History of jew hate

[Anonymous No.21694755]

I've never been able to find any concise writings on why the jews have garnered so much disdain over hundreds and hundreds of years. Yes there are stereotypes but they must surely have a base? Was reading the jew of malta by marlowe and was reminded how far it went back. Not looking for holocaust nonsense I'm looking for the roots of the matter and how they grew. All I can find is jew apologist writings. Any size piece someone might suggest is welcome. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.21694757]

>>21694755
>History of jew hate
That's just history

[Anonymous No.21694778]

>>21694755
Basically they put a blood curse on themselves when they killed Jesus and all the ones who didn't explicitly repent (and continue to regard themselves firstly as 'jews') are tools for Satan, they are basically his little helpers on earth, I realise this sounds like hyperbole but it's not. Some of them also know/realised this and panicked to baptize themselves in Christ's blood by literally killing and drinking the blood of Christians, which is just more stupid legalism that got them in trouble in the first place. Their esoteric magic traditions also come from Babylon (a human sacrifice culture) and are some real dark stuff.

[Cluster B !GY4CZZOlWY No.21694780]

>>21694755
No one outside unfuckable pollards cares about the Joos.

[Anonymous No.21694785]

>>21694755
Isn't that the premise of Culture of Critique? Haven't read it.

[Anonymous No.21694787]

nice one fagit. posting master

[Anonymous No.21694792]

>>21694785
Is that well-regarded by non-pc fags?

[Anonymous No.21694796]

>>21694787
Meant for
>>21694780

[Anonymous No.21694871]

>>21694755
blood passover by rabbi ariel toaf, get the uncensored digital translation

[Anonymous No.21694873]

>>21694755
Read the Bible, both old and new testament

[Anonymous No.21695083]

Read The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit by E. Michael Jones. If you want to have a condensed version then get Jewish History, Jewish Religion by Israel Shahak. Also this >>21694873.

[Anonymous No.21695094]

>>21694755
I've had 109 girlfriends. All of them kicked me out. They have anti-anonism.

[Anonymous No.21695096]

>>21695094
>I've had 109 girlfriends
Fuck off Chad

[Anonymous No.21695111]

>>21695096
All of those girls were anti-anonites obviously. I've been persecuted by 109 girls. But they don't know I'm the chosen one. One day all the girls will willingly become my bitches.

[Anonymous No.21695119]

>>21695094
Rookie numbers, I had six million gfs in just five years.

[Anonymous No.21695122]

Denying that Jesus is the messiah
Insularity, aloofness
Nepotism
Usury

[Anonymous No.21695128]

>>21695122
well poisoning

[Anonymous No.21695167]

>Dual loyalties
A good example is Ukraine, they have claimed they were loyal Ukrainians, that they syand shoulder to shoulder with their brothers. Yet two days before the mandatory draft and the restriction on military aged males came in to forcr, EVERY major jewish comnunity left Ukraine, escaping the draft.
>Shapeshifting, that is passing in today's jargon.
Depending on how they act, dress and talk the jew may pass himself off as a member of the native peoppe they prey upon. This is a disguise. When amongst their own they become a completely differebt animal, but still recognisable. Thus the 2500 year old accusation of shapeshifting.

>Well poisoning
It need not be simply poisoning water sources, but it could be extended to any metaphorical poison. TV, pornography, music, media, news, your very food itself. Goyslop and goyslurp. All of these are poison and come from the same source.

>Expelled from every single nation, past and present, on this Earth.
This begs the question, is every nation on Earth wrong? Are they mad, crazy, evil or could it be that the jew developed a culture and lifestyle that was so repugnant and so disgusting that it every single people in history despised them? That their bronze-age acts and beliefs should be stamped out.

Look up mohel on wikipedia and think to yourself, what could a cresture do to people they hate if they would hack off the tip of a babies penis? Worse they would then draw the blood from the wound with their lips? No good man, be they of any creed, should tolerate their vile rituals. They claim it is never done, or rarely done, but that is a lie. Their are hundreds, if not thousands of cases are STI transmissions to newborn infants from the mouths of Rabbi, Rebbes and Mohels.

[Anonymous No.21695169]

>>21694792
yes it's incredibly well researched

[Anonymous No.21695190]

>>21695122
>bro our messiah is gonna come
>anyone claims their the messiah
>im going to fucking kill you you false prophet
How would you ever find your prophet thinking like this?

[Anonymous No.21695253]

>>21694755
The Jew hatred is explained by simply revisiting the history of the Jewish people.

For centuries, Jews have been used by the Catholics and Muslims as an essential piece for commerce. The Catholics prohibited usury, so they delegated this function to the Jews. They were banned from owning any land and could only work with trade. This gave the Jewish communities from Europe, ME and North Africa the economic profile of traders, who soon enriched.

As time went by and the mercantile / capitalist system became more and more consolidated, the Jews, who were dominant in trade and thus had a lot of money, became very influential and powerful in countries that were not their own. Soon, people from all ethnicities who wanted to work with trade and enrich converted to Judaism - just like some Jews who wanted to work with other things or gain respect and prestige converted to Islam or Christianity. Of course, a group of people who did not identify with the nationality of their neighbors and held a lot of power and influence became easily estranged by locals. Why is this person, who is not a Roman (/ottoman / french / russian..) like I, has so much and I have so little?

So, it is just natural that Jews have been estranged by people from countries that they established on, and expelled a bunch of times. Jews were like gypsies but with money and influence.

[Anonymous No.21695270]

>>21695253
>For centuries, Jews have been used by the Catholics and Muslims as an essential piece for commerce. The Catholics prohibited usury,

Every major faith agreed that ursury was terrible and evil. Yet the jews flocked to it everywhere. Why was this? The fact that they were banned from other areas of life does make sense unless you pair it with disgusting behavior on the part of the jew which caused people to expell them.

>So, it is just natural that Jews have been estranged by people from countries that they established on, and expelled a bunch of times. Jews were like gypsies but with money and influence.
Gypsies can fight, they are not manipulative or subversive. Many are thieves but that is far less damaging than a group that agitates against the interests of the host nation.

[Anonymous No.21695284]

>>21695270
I will never forgive the retarded Nazis here for gassing like half a million Jews while mostly sparing our gypsies.
What a bunch of chucklefucks.

[Anonymous No.21695299]

>>21695284
There were far more jews than gypos. Read the Romanian autobiography For My Legionaires by Codreanu to see what the jew did to his beloved Romania. Where somebody like Codreanu alive today Tate would he hanging from a tree and Romania would be the beutiful country it was prior to WW1.

[Anonymous No.21695385]

>>21694755
Their consistently self interested behaviour at the expense of host nations, a practice that continues today
>>21694778
>when they killed Jesus
This is Christian revisionism to make it seem like Jews haven’t always been this way. The Histories by herodotus, written centuries before Christ mentions that a war may have been started by merchants from the levant conducting a false flag operation.

[Anonymous No.21695402]

>>21694755
Ultimately it's a by-product of Abramic Religion (i.e. christian/jew/muslim) where the non-jews have taken up jewish racial supremacy theory, know about it but crucially cannot laugh it off because they've convinced themselves it's the literal word of god.

This creates the fucking awful relationship that we see, where jews are loved and hated at the same time and probably don't have a clue what's happening, except that it's confirmed to them that non-jews are mental retards.

>I've never been able to find any concise writings on why
you can't actually laugh at abramic claims without undermining christianity and islam at the same time, so probably if you were expecting to find an honest take on this you'd be looking outside of the european and arabic regions where the denialism isn't so strong in the culture... probably China, India, Africa, Japan.

I'd love to read these by the way. Post titles, if anyone has found anything like that.

[Anonymous No.21695415]

>>21695299
Romania was a shithole pre-WW1 and is still a shithole.

[Anonymous No.21695419]

>>21695402
ed.
> probably China, India, Africa, Japan.

I'm told that early Soviet /lit/ exists on this subject as well, maybe that's the best place to start, since lots of Jews were there who'd turned their back on their old shit religion - I know the first response from the tradcath brigade will be to barrage this point with "crypto-kikes" but even if that was true for some of them it couldn't have been true for all of them; consider also the Jews serving the Nazis in the SS, etc., though the Nazis were obviously flawed because they kept the priests around.

[Anonymous No.21695436]

>>21695415
Wallachia was a useful border state for the Basileia Rhomaion once upon a time. Though if it had been up to me we would have turned Trajans wooden wall into stone all along the danube and not permitted savages to settle in the balkans at all.

[Anonymous No.21695441]

>>21694755
>>21695402 (You)
ed.
> probably China, India, Africa, Japan.

I'm told that early Soviet /lit/ exists on this subject as well, maybe that's the best place to start, since lots of Jews were there who'd turned their back on their old shit religion - I know the first response from the tradcath brigade will be to barrage this point with "crypto-kikes" but even if that was true for some of them it couldn't have been true for all of them; consider also the Jews serving the Nazis in the SS, etc., though the Nazis were obviously flawed because they kept the priests around.

[Anonymous No.21695442]

>>21694780
>wagner

[Anonymous No.21695450]

>>21695415
It did not industrialize until the Soviets took over it. It was a, and still is, one of the most beautiful parts of Europe.

[Anonymous No.21695526]

>>21694755
judaism is patrilineal the bad ones are impostors

[Anonymous No.21695721]

>>21694755
Basically they were one of the most matriarchal peoples in a region dominated by kingdoms with violent patriarchal gods. After the destruction of the first temple by Babylonians, they ditched polytheism but also prohibited the forms of worship of the strong conquering peoples, by banning idolatry, attempting to separate themselves outside the humiliating conflict of patriarchy against matriarchy, to stop assuming the identity of a raped people. This trajectory proved fatal as all it did was increase the ire of those who felt emotionally about their symbols and idols. Their conception of "G_d" also became more of an absence than anything real that would make up for the lost matriarchy: the secret it the trauma of being conquered by Babylonians, which is a shared tribal experience, hence outsiders can't get in. More separation which breeds more fear and hostility.

This is why there was an even further splintering after the destruction of the second temple, to synagogues, mobility, and relativity of place: now it was not just that there was a holy absence that constituted their monotheism, but also as an added element the the destruction of even that absence into multiple presences viewed from the perspective of the absence, rather than from "naive" polytheism: re-emergence of polytheistic elements in Kabbalah, configuring the monolithic absence back into the multiplicity of lived reality. Of course, in European culture, idol worship was always naturally integrated into monotheism with Christianity, so for them this constituted just another form of perplexity: the separation within the faith itself constituted by Kabbalah furthered the separation of the Jewish people from their surroundings further, surrounding for whom idols and the strict monotheism existed in happy harmony.

So there you have three elements, corresponding to the three phases of the tribe: the destroyed polytheistic matriarchy, the attempt to transcend the common conflict, the attempt to regain the polytheistic reality by overlaying the absence upon the multiplicity of the world ie. relativism. These ideological developments were at every turn at odds with what was going around them: In the first phase, there was a separation between patriarchy and matriarchy(or at least more stronger female deities), in the second the separation between [matriarchy vs patriarchy] vs. the holy absence, in the third the co-existence of idols and monotheism vs. their attempted unification and the separation implied by it.

[Anonymous No.21695734]

>>21694755
The Jews and Their Lies by Martin Luther

My Awakening by David Duke

[Anonymous No.21696024]

>>21695734
>The Jews and Their Lies by Martin Luther
It sounds hilarious how a worshiper of the jewish god and a follower of the jewish religion could make a case about this.

>My Awakening by David Duke
I remember being sucked in by this stuff when I was much younger.. truth is that nobody forced your/my parents to be fucking idiots, and that deflection onto 3rd parties is a common trait of people who refuse to admit that their own society and personality needs lots of work to eradicate the errors that cause the problems.

>>21695450
>>21695441
aw nobody got any soviet books? fucking hell. soviet psychiatry was lightyears ahead of the west, so i'd expect this subject to have good stuff going on with it.

[Anonymous No.21696050]

>Hated for centuries
>Shunned from every nation
>Prosecuted
>Still manage to find a way to not only survive through the centuries, but thrive so fucking hard they are now the masters of the world
Based.

[Anonymous No.21696060]

I'm not anti-semitic. But did the Romans dislike jews any more than other people they conquered?

[Anonymous No.21696101]

>>21696050
ironically though the jewish mentality is very poor, the 'roman empire' question raises a good point; in a real society with proper eucation and proper civic offices there's no massive jewish problem there - it only becomes an issue later on when education and government have withered away and people consider coin-clipping to be good business.

In my opinion it's the great paradox of non-jewish jewish followers being around and turning a blind eye; we could easily debunk abramic theology but the christians, who hate the jews, would call us jews for doing so lol it's society-wide schizophrenia.

>>21696060
only the jews who were christians ha

[Anonymous No.21696124]

>>21696101
>it only becomes an issue later on when education and government have withered away and people consider coin-clipping to be good business
Unfortunately all the teaching in the world can't upturn a morally questionable man from following the scent of Jewish gold and ruining the whole nation from there. Even if you put rule 1 as 'repel jews' or 'never let jews in' there is someone who'll bend to the thought of whatever-million usury dollars

[Anonymous No.21696140]

>>21696101
> only the jews who were christians ha
I never thought about it like that. This does seem to put anti-semitic Christians in a weird position right? like Christianity totally subverted Roman culture and clearly was seen as a threat by the status quo at the time, and there's no doubt the movement was started by Jews.

[Anonymous No.21696166]

>>21696124
>Even if you put rule 1 as 'repel jews' or 'never let jews in' there is someone who'll bend to the thought of whatever-million usury dollars
This is not that common in history. It requires a vanguard to break down societal restrictions in order for the behavior to be accepted. This is always jews.

Communism, Marxism, Transexualism, homosexuality, pedophillia, internationalism, globalism, veganism, anti-natalism, usury and more. All of these were pushed by jews initially, without the jew nobody would admit these behaviors in to society. Hence the justified pogroms against them.

[Anonymous No.21696196]

>>21694755
A great book on this is Thomas Dalton's Eternal Strangers. It covers remarks and disdain of Jews from the Egyptians, Romans, to 20th century Europe, and the universality of the claims made.
Another book that covers their tendency for subversion is Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald.
Here is some excerpts from the from the first book.
>“plague infesting the whole world” (Claudius); “accursed race” (Seneca); “hatred of mankind” (Tacitus); “a den of devils” (Luther); “a republic of cunning usurers” (Herder); “cringing in misfortune, insolent in prosperity” (Voltaire); “borrow with deceit, and repay confidence with theft” (Hegel); “prosperous parasites” (Ross); “plastic demons of decay” (Wagner); “planetary master criminals” (Heidegger). “the root of all evil, as far as my personal life is concerned… are Jews.” (John Nash). "They invented the Holocaust story. There’s no such [thing].189 … They’ve been pulling this shit from time immemorial about persecution. They’re a filthy, lying, bastard people. … Study the history." (Bobby Fischer).
>Kant: "The Palestinians [Jews], living among us, or at least the greatest number of them, have, through their usurious spirit since their exile, received the not-unfounded reputation of deceivers. It seems strange to think of a nation of deceivers; but it is just as strange to think of a nation made up of nothing but merchants, which are united for the most part by an old superstition that is recognized by the government under which they live. They do not seek any civil honor, but rather wish to compensate their loss by profitably outwitting the very people among whom they find protection, and even to make profit from their own kind. It cannot be otherwise with a whole nation of merchants, who are nonproductive members of society"
>Nietzsche: "they had a more profound contempt for the human being in themselves than any other people"

[Anonymous No.21696202]

>>21696196
>Schopenhauer: Till then, it lives parasitically on other nations and their soil; but yet it is inspired with the liveliest patriotism for its own nation. This is seen in the very firm way in which Jews stick together… and no community on earth sticks so firmly together as does this. It follows that it is absurd to want to concede to them a share in the government or administration of any country.
>Voltaire’s warning: “[The Jews] are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race”
You can find many more of course, dating back to ancient times.

[Anonymous No.21696215]

>>21696140
>anti-semitic Christians in a weird position
I just don't think that much of Rome. They were a very military culture that stretched themselves thin over a lot of land and eventually had too many borders against too many people with too many wars to manage on top of civic drama. The (Christian) eastern empire survived hundreds of years after the west's collapse too, so it's not like Christianity happens and abracadabra Rome falls apart with all its history lost, or else we wouldn't even be talking about it.

[Anonymous No.21696248]

>>21696196
I've been looking for anti-semitic books, for reasons. Just noticing some patterns that are interesting.
I read bits of Culture of Critique. the sections on psychoanalysis and left-wing movements in particular. I found that the author didn't really comment about the non-jewish leaders of these movements, probably because he's not an expert in the history of these fields. And when he does he says one of two things:
1. jews needed non-jews for their movement for legitimacy
2. they were influenced by jews, so their ideas might as well be jewish.
I'm not convinced by these arguments.
There's also some glaring omissions like Proudhon, who was really influential in the french socialist movement, but isn't mentioned at all. He was deeply anti-semitic and even called for a genocide of jews at one point. It seems to undermine Macdonald's thesis about the origins of these movements.

[Anonymous No.21696322]

>>21696248
>1. jews needed non-jews for their movement for legitimacy
I care much less about arguments like this, and more about the clear observations. I for one consider jewish subversion and general evil-ness to be an emergent rather than conspiratorial behavior. So I was also unconvinced that Jews purposefully sought out non-jews as a cover for their movements. I am sure this was done sometimes, but generally.
>2. they were influenced by jews, so their ideas might as well be jewish.
This has merit to it. Today a lot of gentiles follow ideas like socialism, feminism etc. which were all heavily if not majority Jewish movements from the start.
>There's also some glaring omissions like Proudhon, who was really influential in the french socialist movement, but isn't mentioned at all. He was deeply anti-semitic and even called for a genocide of jews at one point. It seems to undermine Macdonald's thesis about the origins of these movements.
Im not sure it does. Not every case of subversion is jewish in origin. The book was just documenting that an extremely high amount were. You can't get around, for examplepic here >>21696196 or for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_people_by_religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Feminists_by_religion
Recall Jews are a tiny portion of their host country, and an even smaller one for the world at large.

[Anonymous No.21696334]

>>21696166
I'm speaking more of the leaders or politicians who even let Jews in to start subverting in the first place, and do commerce with them, or don't kick them out the instant they start getting conspiratorial, genocidal, thirsty to eat babies, or otherwise handrubby. Which would take about within five minutes of even hearing the prospect of settling.

[Anonymous No.21696340]

>>21696248
>I'm not convinced by these arguments.
If a population that composes less than 0.2% can outnumber non-jews in a movement or room, or who are the only ones who stand to gain profit from it, one can safely assume the have previously coordinated together.

An example from the Left is the Communist Party, Lenin, Trotsky, Yagoda and dozens more sought to punish and destroy Russia and then Europe. Even now, those closest to Putin are Jewish Oligarchs.

Now on the right, look at Blackrock. Five of the seven senior execs are Jewish, along with Wells Fargo and all the other big banks. Including the Federal Reserve.

[Anonymous No.21696350]

>>21696334
That is democracy, a system which money, greed, manipulation, lies and deciet can achieve great gains. All of which the jew is naturally inclined towards.

[Anonymous No.21696356]

>>21696350
I miss him so fucking much. So fucking much.

[Anonymous No.21696379]

>>21696350
Democracy is certainly easy to subvert but European monarchies got pretty heavy in bed with jews too mate. It's not a system that can stop them, it's an intrinsic moral basis that says, 'all the things you do are fundamentally evil, and we don't want to be part of that,' that doesn't waver when the Jew says, 'but I can do this and this and this for you and give you so much money and power and influence. Please? Everyone is so mean, if you accepted me you'd be a good person.'

[Anonymous No.21696389]

> Thomas Dalton's Eternal Strangers
This book sounds interesting, but i can't seem to find it anywhere. Pls help :(

[Anonymous No.21696393]

>>21696389
I bought the ebook
https://castlehill.shop/product/eternal-strangers-critical-views-of-jews-and-judaism-through-the-ages/
I'd post the epub if I could.

[Anonymous No.21696410]

>>21695270
>Every major faith agreed that ursury was terrible and evil. Yet the jews flocked to it everywhere. Why was this?
No alternative. They couldn't own land or join guilds. Many started as goldsmiths and got into the loan business.

Kings explicitly allowed Jews to loan shark for a cut of the profits. When things went bad, they would expel the Jewry and seize all their property. They could make a profit and redirect the hate to a religious minority.

The same holds true today. When the public gets angry at the worst parts of unregulated capitalism, those in charge can point to a Jewish conspiracy. 'It's not the bankers who run the world, blame the Jewish elites and Zionists'.

[Anonymous No.21696411]

>>21696379
Hence my firm belief that only an authoritarian mode of government paired with a unrepentant dedication to the blood (race) & soil (land) is the only means by which a nation/people/race/country can survie going forward. The only means to do that is Fascism, specifically National-Socialism. With that one can solve every last issue afflicting us, from microplastics and deforestation to housing crisis and food shortages. Small family sizes to increased cost of living. Female hormones in the water system to low T in males.

[Anonymous No.21696420]

>>21696410
I'm not sure how to say this because the principle of national leaders colluding with jews for money is correct but 'the bankers who run the world today are genuinely, actually Jewish.

[Anonymous No.21696433]

>>21696410
>No alternative. They couldn't own land or join guilds. Many started as goldsmiths and got into the loan business.
You put the cart before the horse again. Why could they not join crafting guilds? Could it be their widespread and historic telling of guild secrets all over Europe? Why could they not own land? Could it be that they refused to work it themselves and grew fat and rich off the exploits and labor of another? This is why they were precluded, their awful and disgusting behavior to the people they profess to be brother to.

You forget that every time and leap straight to 'pity me, we were banned from X so we must do Y'. It is all lies and falsehood.

[Anonymous No.21696444]

>>21696433
Forgot to add, they would acquire land and sell it straight to a representative of the enemy. If all your arable land is sold by a jew to the enemy your people starve and your nation dies. There were many cases of jews, early in European history doing exactly that. They barter and trade, acquire land then since they have absolutely no love for their host nation, would sell it to a represenative of the rival power.

People don't develope irrational hatreds for people who can look identical to their own. Hence they needed to be identified with hats, stars and ribbons. So people would be aware. To name the jew in society is to rob it of its greatest weapon.

[Anonymous No.21696458]

>>21696411
I do agree about the fundamental idea of people having distinct territorial boundaries, ie homelands, where they can do their thing in peace and not get invaded or bullied by malicious actors. But someone being of a particular race or nation doesn't mean they'll inherently stick by their race or nation unless they believe the overall conduct/traits of their race/nation is good. But without a firm moral basis of what conduct is right and wrong underlying that, self interest can and will turn the very concept of 'good into a cat's cradle that allows anything.
Natsoc is attractive. But the truth is that the most recent serious attempt at it failed, largely because Hitler trusted more in the intrinsic goodness of Europeans and spared British forces instead of recognizing that they were working with/for jews.

[Anonymous No.21696471]

Clearly those likely to be anti-semitic are also going to dislike black people. But is there a jew critical writer who is not anti-black? Might be a tall order.

[Anonymous No.21696474]

>>21696471
Why does it matter? And what do you mean by anti-black? Is it anti-black to point out black traits and behaviors?

[Anonymous No.21696493]

>>21696458
>But someone being of a particular race or nation doesn't mean they'll inherently stick by their race or nation unless they believe the overall conduct/traits of their race/nation is good.
All of the research in to multicultural societies says otherwise. People spend more time with family, they donate more to chairty in both resources and time, they spend less time working yet make more money, community inclusion is greater. Even supposedly unrelated things like enviromental diversity increases in homogenous areas and public waters and city water are both cleaner and safer. Family sizes also increases. This all points to what you said being incorrect at best or a dangerous lie at worst.

>But without a firm moral basis of what conduct is right and wrong underlying that, self interest can and will turn the very concept of 'good into a cat's cradle that allows anything.
Hence the need for authoritarian structure, which is what any unified belief or moral system is. A means of conducting behavior of a group.

>Natsoc is attractive. But the truth is that the most recent serious attempt at it failed, largely because Hitler trusted more in the intrinsic goodness of Europeans and spared British forces instead of recognizing that they were working with/for jews.
That is not a fault with the system or organizing society so it is irrelevant as a means of discounting the system. Had Britain opted to do simar things would be very different.

[Anonymous No.21696505]

>>21696458
>Hitler trusted more in the intrinsic goodness of Europeans and spared British forces instead of recognizing that they were working with/for jews.
He was too kind and pure for this world.
>"My dearest wish would be to be able to wander about Italy as an unknown painter." - Hitler, 1941

[Anonymous No.21696557]

>>21696493
>This all points to what you said being incorrect at best or a dangerous lie at worst.
If it's true that people will always be loyal to their own race or nation, then how is it that such a large portion of the European west is openly self loathing and contemptuous of the nations their forefathers built and they were born in? To me it's clearly because they've been told over and over that to prefer oneself, but not even oneself specifically but to like Europeans, is bad. It means they don't have an intrinsic coupling between their race and the notion of good. And in some cases it's cowards or hypocrites who do have superiority complexes but feel social pressure to hide it and become very vocal, these types aren't trustworthy either. You are correct that people are happiest and their societies most functional when they're homogenous. You're not correct that people will do things, reliably, in actual their self interest. Honesty can shatter these problems. Idolatry just takes them in a new direction.
>Hence the need for authoritarian structure,
Okay, now imagine you have someone who doesn't fit in who thinks, 'this sucks and I hate being told what to do. There has to be another system that's better than this. If only there was someone who took me seriously...'
>Had Britain opted to do simar things would be very different.
The 'system' was monarchy and the 'discounting' was that the king was writing submissive letters in private to the Zionist 'Lord Rothschild'. The truth is that Britain did not opt to do similar things. The truth is its rulers had their own intrigues and they involved listening to Jews.

[Anonymous No.21696570]

>>21696140
>> only the jews who were christians ha
>I never thought about it like that. This does seem to put anti-semitic Christians in a weird position right? like Christianity totally subverted Roman culture
There is a lot to be said about all of that... to a person not raised with these religious stories a jew is not very different from a christian in 99% of their brain and outlook on things, whereas christianity to a jew represents an escape from judaism (circa jesus), christianity to a non-jew represents ..either nothing.. or indoctrination into judaism; as a non-jew (circa jesus) doesn't need saving from religious errors or misrule by priests in the manner that Jesus and Paul were talking about and doing.

But w/re: "anti semitic" christians, see: >>21695402

In its main argument christianity is an ideology of proselytizing to the jews; even as, in my opinion, it makes no sense for a non-jew to have anything to do with it, it's the one main mission of jesus and paul so it shouldn't be surprising that non-jewish christians find themselves preoccupied with the jews all the time. It's a bit much to say that it's the single objective of christianity.. but.. it kind of is..

Christians are only christians, and muslims are only muslims anyway due to a few centuries of forced conversion. It's not like anybody could read the bible in the middle ages to be convinced intellectually, and the moment they did have local language translations in the 1600's people recognized it was a book of nonsense with no moral merit.

For the most part, in the roman empire anyway, christianity was a branch of judaism for former jews.. and there wasn't much problem with this because the romans were constantly at war with the orthodox jews and had every reason to support a reform movement within judaism. Other than the strange claims of 'persecutions' (rip george floyd) written centuries afterwards there was no real 'anti christian' enmity among the romans until the early 1st century, and nothing state-supported until the early 4th century. Chritianity was full of gentiles by that point who'd decided that judaism was both 1) absolutely literal, and that 2) the god of the jews was 'like' what Plato had been talking about in the Monad. But by that point it was far removed from any reformed judaism that Paul or Jesus would have recognized.

The paradox is that when a non-jew hears Jesus or Paul they don't have the context to understand what they're talking about, and they fill in the blanks with self-guilt and other dumb things... it's complicated, admittedly.

[Anonymous No.21696601]

also, >>21696570 >>21694755 >>21696140
see: >>21652780
not that it's complete or anything, but that was the last time we went into any detail about this.

I

[Anonymous No.21696637]

>>21696557
>then how is it that such a large portion of the European west is openly self loathing and contemptuous of the nations their forefathers built and they were born in?
Because they are all utterly fractured nations, in the homogenous areas, typically the countryside, they are as people would wish them. Clean, prosperous, safe and healthy.

> To me it's clearly because they've been told over and over that to prefer oneself, but not even oneself specifically but to like Europeans, is bad.
That is the default reaction to looking out your window and seeing fires burning in once safe streets, seeing foreigners in your street. Reverse this and community will immediately blossom.

>Okay, now imagine you have someone who doesn't fit in who thinks, 'this sucks and I hate being told what to do. There has to be another system that's better than this. If only there was someone who took me seriously...'
This is too vague to be a serious question. But i shall respond, there is a wide scope between gay marriage amd agitation for inclusion of the outsider. Public opinion can easily be directed, they can be weaponized against the jew and its golems just as easily as they have against Europeans.

>The 'system' was monarchy and the 'discounting' was that the king was writing submissive letters in private to the Zionist 'Lord Rothschild'. The truth is that Britain did not opt to do similar things. The truth is its rulers had their own intrigues and they involved listening to Jews.
Hence why the British monarcht is now enjoying record low popularity. Lower than the dual-monarchy of Central Europe. With luck and hope Britain can repeat what Weimar Germany did, but make it last.

[Anonymous No.21696771]

>>21696637
>utterly fractured nations
You do have a point here, but why are these nations fractured to begin with? Why were Jews let in to begin with? Why was there trade in African slaves that brought them into the country to start? Why did colonial nations strive to take native populations into their own, or to use them as workers for homeland industry, which I know has especially made problems for France? The underlying love here isn't a love of goodness or your own people, it's an interest for money. (Don't take that as a commie sentiment, I mean that using foreigners as easy workers or trying to erect vast empires has demonstrably bit Europe in the ass). But then you have cases where noncolonial nations are getting harassed with the same rhetoric and are falling for it. And how is it happening? ... through the European Union, which 'should' be the body most concerned with European interests you can name, but isn't.
>default reaction to looking out your window and seeing fires
This was literally happening in America in 2020 and there are still an overwhelming number of people who don't, or don't want to, see the problem because they think their worldview is right. They've invested a lot into believing their views are right and can make a million excuses why they still are to hold on to that worldview because they're scared of the consequences of losing it. They just move out and repeat the same rhetoric elsewhere as if the outcome will change.
>This is too vague to be a serious question
I'm just saying, even in an authoritarian system you're going to get misfits or people who feel the system's unjust, or people who fit in fine and are just greedy, who'll start bargaining with your enemies to benefit themselves or do 'what they think is right'. You have to have some way to disarm this but if you try to be harsher or more controlling that's just more cause for resentment.
>record low popularity
Popularity isn't that big a measure of a thing's actual power. But yeah, for any of Europe to do a course correction now it can't just be on the basis of race, it has to be on a moral basis. I mean I'd venture to assume your affection for the European people collectively isn't because they're 'just European' but because of the good traits that implies, but what's the worth of a European person if they actively spite those good traits?

[Anonymous No.21696811]

>>21696637
>in the homogenous areas, typically the countryside, they are as people would wish them. Clean, prosperous, safe and healthy.
aka paganoi; "rural folk",

always being hated by the filthy city dwellers with their delusional magical thinking and ineptitude to work the land.


>seeing foreigners in your street. Reverse this and community will immediately blossom.
Honestly... I don't think this was ever real. We don't have to guess about this, we can look back to recent history to find homogenous communities and see them finding nonsense to complain about in each other.

I think if white people today couldn't privately complain about foreigners they'd have a head full of tv advertising and would be complaining that their fellow white people weren't emulating some stupid tv show. We got rid of stupid religion, which enabled this, but we didn't get rid of the totalitarian bent that people have, now we just have religious thought policing over fashionable leftist proclamations; people verbally professing their "anti racism" to gain status in the eyes of a crowd of anons.


It's nice to believe that the foreigners are the problem but they're really not; the problem in the first place is a culture so intellectually or civically weak that it can be disturbed 'by' foreigners... and that's the weakness that bad actors use to leverage, without it there's no means to do anything against a people or their state.

[Anonymous No.21696814]

>>21694755
Why would Jews allow a book to exist that defames them

[Anonymous No.21696816]

>>21696811

[Anonymous No.21696865]

>>21696816
>schizophrenic deflection, no argument presented aka "i know i'm wrong but i don't care about the truth"

[Anonymous No.21697250]

>>21696771
>why are these nations fractured to begin with? Why were Jews let in to begin with?
Because on the surface jews can easily pass for non-jews, it is only through behavior and careful study one begins to realize they are not. As the joke goes you need not check Early Life if one has enough information. it is from these early steps of admitting the jew in to the national body that they begin to advocate for deleterious practices, open borders, foreign immigration, damaging financial practices, degenerative cultural and artistic expressions.

>They've invested a lot into believing their views are right and can make a million excuses why they still are to hold on to that worldview because they're scared of the consequences of losing it. They just move out and repeat the same rhetoric elsewhere as if the outcome will change.
This is utterly false, people are invested in their side. That is it. The average person does not care about morals, virtue or anything unless it is foisted upon them from above. Be it from media, the church or an authoritarian regime, provided they still get three hot meals, a house and safety, amongst a few other essentials, they care not who rules over them. And would advocate for more authoritarian government if it could provide them with a decent quality of life, and provided they had means to redress the government for oversights.

>people who fit in fine and are just greedy, who'll start bargaining with your enemies to benefit themselves or do 'what they think is right'. You have to have some way to disarm this but if you try to be harsher or more controlling that's just more cause for resentment.
This does not happen often in homogeneous societies as they are all of similar life experiences and expectations, hence broad movements that seek to radically redress society do not evolve. It is only when something big happens that divisions can be found, these were once few and far between, until they became a manufactured occurrence like today. Pair that with a multitude of peoples living in the same place with different expectations, abilities and values and you will have conflict. For those rare few who agitate physical punishment, gibbeting, etc. Neither death, nor imprisonment but public humiliation, violence upon their person.

>Popularity isn't that big a measure of a thing's actual power.
It is. Without popularity, that is popular support. Power is wielded against those who rule instead of for those who rule. For an authoritarian regime to be successful it must have the masses on its side, by popular choice, not coercion,

[Anonymous No.21697286]

>>21696811

>Always being hated by the filthy city dwellers with their delusional magical thinking and ineptitude to work the land.
You can slur them all you wish, but rural people are taller, stronger, healthier, suffer less allergies, less cancers and suffer from less behavioral problems. They are also more capable of self-sustainable behavior, the city is not. The only thing the city is able to do is generate profit and the means to do this is constant attraction of a workforce.


>Honestly... I don't think this was ever real. We don't have to guess about this, we can look back to recent history to find homogeneous communities and see them finding nonsense to complain about in each other.
What you think is irrelevant, it can easily be demonstrated throughout history by the absence of much of the problems we now face. There is not one single metric that a multicultural society excels at over a homogeneous one. You are subversive to think otherwise.

>I think if white people today couldn't privately complain about foreigners they'd have a head full of tv advertising and would be complaining that their fellow white people weren't emulating some stupid tv show
Who controls these tv shows, the advertising and all manner of other mass media designed exclusively to impart behavioral cues to the masses? Which group dominates every decision making aspect of these entire industries? From which book makes it to publishing to which tv show is commissioned for a season?

>It's nice to believe that the foreigners are the problem but they're really not
The problem was trust, we trusted the wrong people at the wrong time and they have poisoned themselves as well as us. The only silver lining is the silent holocaust will wipe them out long before it begins to harm us. Jews are intermarrying at rates over 50%, whites are less than 5%. Within the century the jew will be gone, its practices dead, its creed forgotten.

>The problem in the first place is a culture so intellectually or civically weak that it can be disturbed 'by' foreigners... and that's the weakness that bad actors use to leverage, without it there's no means to do anything against a people or their state.
Our culture dominates all others, to the extent that we have become lazy and allowed others to contribute. Thankfully a growing movement all over the Western World from Perth to British Columbia is waking up to this madness surrounding them, from the constant attacks on whites, to the jew running rampant over all that we love. It is simply a matter of time before the first real authoritarian government is born out of a post-liberal Western nation, I suspect Britain will be the first to do so. Perhaps France or Italy again. We shall see.

[Anonymous No.21697306]

Reminds me of the Very Short Introduction series book on Antisemitism. Basically listing multiple European countries centuries apart all accusing the Jews of blood libel and every time they just act like it’s a antisemitic coincidence.

It’s a hilarious yet infuriating read.

[Anonymous No.21697358]

>>21697306
>accusing the Jews of blood libel
The real life roots of that is probably a mixture of real murder, with jews all over the world killing infants who were born outside of the group. Pair that with the still current practice of them sucking blood from the slashed and circumcised penis of a baby. If a peasant, or anybody today, sees both of these things they are understandably going to assume some terrible ritual, as the jew is bound by its rituals.

[Anonymous No.21697508]

>>21697250
>Because on the surface jews can easily pass for non-jews,
Well no, jews, their practices, and their noses are all openly known, especially by the people who do commerce with them and explicitly seek them out because they do offer things that are prohibited. The mental block people have nowadays is that 'the nazis tried to genocide them, the poor jews, if I criticise them that makes me evil!', so it's not 'what are jews?', it's 'jews are good but get blamed for everything, they wouldn't do anything wrong!'. (You also didn't comment on the whole Africa-colonization-EU thing at all).
>they care not who rules over them
...YES THEY DO. People want rulers who represent their values and don't make their lives miserable, but are clueless on what would actually benefit or disadvantage them especially in the long term. I guess I'll ask here, if people's entire system of morals and ethics can be foisted on them from above without dissent or complaint, why are there 'sides' people are invested in at all?
>This does not happen often in homogeneous societies
The entirety of politics is something of a rebuttal to that... rather, if you're a European-centered white nationalist, you should know that a lot of Europe's history is spent warring with itself. How thin are we going to cut the slice to say a population is homogenous, by race, city, national heritage? Are you going to promise to sit in those bounds forever? Are you going to make a global Whitepeopleland? Or split it up across nations with their own rulers? How about when those rulers get tempted and don't care about your interests? ...Like Britain?
>It is. Without popularity, that is popular support.
Actual power is knowing all the ways you can achieve your aims alongside the ability to achieve them utterly. A large part of that is getting people to contribute to your aims, ideally willingly yes. But how people perceive your strength isn't necessarily reflective of your actual ability to do things. There's a really simple thing that cuts to people's hearts to get them to do things these days. It's money.

[Anonymous No.21697543]

>>21697508
>The mental block people have nowadays is that 'the nazis tried to genocide them, the poor jews, if I criticise them that makes me evil'
This is why i think it is extremely important to break the Holocaust mythos.
In many respects this event serves a major role in Western morality; a political and moral south pole. Bad and evil is defined as what Hitler and the Germans advocated (eugenics, ethnonationalism, epistocracy/aristocracy, anti-liberalism, JQ etc.) And good and righteous is defined as the antithesis (egalitarianism, humanitarianism, liberalism, internationalism, open borders, "democracy", anti-"racism" etc.). A secular religion of sorts. Without breaking this foundation myth, no progress can be made.

[Anonymous No.21697629]

>>21697508
>Well no, jews, their practices, and their noses are all openly known, especially by the people who do commerce with them and explicitly seek them out because they do offer things that are prohibited.
Yes, that is why they historically forced to wear identification so people could easily be made aware the jew was before them. It is redundant to mark people whom you can immediately tell apart. Hence the Judenhut, the jewish hat, or the jewish yellow star which goes all the way back to Islamic Caliphates.

>People want rulers who represent their values and don't make their lives miserable
Those two things are completely exclusive, the later part is correct and the former is not. If you thought about it you do not want people who share your values as the values you have are typically utterly incomparable with those who must rule. Hence why the upper class cultivated behaviors and outlooks which were conductive to ruling. In the military I could not give an order which could consign hundreds of good men to their deaths. I could and did lead a section or a fire-team. These values are completely incompatible, a good Sergeant or Full-Screw makes a terrible Captain or Major. You would know this if you had been part of a functioning hierarchy, aside one who's only goal is to make money.

>The entirety of politics is something of a rebuttal to that... rather, if you're a European-centered white nationalist, you should know that a lot of Europe's history is spent warring with itself.
Families spent time fighting amongst themselves, that does not preclude it from being the same kin. Why is that difficult for you to understand that by removing one of the major sources of inter-communal conflict we do not completely solve the problem of inter-communal conflict. Because we can't remove all the toxins from a water source at once does not mean you do not remove toxins when you can. This is what progress is, long term solutions to problems. Not teaching children to twerk.

>Actual power is knowing all the ways you can achieve your aims alongside the ability to achieve them utterly.
No that is competence and forethought, that applies to you getting to work. You aren't powerful but you are competent and thought ahead. Read Schmitt for a better understanding of sovereignty and perceptions of power.

>>21697543
>This is why i think it is extremely important to break the Holocaust mythos.
I don't think you do anybody any favors for denying the holocaust or questioning it. Instead, what question you must ask is what behavior the jew conducted and to what extent that would foster such hatred against it. Was it the dozens of financial scandals that came to light after the closure of the first world war? Was it the continual agitation for Communism in a place where people did not wish it, lead almost exclusively by the jew? The holocaust happened, the reasons for it have been obfuscated.

[Anonymous No.21697661]

>>21697629
>The holocaust happened, the reasons for it have been obfuscated.
Oh okay, you're a well-poisoning kike.

[Anonymous No.21697669]

>>21697661
It makes no odds to me if it happened or not. My point being is that you are not going to be able to red-pill people on the very foundational event/myth of the last two hundred years, it played a bigger part in the formation of modern Europe than did the Enlightenment.

The only way to counter it is to place it in the correct context and make it justified in the eyes of people you want to convince. Yes, it happened and it was deserved. That is how you do correct this. You don't just bandy about shit that people are never going to prove or check. You instead convince them that yeah, in their situation I would of done it to in that situation.

[Anonymous No.21697672]

>>21697286
>What you think is irrelevant, it can easily be demonstrated throughout history by the absence of much of the problems we now face. There is not one single metric that a multicultural society excels at over a homogeneous one. You are subversive to think otherwise.
Most Empires are muticult; albeit not like today obviously.

>Who controls these tv shows, the advertising and all manner of other mass media designed exclusively to impart behavioral cues to the masses?
>Our culture dominates all others
lol you can't have it both ways; either the media is shit (which it is) and controlled against you since the 1940's (which it is) or it's great and all yours and it dominates "all others" lol

>You can slur them all you wish
I was talking about city dwellers being filthy and having magical thinking; I was making a joke that the city dwelling christian mob declaring rural people to be "dirty pagans" was an example of delusional urban ideology.

> it can easily be demonstrated throughout history by the absence of much of the problems we now face.
It's not true at all; the censorship today and the solutions are the same we actually faced from the catholic church in the 1500s and 1600s, with ideologues having taken over the role of censor, and a non-scientific based fantasy a the ideology, leading them to making stupid decisions.

>It is simply a matter of time before the first real authoritarian government is born out of a post-liberal Western nation,
I strongly doubt it. If you're leaning towards hitlerism then that was born out of deflection and refusal to admit the weakness of the home culture.

People are more interested in living in fantasies of the past than learning lessons from it to form a serious culture.

> Within the century the jew will be gone, its practices dead, its creed forgotten.
I hope so. I hope to see the day when every last shred of abramism is consigned to the fire, along with all religious people who refuse to abandon their idiocy. But it's a huge order.

[Anonymous No.21697679]

>>21697661
Holocaust denial is a sign of pure unadulterated retardation. If you want to argue numbers, fine. But the things with conspiracies, especially grand ones, is they involve a lot of people. A fake holocaust would mean millions of people being silent. Despite what you think a bunch of Jews would have stepped up and said no, this never happened. The saying is that only one can keep a secret. The evidence for the holocaust happening is overwhelming, even if you’ll discredit it

[Anonymous No.21697710]

>>21697629
>you do not want people who share your values
breh yes I do and yes people do in general, you've shown your hand as a military guy who views things through a military lens and (from what I can gather) wants to impose his will on people below him through application of force (since if you're not getting people on your side organically, how else are you going to do this). When I ask you what are you going to do about the people within this demographic of 'white' or 'European' who themselves are willing to sell out or kill whites and Europeans, you don't have an answer. At the prospect of a white person who doesn't care about any of the traits that make white people good, you don't have a response. What about people who hate chains of commandAbout the corruption of the EU, expanding borders, or bringing foreigners into your populace because you're using them as workers or slaves, you're silent.
You seem to be flatly resistant to conceiving that all these societies which have fallen and been corrupted were AT SOME POINT homogenous, however you would define that as 'white' or a specific tribe. Homogeneity, in itself, is then not a barrier to stave malicious influences; what is is a moral core, which you seem to conflate with authority, but even authority (especially authority) can be corrupted against the interests of its people. Does removing jews help immensely? Yes. But why are jews able to sway such influence, to be conversing with Kings and running the banks while living in ghettos? Because people aren't inherently morally pure and do want to do things that are forbidden, or get above others in convenient ways, and somewhere there'll be a Jew who's willing to offer those ways.
>No that is competence and forethought, that applies to you getting to work
Describe to me how you are powerful if you are unable to achieve anything you want to achieve.
>aside one who's only goal is to make money.
From where does the military get orders, eh

[Anonymous No.21697726]

>>21697672
>Most Empires are muticult; albeit not like today obviously.
They are not multicultural on any standard like today, to even imply that is disingenuous. No where in history has a place been as diverse or multicultural as a modern European capital. Those that were slightly diverse had a single polity in all positions of power.

>lol you can't have it both ways; either the media is shit (which it is) and controlled against you since the 1940's (which it is) or it's great and all yours and it dominates "all others" lol
We celebrate our holidays, we speak our language, we wear our clothes, we use our idioms, we study our history. It is so prevalent that you are unaware that it is our history

>It's not true at all; the censorship today and the solutions are the same we actually faced from the catholic church in the 1500s and 1600s, with ideologues having taken over the role of censor, and a non-scientific based fantasy a the ideology, leading them to making stupid decisions.
If it was from the Catholic church why do the most Catholic nations today have the littlest censorship? Your grasping at straws anon.

>I strongly doubt it. If you're leaning towards hitlerism then that was born out of deflection and refusal to admit the weakness of the home culture.
You doubt it because you must, anon. There is an increasing trend towards authoritarianism, that is the only way the Liberal system can end, do you think it will just go on like this forever? Or that we'll suddenly reach apotheosis and all ascend to a new political means? No, the only step there is to go to is a backslide to some form of authoritarianism. Every Liberal Democracy in the world is crashing and burning. Just as the Weimar was when Hitler took the reigns. Your empty slurs about a weak culture are just that, it is cope. There are parts of my culture i despise, parts I love but to claim that it is a weak culture is either profound cope or deep seated jealousy. Probably both.

>I hope so. I hope to see the day when every last shred of abramism is consigned to the fire, along with all religious people who refuse to abandon their idiocy. But it's a huge order.
Finally something we agree on. Since Judaism is indeed an ethnic creed it will only be stamped out when the jew is no longer able to call himself such.

[Anonymous No.21697732]

I love being Jewish simply because my people look out for me and I can make a large amount of people seethe simply by existing. It is truly a blessing to be one of God’s chosen people

[Anonymous No.21697736]

>>21695270
All those villains have one thing in common: they’re white

[Anonymous No.21697743]

>>21697679
Genuinely don't trust me. Obviously I am just a schizo from 4chan; you have no reason to take my word for it. Go look at the evidence yourself, please, if you are interested.
On the side of the cathedral
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_and_documentation_for_the_Holocaust
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/evidence-from-the-holocaust
https://www.hdot.org/
Against
https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1
https://www.holocaust.claims/ (pretty much a tl;dr version of the above)
https://forum.codoh.com/index.php
The best intro imo is
https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=1001
Always do keep in mind what the claim is: a state-sponsored, centralized, purposeful genocide of millions of jews, primarily using an insecticide and diesel engine exhaust. Cheers.

[Anonymous No.21697749]

>>21697710

> When I ask you what are you going to do about the people within this demographic of 'white' or 'European' who themselves are willing to sell out or kill whites and Europeans, you don't have an answer.
Same thing the National-Socialists did, the undermining of the Volksgemeinschaft to use their word ought to be a capital crime.

>The prospect of a white person who doesn't care about any of the traits that make white people good, you don't have a response.
A response about what? If you don't care about it but don't undermine it you are nothing to worry about. If you aren't actively impeding and harming, like any other law, it does not matter.

>What about people who hate chains of command
What about them? They typically occupy the bottom of the chain so their opinions are largely irrelevant.

>About the corruption of the EU
In a National-Socialist state the emphasis is on Nation, what the EU does is of no consequence much like the League of Nations did not matter to Hitler you pursue a policy of exclusion.

>Expanding borders
Borders charge, had Ukraine a martial tradition it may well of been able to resist Russia without the aid of the US taxpayer. Martial Traditions secure wellbeing, if you are worried about expanding borders ensure your own is well protected.

>bringing foreigners into your populace because you're using them as workers or slaves, you're silent.
Again, undermining the National community ought to carry a capital punishment.

>Describe to me how you are powerful if you are unable to achieve anything you want to achieve.
Please read what I said in the context of what it was said, you're mindset appears to be that of a weed-smoking 18 year old libertarian who has no understanding of anything.

>From where does the military get orders, eh
Every military throughout history has fought to secure resources. I disagree in the strongest terms about the use the US military has been employed, but thankfully I was not in the US military. I was in a European one. Historically the military was a noble and virtuous profession, arguably the most highly regarded. Only non-combatants, pacifists and the soft would disagree. Because it is exists now as a tool for big-business does not mean ti would be in the future, or was in the past.

[Anonymous No.21697776]

>>21697679
Indeed, and people who don't believe in it should just read some debunking:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/
It's always the same talking points

[Anonymous No.21697785]

I'm currently wrtiting a book based on an anti-semite's views and arguments for it.

[Anonymous No.21697873]

>>21697749
>What about them? They typically occupy the bottom of the chain so their opinions are largely irrelevant.
Because these are the people who would be highly willing to subvert, corrupt, and instate their own will. Same goes for the 'white person who doesn't care about any of the traits that make white people good'. That is explicitly the type of person who would be willing to deceive or bribe their way into a position of influence so they don't need to deal with being subject to strict regulations, and would enjoy the whole process too.
You've set up a system where the penalty to not obeying it is death, with a very rigid chain-of-command scheme where people are meant to trust on the moral integrity of those above them in authority. It's kaput the instant you get someone in that seat who just doesn't care or sees how they could use all that consolidated power for their own ends. Which is kind of true of any political system, but the point stands if you're holding this system as the be-all-end-all to fix the world or save humanity or save whites specifically if that's your main goal, there's a very easy seat for a despot to slide in. (The inference I'm getting also is that you'd be pretty happy for Europe to go to war with the rest of the world too).
>Borders charge
'We'll be at war all the time'
>Ukraine
The whole Uk vs Russia feels like a setup/sleight of hand to me so idc that much
>Please read what I said in the context of what it was said,
Explain for me though if I'm stupid, if you're unable to achieve anything you want to achieve, how are you powerful?
>Historically the military was a noble and virtuous profession,
The military is an organ of the state. If it's noble and virtuous, it's because whatever body is ordering it around is noble and virtuous. If you're saying the military is in itself noble and virtuous, you're implying it's acting on its own jurisdiction, like some kind of barbarian tribe-lord. which is a funny way to imagine 'progress'
>fought to secure resources
You can also buy resources, but does that leave you a little too vulnerable to the goodwill of others? You seem to have this assumption you'll win every engagement or always have the resources you need to pull off the tactics you need to win. If your main way of negotiating with neighbours when they say 'no' is through the military, you'll run out of those resources sooner or later with more and more enemies around you. you know, like Rome

[Anonymous No.21697884]

>>21697726
>If it was from the Catholic church why do the most Catholic nations today have the littlest censorship? Your grasping at straws anon.
lol because they were militarily broken. Witch trials were still going on in North America until the Revolutionary Army physically stopped them and charged the perpetrators.

>grasping
see, you've conflated europeans with the foreign religion. You might want to review the origin of the actual ecclessia and its purpose under the Roman Emperor in Constantinople, then you'll see catholics for what they are and those who follow that religion as the impediments that they are.

>doubt
I don't 'doubt' that people will be stupid and get themselves put in prison for ridiculous reasons, but I 'doubt' that anything will come of it. The idiocy is too deeply ingrained in people to be remedied, I think.

>Your empty slurs about a weak culture
No I think we agree on this as well; but you (your position rather) is to ignore the actual cause in the psyche of the human in the first place that has him leveraged by petty criminals and demagogues (religion, politics, fantasists) whereas these influences, which have surely always existed in every society, would be reduced to beggars and galley oarsmen in a sane and sober society. But my point is that nobody will be able to 'refute' the errors of the current ideology if they shy away to refute the errors in the previous ideology; as to refute one is to refute the other (and all others) whilst you cannot refute one (i.e. understand howt operates) if you refute to ... say, understand the commonality between the fantasy ideology of the priest to the rabble and the fantasy ideology of the leftist to the rabble also (the pulpit, the news desk, etc.).

I mean, I see no reason to comprise on any of these issues if compromising means a weakened end result which'll just flip back to 2020 society after 10 or 20 years. You can' even, hypothetically, get a Man to train himself and take orders and form a unit if he still has these foolish notions in his head, whereas if you remove those notions then that Man is worth a thousand lesser Men.

When you get around to studying the "wily wat", you might want to study what Pathos is as to discover how our better ancestors eradicated these weaknesses in their societies.

[Anonymous No.21697940]

>>21697873
>Because these are the people who would be highly willing to subvert, corrupt, and instate their own will. Same goes for the 'white person who doesn't care about any of the traits that make white people good'. That is explicitly the type of person who would be willing to deceive or bribe their way into a position of influence so they don't need to deal with being subject to strict regulations, and would enjoy the whole process too.
You're fabricating situations in your head, this does not happen. Those at the bottom of any hierarchy are never a problem as they lack both means and connections. All the problems arise from the dreaded middle class, this is were the jew lies almost exclusively. It is form here that trouble arises and from here where the most scrutiny should be applied. Much like the Outer Party in 1984.

>'We'll be at war all the time'
Conflict and war made Europe the strongest world in the nation until the turn of the 20th century. Frequent conflict that required planning, strategy, forethought, resources all were used to become better than those around you. A return to that would not be unwelcome.

>The whole Uk vs Russia feels like a setup/sleight of hand to me so idc that much
It is Russia vs Ukraine, both nations are ran by jews. Jews in the west are sending money earned by non-jews to continue and support the war. This is the basis of 'The jew fund both sides of the Napoleonic' war accusation, which in fact they did.

>Explain for me though if I'm stupid, if you're unable to achieve anything you want to achieve, how are you powerful?
I don't think you would understand what was said. Achieving things requires more than power, if what you thought was true then once you obtained power it would be difficult to lose it. That is historically not true. The passive or active support of the masses for an authoritarian regime is critical for its long term success.

>The military is an organ of the state.
And the state is an organ of the people, read Schmitt and not just the libertarian world-view.

>If you're saying the military is in itself noble and virtuous
Placing your person wellbeing before that of another is a virtue, regardless of what capacity be it the grandfather standing at the threshold of his farmstead with a rifle or a soldier marching to war to preserve a war of life. The later has not been exhibited for some time, but it does not preclude it from returning.

>You can also buy resources, but does that leave you a little too vulnerable to the goodwill of others?
You can, but to become dependent on the goodwill of others is disgusting. Further, to be dependent on the continued sale from others is dangerous. You can make all manner of justifications for avoiding war, many of them I would agree with, but in the end you will always need it. Libertarians believe that the abolition of militarism would result in peaceful exchange of goods, there is nothing to suppose that.

[Anonymous No.21697954]

>>21697873

>You seem to have this assumption you'll win every engagement or always have the resources you need to pull off the tactics you need to win
No, hardly. You have assumed that because you have a strong military that one must always use it. Again wrong.

>If your main way of negotiating with neighbors when they say 'no' is through the military, you'll run out of those resources sooner or later with more and more enemies around you. you know, like Rome.
You are of the opinion that if you are humble and meek a stronger power will treat you as such? Why do you think Russia chose to take parts of Georgia first, then Ukraine and has left Finland very much alone despise it being perilously close to almost all of their biggest cities than Ukraine?

[Anonymous No.21697962]

>>21695270
>Every major faith agreed
*abrahamitic faiths
The Jews traveled alongside Capital. The outsourcing of usury in the hands of Jews was originally a Jewish conspiracy to enslave gentile and fulfill their prophecies. Post-judaic abrahamitic faith has always been to the benefit of the Jewish prophecy. You slavish people were too dumb and are still too dumb to realize this.

[Anonymous No.21697987]

>>21695094
More like anti-onanism.

[Anonymous No.21697995]

>>21694755
Christianity and Islam are Jewish survival mechanisms. Without these two religions, jewish people would've been nowhere as powerful as they are today.

[Anonymous No.21698004]

>>21697884
>No I think we agree on this as well; but you (your position rather) is to ignore the actual cause in the psyche of the human in the first place that has him leveraged by petty criminals and demagogues (religion, politics, fantasists) whereas these influences, which have surely always existed in every society, would be reduced to beggars and galley oarsmen in a sane and sober society. But my point is that nobody will be able to 'refute' the errors of the current ideology if they shy away to refute the errors in the previous ideology; as to refute one is to refute the other (and all others) whilst you cannot refute one (i.e. understand howt operates) if you refute to ... say, understand the commonality between the fantasy ideology of the priest to the rabble and the fantasy ideology of the leftist to the rabble also (the pulpit, the news desk, etc.).

You did not need to use as much obfuscation in your language as you have here. Your point could of been put across far easier had you not gone over the top. A few words are great , but this is just tiring. Nevertheless I will break it down so others may find it easier.

>Your position is to ignore the cause in the psyche of the human that has him leveraged by religion, politics, fantasists
On the contrary, I am well aware of the damage these groups, and their tools, have inflicted on the world-view of the average man. But the one thing that you fail to mention is that it must be continually applied, the moment the foot is taken off his neck the man will assert himself. Like the Ancient Spartans said of the Helots, they had a wolf by the throat and should their grip weaken for but a moment, the wolf would surely devour him. Which is why in my previous statement about power, not with you, that the passive or assertive support of the population is so critical.

>My point is that nobody will be able to 'refute' the errors of the current ideology if they shy away to refute the errors in the previous ideology; as to refute one is to refute the other (and all others) whilst you cannot refute one (i.e. understand howt operates)
This makes no logical sense, you do not need to refute or solve any errors of the past. You simply cut clean and begin anew, taking the errors of the past. The idea that history is some sort of rubix cube that you must progressively resolve as you build on past experiences as idiotic as it is bizarre. Every system we have is an attempt to resolve the previous systems errors and shortcomings.

>if you refute to ... say, understand the commonality between the fantasy ideology of the priest to the rabble and the fantasy ideology of the leftist to the rabble also (the pulpit, the news desk, etc.).
People in positions of influence lie, this has been proven numerous times, nobody doubts that. Nobody believes it, we are all aware of the Pravda style reporting of the mainstream sources, be they Priests, journos or reporters. We even suspect our own side.

[Anonymous No.21698088]

>>21697954
>>21697940
>the bottom of any hierarchy are never a problem
The jews, biggest problem to the west #1, were routinely living in ghettos and getting kicked out of everywhere and STILL managed to routinely get into positions of influence enough to kick off revolutions and genocides.
>All the problems arise from the dreaded middle class
This smells vaguely Marxist. I recognize that's not your direction but it's very similar to 'we must take down the bourgeoisie'. though I guess if your ideal political system is 1984 why bother
>Conflict and war made Europe the strongest world in the nation until
Not really... the strongest nations of Europe were so because they had writing, commerce, and after that Christianity. The barbarian tribes from before all that aren't even remembered because they left nothing behind and they're all dead. Roman slaves revolted, Roman citizens converted. People don't like being at war all the time for no reason.
>Achieving things requires more than power,
I'm saying that power in itself isn't just 'force', it's the capacity to achieve the ends you want without needing to compromise on any point. A prerequisite to that is understanding what you want and what options you have to achieve it. If support of your people is part of your power base, then sustaining power in part means knowing how to sustain the support of your people.
>The passive or active support of the masses for an authoritarian regime is critical
It's kind of funny you'll admit this but also be quick to discount the elements of society who would degrade that 'support of the masses' as being an issue of much concern...
>And the state is an organ of the people
But you've said that people's morality and ethics can be imposed from top-down, and you're using a system hinged on this premise, and I'm saying that if the top in such a system is corrupt, it falls apart.

[Anonymous No.21698096]

>>21698088
>Placing your person wellbeing before that of another is a virtue
This is nigger logic. I know that's uncouth but the premise of 'it's best to get what you can and fuck everyone else' is literally Africa-tier. It's good to love yourself and have an interest in your own survival. It's not good to turn into a nigger over it.
>You can, but to become dependent on the goodwill of others is disgusting.
A state will always be dependant on its citizens, you can't entirely remove yourself from others' goodwill. Rather, you're going to be making quick enemies if you're quick to jump to war on the principle of, 'I just don't want you to have power over me'. You are right that it's dangerous to become dependant, and I don't think it's a bad thing to have a military ready in case of attack. But I don't think there's a need to go conquesting to secure basic resources in most all cases.
>You have assumed that because you have a strong military
I'm assuming off of what you're saying. You're espousing a might-makes-right philosophy and saying that you shy away from trade as a means of negotiation, so I figure you'd lean towards military methods to get what you want if the other part kept saying 'no'.
>if you are humble and meek a stronger power will treat you as such?
No I'm saying if you go out of the way to get in fights all the time, people will start to hate you, find you unmanageable, and team up to kill you.

[Anonymous No.21698150]

>>21698088
>The jews, biggest problem to the west #1, were routinely living in ghettos and getting kicked out of everywhere and STILL managed to routinely get into positions of influence enough to kick off revolutions and genocides.
The jew was, most were not until post WW2, after which the jew was successfully granted emancipation after those around him began to feel immense pity after the nigh successful genocide by Hitler. In the short space of less than a century they have utterly destroyed everything they touch, every single act with which they have historically been accused of has come to pass.

>This smells vaguely Marxist. I recognize that's not your direction but it's very similar to 'we must take down the bourgeoisie'. though I guess if your ideal political system is 1984 why bother
There is the noble aristocrat, leader. There is the honorable peasant, warrior, the middle class is one of complete and utter consumerist predisposition.

>Not really... the strongest nations of Europe were so because they had writing, commerce, and after that Christianity. The barbarian tribes from before all that aren't even remembered because they left nothing behind and they're all dead. Roman slaves revolted, Roman citizens converted. People don't like being at war all the time for no reason.
What made Rome strong? It was Rome's leftovers that allowed Europe to raise itself higher. If Rome had not defeated Carthage and dozens of others it would not have reaped its reward and spread further than any Empire at that age. The same is true of Britain. War makes the victor strong. To quote a US National-Socialist, you either believe in natural selection and apply it to yourself or you're just kidding yourself. You are not at war all the time, but sufficiently that a man of every generation must face it once in his lifetime

>I'm saying that power in itself isn't just 'force', it's the capacity to achieve the ends you want without needing to compromise on any point.
That is force, you just described power as force which is exactly what you said you are not doing.

>A prerequisite to that is understanding what you want and what options you have to achieve it. If support of your people is part of your power base, then sustaining power in part means knowing how to sustain the support of your people.
That is not what was taken from your earlier diatribe but I am will to let it go because it is not pertinent.

>It's kind of funny you'll admit this but also be quick to discount the elements of society who would degrade that 'support of the masses' as being an issue of much concern.
It is not at all funny or contradictory as you imply. It comes from a grounding having a world-view based in Blood (race) and soil (land). In the same way that you cultivate crops, you do not allow the diseased to harm the rest of the crop. Root rot can spread so very quickly and so too can ideas which on the surface seem great, but harbor literal poison to the nation.

[Anonymous No.21698177]

>>21698096
I assume you're quote the wrong person and responding to me.

>>Placing your person wellbeing before that of another is a virtue
That was poorly worded on my part, placing your life in front of that who may suffer is a virtue is what I meant. The opposite of greedy self-interest.

>A state will always be dependant on its citizens
A state is its citizens, if it ceases to be then it is no longer a state.

>ather, you're going to be making quick enemies if you're quick to jump to war on the principle of, 'I just don't want you to have power over me'. You are right that it's dangerous to become dependant, and I don't think it's a bad thing to have a military ready in case of attack. But I don't think there's a need to go conquesting to secure basic resources in most all cases.
You seem focused, like the previous anon, on the idea that because I am pro-war that we must always use it. No, my point was that men must always be ready, trained and willing to make war in their defense of what they love. Not for material gain but for the very survival. Many scholars, legal, political and philosophical think that war for purely economic factors is disgusting and abhorrent, I agree.

>You're espousing a might-makes-right philosophy and saying that you shy away from trade as a means of negotiation, so I figure you'd lean towards military methods to get what you want if the other part kept saying 'no'.
No, you're wrong in your assumption of an overall national defense philosophy. I espouse a Theodore Roosevelt means of self-preservation, be peaceful and even handed but in the other hand the means to defend yourself and what you love. I don't believe that translates as a Might Makes Right philosophy but I will not deny that the ability to inflict physical violence is the best deterrent against suffering it. This is why North Korea has been left unmolested, it has nuclear weapons, Iran clearly did not.

>No I'm saying if you go out of the way to get in fights all the time, people will start to hate you, find you unmanageable, and team up to kill you.
I have never said begin making conflicts for no reason. I said have the capacity to engage in armed conflicts. Have men able to make war, not make war. Why is that difficult for people here to understand?

[Anonymous No.21698182]

ITT: petty nationalism and ressentiment