Is it predominantly biological or cultural?

Cultural. I believe a jewish baby can be raised into a decent human being if he's raised by gentiles who never ever tell him of his ancestry. That's a big if though.

I believe a jewish baby can be raised into a decent human being if he's raised by gentiles who never ever tell him of his ancestry. That's a big if though.

A bit too big.

First of all, Jewish babies are tempermentally less trusting than non Jewish children. They will scream louder and longer when placed in a strangers care. So, from the cradle foward, nature is working against nurture.

Secondly, as their minds develop, whether or not they know they are Jewish, they are attracted to Jewish things. Steve Sailer, who is a half Jew, desribes this process from a subjective standpoint. It's very spooky, but they'll find their own. If you've read acconts of seperated twins, you know what I'm talking about.

No, I'm afraid it's Madagascar for the lot of them.

Wintermute

That's nonsense, their demoncult is only 4000 years old, no way that that's long enough for humans to evolve such behavior into their genes. It has to be cultural.

Every group has antipathy for people who are unlike them, to some extent or another. It's just that Jewish people are more likely to have antipathy than other people. The reason for this is that Jews were always a minority in the land they lived in, so they had to be xenophobic to avoid assimilation. Therefore Constantinus is right, it is cultural

That's nonsense, their demoncult is only 4000 years old, no way that that's long enough for humans to evolve such behavior into their genes. It has to be cultural.

There are studies of hardwired Jewish ethnocentism (i.e. in infants).

I think the barrier to your understanding is that you are thinking of them in isolation. They are actually part of a larger population, popularly called 'Semites', who are much older than 4000 years. They share many hardwired traits with their Arab cousins, of which extreme ethnocentrism is only one.

Reciprocity and trust, which mark Aryan populations, evolved after our respective groups settled seperately. Both Caucasian population went into the environmental meatgrinder, and they came out as handrubbing, backstabbing, gladhandling swindlers, and we as the noble and sweet smelling specimens you see before you.

In fact, they've only been Jews for 3200 at most. The Tanakh doesn't date back to before 600 B.C. The demoncult sits so well with them because of their genes. That's why they created it.

Sheesh!

Wintermute

Is it predominantly biological or cultural?

Cultural. That the jews are run-of-the-mil homo sapiens should go without saying. Beliefs learned from childhood as regards jewish identity, religious, or in the absence of this, the th holocaust/persecution theology.

Their semitic buddies, the arabs, traditionally have a far less destructive attitude towards foreignors though AS LONG AS THEY THEMSELVES ARE IN CONTROL. In lands that they occupy or occupied which had non-islamic populations (islam being the main uniting force for their ummah), they tended to tolerate a dissenting worship, after they made sure arabs were in firm control of course. The same goes for persians, which have a good amount of arab blood in them too nowadays, even in Iran, the most islamic society on earth, there isn't a law which orders the people living there to be a muslim, the country has christians, zoroastrians and even the occasional jew, which are allowed to worship what they want, as long as they respect the islamic character of the land. I'm not excusing arabian attitude, or minimalizing the damaging aspects they have on European people and their culture, far from it, but I have to notice that their ethnocentrism is far less extreme than that of the jew, and their religion and morality is far less parasitic and manipulative. Seeing all semites as more or less the same negates this.

The Ashkenazi conversion to Judaism in the 8th Centry AD appears to have enhanced the natural viciousness of the orignianl Sephardi Jews. The latter were Semites, of course, while the former belonged to a Turkish/Mongolian confederation of tribes.

The Jews are a very inbred people. So this may have something to do with it. But their antipathy towards gentiles stems from their legendary paranoia more than anything else. In the last fifty years or so, it has become so all-consuming that their paranoid attempts to 'fight anti-semitism' has begun to generate anti-semitism in places where it did not exist before. I would attribute this sort of behaviour to predominantly social and historical factors as opposed to biological ones, although there might very well be an underlying biological disposition towards certain types of behaviour amongst them.

That the jews are run-of-the-mil sapiens should go without saying.

Why should this go without saying? It's not true.

Weren't you just rapping Ixabert's knuckles about this 'races are all the same' business?

I don't think that there are any racial differences more profound than those between Jews and Europids.

Their semitic buddies, the arabs, traditionally have a far less destructive attitude towards foreignors though AS LONG AS THEY THEMSELVES ARE IN CONTROL.

I didn't say Jews and Arabs were exactly the same, I am saying that they are members of the same subspecies.

Here's as good a list as any of the differences between us, from as good a piece of ev psych as you're likely to see: http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no2/km-unique.html


European Cultural Origins /// Jewish Cultural Origins



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Evolutionary History

Northern Hunter-Gatherers /// Middle Old World Pastoralists (Herders)


Kinship System

Bilateral;Weakly Patricentric /// Unilineal;Strongly Patricentric


Family System

Simple Household; /// Extended Family;Joint Household;

Marriage Practices

Exogamous;Monogamous ///
Endogamous,Consanguineous;Polygynous

Marriage Psychology

Companionate; Based on Consent and Mutual Affection /// Utilitarian; Based on Family Strategizing and Control of Kinship Group


Position of Women

Relatively High /// Relatively Low

Social Structure

Individualistic; Republican;Democratic Collectivistic;
Authoritarian;
Charismatic Leaders

Ethnocentrism

Relatively Low /// Relatively High; "Hyper-
ethnocentrism


Xenophobia

Relatively Low /// Relatively High; "Hyper-
xenophobia


Socialization

Stresses Independence,Self-Reliance /// Stresses Ingroup
Identification, Obligations to Kinship Group


Intellectual Stance

Reason; Science /// Dogmatism; Submission to
Ingroup Authority and Charismatic Leaders

Moral Stance

Moral Universalism:Morality is Independent of Group Affiliation /// Moral Particularism;
Ingroup/Outgroup Morality;
Is it good for the Jews?

MacDonald uses 'cultural origins' to tabulate his data, but argues for a gene/culture co-evolutionary circle: the environment does genetically 'prune' a population. This is true of a cultural environment as well as a physical one. See article for details.

I can't understand why people here are so hostile to the idea of brain and body based differences between subspecies. Did the racial nihilism seep in too early? Are you guys like liberals just figuring out for the first time that no amount of extra funds for education are going to close the Black/White gap?

What gives?

Wintermute

Why should this go without saying? It's not true.

You are right. I'm obsessed with this bone business, and that is what I was referring to.

I don't think that there are any racial differences more profound than those between Jews and Europids.

Would you agree there are many jews whose judaism rests less upon physical difference than enculturation?

I didn't say Jews and Arabs were exactly the same, I am saying that they are members of the same subspecies.

Yes, they share a recent root.

So this may have something to do with it. But their antipathy towards gentiles stems from their legendary paranoia more than anything else.

Paranoia: genetic or no? I would argue that it is isomorphic with neuroticism, one of so so called 'Big Five' personality traits, so called because they are highly replicatable (robust). They are also highly correlated with genetic inheritance.


In the last fifty years or so, it has become so all-consuming that their paranoid attempts to 'fight anti-semitism' has begun to generate anti-semitism in places where it did not exist before.

I do not think this means Jews have changed, but rather that they now have access to mass media. Thus, we have a technological development exacerbating a pre-existing genetic predilection, like alcohol amongst the Irish or the Indians.

"Anti-Semitism" arises wherever Jews are present. Mass media and international capital flows allow Jews to be everywhere. Hence, Anti-Semitism is now everywhere.

Wintermute

Would you agree there are many jews whose judaism rests less upon physical difference than enculturation?

Yes, but it is a difficult topic. At a quarter Jewish inheritance, the person can go either way. Halfies always tend Jewish in thinking styles and political and racial orientations. I don't know why that is, and yes, my data is anecdotal. But I have never seen any exceptions.

An 1/8 Jewish extraction is the maximum I would allow in a citizen in a White republic; more than that and they are prey to atavistic wanderings.

As a general rule, enculturation usually exacerbates and interfaces with pre-existing tendencies. It is the same with us.

Yes, they share a recent root.

I would say rather that they share an ancient root and a recent seperation (within the last 5 thousand years).

WM

- "Halfies always tend Jewish in thinking styles and political and racial orientations."


Few halfies:

Bobby Fischer

Luftwaffe Air Marshal Erhard Milch

Heinz Weichart (check here)

http://www.louisbeam.com/letters.htm


Hypothesis: a White-looking half-Jew is snatched away from his parents as an infant. He never knows more about them and is raised in a White family.

Do you think he would grow up "Jewish"?

(By no means an idle hypothesis: ever heard of Turkish "devshirme" system and Janissaries?)


Petr

Wintermute is right: Madagascar - no exceptions, no special pleading.

Fischer is insane and Milch sabotaged the Luftwaffe, where he had been placed by Goring ( "Wer Jude ist, bestimme ich!" Goering declared - "I say who is a jew!") - fatal returns to type for both.

There might be a few good halfies, but I don't think our military, social, or economic safety should be handed over to them, hence they should probably leave.

White-looking half-Jew is snatched away from his parents as an infant. He never knows more about them and is raised in a White family.

Do you think he would grow up "Jewish"?

White looking half-Jew meets an attractive, pushy, demanding, neurotic, and extremely well educated woman in his college years, who yammers on at about a thousand words a minute and swears like a sailor. They marry.

Question: what race is the child?

(Not an idle hypothesis: Steve Sailer is currently subverting the field of human biodiversity away from scrutiny of the Jews -and he's a halfie with a Gentile wife. The subjective sense of absolute Jewish superiority seems innate with him - and I admit, this is anecdotal).

(By no means an idle hypothesis: ever heard of Turkish "devshirme" system and Janissaries?)

Yes. The Janissaries, subconsciously understanding themselves to be racially unallied to the people they fought for, banded together without a great deal of overty treasonous chatter, took over the Ottoman Empire, de-Islamicised it what is probalby the greatest extent possible, and are now trying to introduce their Frankenstienian 'nation' into the EU. I wouldn't let them in any more than I'd allow a half Jew.

Just to show how grumpy I am on this question, I won't consider Albanians as 'White' either.

White is a biocultural continuum, and "White Jews" or "White Muslims" or frankly, even a few round-the-bend Protestants, just don't cut the mustard. They will never be loyal.

Wintermute

I can't understand why people here are so hostile to the idea of brain and body based differences between subspecies. Did the racial nihilism seep in too early? Are you guys like liberals just figuring out for the first time that no amount of extra funds for education are going to close the Black/White gap?

What gives?

Wintermute
Noone here denies the existance of racial differences. What you are doing is the opposite though, you attribute every difference you see to a biological origin. When a human being is born, he knows nothing. Human babies are the most vulnerable and ignorant newborns in the animal kingdom, it takes 20 years for them to complete their education and learn enough to be independant members of society. That's how complicated and all encompassing human culture is. No matter how differences between the various human races exist, it should be clear that most differences are cultural (yes, some races in general lack the intelligence to adapt to superior cultures, or develop them, but that's another matter). Social relations in particular differ so much between the races that they have to be cultural, our species just isn't old enough to have evolved them in our genes.



Kinship System

Bilateral;Weakly Patricentric /// Unilineal;Strongly Patricentric


Family System

Simple Household; /// Extended Family;Joint Household;

Marriage Psychology

Companionate; Based on Consent and Mutual Affection /// Utilitarian; Based on Family Strategizing and Control of Kinship Group

Moral Stance

Moral Universalism:Morality is Independent of Group Affiliation /// Moral Particularism;
Ingroup/Outgroup Morality;
Is it good for the Jews?

This too is a fine example of cultural traits. The traits shown here in Europeans are christian in origin, and didn't exist before Europe was christianized. In Roman times, and among the Germanic tribes, the family was totally patricentric, the oldest male ran the family (technically spoken, the pater familias in Rome owned all his descendants, unless they were emancipated, this was a legal fiction up to a large degree though, and didn't prevent his descendants from acting independantly). The extended family unit was the norm before christianity, in Germanic law, an attack on one member of the family, the clan if you will, was seen as an attack on all, and every member was obliged to participate in the revenge. For many centuries, until feudalism brought some form of authority, this system was the closest thing to criminal law you saw. The marriage strategy with the Germanic tribes was based on one thing, reproduction. The concept of love in a marriage was added by christianity. The moral stance among the Germanics differed a bit, initially, a man's tribal laws followed him around, no matter where he went. Your tribal laws applied to you, even if you were on another tribe's soil. After a while, from the sixth and seventh century on, this gradually evolved into ius soli, the tribal law of the land where you resided applied to you. Both of these systems can hardly be seen as morally universalist (in those days law and morality were the same, so legal particularism was moral particularism). A universal morality just didn't exist for the germanics, christianity introduced this.

You get the point I'm trying to make, most of these differences come from christianity, a very recent CULTURAL introduction in Europe, and contradictory to earlier systems on the same continent.

When a human being is born, he knows nothing.

This is flatly counterfactual, at least in the way you seemingly mean it. You're born with almost all the responses that will shape your life and character (and, in groups, civilization).

You're not informed about this topic, and are therefore not entitled to the opinions you're spewing. They're ignorant.

Your tabula rasa ideas are utterly, utterly exploded, and yet you seem entirely unaware of this.

I am at a loss for what to say.

you attribute every difference you see to a biological origin.

I am attributing certain Jewish/Gentile differences to genetics. The above is a willfull misrepresentation of my position. Please retract it.

No matter how differences between the various human races exist, it should be clear that most differences are cultural

What excellent news. We can all now rest easy about the ingress of Africans and Asians into our nations.

Fade, time to shut down the board! Our differences are cultural!

What a relief!

Social relations in particular differ so much between the races that they have to be cultural, our species just isn't old enough to have evolved them in our genes.

Second time you've asserted this, second time you've asserted this without proof.

Save your research time. There is no proof for this statement. There is an extensive literature dealing with children which proves inborn social predilections between races.

Wittgenstein: wherof we know not, we must remain silent. Guess you didn't get the telegram.

The rest of your letter is too confused to dignify with a response. Well, to dignify with a short response anyway. You cannot impose, willy nilly, just any cultural arrangement on any people; it will always show the stamp of the people in question. I would direct you to a copy of The Germanization of Medieval Christianity for some preliminary information, but basic logical fallacies will probably always block your understanding, which is parochial in the extreme.

The concept of love in a marriage was added by christianity.

A contemptible parochialism and a slander.

A Roman epitaph for your edification:

"Short is my stay, O stranger. Stay and read.
This tomb is not fair, but fair was she it holds.
By her name her parents called her Claudia.
Her husband she loved with all her heart.
She bore two sons, and one of them she left
On earth, the other in the earth she laid.
Her speech was pleasing and her bearing gracious.
She kept house: she spun her wool. I have said. Farewell."

You have no right to slander people you know nothing about. Perhaps you are correct: when Waloons, or whatever you are, are replaced by Africans, I probably won't be able to tell the difference. Or be bothered to care.

WM

- “Fischer is insane...”

So was L-P Celine. And after being hounded by Jews throughout the world, who wouldn’t?



- “Milch sabotaged the Luftwaffe...”

You probably heard that canard from Revilo P. Oliver, David Irving makes no such allegations, and actually says that in the summer of 1940, Milch wanted to invade England immediately after the fall of France, telling Hitler that it would be fatal to give Brits time to regain their strength. Hitler played soft with the Brits, and we know the results.

Milch actually CREATED Luftwaffe (and Lufthansa!)



- “The Janissaries, subconsciously understanding themselves to be racially unallied to the people they fought for, banded together without a great deal of overty treasonous chatter, took over the Ottoman Empire, de-Islamicised it what is probalby the greatest extent possible, ...”


Your ignorance on this issue is considerable.

- “By 1600, Muslims had begun to enter the corps, largely through bribery, and in the 17th century membership in the corps became largely hereditary, while the drafting of Christians gradually ceased. In 1826, Sultan Mahmud II finally rid himself of the unruly (and by now inefficient) Janissaries by having them massacred in their barracks by his loyal Spahis.”

http://www.militaryfocus.com/osprey/elite/58.htm

So you see, Turks proper began entering the ranks of Janissaries already in the 17th century, and they were whacked in 1826 because they actually stood on the way on Turkey’s modernisation.


- “Just to show how grumpy I am on this question, I won't consider Albanians as 'White' either.”

What about other Meds? Are you a hyper-Nordicist?

Hee. I’m actually quite pan-Aryan myself, and often think that Diabloblanco’s writings make a great deal sense!


Petr

The extended family unit was the norm before christianity

Also false.

http://divinity.library.vanderbilt.edu/burns/chroma/marriage/jensenmar.htm

Whether we wish to accept Shaw’s assumptions or not, his analysis was geared at determining whether there was any significant change in the basic family structure (or "kinship group") between the high empire and the later empire. His conclusion, that the nuclear family (vs. extended family) was the "dominant living and affective social unit amongst all elements of Roman society in the West"

WM

So you see, Turks proper began entering the ranks of Janissaries already in the 17th century, and they were whacked in 1826 because they actually stood on the way on Turkey’s modernisation.

This explains the blond hair and blue eyes of Ataturk.

What about other Meds? Are you a hyper-Nordicist?

Not at all. I just think that being Muslim makes you unsuited to participate - as a voter, a press owner, or a substantial investor - in White Civilization.

Meanwhile, enough about me. You are always so generous to ignore my questions and observations - sometimes dozens of them - to turn the conversation back in my direction.

Why don't you start answering some questions? Or even just participate in discussion. Your hit and run style, where you attack, attack, attack and never consider when you've taken a hit, explains some of your dizziness and defensiveness.

Still, it's poor form.

WM

A universal morality just didn't exist for the germanics, christianity introduced this.

It is Westerners and not Christianity that tend toward moral universalism.

Jesus explicitly refuses to heal the non Jewish woman by the well, and justifies his actions by claiming Judiac particularism: the children's food is not to be given to dogs.

Romans and Germans imposed universalism on Christianity, not the reverse. You also show an ignorance of Stoic and Platonic tradition.

Maybe you should run over to Original Dissent, where lies about Christianity are welcome.

You get the point I'm trying to make, most of these differences come from christianity, a very recent CULTURAL introduction in Europe, and contradictory to earlier systems on the same continent.

Unprincipled boosterism.

WM

- "This explains the blond hair and blue eyes of Ataturk."

It is YOU who is getting dizzy. Ataturk was not descended from Janissaries, who had been killed nearly a century before his time.

Neither were other "Young Turks" of mainly Christian stock - in fact they were to a very great extent crypto-Jews from Salonika! (There were certainly some Balkanese Whiteys among them).



- "I just think that being Muslim makes you unsuited to participate - as a voter, a press owner, or a substantial investor - in White Civilization."

Religion can change, unlike genes, as you should know, Mr. Inconsistent Anti-Christian Racialist!



- "Why don't you start answering some questions? Or even just participate"

Don't be a sore loser. I just OWNED you on this thread.


Petr

Replying to this thread would require more time than I can invest in it at this very moment. You're spouting nonsense here WM, and you will get your reply in detail, but you're gonna have to show a wee bit of patience.

I'd like to request to any mod peeking in to make this thread sticky. It'd be appreciated.

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showpost.php?p=21737&postcount=19

<<Thread stuck at the request of CONSTANTINUS>>

It is YOU who is getting dizzy. Ataturk was not descended from Janissaries, who had been killed nearly a century before his time.

The Janissaries killed were not a homogenous White group, and the slaughter of the Janissaries came centuries after White genetic material (other than Greek) began disseminating in the Turkish gene pool.

Look at your own quote (which you really must start doing):

17th century: The traditional devsirme system of conscription is abandoned, and they had many free men applying, among them many from Muslim families too.

Whereas Whites had been marrying out from a century prior to free Muslim enrollment:

http://i-cias.com/e.o/janissaries.htm

16th century: It has become standard for Janissary troops to marry, and they even manage to get the privilege that their sons should be allowed to enter their army, even if these were born Muslims.

As to Ataturk, here's Kemp's take:

Prominent in the Turkish defense of Gallipoli was a young army officer named Kemal Ataturk - who was very possibly a descendant of one of the Janissaries, having blue eyes and blond hair. Ataturk then went on to seize power in what remained of the Empire, abolishing the Ottoman dynasty in 1919 and declaring the Republic of Turkey in 1923.

Ataturk then launched a program of modernization in his country, using large numbers of Europeans in this process. It was a supreme act of irony that a White man eventually led the Nonwhite Turks into the modern world - a mixed race who had been responsible for the longest and most effective race war against Europe till that time.

Kemal Ataturk - the White creator of modern Turkey. To this day there are strong pockets of Whites left in Turkey, mostly descendants of the Janissaries.

You also might be interested to know that large portions of the outlying population of Turkey are still Greek: racial Turanians are limited to central regions. I think this would also make 'modernisation' more likely for the population as a whole.

Indeed - perhaps you should concentrate your conversion efforts in Turkey. It could break the back of Islam forever if you took them.

Don't be a sore loser. I just OWNED you on this thread.

Maybe, maybe not. I'll just say you're killing me, and leave it at that.

WM

Ataturk was not descended from Janissaries, who had been killed nearly a century before his time.

Perhaps you are right Petr, staring into Ataturk's cold blue eyes, I am overcome by the conviction that he is 100% racially Turanian, just as surely as if he were fresh off the boat from Turkomen.

My apologies.

WM


http://www.artistaingalleria.com/ataturK%20SC.jpg

Is it predominantly biological or cultural?

Its hard to decide which aspect Jews resent more because they have all reasons to be envious in both cases. The archetypical example of Jewish envy is well recorded in the old testament describing the first Jewish contacts with early Iron Age proto-Hellenic 'Sea Peoples' - the Philistines (http://people.cornell.edu/pages/bel9/Origins.html). Battle of David and Goliath is a perfect illustration symbolizing Jewish-Gentile contrasts, Jewish inferiority and Jewish tension to play dirty.

- "Perhaps you are right Petr, staring into Ataturk's cold blue eyes, I am overcome by the conviction that he is 100% racially Turanian, just as surely as if he were fresh off the boat from Turkomen."


All this blather of yours is in vain, Winnie, for once again, you have not-so-subtly changed the subject and are (perhaps intentionally) barking at the wrong tree.


I by no means deny that modern nation of Turkey has been to a very great degree "Whitened" (I've even heard the estimation of them being as a whole 70 % Caucasoid).

I am only denying that the JANISSARIES were the vehicle that drove the Westernization through in Turkey - in fact the almost very opposite being true, they had to be crushed for that process to even get started, with the modernization of Turkey's army:


"After a series of disastrous defeats in the early 1800s, the Sultan Mahmud II decided to raise a new, more modern army from the countryside. The Janissaries revolted. Unfortunately for them, Mahmud was ready. In what is known as “The Auspicious Incident” of 1826, the new army ringed the Janissary fortresses with artillery and blasted them into submission."

http://www.wargamer.com/articles/janissaries/jan-3.asp



And indeed, the Jewish community of Salonika played about the same part in the Young "Turk" revolution in 1908 that New York Jews like Trotsky played in the "Russian" Revolution in 1917.

Check this one out:

"The Young Turks: Who Were They?"

http://www.grecoreport.com/the_young_turks_who_were_they.htm


Like Stalin managed to take power from Bolsheviks, Ataturk managed to wrest power from the original "Young Turks"...



PS: By the way, I fully agree with FadeTheButcher's overall assessment of Arthur Kemp - "a ridiculous pseudohistorian"...


PSS: Would you like to defend your idea that Erhard Milch "sabotaged the Luftwaffe"? Can you give us any concrete evidence that this was intentional and he was not just following Goering's orders and/or making some honestly wrong decisions?

Or are you just gossiping?

My guess is that you picked this idea uncritically from RP Oliver.



Petr

I by no means deny that modern nation of Turkey has been to a very great degree "Whitened" (I've even heard the estimation of them being as a whole 70 % Caucasoid).

I am only denying that the JANISSARIES were the vehicle that drove the Westernization through in Turkey - in fact the almost very opposite being true, they had to be crushed for that process to even get started, with the modernization of Turkey's army:

For once you're absolutely right.

And of course, the recent book by Bryan Mark Rigg gives us evidence in abundance on how reliably the vast majority out of tens of thousands of half- and quarter-Jewish Germans served in the Wehrmacht:


http://www.white-history.com/gerjews.htm

"As discussed in the book by American Military University professor Bryan Mark Rigg in his book "Hitler's Jewish Soldiers, The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military" (University Press of Kansas, Modern War Studies, May 2002) as many as 150,000 men of part Jewish descent, including decorated veterans and high-ranking officers, even generals and admirals, fought for Nazi Germany right to the bitter end.

Almost all of these 150,000 men received special exemptions and declarations of being "true Germans", many of these orders being signed by Adolf Hitler himself, in a legal provision known as the Deutschblütigkeitserklärung (or literally, the Declaration of German Blood)."



(The book available in here)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0700611789/103-6435786-2748659


Petr

you have not-so-subtly changed the subject and are (perhaps intentionally) barking at the wrong tree.

Please specify the subject changed. You've dodged the questions here, and only serve to obscure the real discussions, about the biologial basis of Jewish behavior, about which you seem to have nothing to say.

I am only denying that the JANISSARIES were the vehicle that drove the Westernization through in Turkey - in fact the almost very opposite being true, they had to be crushed for that process to even get started, with the modernization of Turkey's army

This is an outrageous misrepresentation: I stated that the White Janissaries bred out. Both you and Otto ignore that fact that, no matter how many times you repeat a falsehood, it does not thereby become true. That the Janissaries were crushed only means an ineffective fighting force of free Muslims was scrapped. So what?

Nor do either of you show by what means Northern blood slipped into Turkey. Meds (really Greeks with some Keltic blood) inhabit the periphery of Asia Minor, a fact you and Otto also seem unfamiliar with.

In fact, other than you and Otto claiming victory, I don't see any facts to back up your raw bluster. Or even compelling hypotheses.

I have shown that White Janissaries were breeding out into the larger population for more than three hundred years before the 'Janissaries' were wiped out. Morever, your sources show that the massacred Janissaries were composed of free Muslim volunteers and not Christians abductees.

Once again, Petr is posting sources without reading them carefully. Shoemaker, tend to thy last.

The heavy Muslim Turk infiltration into the Janissaries would also explain their curious ineffectiveness against Greeks, though they had been terribly effective against European forces when White. This fits perfectly with the poor military record of Asiastics against Westerners, indeed - even the need of the Turks in the first place for White warriors.

And indeed, the Jewish community of Salonika played about the same part in the Young "Turk" revolution in 1908 that New York Jews like Trotsky played in the "Russian" Revolution in 1917.

Where do I deny this? This verges on the mentally deranged. My claim that it was probable that Ataturk was a descendant of Janissary troops is unrelated to the possible Jewishness of the 'Young Turks'. Indeed, I find this an interesting field of study, but one that is vulnerable to bad scholarship which could reflect badly on our movement. High quality documentation of the Jewishness of the Young Turks, who were responsible for atrocities of the first rank against Armenians and Greeks, would be - if properly dissemitated - a body blow against Jewry, especially if it were presented in tandem with the information about the Russian Revolution.

Why, given this interesting thesis, is it so overwhelmingly important to you to lie about what I've said, over and over again? Why is this information being presented as a 'gotcha' when I have never argued the opposite. Like other Christians I've met on line, you have a dishonest way with information, an only glancing interest in Truth, little curiousity, and no conscience.

It's entirely like Tex, who at OD right now, is slandering me and Avalanche. When she wrote in to complain, Tex said, "You should get over it" and Okie said "What does it matter?" Neither can even bring themselves to care about openly bearing false witness.

It is precisely this lacksadaisical approach to both historical truth and partners in discussion that lead me to constantly repeat my major discovery at that board: that Christ destroys the intellect first, so that he may then attack the conscience.

Will you respond to questions raised here or elsewhere? It seems unlikely. You avoid every point which contradicts you, you continue to attack, you claim spurious victories, you derail threads, and when confronted . . . you seem incapable of shame. I have to say, it's like arguing with a Jew.

PS: By the way, I fully agree with FadeTheButcher's overall assessment of Arthur Kemp - "a ridiculous pseudohistorian"...

Fade is not the last word on historians. His admiration for Foucault, for instance, indicates to me that his judgement in the field is not always correct. Of Kemp, I will say that he is deplorable as a Nordicist, but that he presents materials that can be found no where else. I would submit to the gallery that his work on the depictions of Negroes and Semites in Egyptian Funerary artifacts is simply non existent in Egyptian historiography, with which I am quite well familiar. I am certainly impressed with work of that sort, and find it useful to examine the works of an unreliable scholar like himself, or Hoffman, who, though not completely reliable, will deliver results not possible from more conventional sources.

That Hoffman, for example, is probably an incipient schizophrenic, does not detract from the high quality of work he has done on White Slavery, though his work on the history of Judiasm is mostly junk on account of his need to salvage that religion for his own purposes. So what?

Since I have the ability to skeptically investigate my sources, I can use who I like.

Also, your suck up to Fade is embarrasing.


PSS: Would you like to defend your idea that Erhard Milch "sabotaged the Luftwaffe"? Can you give us any concrete evidence that this was intentional and he was not just following Goering's orders and/or making some honestly wrong decisions?

Backing off on your claim so soon? If he was following Goering's orders and/or made some bad choices, it comes to the same thing for the German war effort.

Why should you be opposed to the investigation of this possibility?


And of course, the recent book by Bryan Mark Rigg gives us evidence in abundance on how reliably the vast majority out of tens of thousands of half- and quarter-Jewish Germans served in the Wehrmacht:

This is an interesting book that more in the movement should be familiar with. Perhaps you can produce a good summary for general use?

As anyone familiar with the history of mercenaries knows, reliable service in an army does not indicate ready assimilation (necesssarily) to the society fought for. While I certainly believe that many quarter-Jews were loyal and would perhaps have made good citizens - and good Aryans - in the state Hitler was building, I can not and will not agree with you about the advisibility of 'halfies' in the movement, or in any resultant WN state. Even if there were good ones (and we do not know the relative percentages, nor are we likely ever to), Jews are simply too good at deception for Gentiles to pick and choose in this way. It only takes two or three Jews in high places to wreak worldwide havoc, after all. Why is it so important to you that they stay?

Mr. Rigg's book is a fascinating work. It concerns itself far more with quarter Jews than half Jews (who were, I believe, forbidden by the Nuremburg Laws). And, since quarter Jews (like Lenin) already have a nation to claim them by Right of Return, why need we concern ourselves with the issue?

Let it go and do something more productive than following me around like Raina.

Wintermute

An interesting note from the Amazon review site: I don't know if it's true, but I repeat it here to see if anyone can confirm.

Did you know former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt was 1/4 Jewish?

WM

Im not claiming victory, I was just surprised to see Petr right on an indisputable fact that the jannisaries had to be taken out before the Ottoman Empire could be modernized at all.

But as for jewish antipathy towards gentiles... Ive got a German name and with one notable exception they've always been pretty nice to me...

Im not claiming victory, I was just surprised to see Petr right on an indisputable fact that the jannisaries had to be taken out before the Ottoman Empire could be modernized at all.

Yes, but this is unrelated to the my interest in the Janissaries, since the ones you describe were locals, while the ones I'm interested in were not only White, but had been marrying out for almost four centuries prior to the events you describe.

Perhaps if I clarified, and said that descendants of Janissaries, spreading throughout the population over four centuries, had something to do with the quasi secular state we see before us now, hungrily awaiting its chance to devour Europe . . . it would make more sense to you.

The Janissaries that were dispatched were composed, to a very great extent, of free Muslims who had decided to join. They'd been doing that for centuries.

But as for jewish antipathy towards gentiles... Ive got a German name and with one notable exception they've always been pretty nice to me...

Honestly, Otto, you sound like one of those crazy women who pester imprisoned serial killers to marry them.

But Mr. Bundy was so charming! And Mr. Ramirez was so well spoken! I was just swept off my feet!

Yes, Ma'am, they're sociopaths who have killed dozens of women in horrible ways.

But they were nice to me!

I'm sorry to be an ass about it, but there's some sort of spanner in the works of your brain. You are not processing information in manner consistent with rational standards of evidence . You make excuses for the accused which are shown, time and again, to be irrelevant. You call the case against them just so much n*gger grumbling.

You will forgive me for saying so, but I sense you are not being entirely forthcoming with me about your reasons for defending the Jews or refusing to examine the evidence.


WM

But Mr. Bundy was so charming! And Mr. Ramirez was so well spoken! I was just swept off my feet

Careful you invite the anger of her most awesome and celestial majesty queen Vanessa :D.



But they were nice to me!

I'm sorry to be an ass about it, but there's some sort of spanner in the works of your brain. You are not processing information in manner consistent with rational standards of evidence . You make excuses for the accused which are shown, time and again, to be irrelevant. You call the case against them just so much n*gger grumbling.

You will forgive me for saying so, but I sense you are not being entirely forthcoming with me about your reasons for defending the Jews or refusing to examine the evidence.

Not jewish if thats what you mean... but my strong familiarity and long mostly positive experience does cause me to dismiss anything strongly at variance with that experience...

While I have warm feelings generally in some ways I do not exalt them to the degree most anti semites do... in that I don't believe they hold the discipline cohesion and evil genius( though some individuals among them most definitely do have that quality) many ascribe to them...

Now as per malice the other day you mentioned biblical times when they were more like their racial distant cousins( but now bitter enemies) the Arabs... I think their biological makeup and culture has changed somewhat.

The biblical jews would have exterminated all the male Palis( the women being taken as slaves) in their lands immediately for example, in accordance with Old Testament military law.

Otto said;

The biblical jews would have exterminated all the male Palis( the women being taken as slaves) in their lands immediately for example, in accordance with Old Testament military law.

The only thing holding this lot back from doing this is the Americans - they say as much themselves. There is a Zionist think tank that wants to break from the annual American hand-out precisely because the US connection holds them back from proper "nation-building" - If I can find the url I will pass it on.

Then there is all the Israeli talk about "cockroaches" and "lice" . . .

At least some of the Jewish unity is cultural, considering the various groups they have assimilated over time. If they really have a biological imperative to keep their own blood pure while promoting "diversity" in others, it isn't working very well, seeing as their intermarriage rate is something like 75% in the US.

My main point on this thread might be that it is racist SUPERSTITION to think that people tainted with "one drop" of non-White blood are always unstable and unreliable.

On the way, I also demonstrated your ignorance about Janissaries and their history.

Remember, this is what you ORIGINALLY said:

- "The Janissaries, subconsciously understanding themselves to be racially unallied to the people they fought for, banded together without a great deal of overty treasonous chatter, took over the Ottoman Empire, de-Islamicised it what is probalby the greatest extent possible, and are now trying to introduce their Frankenstienian 'nation' into the EU. "

You said JANISSARIES. You said they took over Ottoman Empire. You were probably just following Arthur Kemp uncritically. When I proved you wrong, you started to blather on how Aryan Ataturk was, which I had never denied.




- "Why, given this interesting thesis, is it so overwhelmingly important to you to lie about what I've said, over and over again?"

Since you have bought hook, line and sinker into Kempian thesis that is was Aryans who Westernized Turkey, I thought it proper to bring this thesis to your attention.
'

- "Backing off on your claim so soon? If he was following Goering's orders and/or made some bad choices, it comes to the same thing for the German war effort.

Why should you be opposed to the investigation of this possibility?"


In other words, you cannot defend your thesis, and are too dishonest to admit it. I am by no mean oppsed to any such investigation.

Milch had a huge part in CREATING Luftwaffe, and you are just following hacks like Kemp and Oliver uncritically like a little lemming.


- "That Hoffman, for example, is probably an incipient schizophrenic, ..."

You are not worthy to shine Hoffman's boots - and he's got flaws of his own, admittedly.


- "Also, your suck up to Fade is embarrasing."


Fade can very well attest that I have NEVER tried to suck up to him, having been almost quite rude with him sometimes - I just happened to remember how he nicely characterized Kemp, this spinner of Nordicist feel-good yarns.



- "Let it go and do something more productive than following me around like Raina."

You are one delusional little prima donna.


Petr

This fits perfectly with the poor military record of Asiastics against Westerners, indeed - even the need of the Turks in the first place for White warriors.

I think the Ottomans did fine without janissaries at first, considering they had to INVADE EUROPE to even get janissaries. I would also suggest that the Huns, Avars, Magyars, Mongols/Tatars, Viet Cong, Chinese and North Koreans demonstrate that "Asiatics" can hold their own.

If you pay no attention to casualties. I'm not sure if the asian mind is prone to belief in mystical forces, like the japanese in ww2, who seemed to beleive bravery or sheer psychopathy could deflect bullets. Bulldozers were quite often needed to push the sheer masses of bodies into pits for burning.

- "The Janissaries, subconsciously understanding themselves to be racially unallied to the people they fought for, banded together without a great deal of overty treasonous chatter, took over the Ottoman Empire, de-Islamicised it what is probalby the greatest extent possible, and are now trying to introduce their Frankenstienian 'nation' into the EU. "

You said JANISSARIES. You said they took over Ottoman Empire. You were probably just following Arthur Kemp uncritically. When I proved you wrong, you started to blather on how Aryan Ataturk was, which I had never denied.

You're a smelly little liar, Petr, and this is the last straw. You follow me around trying to play gotcha, but you have to lie to even appear to have done so.

You stamp your feet and claim that I said JANISSARIES, while ignoring that the phrase right after said that they were racially unallied to the people they fought for.

Can you get it into your pig head?

The statement in question does not apply to Muslim Janissaries.

On the way, I also demonstrated your ignorance about Janissaries and their history.

What is especially astonishing about this lie, Petr, is that after it's been demolished, you'll just charge on ahead as if nothing's happened. The judaicizing Christer, his conscience extracted by the Jew god, lives to lie another day.

Let's examine whose ignorance you've demonstrated, Petr.

It's bad enough that you don't read your own cut and paste, Petr, which has already establishing the timeline that I'm arguing for.

You seem incapable of internalizing the fact that the Janissary corps changed over time, which things in the real world will do.

You do not provide an alternate method of the Aryanization of parts of the Turkish population.

You dishonestly assert that the possiblity of the Jewishness of the young Turks is opposed by me.

You ignore how the crypto-Jewishness of the young Turks, again in theory, might have contributed to their behavior, which elsewhere you call a 'racist fantasy'.

You are not worthy to shine Hoffman's boots - and he's got flaws of his own, admittedly.

So you admit to using historians who have made very serious errors and/or have an axe to grind. I'm afraid, for those of us trying to assemble a history forbidden and anathemized by the academy, that we have no choice.

I doubt a court historian would even grant the existence of, say, Benjamin Freedman. It is incumbent on us to collate the secret history which has been passed down. This includes open schizophrenics like Hoffman with their babblings about 'twilight language'. He is an excellent and stimulating author, and an inspired historian, but, to give an example, some of his books on Judiasm are just fanciful.

As for Kemp, forget I mentioned him. Nothing I've brought up depends on him and I do not take this hypothesis from him, which at any rate should be uncontroversial.

If you weren't so obsessed with me (who else are you following around, trying to drop your thought-turds on?) you would be able to see this. Instead, you consistently misrepresent what I have to say, drop snipes and slime into conversation to see what sticks, and to generally act like a lovesick moose.

You are a testament to Christian integrity.

I think the Ottomans did fine without janissaries at first, considering they had to INVADE EUROPE to even get janissaries.

Asians rely on vast numbers and surprise attacks. Their historical capacity for sustained or organized warfare is poor. Their attacks on the Balkans enjoyed a - what - ten to one advantage? And still they were repulsed by Dracula.

You say the Ottomans did fine without janissaries at first, but ask yourself: is it usual for one distinct race or civilization to start pilfering children from another so as to fight its wars?

Also, please note that as Whites were replaced by free Muslims, the effectiveness of the Janissaries declined to the point where they had to be wiped out. Something to consider.

Wintermute

Pathetic, my dear Winnie.


For the sake of the argument, let’s suppose that since the 17th century, Janissaries gradually ceased to be of White Balkanese origin.

(You probably didn’t even know this before I told you about it.)

You said that

”… The Janissaries, subconsciously understanding themselves to be racially unallied to the people they fought for, banded together without a great deal of overty treasonous chatter, took over the Ottoman Empire, de-Islamicised it what is probalby the greatest extent possible, and are now trying to introduce their Frankenstienian 'nation' into the EU.."

You were telling me that it was JANISSARIES, no matter with whom the were allied to, of whether they were racially mixed or whatever, turned Turkey into the pseudo-Western nation it is today.

Possibly you trying to say that it was the ARYAN ELEMENTS within the Ottoman Empire that started what became known as ”The Young Turk Movement”.

Or what the heck were you trying to ignorantly mumble?



- ”You ignore how the crypto-Jewishness of the young Turks, again in theory, might have contributed to their behavior, which elsewhere you call a 'racist fantasy'.”


Well, if I’d like to engage in same kind of nit-picking as you do, I could say that these ”crypto-Jews” were racially FULL Jews. I am arguing for the reliability of many racial MISCHLINGES.



”… have made very serious errors and/or have an axe to grind. …”

GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES. (I was myself not implying any factual errors on Hoffman's part - I was mostly thinking about his Islam-loving attitude)

Like with Erhard Milch (you chickened on that one, yes you did!), you are smearing Hoffman in a vague and gossipy way, like a coward.



- ”I doubt a court historian would even grant the existence of, say, Benjamin Freedman.”

Well, Kevin Alfred Strom does. (And since when have you started to respect ”court historians”?)

As do Ingrid Rimland and Ernst Zundel:

…

”This is to bring you the conclusion of the memorable Benjamin Freedman speech that so intrigued me when I first heard it on tape. Much of what is in this part, Freedman also recorded in the historic Zundel interview that was taped in the late 1960s.

In fact, in this lengthy Zundel interview, Freedman gave a far more interesting and historically well-founded explanation of how King Bulan's empire adopted the Hebrew alphabet and Babylonian Talmudism as their state religion - a fascinating story, later also covered in Arthur Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe."

Freedman told Ernst that he lived 7 months in Rome doing research in the Vatican library, and it was there that he came across the "Khazar Conversion to Babylonian Talmudism" story.”

…

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/zgrams/zg2000/zg0006/000628.html

And:

"
...

"Some time ago Ernst Zundel told me about his encounter with Benjamin Freedman in New York City, where he did an extensive interview with Freedman at the home of a very wealthy lady on Park Avenue. Ernst remembers that Freedman was sharp as a whip, even though he was then already 77 years old. He was elegantly dressed, with exquisite Old World manners. He spoke passionately, had a wonderful vocabulary and a remarkable sense of humor. Ernst remembers this interview as a truly historic one because of what Freedman so very readily revealed.

When I asked Ernst how Freedman could have been so frank about his fellow tribe, Ernst said that he had converted to Christianity in his later years and took his new faith seriously. He felt an obligation to leave a record and tell it like it was.

Freedman told Ernst of how he had been privy to how America was manipulated into World War I. Freedman spent hours explaining to Ernst in what hotel rooms in Washington and New York the Zionist and US banking interests were negotiating, down to the stationary on which some of the proposals were written.

...

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/zgrams/zg2000/zg0006/000627.html


Once again, you simply refuse to accept the existence of sources that you don’t personally like.

You also had a nerve to criticize me for relying on professional scholars like Rodney Stark.



- ”As for Kemp, forget I mentioned him.”

GLADLY. Finally you (sort-of) admit that you hit your hand on a factual doo-doo.



And finally:

Must you get hysterical every time you are proven to be factually incorrect? Is your (over-sized) ego so fragile?



PS: (I couldn’t resist the temptation to comment)


- ”Their attacks on the Balkans enjoyed a - what - ten to one advantage? And still they were repulsed by Dracula.”

Hah-hah… Go ahead, show everyone how profound your knowledge is (at least on the history of Balkan). On the comic-book level, I’d say.


Petr

Petr, this post is a sticky because Stan wants to respond to some statements that I made. I'm happy to let him take his time.

You, on the other hand, have popped a gasket.

Since you have apparently no shame whatsoever, and will, without second thought, lie about what I've said; and since no proof of the wrongheadedness of your statements can possibly register with you; and since you avoid questions and points which you deem inconvenient; and since you you have no concern at all with the topics at hand but rather your bandying of riduculous factoids, even when you've been shown to wrong, I feel no under no rule, whether of politeness or otherwise, to respond to your posts.

I do feel that you are veering perilously close to trolldom.

Accordingly, I will respond to misstatements of fact on your part, but not so much as to argue. I'm not going to repeat something a thousand times because you're such a poor sport/ pinhead that you can't get it.

You, on the other hand, are free to make as many false statements as your religion allows (an infinite number, apparently). I'll correct them, once, assuming it's important enough, but the gallery will have to search for the statement, since my will to truth is obviously not as tireless as your will to lie. I would advise the gallery take your statements with a grain of salt.

Moderator - if Stan isn't going to reply to this post, then you should probably unsticky it. I would like to finish my discussion with him before more interlopers arrive.

WM

Like with Erhard Milch (you chickened on that one, yes you did!), you are smearing Hoffman in a vague and gossipy way, like a coward.

I said Milch ****ed up; you said maybe Goering told him to or possibly it was just a mistake. Where's the argument there?

On Hoffman: I enjoy reading Hoffman, but he is not a 'presentable' source. His work on White Slaves is excellent, but his work on Judaism is filled with self-exculpating nonsense. And the less said about the 'twilight language' of the 'crypocracy', the better.

I'm not saying he isn't an interesting read - he is.

I'm not saying he doesn't unearth interesting material - like Kemp, he does.

But on the whole, like Kemp, he is someone who has to be ransaked for new or interesting material, which the reader must then confirm for himself. Neither he nor Kemp are reliable historians. Kemp on Nords (who appear everywhere, often where evidence for them is weak) and Hoffman on ancient Judaism (which must be made to seem different from Jesus' ancestral religion).

I mentioned Kemp's work on Egyptian funerary materials which were not available in 'court historian's' works - they're fantastic, and real, and I couldn't have gotten them anywhere else. But I had to confirm their existence on my own. Kemp is that unreliable. Hoffman isn't any different.

You may take this as gossip or read his book on 'Judaism's Strange God's'. It's a terrible book, and even worse scholarship, and if saying so is gossip, so be it.

My overarching point here is that WN is full of bad scholarship that will have to be cleaned up. That starts with bogus Ben Franklin quotes and ends with the crap you're peddling, with Pomegranate magazine articles, where you can't even be bothered to inform readers of a debunking in the next issue.

Even Jews would sneer at your corner cutting and swift topic changes, Petr. You're a disgrace.


You also had a nerve to criticize me for relying on professional scholars like Rodney Stark.

Stark is 'professional' in the sense that he gets paid. He used the same method as the witch historians who came up with the 9 million figure. For you, anyone who comes up with a point you like is legitimate, and those who don't aren't.

As I said: with you, we're dealing with Christian intellectual integrity - a jelly like substance that can't stay in the same place very long.


Well, Kevin Alfred Strom does. (And since when have you started to respect ”court historians”?)

As do Ingrid Rimland and Ernst Zundel

Ernst "UFO" Zundel is a definite mixed bag who I cannot recommend quoting to the unconverted, lest the saucer men make a sudden appearance in the subsequent discussion of his competence.

Once again, you simply refuse to accept the existence of sources that you don’t personally like.

Another lie. I like Zundel. I just wouldn't quote him in public, because of the 'saucer' problem.

In Strom's case, no surplus disrespect is intended. He is a competent columnist. But he is not a historian.

- ”Their attacks on the Balkans enjoyed a - what - ten to one advantage? And still they were repulsed by Dracula.”

Hah-hah… Go ahead, show everyone how profound your knowledge is (at least on the history of Balkan). On the comic-book level, I’d say.

http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa102203a.htm

He become known as "Tepes," impaler, by Turkish merchants who incurred his ire. Relations with the Turks quickly grew strained, and after a series of raids and other insults, the Turks declared war. The vastly outnumbered Dracula nevertheless employed every psychological and guerilla tactic he could dream up- poisoning water supplies, engaging in sneak attacks, even employing a crude form of germ warfare, and finally, impaling some twenty thousand Turks, a scene so grisly it caused the Turkish sultan to retreat.

Comic books are notorious for being a better source of moral instruction and history than the Big Book of Jewish Filth your own mind was twisted around. Go make aliyah and leave the rest of us alone.

WM

Wintermute said;

My overarching point here is that WN is full of bad scholarship that will have to be cleaned up. That starts with bogus Ben Franklin quotes

This is a good point you bring up, why do you think this is so?

Clearly there is way more than enough properly sourcable material to work with without inventing stuff, like the Franklin quotes etc.

Could it be that this stuff was originally put out by the enemy and uncritical amateurs pick it up thus discrediting themselves? Or, could it be more innocent; that passages and quotes get mangled in transmission and are just repeated without effort to establish the sources?

This is a good point you bring up, why do you think this is so?

The secret history of our world was not carried by specialists acting in the open, where honest debate would smooth out some of the rough edges, but in secret, and by people whose last concern were academic niceties. As a result, we're buried underneath a truckload of falsehood with which honest and good hearted persons burn themselves in public.

The Franklin quote was forged by our side; and its a great quote, in the sense of being true. It would be wonderful if Franklin said it; but he didn't.

The closest we have are some gruff observations by Jefferson, and they will have to do.

Perhaps the thought behind many of the forgeries was the same as those behind the Protocols - which were effective.

I'd love to see someone credentialed write up Freedman's claims - I've had problems confirming that he existed, but then I don't have any institutional support for my research. If that speech can be substantiated - not only to prove that it exists, but showing how the details fit with the records we have - it would be devastating for the other side.

The biggest research project ahead of us is the massive trawling of American newpaper headlines and op-ed pages, to prove that there was a sea change from German support to 'bayoneting babies' stories. I've talked to WWII vets who can remember very clearly 'the day Lindburgh became a Nazi'.

A detailed and documented overview of the Oligarchs and their ties to figures like Mark Rich, George Soros, and the Clinton State Department would be valuable, too.

Basically, the secret history was kept by lower class persons who weren't too bright - what do they care they Jews don't have horns. I say we thank them for their remarkable work and continue to sharpen the stakes they've given to us.

Clearly there is way more than enough properly sourcable material to work with without inventing stuff, like the Franklin quotes etc.

Yes, we now have some very sharp instruments indeed. MacDonald is the best, but there is also When Victims Rule, which is just as eye opening.

WM

- "In Strom's case, no surplus disrespect is intended. He is a competent columnist. But he is not a historian."


So, you still don't believe that Freedman existed, huh?

Your statements are admittedly so lawyerly all-round that you can later claim that you did not really mean what you said after I've proven you wrong once again, which I'll do right now:


Not only Zundel but George Lincoln Rockwell attested to the historicity of Benjamin Freedman, having shared a speaker platform with him:

(from "This Time The World")

...

"Perhaps this all sounds entirely TOO much to believe, so I have done my best to provide evidence you CANNOT discredit. I have asked one of America's greatest patriots to come down here and tell you how this Jewish Communist woman from Budapest was passed by your U.S. Senate to be master of our manpower, in spite of this horrible evidence of her disloyalty to this Country. Mr. Benjamin Freedman of New York, who is of the same race as Mrs. Anna M. Rosenberg -- the race called "Jewish" -- and thus cannot be accused of race or religious prejudice, is. one of the men who has sacrificed almost everything good and pleasant in life, as I have, to try to save a Country and people to whom he is LOYAL.

Although the terms are somewhat confusing because of semantic meddling, Mr. Freedman is what the man in the street would call a "Jew" -- and we are Proud to say we will gladly protect Mr. Freedman and loyal Jews like him with our very fives. He has, like us, given up reputation, money, social position and almost everything else to expose and oppose TREASON -- in our land. He has been willing to come down here from New York at his own expense to try to explain to you, his fellow Americans, just ONE example of the kind of TREASON which is taking place in this blessed Country. I am mighty proud, gentlemen, to present to you Mr. Benjamin Freedman, of New York City, who will tell you of his experiences during the hearings by the Senate into the fitness of Anna M. Rosenberg to be Assistant Secretary of Defense.

Thank you, Mr. Freedman. "

...
http://www.skrewdriver.org.uk/tttw16.html



Also, "The Jewish Tribal Review", which is very scrupulous in its use of sources, makes a mention of Freedman in its magnum opus "When Victims Rule":


"Another Jew, Benjamin Freedman, according to an investigation by the Anti-Defamation League, was active in "the right-wing anti-Semitic Christian nationalist crusade" of the 1940s and Harold Von Braunhut was a supporter of the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations in the 1980s. [ROSENBERG, H, May 6, 1988, p. 15]"

http://www.holywar.org/jewishtr/19antis2.htm


Petr

- "Stark is 'professional' in the sense that he gets paid. He used the same method as the witch historians who came up with the 9 million figure."


Oh the sweetness of poetic justice!

It is Rodney Stark himself that now reveals the true origin of this preposterous "nine million" figure:

from his excellent "For The Glory Of God", page 398:


"7. The total of nine million deaths can be traced back to Matilda Joslyn Gage, in Woman, Church and State, an early feminist work published in 1893. Gage appears to have simply intuited this figure, offering no basis for it whatsoever. It has since lived on, often without specific quotation - Andrea Dworkin (1974:130) merely calls her all-female version of it "the most responsible estimate". Indeed!"


Petr

- "His work on White Slaves is excellent, but his work on Judaism is filled with self-exculpating nonsense. And the less said about the 'twilight language' of the 'crypocracy', the better."


In other words, still no detailed accusations but from-a-distance barking instead.


- "... Hoffman on ancient Judaism (which must be made to seem different from Jesus' ancestral religion)."

IT WAS. Are you so theologically dense that you can't tell the difference between Talmudic Pharisaism (which is what those Jews that did not accept Christ ended up with) and the doctrines of Jesus?



- "Comic books are notorious for being a better source of moral instruction and history than the Big Book of Jewish Filth your own mind was twisted around. Go make aliyah and leave the rest of us alone."

Don't make me laugh, wonder boy. YOU won't tell me to do anything.


Petr

Not only Zundel but George Lincoln Rockwell attested to the historicity of Benjamin Freedman

Are you referring to the debunked theory that Ben Franklin gave an anti semitic harangue at the constitutional convention of which absolutely no primary record exists. Your sources are two fringe cultists beloved of fringe kooks, didn't Rockwell's followers regroup for their "nazi" movement behind Frank Cohen, a jewish guy who got busted for boy buggery.

- "Are you referring to the debunked theory that Ben Franklin gave an anti semitic harangue at the constitutional convention of which absolutely no primary record exists."


NO, NO, NO, Otto.

You see, Wintermute is presenting his arguments in such a confused manner that onlookers like you can't understand what the heck he is talking about.


"Franklin on Jews" quotations are definitely fakes, and I've never claimed otherwise.

I was talking about one big-time "self-hating Jew", Bobby Fischer of his day, named Benjamin Freedman, born in 1890. After converting to Catholicism in the 1940s he became a veritable flamethrower against Talmudic Jewry.

Do a web search on him if you want to see some his writings.


Petr

Weren't you just rapping Ixabert's knuckles about this 'races are all the same' business?
What do you mean? Who said I believed that all races were the same?

[COLOR=Red]

Bobby Fischer
Petr

I have seen no conclusive evidence in support of that assertion.

Here you've got Jewhoo's pretty comprehensive take in the issue:


Bobby Fischer -

Well, what does one say on a Jewish site about Fischer? There is a full bio on the following link. Except, like most chess sites, they don't want to delve into the personality of the Bobby of the last fifteen or so years. Fischer's father was a non-Jewish German-born bio-phyiscist who emigrated to the United States. His mother was Jewish. Bobby was born in Chicago in 1943. His parents separated when he was 2 and his mother moved to Brooklyn with Bobby and an older sister. (Fischer's mother was a registered nurse and school teacher. She was fluent in six languages and had a pre-med degree. She supported Bobby financially until he was in his mid-20s. But he always made disparaging remarks about her and about women in general.) Fischer's emergence as a child prodigy is tracked on the linked biography. He won the world chess championship in 1972. The only American of the modern era to do so. He refused to defend the championship in 1975 and lost the title. The rest of his wanderings are covered on the linked site. Well, the part that most people don't want to talk about is Fischer's life outside chess. Bobby Fischer was always a world class boor. Even when he was young he was incredibly rude and made the most insulting remarks about other people. He was frequently referred to as an adolescent or a child who never grew up. Yes, he had a reason to paranoid about the Soviets because they did try, as long as they could, to manuever things so he would not play for the championship. However, even in the 1960s, Fischer would make the most preposterous sweeping prouncements on a variety of subjects and interviewers or others would just shake their heads. He was indulged like a misbehaving star college athlete is indulged. Tolerated for the sake of his gift. Fischer, since around 1975, has manifested most of the symptoms of a seriously disturbed mind and has crossed the line from being a mere asshole to being a raving paranoic. He joined a Christian cult group in the 1970s. He issued bizarre anti-Semitic statements. He had to be yanked during the middle of a 1999 Hungarian radio station interview because of his disgusting rantings. In 2001, he gave an interview to a Filipine radio station in which he praised the 2001 terrorist attack in New York. He laced his statements with anti-Semitic and anti-American rhetoric. This last act may have ended any chance Fischer ever has of playing any significant player again. All of his statements on Jews are straight out of the racists' handbook--including the belief that the Jews and the CIA have been 'conspiring' against him for decades. Fischer even denies, today, that his mother is Jewish. Well, in a Harpers' magazine interview, dated 1962, that someone posted on the web--Fischer had no problem stating that his mother was Jewish. It is apparent that Fischer knows little, in a formal sense, about anything but chess. Fischer ignored his school work and dropped out of high school. His average day, for years, consisted of eating out, studying chess books, and going to the chess club or the movies. He had no close friends or girl friends by his own admission. More likely than not, Fischer would have become one of those pathetic ranting mental cases found on urban street corners-- except for the fact that his chess "legend" provides Fischer with some money and some support network. Fischer is not the first, and sadly he will not be the last "Jew" whose insanity is manifested in evident self-hate and conspiratorial delusions. (Paranoids of all ethnic backgrounds often show similar self-hate delusions). Don't misunderstand us, there is nothing inherently in chess genius or other forms of genius that leads to insanity or insane self hate. To our knowledge, none of the 100 plus Jews who have won a Nobel Prize in science (many of whom are defined as geniuses) ever went as loony tunes as Fischer or evidenced such self loathing. Maybe because the nature of their work forced them to academically train their minds and work with colleagues. They had a world frame of reference when faced with mental stress--organic or not. They had done something but play one game. Fischer is more like a sideshow attraction. A person---a mind---almost stripped of all but one purpose. There was little he could learn from others in his field by the time he was an older teen. It seems, to a lay person, that his intellectually and socially cloistered life left him wide open to any crackpot philosophy that would provide "all the answers" as his mental state declined. (Contrary to popular belief, chess genius does not translate into any other type of academic genius. Top players, on average, don't even have have better mathematical ability than the average person. They have incredible spatial ability). It's really very sad. Maybe if Bobby wasn't such an indulged 'genius' he would have got mental help thirty years ago. Boris Spassky predicted, in 1972, that Fischer might be in for an emotionally rough time when Fischer discovered that winning the chess championship would not solve all his problems and make his world perfect. Spassky was right. Update February 2003: Well, we are reluctant to update Fischer. However, quite a bit of interesting material has come out in the last few months. On the following 2nd link is a good piece from the December "The Atlantic" that covers the history of Fischer's mental illnesses and his bizarre rantings within the context of his chess career. The Philadelphia Inquirer did long pieces on Fischer. These pieces were partially built on the FBI files on Fischer's mother that the Inqurier obtained. The FBI followed the woman for over 20 years--never finding anything and finally concluding that she was not a spy or anything close---just "strange." Anyway, using the excerpt forces us to create a second Fischer entry since the number of characters on an entry is limited by our program. Therefore, just read below. Fischer Bobby Fischer's Pathetic Endgame

Bobby Fischer II -

The principal revelations in the article are that: (1)Fischer's natural father was Jewish. There is really no doubt about this. When Bobby became aware of this is unclear; (2) Bobby apparently inherited his incredible spatial ability from his natural father (3) Both his natural father and his mother were very emotionally and mentally unstable people. You don't have to be a genius to figure out the sources--organic and environmental-- for Bobby's craziness. Obviously, the fact that Fischer is "all Jewish" 'biologically' makes his behavior seem even more bizarre and pathetic---if that is possible. Begin Excerpt: Much of the Fischer story is well-known...But Fischer's family history has been largely concealed; even the identity of Fischer's real father was kept secret. That biography gives insight into both his genius and his disturbance. He comes from a family that included towering intellectuals and self-defeating iconoclasts, who were swept up in major currents of 20th-century history: the rise of fascism; the exodus of Jewish intellectuals from Europe; the Cold War sleuthing of an FBI determined to flush out Soviet spies. Paul F. Nemenyi - Fischer's father, though not listed on the birth certificate - was a Hungarian scientist with a gift for spatial relations, a gift that was clearly passed on to his son. Fischer's mother, Regina, spoke six languages and had studied medicine in Moscow during the Stalin era. A psychiatrist once diagnosed her as paranoid...The story begins with two Jewish immigrants. They would meet. They would have an affair. Together, they would produce a troubled little boy who would become the best chess player who ever lived. It was 1942, and Regina Fischer was in Denver. Not for good, of course. It was only the latest stopping place for a restless woman who couldn't settle on a permanent home...At 29, Regina had already lived in eight other cities, four other countries. This was her ninth job and her sixth university. She was the mother of a 5-year-old girl, and she was alone. Her husband, Hans-Gerhardt Fischer, was thousands of miles away in Santiago, Chile, barred by immigration authorities from entering the U.S. Into the void stepped Paul Nemenyi. To Nemenyi, Regina would have had obvious appeal. She was dark-haired, with a face that could appear boyishly sexy or plain and serious. There was no intellectual subject she couldn't master. Nemenyi himself was no heartthrob. He was 47, a Hungarian refugee and a theoretical engineer teaching at a nearby college. [His personal quirks are described] Still, he had a compelling mind. "He was smart, very, very smart," recalls a colleague, who worked at a research laboratory with Nemenyi in the '40s. "He had a strange kind of memory. He remembered things by their shapes....Regina didn't share the story of what happened between her and Nemenyi even with some members of her family. But it seems clear that in the summer of '42 a romance bloomed. The next year, Bobby was born. The FBI investigation began in 1942, when a baby-sitter found what she believed to be pro-communist letters belonging to Regina and turned them over to the FBI. Nemenyi told one FBI informant that he met Regina at the Univ. of Denver. But whatever follows in the file...is censored by the FBI. When the narrative again picks up, suddenly Bobby is in the picture. The file says, "He ((Nemenyi)) advised he helped support the boy. "But by the time of Bobby's birth, Regina had moved to Chicago, while Nemenyi was teaching in Rhode Island. She gave birth to her son alone, in a clinic for poor single mothers. And on the birth certificate, she listed Fischer as the father. She briefly considered putting her newborn son up for adoption. But in talking to a social worker she broke down and cried, unable to go through with it. Regina then moved into a Chicago home for fatherless families. End Excerpt The piece goes on to detail Regina's emotional problems in the years to come. It also mentions the fact that Bobby had a half-brother--another son of Bobby's natural father-- who was well aware that Bobby was his half-brother. This half-brother is now deceased. (Added February 2003

Social relations in particular differ so much between the races that they have to be cultural, our species just isn't old enough to have evolved them in our genes.
You are quite correct if citing evolution as a synonym for natural selection, however engineered selection - consider dog breeds - is another matter. It’s entirely plausible that a highly inbred and self-selected (dare I say chosen?) people such as the Jews have developed distinct genetic behavioral traits.

Genetic racial differences are very real - and major - contributors to social behavior. Culture merely enhances various expressions of existing biological templates for better or worse. Would implementation of a culture change among Jews allow them to integrate into White society? It hasn’t happened occurred in the thousands of years since the Diaspora’s creation so the prognosis isn’t good.

Jewish Antipathy Towards Gentiles -- Is it predominantly biological or cultural?
Genes inform culture, and culture in turn influences genetic selection. This feedback loop is in its entirety "biological". Unlike the "selfish gene" meme (which has obscured some important truths), Dawkins's "extended phenotype" meme is a wonderful explanatory consept. A group's culture is part of its extended phenotype, resulting of course from its genotype.

Cultural. I believe a jewish baby can be raised into a decent human being if he's raised by gentiles who never ever tell him of his ancestry.
It's hard to say. Rushton's genetic similarity theory suggests that the adopted child of Jewish ancestry will have an affinity for those to whom he is most genetically similar -- i.e., Jews. If he is never exposed to Jews, he might well be more than a decent member of society; if he has a tendency to ethnocentrism (whose basis is at this point is only presumed to be genetic), this tendency may make him especially loyal to his adoptive group. If, however, he is exposed to Jews it is possible or even likely that he will drift into Jewish circles, as General Wesley Clark did and as Linda Chavez and so many other marranos do.

First of all, Jewish babies are tempermentally less trusting than non Jewish children. They will scream louder and longer when placed in a strangers care.
I am familiar with the literature regarding diefferences among oriental, white, and black babies. Do you have any cites on your point?

That's nonsense, their demoncult is only 4000 years old, no way that that's long enough for humans to evolve such behavior into their genes.
4000 years may be longer than you think, especially when you consider that of all traits ethnocentrism was the one most strongly selected for, given the Jewish group evolutionary strategy. 4000 years is about 160 generations; how many generations did it take to create the numerous breeds of dogs from their wolf ancestors? By the way, if you believe Sarich & Miele, the white race is only about 17,000 years old itself.

The biggest research project ahead of us is the massive trawling of American newpaper headlines and op-ed pages, to prove that there was a sea change from German support to 'bayoneting babies' stories. I've talked to WWII vets who can remember very clearly 'the day Lindburgh became a Nazi'.
My pet project involves the first war: a review of Jewish-American newpaper headlines and op-ed pages to determine whether, after the issuance of the Bafour declaration, a sea change occurred in which support for Germany (or at least neutrality) morphed into support for the English.

My pet project involves the first war: a review of Jewish-American newpaper headlines and op-ed pages to determine whether, after the issuance of the Bafour declaration, a sea change occurred in which support for Germany (or at least neutrality) morphed into support for the English.

LOL Yes, 'atleast' neutrality, since I don't remember that much support for Germany in WWI at all. :p

If itz bad, Hymie did it. Anything more nuanced is jewish.

LOL Yes, 'atleast' neutrality, since I don't remember that much support for Germany in WWI at all.
My goodness, you must be of quite advanced age. Congratulations! I'm sorry to see your memory fading, however.

It is interesting that pro-English political cartoons often depicted the Germans with stereotypically Jewish features, suggesting an identification of Jewish Americans with German interests in the eyes of the Anglophiles.

My pet project involves the first war: a review of Jewish-American newpaper headlines and op-ed pages to determine whether, after the issuance of the Bafour declaration, a sea change occurred in which support for Germany (or at least neutrality) morphed into support for the English.

I doubt it - Zionism had little appeal to most American jews who were more than happy to try and assimilate into the US. During the Great War many, if not most, American Jews supported Germany. Why? Because at that time in US history more Jews traced their ancestry to Germany and German speaking countries. In the book Goldman Sachs and the Culture of Success, Lisa Endlich (pp. 41-43) goes into great detail of how Henry Goldman, one of the name partners, was such an outspoken supporter of the German cause that he refused to allow the firm to lend any money to the English or French during the early days of the war. This cost Goldman Sachs a great deal of its business and almost destroyed the partnership.

As for your review of "Jewish-America" newspapers, you'll probably find that their take on the war is directly related to the language in which they were written - the German language papers would have supported Germany, while the Yiddish press, like the Daily Forward, took a more neutral and antiwar stance and any English language papers would have supported the Anglo-French side.