of 1000, 2000 and 3000 years ago.
>>1704
>I am well aware that it's pulled out of context but the premise is hilarious
So you're just in this thread to laugh at goyim?

 No.1706[D][DF]

>>1700
Edict of Constantine, as well as many of these other proofs of Jewish unity are frequently harped on by Jewish professors, just as often as they define their schisms. I think the "Esau Gambit" that you swear by is the real Jewish double-bluff. It's impossible for a group as large as the Jews to exist as a perfect hivemind with no in-fighting. To think that it's possible is to validate the collectivist ideology they've been pushing.
Furthermore, the biggest defense that the zionist cabal has against those that point them out is to oversimplify our beliefs as "the Jews are all part of a conspiracy." So it only strengthens that when you can't differentiate from groups of jews.
To point out the disconnect between these groups doesn't deny them as a race. It denies them as a PURE race, which is something they constantly describe themselves as.
If you deny or gloss over the schisms throughout history or refuse to even explore how impure and broken they really are, then maybe you're the one falling prey to Jewish trickery. Ignoring a potential weakness in the rhetoric because you've been convinced it's just a smoke screen.

 No.1708[D][DF]

>>1706
1. Why do you keep on capitalizing jews?
2. If jews aren't at least a "trans race" of some sort, why is there such a thing as a jewish look (or maybe multiple looks)? Why do so many jews look like Neanderthals, e.g. Ron Perlman, when gentiles don't have that sort of look?

 No.1709[D][DF]

>>1706
>Edict of Constantine, as well as many of these other proofs of Jewish unity are frequently harped on by Jewish professors, just as often as they define their schisms. I think the "Esau Gambit" that you swear by is the real Jewish double-bluff. It's impossible for a group as large as the Jews to exist as a perfect hivemind with no in-fighting. To think that it's possible is to validate the collectivist ideology they've been pushing.
So I know you never read it just from that and are just lying. It has nothing to do with "jewish unity", it's to do with the fact that the jews of Cologne (Germany) were invited to the city council back in 324 AD. That's an entire year before the Council of Nicaea, and back when most jews were easily traceable back to Judea.
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/300-800-laws-jews.asp
>C.T., 16.8 .3; to the Officials at Cologne, I I xii .321.
>With certain exceptions Jews are to be called to the Decurionate.
Thus, the jews lived in Cologne centuries before the Khazars and Gokturks in-general even touched Europe, and before the Christianisation of Europe at that.
>Furthermore, the biggest defense that the zionist cabal has against those that point them out is to oversimplify our beliefs as "the Jews are all part of a conspiracy." So it only strengthens that when you can't differentiate from groups of jews.
What do you even mean? This is a literal talmudic way of debate. Just babble on without sounding coherent, and when someone points that out, claim victory.
Are you saying that it's a tactic to use against the jews? Either way, this contradicts your idea that the jews aren't a biological Semitic race, or as I would hold, subrace. The fact that jews from Europe to Asia down to Africa all look so similar points to a Levantine origin.
>To point out the disconnect between these groups doesn't deny them as a race. It denies them as a PURE race, which is something they constantly describe themselves as.
That's easily provable based on their own religion. Judah's wife Shua was a Canaanite, meaning that not only were the three children born of her mixed, but that they inherited the curse of Ham going by Genesis 9:25. It doesn't require a belief that the jews aren't really jews but are actually some other gentile group to prove that the jews are a mixed race.
>If you deny or gloss over the schisms throughout history or refuse to even explore how impure and broken they really are, then maybe you're the one falling prey to Jewish trickery. Ignoring a potential weakness in the rhetoric because you've been convinced it's just a smoke screen.
I'm not as you can see above; and yes, believing that the jews aren't jews is just a complete psyop to either blend with the goyim (a la British Israelism) or weaken any opposition from the goyim (a la, the type of crap Christogenea holds).

 No.1710[D][DF]

>>1709
>Are you saying that it's a tactic to use against the jews? Either way, this contradicts your idea that the jews aren't a biological Semitic race, or as I would hold, subrace. The fact that jews from Europe to Asia down to Africa all look so similar points to a Levantine origin.
Again, I never denied they aren't a biological race. I've denied their own assertion that they are a pure race. They would maintain a consistent appearance even as they muddy their blood with converts. There are modern converts so would there have not been all along. You can't prove, anymore than disprove that the leaders of Jewish communities had any real claim to the legacy of Abraham.
>That's easily provable based on their own religion. Judah's wife Shua was a Canaanite, meaning that not only were the three children born of her mixed, but that they inherited the curse of Ham going by Genesis 9:25. It doesn't require a belief that the jews aren't really jews but are actually some other gentile group to prove that the jews are a mixed race.
There is no proof outside of blood-testing every last Jew and comparing it to the DNA of a bronze-age Jew. You can link all the wikipedia articles and quote all the bible verse you want.
>I'm not as you can see above; and yes, believing that the jews aren't jews is just a complete psyop to either blend with the goyim (a la British Israelism) or weaken any opposition from the goyim (a la, the type of crap Christogenea holds).
You're oversimplifying what I am trying to say. Or maybe you are completely misunderstanding it. I am saying that Zionists have no legitimate claim to Zion outside of their own fabricated rhetoric. I am also saying that no large racial group can be pure or free of disconnects. To believe that Jews are all completely united, would mean you believe they are the only race in the western world with this kind of unity. Thereby, you present them as somehow above human nature. Also, you validate the propaganda that people who call out the Jews that control the international bank and federal reserve and the media are crazy people who can't differentiate those Jews from "the Jews" in general.

 No.1711[D][DF]

>>1710
*why would there have not been all along?

 No.1712[D][DF]

File: kaifeng.jpg (33.94 KB, 640x402, 320:201, 1597012060454.jpg) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

>>1710
>Again, I never denied they aren't a biological race. I've denied their own assertion that they are a pure race. They would maintain a consistent appearance even as they muddy their blood with converts. There are modern converts so would there have not been all along. You can't prove, anymore than disprove that the leaders of Jewish communities had any real claim to the legacy of Abraham.
This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
>There is no proof outside of blood-testing every last Jew and comparing it to the DNA of a bronze-age Jew. You can link all the wikipedia articles and quote all the bible verse you want.
Appeal to ignorance fallacy, yet again, and I'm quoting the Bible here to show that the ancient jews were a mixed race from the beginning, according to their own texts. It still means they're Semitic.
>You're oversimplifying what I am trying to say. Or maybe you are completely misunderstanding it. I am saying that Zionists have no legitimate claim to Zion outside of their own fabricated rhetoric. I am also saying that no large racial group can be pure or free of disconnects. To believe that Jews are all completely united, would mean you believe they are the only race in the western world with this kind of unity. Thereby, you present them as somehow above human nature.
I've never once mentioned "jewish unity" (though it is true that the jews are always going to team up with their tribesmen against the gentile, no matter how far away they are) which you keep going on about; I'm clearly stating they're a unique subrace stretching from the Atlantic to Asia defined with their Levantine blood. Sure the jews in Germany adopted German customs, and the jews in China adopted Chinese customs; however they still have that Levantine and Hebrew blood in them. Attached are Kaifeng jews in China; they do look Asiatic, more-so than other jews but you can clearly see their Semitic nose and curly hair/beard. So the fact that you're constantly bringing up this idea that I'm overstressing jewish unity seems to be another point of deflection.
>Also, you validate the propaganda that people who call out the Jews that control the international bank and federal reserve and the media are crazy people who can't differentiate those Jews from "the Jews" in general.
How is this a bad thing? The jews are jews and that's a fact, it doesn't matter whether they use propaganda against people calling them out or not by calling them "antisemites". You're intentionally making things more confusing.

 No.1713[D][DF]

>>1712
It doesn't matter if biblical jews were a mixed race because it would have been a mix of Semitic races, thereby making them Semitic. And now I remember my original point before we went off on this tangent. I apologize for that. I was saying that Jews are more mutt than Semite when compared with the Arabs.
>I've never once mentioned "jewish unity" (though it is true that the jews are always going to team up with their tribesmen against the gentile, no matter how far away they are) which you keep going on about; I'm clearly stating they're a unique subrace stretching from the Atlantic to Asia defined with their Levantine blood. Sure the jews in Germany adopted German customs, and the jews in China adopted Chinese customs; however they still have that Levantine and Hebrew blood in them. Attached are Kaifeng jews in China; they do look Asiatic, more-so than other jews but you can clearly see their Semitic nose and curly hair/beard. So the fact that you're constantly bringing up this idea that I'm overstressing jewish unity seems to be another point of deflection.
You can't prove this going by facial structure alone. You keep saying they have that "Jewish look" which I would describe as the protruding mouth, the large lips, the definitive cheekbones and the prominent nose that hooks downward. I think you know that not all Jews have that look.
>How is this a bad thing? The jews are jews and that's a fact, it doesn't matter whether they use propaganda against people calling them out or not by calling them "antisemites". You're intentionally making things more confusing.
You're right. I want to build confusion around the term "antisemite" because it's their go-to deflection. You equate "antisemitism" as "anti-jewish" is racist against Semites that aren't Jewish. To force Palestinians into fenced-off camps and to drop bombs on the Lebanese is very antisemitic.

 No.1714[D][DF]

>>1713
>It doesn't matter if biblical jews were a mixed race because it would have been a mix of Semitic races, thereby making them Semitic. And now I remember my original point before we went off on this tangent. I apologize for that. I was saying that Jews are more mutt than Semite when compared with the Arabs.
Well, that's true, the jews did mix with other races after that, especially blacks. It doesn't mean that the jews aren't jews and are actually those races, it just means they're a bunch of degenerate mongrels with a Semitic core.
>You can't prove this going by facial structure alone. You keep saying they have that "Jewish look" which I would describe as the protruding mouth, the large lips, the definitive cheekbones and the prominent nose that hooks downward. I think you know that not all Jews have that look.
Phenotype genealogy and haplogroups/mDNA should solidify their origins. Those features aren't the only "jewish features" (nor are they exclusive to jews, or even found so often; the hook nose is not the only jewish nose, the common "stub-nose" also occurs a lot among Ashkenazi jews, see Marx, Lenin etc.)
>You're right. I want to build confusion around the term "antisemite" because it's their go-to deflection. You equate "antisemitism" as "anti-jewish" is racist against Semites that aren't Jewish. To force Palestinians into fenced-off camps and to drop bombs on the Lebanese is very antisemitic.
Yes, "antisemite" is just a jewish ad hominem that isn't even accurate, though it doesn't mean that the jews aren't Semitic as you seemingly said before. I'm not an "antisemite", I'm an anti-Loxist, it doesn't mean I have to adopt all these theories that construct jewish identity.
Also, why do you capitalise "jews"? That's legitimising them.

 No.1715[D][DF]

>>1714
>Also, why do you capitalise "jews"? That's legitimising them.
Because it's a proper noun.

 No.1716[D][DF]

>>1714
>I'm an anti-Loxist
Not to derail, but didn't that term come from Alex Linder?
Anyway, good on you for fighting him, I'm too tired to engage in this to such a degree like I did years ago. They always come back with the exact same shit.

 No.1717[D][DF]

>>1716
You're a sperg.
I have a legitimate opinion that I don't mind debating.

 No.1718[D][DF]

>>1716
It in all likeness predates him:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.conspiracy/RsMoap7s55k/Ec6eFLd_G2MJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.culture.malaysia/gSFFxxsOxro/ermY20TlkyEJ
(both early mentions from Usenet in 2005, one was on the conspiracy newsgroup, the other a group apparently about Malaysia)
Whatever the case may be; I mean that I'm against jewish domination.
>>1717
You were pushing this Esau gambit smokescreen idea that the jews aren't jews, which only causes confusion and less opposition to actual jewish domination..

 No.1719[D][DF]

>>1717
>You're a sperg.
And you're a true blue jew resorting to typical chan ad hominem.

 No.1720[D][DF]

>>1719
>strawmanning

 No.1721[D][DF]

>>1720
>strawmanning
Where exactly? If you're tallking about f1e409f4, he's not trying to argue against 5104d90c. I've thoroughly refuted 5104d90c's entire idea that the jews are not real jews, and he conceded to me.

 No.1722[D][DF]

>>1718
>>1718
I'm not pushing the Esau gambit. I'm saying that I think there have been legitimate schisms that were not just an act. And I'm saying it's a mistake to handwave all of their infighting as such (I don't think you, specifically, are doing this). I never said "jews aren't jews." I made one tongue-in-cheek remark that Eastern European Jews aren't true Jews and that was mostly sarcasm. What I am arguing is that Jews fight amongst themselves and have been fragmenting into smaller groups over time. Sure, they are guilty of cronyism regardless of sect. But that doesn't mean all their in0fighting is just for show.

 No.1723[D][DF]

>>1722
>I'm not pushing the Esau gambit. I'm saying that I think there have been legitimate schisms that were not just an act.
That doesn't mean you weren't just pushing the Esau gambit, you could have easily have been referring to both.
>I never said "jews aren't jews." I made one tongue-in-cheek remark that Eastern European Jews aren't true Jews and that was mostly sarcasm.
So now your old argument is just a joke? What, now that you realised your whole argument was an appeal to ignorance?
>considering they are a minority group within the Semites and most Jews aren't Semitic at all.
>There are modern converts so would there have not been all along. You can't prove, anymore than disprove that the leaders of Jewish communities had any real claim to the legacy of Abraham.
Sure was tongue-in-cheek. If you were an honest gentile at this point, you would just admit you conceded instead of claiming you weren't wrong before. Jews don't like being corrected on things.
>What I am arguing is that Jews fight amongst themselves and have been fragmenting into smaller groups over time. Sure, they are guilty of cronyism regardless of sect. But that doesn't mean all their in0fighting is just for show.
And when the jews are not fighting each other (which is to say, just the typical "Judean People's Front" vs. "People's Front of Judea" type of bullcrap) they're united against the goyim, typically justifying the Esau gambit with actual rivalries. There's absolutely no split in rabbinic judaism that compares to the east-west schism of the church, or those of Islam.

 No.1724[D][DF]

>>1723
>So now your old argument is just a joke? What, now that you realised your whole argument was an appeal to ignorance?
My original argument was my point about them identifying as Semites, before the tangent. I never said jews aren't jews.
>considering they are a minority group within the Semites and most Jews aren't Semitic at all.
>There are modern converts so would there have not been all along. You can't prove, anymore than disprove that the leaders of Jewish communities had any real claim to the legacy of Abraham.
I still believe these things, except for my comment that "MOST jews aren't semites. That's what I conceded to you. Jews claim a contiguous lineage that they present no proof of. This claim to be descendants of Abraham is used in tandem with their claim to the right to control Israel.
>And when the jews are not fighting each other (which is to say, just the typical "Judean People's Front" vs. "People's Front of Judea" type of bullcrap) they're united against the goyim, typically justifying the Esau gambit with actual rivalries. There's absolutely no split in rabbinic judaism that compares to the east-west schism of the church, or those of Islam.
The so-called reformist movement, in which Ashkenazi Jews abandoned the sandhedrim in Vilna, I believe, is comparable to the schisms in Christianity. Modern reformist rabbis and Jewish history professors will describe the Orthodox rabbis of 300 years ago as "conservative" and "intolerant" and many of the things that they have made into synonyms for evil. First of all, if there is any true animosity within that divide, then it is an exploitable weakness regardless of a fundamental sense of unity vs. the Goyim. Second, I don't believe the unity is as universally solid as you say it is. For example, I don't think that all Jews who marry into Christian families are doing it as a trick. I don't think that all Jews who renounce Judaism are doing it as a trick.

 No.1725[D][DF]

>>1724
>My original argument was my point about them identifying as Semites, before the tangent. I never said jews aren't jews.
>I still believe these things, except for my comment that "MOST jews aren't semites. That's what I conceded to you.
Good to know that.
>Jews claim a contiguous lineage that they present no proof of. This claim to be descendants of Abraham is used in tandem with their claim to the right to control Israel.
That's just an appeal to ignorance fallacy. The entire ethnogenesis of jewry lays in Judah, that's just whom they are.
>
The so-called reformist movement, in which Ashkenazi Jews abandoned the sandhedrim in Vilna, I believe, is comparable to the schisms in Christianity. Modern reformist rabbis and Jewish history professors will describe the Orthodox rabbis of 300 years ago as "conservative" and "intolerant" and many of the things that they have made into synonyms for evil.
And they still share their turns in trying to screw over goyim. One screws them over with the banner that they're secular and "the only democracy in the middle east" thus they must protect them among other rubbish, the other claims that they're the chosen people and that all believers must obey them and follow Noahidism. The east-west schism has nowhere near that level of unity.
>First of all, if there is any true animosity within that divide, then it is an exploitable weakness regardless of a fundamental sense of unity vs. the Goyim.
See my retort above; these divisions are not nearly as strong enough to actually D&C the jews.
>Second, I don't believe the unity is as universally solid as you say it is. For example, I don't think that all Jews who marry into Christian families are doing it as a trick. I don't think that all Jews who renounce Judaism are doing it as a trick.
"Not all", but how many jews are not doing those things just as a trick? How many genuine renegade jews are there?



[Reply to this Thread]

[Return] [Go to top] [Catalog]
[Post a Reply]