It's not actually the Jews - Hitler was wrong

Lombok said:
This cannot be a serious viewpoint. If there is any constant in Chinese history at all, it is near endless cruelty. Sure, they have had plenty of periods of relative prosperity, but even that prosperity is achieved by heavy handed overreach as often as not.
Click to expand...
Aside that cruelty in Chinese history is not applied/consistent in the same way as Jews/commies do.

Chinese Emperors can get you killed for a plethora of reasons but actual application of the absolute worst (like mass kin executions) is relatively rare and the laws are mostly there to put people in check and reduce crime rates (if it happens in a wanton manner then something is likely very wrong). Gentile Chinese history is also cyclical so those "periods of relative peace" are literal centuries while the wartime periods where actual shit happens are like on the next century. The Chinese definitely are not peaceful or non-violent by any metric, but at least most of the time they aren't just killing and torturing people left and right for fun. They also tend to make the violence up with actual political and social reforms.

Commies and the Medieval Church get thousands killed per day often for no real reason other than sado-masochism. They also actively weaponize starvation and hiygene diseases to rack up the bodycount even higher. And as long as the ideology is in full control it happens consistently, you can travel forward in time for 300 to 400 years from the 6th Common Era and nothing changes, it's still the same goycattle serfdom exploitation shit.

Lombok said:
If there's any truth to this "20 years on average" figure, it's only because Chinese rulers have a habit of collapsing the regime they've built up around them, before the next guy comes along and reasserts it, usually through ruthless brutality.
Click to expand...
This is more about the ones that utterly obliterate the line like Qin Shi Huang or Xia Jie (both of which would had been put Medieval Jews to shame). All of these regimes collapse as soon as the leader dies or is overthrown. The Mongols also didn't last more than a century despite being just as bad.
 
Last edited:
Nuklearius said:
The jews you are seeing in upper American society are essentially DEI-hires. That's why it's hilarious when the online conspiracy people are projecting all of this intelligence onto them, while in reality nearly all of them are absolute mid-wits. They are only sitting where they do, because people like Trump and Ted Cruz are huge philosemites that worship the shit out of Jews.
Click to expand...

Jews arent especially bright. But they are extremely nepotistic and self cohesive, and build circular economies where money and position circulates in their community. So when a Jew gains power, he will tend to hire other Jewsand put them in important positions and replace himself with a Jew when he retires or dies. They will sell to nearly anyone, but prefer to buy from and contract from other Jews. This is bog standard market minority behavior. Its just that Jews leveraged the centuries of wealth they extracted from the peasants of eastern Europe into a market dominant position within the worlds most powerful empire.
 
Nuklearius said:
Liberalism began as a genuine white movement
Click to expand...
Liberalism began as a cooperative coalition between Dutch mercantilists and Jews in England and Scotland. The one thing that united them both was their shared Gnostic/Neo-Manichaeistic beliefs and identity.
 
Nuklearius said:
liberals emancipated them from the Ghetto and gave them all of these high status jobs
Click to expand...
A lot of jewish people were hardworking enough to get these jobs and statuses by themselves. Even in the middle ages, there was a title of "Court Jew" - a special money-related duty only jewish people were allowed to do. So the "they were dumb and then white liberals put them in the office" narrative you seem to describe is far from true.

I'm not an anti-semite though. Quite the opposite.

And I do agree that jew hate is dumb. And people who blame them for everything aren't far of from blue haired feminists who blame patriarchy for everything. If you think for long enough they have very similar narratives.
 
The Blue Morpho said:
OP handwaving all jewish mischief before the year 1800 as irrelevant is wild
Click to expand...
Literally what did they do. Be a little more concrete for once. Because the last time I can remember Jews being vaguely politically relevant was during the Muslim Conquest of Iberia. Apart from that they were generally side characters until the liberals discovered them.

Skitarii said:
Liberalism began as a cooperative coalition between Dutch mercantilists and Jews in England and Scotland.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make sense in the slightest, and I don't have any idea what you are even try to refer to here. I'm talking about political liberalism.

PrimeRadiant said:
But they are extremely nepotistic and self cohesive, and build circular economies where money and position circulates in their community.
Click to expand...
Old Germanic society used to be extremely self cohesive and clan like too, its the reason why cousin marriages were eventually outlawed by the church. But the question is why the Jews and the Indians are being given this room to be tribalistic in the first place?

NoCockatrice said:
A lot of jewish people were hardworking enough to get these jobs and statuses by themselves. Even in the middle ages, there was a title of "Court Jew" - a special money-related duty only jewish people were allowed to do. So the "they were dumb and then white liberals put them in the office" narrative you seem to describe is far from true.
Click to expand...
I don't think they are literally retarded, obviously they did have a strong focus on education, and they were fairly literate, so they weren't like the Irish or the Negroes. With that said a major reason for why the court jew became a thing was their total dependence on their feudal overlord, they couldn't betray him or scam him, because unlike other subjects they were directly subordinated to the king and he could just get rid of them at will.
Those Jews generally were very skilled at what they did, they wouldn't have been employed otherwise.
However the Jews who rose up in Central European Communist movements during the 1920s weren't really good. Kurt Eisner, Rosa Luxemburg, Bela Kun, all of these people got themselves killed because they acted stupidly and said stupid things. Even Trotsky, who was arguably a decent general, was completely outmaneuvered by Stalin and killed. It's difficult for me to believe any of them actually rose by merit, and not just by their level of conviction mixed with a good dose of DEI (the Obama effect).
At the same time German Social Democrats did go out of their way to have the Weimar Constitution written by a jew (unless you want to tell me that they couldn't find a single German who could do it), so clearly there was a lot of philosemitism within leftist movements at the time.
IMO the status of Jews in modern liberal societies is artificially elevated by liberalism, and not down to any innate traits of the minority itself.
 
So how did jews even get "control of the money"? If this is because they were the only ones permitted to lend money with interest whose fucking fault was that?

Why were Christians borrowing money which they'd have to pay back with interest if it was considered a sin? No one made them.

Whenever it comes to "the jews" there's never any personal accountability.
 
yolotengo said:
Why were Christians borrowing money which they'd have to pay back with interest if it was considered a sin? No one made them.
Click to expand...
It was a weird thing about how Christians perceived morality. Moneylending was a sin, not taking money of moneylenders. Since jews were destined to hell anyway, and many christians wanted to take out loans, the pope gave them permission to lend.
In defence of the catholic church, they also outlawed Jews from owning and trading Christian slaves.
 
Nuklearius said:
Literally what did they do. Be a little more concrete for once
Click to expand...
They tried to genocide everyone non-Jewish in Judea at least three separate times, which the Romans had to put a stop to via force of arms.
 
cigint said:
They tried to genocide everyone non-Jewish in Judea at least three separate times, which the Romans had to put a stop to via force of arms.
Click to expand...
I meant what did they do after their expulsion? All of this stuff happened way back in 100AD or so, when they were still a settled people.
The only time I can think off they had any political effect was in their help in destroying the Visgoths in Spain.
Apart from that they were entirely reacting to events around them, never directing them, from the time of their expulsion all the way to the advent of liberalism. Which is why you can't name anything.
 
yolotengo said:
So how did jews even get "control of the money"? If this is because they were the only ones permitted to lend money with interest whose fucking fault was that?

Why were Christians borrowing money which they'd have to pay back with interest if it was considered a sin? No one made them.

Whenever it comes to "the jews" there's never any personal accountability.
Click to expand...
The kings, nobles, and merchants needed money to invest in their kingdom, personal vanity projects, and businesses. They were a tribe of tax collectors since the days of the Roman Empire and were entrusted with money lending due to their status as outsiders in antiquity and the medieval age, essentially functioning as a caste of tax farmers and administrators, thus "the court Jew." The original temple operated as a sort of proto bank to which they centered their whole life around, though this applied to the pagan temples as well.

Nuklearius said:
The only time I can think off they had any political effect was in their help in destroying the Visgoths in Spain.
Apart from that they were entirely reacting to events around them, never directing them, from the time of their expulsion all the way to the advent of liberalism. Which is why you can't name anything.
Click to expand...
Their expulsion from Israel by the Byzantines helped facilitate the rise of Islam by supporting the Jewish/Christian Arab tribes in Arabia to revolt against Persia and the Byzantines (both their former paymasters), using the experienced mercenary Arab tribes as a military force. The original Mecca was Israel, and the original goal of Islam was to take back Israel, switching Mecca to Arabia once the Jewish alliance fell through later on. Both the Jews and Arabs knew the weaknesses of both Persia and the Byzantines due to their experiences working with them, which is why the conquest of Islam was so quick and thorough.
 
Last edited:
Smart Turtle said:
It's so obvious that you are a kike since you used "antisemitism" in a serious manner. This word is used by kikes to justify their terrible actions


, View attachment 8915678

Hitler Was right about the Kikes

View attachment 8915685
Click to expand...
"One does not need to have the authentic Hittite nose to be a Jew; the term Jew rather denotes a special way of thinking and feeling. A man can very soon become a Jew without being an Israelite; often it needs only to have frequent intercourse with Jews, to read Jewish newspapers, to accustom himself to Jewish philosophy, literature and art." - Houston Stewart Chamberlain
 
yolotengo said:
So how did jews even get "control of the money"? If this is because they were the only ones permitted to lend money with interest whose fucking fault was that?

Why were Christians borrowing money which they'd have to pay back with interest if it was considered a sin? No one made them.

Whenever it comes to "the jews" there's never any personal accountability.
Click to expand...
Exactly. People don't realise how much of the modern world phenomena was caused by centuries of christianity. They see it as an alternative way of a modern man, opposing woke liberals, yet they refuse to see it's flaws.

I respect christians for their familial values and their art, but I have to admit, a lot of modern problems are connected to europeans being christian. Such as "white guilt", for example.

But instead of thinking about it, people just go "jews bad wha wha".
 
Nuklearius said:
Yeah, I don't disagree with that, they are ruthlessly selfish if you give them the room. But that's literally every ethnic group except modern liberal whites. And the reality is izzat, or rather Honor, used to be a concept here as well. Duelling to Death still was a huge deal in Europe in the 1700s.
The weird thing to me is not why everyone else is selfish and tribalistic, the weird thing is that Europeans suppress said Tribalism in themselves. And if I go out into the street right now and shout "we need to be more collectively selfish" the people that are going to come shout me down, are not actually Jews or Indians or whatever, they will be fellow Whites with liberal beliefs.
What I'm trying to get at with this thread, is that there is a very large fraction of white Europeans that are in favor of everything that is happening right now.
The people that are blaming Jews simply can not cope with the fact that the major problem is not one click of foreign interlopers, but their own countrymen and that said foreign interlopers only appear as a result of the weird believes that white Europeans have internalized.
Click to expand...
Jews and co. would definitely oppose me saying we need to be more selfish, all while being underrepresented in blood donations and charity.
Izzat did rule pre-enlightenment europe, but then people saw victims of sectarian violence strung up outside their homes and instead of "lmayo heretics got rekt" went "this could have easily been me" and began to reform into a secular, individualist guilt culture.
White libs are definitely part of the problem, and you are correct that if we kill every jew, the blacks and others will still do the same as before. Tyrone won't magically have a mind control spell lifted from him when the last jew is gassed.
The problem is that jews scored way too low on the oppresion olympics to justify their support of it up until now, and post oct7, and lefties treating them the same as they would treat white people, we saw that they never really intended for the academic opressor vs the opressed slop they championed to be used against them.
Sorry but I am far less angry at the brainwashed white women who vote blue because think they should all be raped by niggers, than the jewess next to them that, when it was her turn, suddenly backed out and spilled the beans that she only wanted the white women raped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom