It’s the JEWS!!!

[Reverend Moon Immortal]

Endless energy has been diverted into the shitbox to cover the phenomenon of kikery. This is all well and good, but I feel that a lot of good points will be lost in the continuous tides of the cruel shitbox’s mercurial subject changes. From this understanding I have taken it upon myself to make this strategic thread to collect all the finer point of kikery so that a conclusion maybe reached on the Jewish menace. I myself can only come up with vague points and examples in regards to the Jewish attack on Western Civilization, so I’ll be relying on all you scholars for my education on the kike.

[nex]

I will make a short post to start this off, examining the nature of the Jew's relation to other societies, in this case white societies. This relation has been both justly and universally called parasitic. The Jew has always piggybacked off other races, it is this behaviour I wish to place in its proper context and a clearer light. There has been a push from certain coteries of the 'dissident right' to say that the Jewish hatred of European Society is nothing unique and that all other races hate the white man in an equal proportion to themselves. This has a kernel of truth, but is mostly fiction. Jews are unique in their hatred. 

This hatred doesn't stem from any particular deed, or even any mutual feud, but rather from a fundamental difference in spirit. I will begin with the Jewish mode of subsistence. Merchantry. This is the most debasing of all things of which a person can subsist, it is in effect a form of slavery, where you reap the benefits of the labour of others without having laboured on your own part. Yet it is a still lower occupation, for you have not even laboured in the capturing of the slaves or managed their subsequent breeding. The debilitating effect of Merchantry on the races on to whom it latches and suckles dry has long been known, Caesar writes in speaking of Gaul and Germania, that the Belgae are the strongest race of them all for the reason that (minimeque ad eos mercatores saepe commeant, atque ea, quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent, important) ''merchants come to them least often with those things which tend to effeminize the soul''. It might be worth noting that merchants held fewer rights than plebs and foreigners in Rome. 

What receives less interest is the effect of merchantry on those who practice it. It is ultimately a dysgenic practice, and stands in stark contrast to European subsistence, with merchantry, one does not need to build, one does not to need to fight, one does not need to till the land, one does not need to hunt, one does not need to expand. Merchantry is the negation of human life. That this has been been the nature of Jewish subsistence from the earliest times is not disputed. Doubtless the Geography of the levant moved the Jews to this practice. On one side is mighty Egypt, on the other warlike but luxurious Greece and Anatolia, behind the wild Persians and Medians, and the wealthy Assyria and Babylon, still further behind and up are the vast India and China, out at sea were roving bands of western pirates who would soon bring the Bronze age to an end by bringing reports of these empires back to their brothers in the west. The Jew having had agriculture for many years in the 'fertile levant' was loth to abandon this easy mode of living and so turned to another option to ease his tenuous situation. Hard pressed on all sides by empires who could crush them without a second thought, his early social development was influenced by the need to mediate and socially manipulate between all these forces. They quickly found that they could bring goods from each of these empires to the other and vice versa, and thereby earn themselves a place in this array of powers. Otherwise they would be seen by these empires as occupying land that would be better employed in their hands, and quickly destroyed or made slaves and their women made whores. He soon found that Anatolia had a taste for Chinese silk, and Babylon for Greek wine, Egypt for Greek mercenaries and Indian spices, some even say that the priests of the Oracle at Delphi often bought rare Indian herbs off Levantine merchants. This early ease of life created first by plentiful simple agriculture, then made even easier by the subsequent undertaking of merchantry fostered a complete ignorance of human life and the practice of breeding. One does not learn (like the Aryan), that strength is a desirable trait, from warfare, if one doesn't make war. One does not learn that intelligence is desirable, if one undertakes no task that requires its the exercise of this trait, one does not learn that a small person is useless if one doesn't do anything that would betray its uselessness, and so on and so on. This complete ignorance likely accounts for much of the health problems apparent in the Jewish race.

I will now show the early subsistence of the Aryans. The Aryan, wherever be his urheimat, evidently spent much of his time in the steppes of Asia. Here an entirely different process transpired. The lands of the steppe being ill-suited for the comfortable serf-styled agriculture of the Levant, he was quickly obliged to look for an alternative, he soon came across the horse, the bull and the ram. He found the Horse could be used to traverse the vast steppe with great speed, he found he could eat the bulls organs and drink the milk of his wife, he found he could make cloth of the ram and sheep, drinking cups from their horns, later he found he could make armour from the bull's hide, he found the cattle would obey the movements of his horse, later he found he could ease his labour with the dog, whom the cattle also obey. He found he must move his animals overtime or their grass would not grow back as good, and so he went ever forth, ever back, ever left and right, selecting the best land for grazing. In all this movement, he saw that the ill-constituted could not keep up with the movements of the flock, he learned that weakness meant one could not skin the bull or shortness that one could not control the horse. He also learned that large bulls and large cows produce large offspring, that an ugly or deformed bull produced small or sickly offspring, he knew that if too large the animals would slow down the flock and they could not move as fast and would overgraze the land and the grass would grow back weak and ruin his flock. He learned that if too small they would not produce enough meat and milk and cloth and wool and cups to feed his family. In short, he learned eugenics. All these principles were naturally applied to the human as well as the animal flock. Next he encountered the predatory animals, who would damage his flock. The mountain lions who would stalk silently out of the mountains to lay waste the flock and drive them pell-mell to their deaths. He had to learn to fight them, he soon learned if he burned two rocks (tin and copper) he could make nice and sharp weapon, strong but lighter than previous rock weapons. It soon became custom to send the young ahead into the next grazing ground armed with these new weapons to clear out the predators so that the flock could come later and safely graze for the season. They learned also that they ought not kill all the predators because they keep other smaller predators and wild goats and such at bay, who would soon overpopulate and overgraze the land. They saw in them fellow shepherds in a way. It also soon became custom for the young to return triumphant wearing the hides of those whom they had slain. It also grew popular for the them to recount their own and their brothers deeds in metrical format. (In these we see the origin of the victory hymn and the roman triumphus). Other songs soon came into vogue, those for departure, those for the regrowing of the grass, those for the rising of the sun, those for the flowing of the waters. Here he learned appreciation for physical vigour, he learned that some men, if ugly or deformed, are not to be trusted in combat, he learned that by certain exercises the strength of the body might be improved, by the singing of the hymns the mind might be improved. He also used the hymns to record any information that needed to be remembered, he sang the names of his animals in hymns, he sang the names of the rivers and mountains, he sang of the forests, he sang of the rocks and metals, he sang the names of his many children and wives and of their features. These were all remembered and he passed down his most important hymns to his children. He grew ever more daring in finding new pastures, a son never forget the name of the furthest land his father ventured to, and strove to add a name to the long list of natural features recorded in the familial hymns. Here was born the love of going ever forth. That truly adventurous northern spirit. He learned he could kill other men and add their women to his wives and their flocks to his own. Much much later he developed the chariot and could go further than ever before, he crossed the Caucasus and lit upon the empires of east, he established himself there as a Hittite, and was a feared name in the mouths of Babylonian and Egyptian boys 'The northern terror....' they would whisper with a shudder. 

As an aside: The history of colonisation shows how Europeans always revert to this lifestyle when placed in nature, you are probably familiar with the Scotch-Irish and Palatine-Germans on the frontiers who were all pastoralists, roaming over vast swathes of country. The Afrikaners did the same in South Africa ('The Great Trek'), the Irish and Welsh in Patagonia, even the convicts in Australia. There are many more examples but if you read the the history of colony frontiers you will see the same pattern. The nature of the bull to early Aryans, is obviously well observed in every Indo-European epic, and reappears in the Roman Army showing Mithras slaying the bull, this is really a recounting of an Aryan-wide belief of the first man who slew a bull and learned of its utility. Besides the Iliad the old-Irish epic 'The cattle of raid of Cooley' is one of the best preserved of Aryan literature that deals with pastoralism and its martial aspect. Though if you know your Iliad you will be familiar with the many references to cattle raids in and stealing of the flock, both human and animal. The theme is found in all early Indo-European literature. The Romans also used Egypt for the lowly agriculture of the east, the grain type, ''Egypt the Breadbasket of the Empire'' whereas Italian land was reserved mainly for pastoralism. Please read Vergil's Eclogues and Bucolics. 

I could speak on length on that early development, but I do not want to make this post too long. I hope from these two different passages it may be extrapolated why the Aryan is thus and the Jew so. But I shall point out some Jewish attributes that arise from his slothful early existence. His love of Cosmopolitanism stems clearly from this. He despises nature, he cannot comprehend it nor does he wish to, it is something alien to him and something which he correctly views as anathema to his existence. If America had sent every Jew to the frontier as pioneers there wouldn't be any today, or maybe when the Aryan arrived he would have found a bunch of Cherokee troons, and the warlike chiefs as slaves building synagogues. The Jews particularly disdain white working class people for a related reason. They cannot feed the Jew, they are too focused on pragmatic and practical affairs of life to do so. So the Jew views them as he does nature, with a deep disdain. (I do not mean to extol the working class here but to warn that Aristocratic disdain for working class is something different to that of the Jew, and naturally far less extreme, and that we should be careful not to confuse the two) The Jew later found he could exploit the working class in a different manner, so as to foster grievances between the shepherd and his flock. 

Some people have postulated that there are feminine and masculine societies. The white being Masculine, and the Jew feminine. This has some truth and the Jew is best conceived as woman. She loves the Aryan, even understands his power and fairness, but she hates him, considers him stupid, only there to provide her with new dresses and ornaments and laughs behind his back with her friends (''ahahhaa men are soooo stupid''). We all know this woman, she abounds today, the classic whore. The Jew exists in relation to the white civilisations, as does the whore to her cuck boyfriend. This is also why Jews have never stuck to one civilisation to parasite off, they always seek the newer one. Partly because they are women and partly because their whore antics are always eventually made clear. It must be noted however that the Jew cannot even fit into this so broad a dichotomy. Japan is a true feminine society, she takes the seed of other more masculine civilisations and births from it something for herself, she took her Kanji from China, she took some of her warrior culture from the Mongols and Chinese, she took her some of her religion from India, she took much of her science and art from Europe, and raised from all this a child of her own, though we see much of Japan in her various husbands, she still has something that we know to be uniquely hers. When we think of Japan we can instantly distinguish it as something existing of itself, with its own attributes, though we may see very clearly the fathers in the child, we know the mother to be there too. The Jew on the other hand is impossible to examine independent of her host civilisations, try think of the Jew in your mind's eye and do it with Japan after and you will see what I mean. The Jew is a whore on birth control pills, swallowing up the seed of other civilisations and producing nothing for it, she is too lazy or disgusted with herself to have and raise a child. This is the origin of the 'goyim are so stupid' it is an exact parallel of the whore who mocks her trusting and naïve boyfriend behind his back. For the Jew takes trust and naivety to be stupidity. This is probably a result of duplicity and and merchant cunning being the markers of intelligence in the Jewish race, which in early times as I have said was sandwiched amid so many vast empires, so that these traits grew to be considered intelligence in the Jewish community. Again much like whores and strippers believe their ability to swindle ever more money out of rich and dangerous clients and play them against each other and all those social games women play, to be intelligence, and they laugh at the 'stupid men'. The Jew deludes himself that his is the chosen people, by a certain cope or rationalisation. Namely that all the these gentile empires, and scientific advances and so forth, yahweh has given to the gentiles so that the Jew himself does not have not have to do any of the work, which is of course nothing but unalloyed copium. But the Jews truly believe in this principle above all else. 

Everything the Jew undertakes and does exists in relation to her cuck boyfriends too, and is always a nullification of their seed, even relativity and quantum physics are negations of historical Aryan forward advancement. The nuclear bomb's only result was to render Nuremberg enforceable, without which wars and conquests would have continued, and the natural exercise of Aryan spirit could not have been suppressed by the threat of the Nuke. In sum, whereas European contact with Japan was a fertilization, with the Jew it is a nullification, she has nothing to show for all her parasitism over the years, so she will keep coming back for more. The Jew is a barren whore. 

Another important thing I shall mention is the prevalence of the Jew among the 'new right'. I will only briefly mention this now, maybe I will expound it more fully in a further post. The Jewish element in the right is here mainly because he wants what casualrapist calls 'a new deal'. He sees now the results of his parasitism, both intentional and unwitting, and he is not pleased, it is not what he imagined, it is not what the rabbi told him it would be like, he is dissatisfied with the what the international financiers promised him. ''He recoileth at the fruit of his labour''. 

To conclude, forgive me for perhaps overindulging in the early details of the Aryan, and saying less on the Jew. The fact is that there is not too much to be said about the Jew's early existence besides that it influenced if not caused his fundamental opposition to the Aryan. By focussing on these early conditions and showcasing them beside one another, I hope to show most clearly that these inherent natures cannot coexist, and to explain how most characteristics of the Jew arise from these early social conditions.

[The Green Groyper]

“Relativity and quantum mechanics were the suppression of the Aryan spirit”

This seems to be a problem here. Dislike the implications of modern science if you wish, but they are an accurate description of the universe as we understand them.

Nuclear weapons were going to be developed at any rate in the 20th century and in doing so, would have made wars between great powers undesirable.

I don’t think many would disagree with the substance of what you’re saying here, but this part is just pseudoscience and ahistorical nonsense.

Wars and conquests as existed in antiquity or even the age of exploration had also pretty much ended. By the turn of the 20th century, just about all the world was under White rule. There were no plans for mass colonization of Africa or Asia by the White masses of Europe. Any further wars would have been over exchanges of territory, extracting concessions from the dying Chinese, or establishing control of Persia.

The Jews as a people thrive in times of urbanization, long distance trade and political stability.

[nex]

I can concede on the subatomic question as I have not read the white papers of Einstein and his ilk, but simply because there were no plans to colonise Africa or Asia does not mean it would not have happened. As regards nuclear weaponry it goes hand in hand with the Nuremberg interdiction against the right of conquest, and yes you are right, it would have happened anyway. But subtract the Jewish soviet of the east, and her cousin apparatus of media and finance in Britain and America, dropping the bomb on a fellow white country would be an electoral impossibility. Wars would therefore have continued, probably Rhodesia and and South Africa would have swelled with immigrants, African expansion would ensue, and ultimately the full resources of the continent would have been properly put to use. Fission technology wouldn't end up being squandered pointlessly on submarines and the odd energy source here and there. And it certainly wouldn't be used as the leverage for Nuremberg 'rights'.

[The Green Groyper]

The point is Africa and Asia were already colonized. What you had was a class of European officials extracting resources from the Asiatic and African masses. There was no intention that I have seen for example for the Dutch to start extirpating Indonesia and bringing over Dutchmen. Or for France to do the same in Western and Central Africa. Just extract raw materials using native labor.

If anything, this state of affairs made settler colonization impossible, as in destroying the brown savages would undercut the flow of raw materials to the metropole.

At best, you would have had European population growth and decreasing non White populations, leading to sizable European minorities like in Algeria. That is little enclaves of European civilization scattered throughout Africa and Asia clustered in coastal regions and at rail junctures, surrounded by hordes of asiatics and Africans-that served their food and chauffeured them kept in line only by colonial police and their fear of the White man’s power.

Obviously this is better than what happened, but I do not believe that Africa or India would have ever been emptied entirely of their non White inhabitants, at best they would have declined as White populations increased, reduced to menial labor. Eventually they might have tried to cast off the White man, and would have had to been suppressed, but without the world wars that might not have been for a century.

As far as relativity is concerned, the implication is there is a hard limit to expanding throughout the universe. The speed of light has been repeatedly confirmed in every study that tests it. Maybe we’ll invent Alcubierre drives, I doubt it.

Regarding wars between European states, they either would have been like the wars of the 18th century, that is limited affairs over small stretches of disputed territory, hardly opportunities for glory or expansion(indeed such things were discouraged). Or what happened, total wars between European nations that ended up with a dysgenic effect overall, empowered the Jews and gave the colored masses a chance to overthrow the White man(that would have been unlikely to come otherwise).

Assuming there were no world wars, or large scale colored rebellions, nuclear weapons being invented would have let to even greater stasis. As none of the powers would risk employing them, especially in Europe itself. The risk of damage to essential infrastructure would have reduced their use in Africa and Asia(as they would have been European infrastructure).

[Guest]

Jews face the same divergence that all groups do. Exhausted bloodlines, exhausted religions, exhausted alliances. They will not exist, just as no current group will exist, after this takes place. This is guaranteed because they and all others already do not exist.

It's simple enough to ask anyone "what is based world" or "keyed world". The answers are lacking in spirit and will. There is no popular exception to this rule. People wish, still, to defer the cost. In the "most terrible" corners of the internet, you still find the same lack. Because it is simply not the time yet. A million voices in unison ask for gibs of one type or another. Money, love, status. How many can be bought, right now, if I offered the right price?

This last question is a simple retvrn to some of the recent history with Jews. It's a question they don't mind asking (generally.) Italians are similar, as are Indians. The British leveraged the same question effectively themselves. It's not a "bad" question. All it does is take advantage of weakness in a group.

Some will say that the twisting of desires was performed insidiously. I am not so fantastical a thinker as this. After all, people degenerate very well on their own. There is simply little of value. Many of value will not accept this. Leaving a tiny fraction of people who are both of value and willing to accept this as the key group. Many of this group will defer the cost as well. Eventually, value will become so lacking that there will simply be nothing left to defer.

This is divergence, and no group is exempt from this. One may place his bets on his favorite region for a resurgence. It's easy enough to count most of those obvious groups out. Anyhow, it's not a popular idea nor will it be. It is more fun to run on that drug-dream of glorifying an enemy to the point of making them as Gods. It is less shameful than accepting that America was hollowed out in a similar fashion to India being taken chunk-by-chunk.

[Zed]

Jews face the same divergence that all groups do. Exhausted bloodlines, exhausted religions, exhausted alliances. They will not exist, just as no current group will exist, after this takes place. This is guaranteed because they and all others already do not exist[...]

Well put.

[GraalChud]

I will make a short post to start this off, examining the nature of the Jew's relation to other societies, in this case white societies. This relation has been both justly and universally called parasitic. The Jew has always piggybacked off other races, it is this behaviour I wish to place in its proper context and a clearer light. There has been a push from certain coteries of the 'dissident right' to say that the Jewish hatred of European Society is nothing unique and that all other races hate the white man in an equal proportion to themselves. This has a kernel of truth, but is mostly fiction. Jews are unique in their hatred. 

This hatred doesn't stem from any particular deed, or even any mutual feud, but rather from a fundamental difference in spirit. I will begin with the Jewish mode of subsistence. Merchantry. This is the most debasing of all things of which a person can subsist, it is in effect a form of slavery, where you reap the benefits of the labour of others without having laboured on your own part. Yet it is a still lower occupation, for you have not even laboured in the capturing of the slaves or managed their subsequent breeding. The debilitating effect of Merchantry on the races on to whom it latches and suckles dry has long been known, Caesar writes in speaking of Gaul and Germania, that the Belgae are the strongest race of them all for the reason that (minimeque ad eos mercatores saepe commeant, atque ea, quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent, important) ''merchants come to them least often with those things which tend to effeminize the soul''. It might be worth noting that merchants held fewer rights than plebs and foreigners in Rome. 

What receives less interest is the effect of merchantry on those who practice it. It is ultimately a dysgenic practice, and stands in stark contrast to European subsistence, with merchantry, one does not need to build, one does not to need to fight, one does not need to till the land, one does not need to hunt, one does not need to expand. Merchantry is the negation of human life. That this has been been the nature of Jewish subsistence from the earliest times is not disputed. Doubtless the Geography of the levant moved the Jews to this practice. On one side is mighty Egypt, on the other warlike but luxurious Greece and Anatolia, behind the wild Persians and Medians, and the wealthy Assyria and Babylon, still further behind and up are the vast India and China, out at sea were roving bands of western pirates who would soon bring the Bronze age to an end by bringing reports of these empires back to their brothers in the west. The Jew having had agriculture for many years in the 'fertile levant' was loth to abandon this easy mode of living and so turned to another option to ease his tenuous situation. Hard pressed on all sides by empires who could crush them without a second thought, his early social development was influenced by the need to mediate and socially manipulate between all these forces. They quickly found that they could bring goods from each of these empires to the other and vice versa, and thereby earn themselves a place in this array of powers. Otherwise they would be seen by these empires as occupying land that would be better employed in their hands, and quickly destroyed or made slaves and their women made whores. He soon found that Anatolia had a taste for Chinese silk, and Babylon for Greek wine, Egypt for Greek mercenaries and Indian spices, some even say that the priests of the Oracle at Delphi often bought rare Indian herbs off Levantine merchants. This early ease of life created first by plentiful simple agriculture, then made even easier by the subsequent undertaking of merchantry fostered a complete ignorance of human life and the practice of breeding. One does not learn (like the Aryan), that strength is a desirable trait, from warfare, if one doesn't make war. One does not learn that intelligence is desirable, if one undertakes no task that requires its the exercise of this trait, one does not learn that a small person is useless if one doesn't do anything that would betray its uselessness, and so on and so on. This complete ignorance likely accounts for much of the health problems apparent in the Jewish race.

I will now show the early subsistence of the Aryans. The Aryan, wherever be his urheimat, evidently spent much of his time in the steppes of Asia. Here an entirely different process transpired. The lands of the steppe being ill-suited for the comfortable serf-styled agriculture of the Levant, he was quickly obliged to look for an alternative, he soon came across the horse, the bull and the ram. He found the Horse could be used to traverse the vast steppe with great speed, he found he could eat the bulls organs and drink the milk of his wife, he found he could make cloth of the ram and sheep, drinking cups from their horns, later he found he could make armour from the bull's hide, he found the cattle would obey the movements of his horse, later he found he could ease his labour with the dog, whom the cattle also obey. He found he must move his animals overtime or their grass would not grow back as good, and so he went ever forth, ever back, ever left and right, selecting the best land for grazing. In all this movement, he saw that the ill-constituted could not keep up with the movements of the flock, he learned that weakness meant one could not skin the bull or shortness that one could not control the horse. He also learned that large bulls and large cows produce large offspring, that an ugly or deformed bull produced small or sickly offspring, he knew that if too large the animals would slow down the flock and they could not move as fast and would overgraze the land and the grass would grow back weak and ruin his flock. He learned that if too small they would not produce enough meat and milk and cloth and wool and cups to feed his family. In short, he learned eugenics. All these principles were naturally applied to the human as well as the animal flock. Next he encountered the predatory animals, who would damage his flock. The mountain lions who would stalk silently out of the mountains to lay waste the flock and drive them pell-mell to their deaths. He had to learn to fight them, he soon learned if he burned two rocks (tin and copper) he could make nice and sharp weapon, strong but lighter than previous rock weapons. It soon became custom to send the young ahead into the next grazing ground armed with these new weapons to clear out the predators so that the flock could come later and safely graze for the season. They learned also that they ought not kill all the predators because they keep other smaller predators and wild goats and such at bay, who would soon overpopulate and overgraze the land. They saw in them fellow shepherds in a way. It also soon became custom for the young to return triumphant wearing the hides of those whom they had slain. It also grew popular for the them to recount their own and their brothers deeds in metrical format. (In these we see the origin of the victory hymn and the roman triumphus). Other songs soon came into vogue, those for departure, those for the regrowing of the grass, those for the rising of the sun, those for the flowing of the waters. Here he learned appreciation for physical vigour, he learned that some men, if ugly or deformed, are not to be trusted in combat, he learned that by certain exercises the strength of the body might be improved, by the singing of the hymns the mind might be improved. He also used the hymns to record any information that needed to be remembered, he sang the names of his animals in hymns, he sang the names of the rivers and mountains, he sang of the forests, he sang of the rocks and metals, he sang the names of his many children and wives and of their features. These were all remembered and he passed down his most important hymns to his children. He grew ever more daring in finding new pastures, a son never forget the name of the furthest land his father ventured to, and strove to add a name to the long list of natural features recorded in the familial hymns. Here was born the love of going ever forth. That truly adventurous northern spirit. He learned he could kill other men and add their women to his wives and their flocks to his own. Much much later he developed the chariot and could go further than ever before, he crossed the Caucasus and lit upon the empires of east, he established himself there as a Hittite, and was a feared name in the mouths of Babylonian and Egyptian boys 'The northern terror....' they would whisper with a shudder.

...

Unsure if this is a coincidence, or you've read this before and thus were influenced by it, but the first few paragraphs you wrote echo what Hitler said regarding the respective natures of Jews and Aryans in a relatively obscure speech called "Why We Are Antisemites" (delivered in ~1920). 

Thus far, I've only found a transcription of it on a website belonging to a boomeress Holocaust denier, so its authenticity is admittedly a little questionable, but she seems to have provided a legit source for the text so I think it is probably authentic. Anyway, here's the link to it:

"Why We Are Antisemites" - Text of Adolf Hitler's 1920 speech at the Hofbräuhaus | Carolyn Yeager

[GraalChud]

There has been a push from certain coteries of the 'dissident right' to say that the Jewish hatred of European Society is nothing unique and that all other races hate the white man in an equal proportion to themselves. This has a kernel of truth, but is mostly fiction. Jews are unique in their hatred. 

This hatred doesn't stem from any particular deed, or even any mutual feud, but rather from a fundamental difference in spirit. I

I agree wholeheartedly that Jews are unique in their hatred of Europeans, though I disagree that this hatred stems primarily from a difference in spirit. 

True as it may be that the spirit of the Jew is markedly different from that of Aryan man, it is equally true that the spirit of any other non-White race is as different, if not even more different, as the Jew's spirit is from the Aryan's. One cannot look at the negro and seriously contend that his spirit - defined by its baseness, vulgarity, aversion to industry, total lack of a connection to anything transcendent, etc. - is any closer to the White man's than is the Jew's. Since the Jew is not unique in regard to how different (and incompatible) his spirit is from that of the White man's when compared to any other non-White race (sans East Asians, perhaps), that difference is not a sufficient explanation for why the Jew hates us to the extent that he does and in the manner in which he does so. 

It follows, then, that while the basis for the Jew's hatred of the Aryan is in part the difference in spirit (as implied above, I'd contend that this is the partial basis of any non-White race's hatred of the White man, as it is where our most fundamental differences, and thus our incompatibility, lies), there must be something else driving his strong and unique hatred for us. The most likely impetus for this hatred, in my opinion, is a historical one stemming from a history of feuds, conquest, and forced assimilation of the Jew by driven by Europeans. 

As you implicitly conceded in your own explanation of the Jew's hatred for the White race, the ancient Jew was a provincial creature by nature; from the Bronze Age onward, he lived in the most backward part of the Levant, subject to constant rule by outsiders, never rising above dhimmi status. Even when he had his own kingdom, it was not a particularly large one and existed as a vassal to the Assyrians. Though his first major uprooting was at the hands of the Babylonians toward the beginning the Early Classical period, he was able to return home within a few centuries of his exile (perhaps this is where he first picked up his proclivity toward cosmopolitanism when living in non-Jewish societies here, but that's a different conversation) and resume his life as a sedentary peasant living in a cozy proto-shtetl without issue, spending his days engaged in trades, sheepherding, and religious debate. This would not last long, however, as within ~4.5 centuries of his return, two new groups of outsiders, the Hellenes and the Romans, would subjugate him again. Unlike his past overlords, neither group was as tolerant toward the Jew and his backwards ways, with both attempting to forcibly assimilate or even destroy him at times. The Hellenes, ever the cultural proselytizers, attempted to force him to pay tribute to their Gods, adopt their language, and accept their high culture. When he resisted this change, Antiochus Epiphanes crushed him using the full force of the Seleucid military, then forced Greek culture upon him. The Romans, even less tolerant of the backwards ways of the Jews, warred with him for decades, culminating in the destruction of his Second Temple and his expulsion from his homeland. Naturally, this left a terrible taste in his mouth and made him bitter and resentful towards the European, but more importantly, it would define his relationship to us until the present. Unbeknownst to him, this was just the beginning of two millennia of oppression at the hands of Europeans.

Upon his arrival in Europe, he was met with contempt, with this becoming especially true after the Roman elite converted to Christianity (see Justinian I). Many Jews arrived there in shackles, with many of those who did not engaging in mercantile pursuits and integrating into the small Jewish communities that had existed in Southern Europe since the Hellenistic period. After the Roman Empire fell, he moved northward into the lands of the Franks and other Germanic peoples; it was there that experienced a paradoxical situation wherein he was afforded positions of power - namely those in banking, in the courts of kings, and in the field of medicine - but was often subject to intense religious persecution and pogroms. As he spread throughout Europe, going eastward into central Europe and further eastward into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Kingdom of Poland between the 11th & 14th centuries, this remained the case; though he experienced a greater degree of tolerance in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for a time, he was still subject to the occasional pogrom and oftentimes relegated to small, insular communities in rural areas & ghettoes in urban ones. This tolerance would end within a few centuries of his arrival there with the rise of the Russian Empire, which rewarded the Jew for his willingness to meddle in the affairs of the Sjem on behalf of the Tsar (which contributed greatly to the Deluge of the PLC) and his subsequent revolts against the very Russian rule over Poland that he helped facilitate by creating a new domain for him: the Pale of Settlement, a prison intended to contain him. His stint in the Pale was short relative to the 18 centuries of persecution he had already suffered at the hands of the European, but brutal; he was subject to constant pogroms and forced conversions. His Ashkenazic brothers & Sephardic cousins to the West (in Spain, France, and Germany) had not fared much better in the centuries, oftentimes being persecuted to a far greater degree than he was while in the somewhat tolerant PLC. 

With the coming and going of the Haskalah, it would seem as though the Jew believed his fortunes would improve; after all, the goyim and Jew alike had gone through their own Enlightenments, with the goyim no longer being bound by old religious prejudices that plagued his ancestors and drove them to persecute Europe's Jewry. Some writings from Jewish figures during the Haskalah evidence this attitude - that the Jew would be free from both the shackles of his religion and would be able to integrate into Gentile society peacefully, putting an end to a lengthy blood feud between Europeans and Jews - and we even saw instances where this began to happen, with mixed-religious congregations arising in Germany and with many Jews willingly converting to Christianity or becoming secularists as many Europeans had begun to do. The Jew, however, was terribly mistaken, as persecution continued in Russia, Germany, and elsewhere. Even those European societies in the Anglosphere, which had a far greater track record of tolerance toward the Jews, persecuted him, with Gentiles in such societies regarding him with disdain and excluding him from their clubs, fraternities, and businesses. Then, in the mid-to-late 19th century, anti-Semitism in the post-Enlightenment world underwent a renaissance; where the Jew was once hated on the basis of his religion and for what his ancestors had done to Christ - hatred that could often be avoided, or at least mitigated, through conversion to Christianity - he was now hated for his blood, for merely existing. There was no way out for him, nothing he could do or say would save him now; the writing was on the wall: the Jews would not be allowed to continue to exist in Europe as they had for over 1800 years. Attempts to prevent the inevitable arose, possibly in response to this, with the most notable of these being the various communist and Zionist movements that popped up in Europe between the 1840s and 1930s. While the Jew likely believed that his efforts would prevent the Gentiles from destroying him, their efforts backfired miserably; this culminated in the Holocaust, the single greatest wrong ever perpetrated against him by any group of people, with participants coming from all over Europe to see to it that he and his kin would be wiped off the face of the Earth. Although it failed, the damage was done, and when the dust settled, millions of Jews had perished at the hands of the European man. There was no going back now, any hopes that Europeans and Jews could peacefully exist in a European-run society were dashed when the mass graves in Germany, Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia, and elsewhere were filled to the brim with dead Jews. When the dust settled, the Jew, liberated from the tyranny of old European anti-semites, saw his chance to prevent something like this from ever happening again by promoting mass immigration, beating goyim over the head with sob stories about the Holocaust, etc., and the rest is history.

Before I continue, I must disclaim that the picture I painted above of the history of Jewish-European relations is highly editorialized and far from complete. The history of the Jews in Europe is lengthy, complex, and subject to a lot of variation over time and space; additionally, there were countless instances of Europeans doing right by Jews all over Europe, with the Catholic Church issuing papal bulls condemning pogroms and demanding that they receive protected status, Napolean promoting the integration of Jewry into liberal French society, etc. Moreover, not every Jew, or not even most Jews necessarily see their history as it relates to Europeans in the exact way I described it above. That said, however, it is highly unlikely that a large number of Ashkenazim would not agree with a lot or even most of what was said as far as the facts are concerned, even if they'd object to the ways that it was framed or the specific language used to describe it (I'd imagine many would want to put a more positive spin on their time in Europe, focusing more on the various accomplishments of and advancements made by Jews, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries and less on Europe's history of vicious anti-semitism, or perhaps emphasizing Jewish resistance to European oppression and the resilience of the Jews). 

With that out of the way, let us get back to the point at hand. The picture of the history of Jewish-European relations painted above is particularly important to this conversation insofar as it allows us to distinguish the historical basis of Jewish hatred for Europeans from the hatred of Whites by other non-White races. It does so not by pointing solely to the unique nature of Jewish persecution by Europeans - though it is true that the specific ways in which we persecuted them are unique, largely due to the fact that they were an alien people who adhered to a different religion than we did while living among us and interacting with us constantly, making them unlike any other people we've persecuted - though this is certainly important, but rather by illustrating the unparalleled duration, intensity, and consistency of European persecution of Jews, as well as the ideological basis for it. 

While we Europeans have unquestionably engaged in the intense persecution of other races, we typically did so for reasons largely outside the understanding of those races and for significantly shorter periods of time and at times with good intentions; consequently, no other race that we have persecuted or oppressed (and I use these terms neutrally, as I do not believe the persecution or oppression of these peoples to be bad) has had millennia to ponder what we have done to them and why, to stew over it far longer than is healthy for any race, to accumulate and refine their resentment toward us for so long. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the ideological basis for this oppression was less obvious to these peoples, as we were not necessarily demoralizing them through propaganda and making it obvious that we were trying to oppress them as we did with Jews; in fact, in the instance of colonialism, our oppression of the races of Asia, Africa, and South America was often framed as us doing them a favor by enlightening and uplifting them, bringing with us the benefits of Christianity and civilization, and I'm of the belief that many Europeans who colonized these places actually believed they were helping these people. 

To illustrate the above, here's an example: Africans. The average African in the Belgian Congo did not know many White men, if any, and any who did deal with Europeans often did so only briefly and in a limited capacity; similarly, the average black slave in the United States did not deal with many White people outside of his owner, his owner's family, and his owner's employees. The most intense bouts of his persecution lasted no longer than 300 or 400 years at most, and in the instance of Africans in Africa, it was rather indirect, limited to things like being forced to go to school to learn the language of his colonizers or having to perform manual labor for a White colonist. In the instance of blacks in America, his oppression lasted a grand total of no more than 350 years (assuming the first niggers arrived in 1619 or so and had been totally liberated from all meaningful forms of oppression by 1969), and 100 of those years entailed little more than petty forms of de jure discrimination that did not seriously affect the nigger's pursuit of happiness (not being allowed to ride on the front of a bus or in the whites-only car on a train is hardly comparable to having Europeans come into your village and murder you, your family, and everyone else living there because your ancestors allegedly killed some guy that was born 1400 years ago). We can also look at the oriental - while it is true that peddling opium on and forcibly uplifting the Chinaman was likely unpleasant for him, this oppression lasted little more than a century; the same is more or less true for the Indian in the Raj, the Malay and the Thai in French IndoChina, and the Pinoy in the Philippines. All of this pales in comparison to 2,200 years of almost constant persecution - whether religious, racial, or both - at the hands of European men; no other race has been subject to conquest by the White man, then had his homeland utterly destroyed and all of his religious idols smashed by him, only to then be forced to live amongst him for 1900 years (with those 1900 years being characterized by constant pogroms, forced persecution, ridicule, etc. and culminating in the death of millions of his people).

It is for this reason that I think one cannot deny the importance of history in the Jew's hatred of the Aryan. Though I've belabored this point and repeat myself for the umpteenth time, it remains true that while most races have suffered persecution at our hands, none has experienced it as intensely, lengthily, consistently, and in such a manner as the Jew has; there seems to be almost no way that this fact, which I believe many Jews are consciously aware of on some level or another, is not a major factor, if not the primary factor driving Jewish hatred of the White man.

[nex]

Interesting, I have not read that speech until now so it is coincidental, but good to know Hitler saw the problem as I do.

[Trevor Bauer]

The tendency for popular culture to be ever more esoteric and pseudo-elitist in recent times represents something like Hyperjudaism. For example, consider the many woke movies and TV shows which no one likes but 'that's the point.' You take a boy's coming-of-age tale, like Wheel of Time, re-frame it with a spinster cat lady in the center of it, and thereby say 'fuck you' to the dwindling audience. Sure, it flopped, but like that was the point?

A true high culture of the aristocracy inevitably seems snooty and 'above' the masses, who nonetheless see the beauty in it, and this beauty speaks of something worthy and virtuous in that class of people, which in the mind of the artisan and the peasant justifies a concept of hierarchy. Think of the opera and various forms of classical music and all manner of purdy paintings: these sorts of things are not liked by the masses, but they understand that they're 'superior' art forms in some way, not merely 'different' from the Celtic strings quartet or the rock and roll band.

So Jews are the 'elite' at present, but they are in no wise people who are capable of high culture. They are not sensitive Aryans with yen for truth, they're pragmatic, lying Heebs, and this is often in their own words if they're funny and cynical enough about themselves. Truth, they say, is Greek shit. These people are insensitive, urban-adapted Semites — like smarter, less pious Arabs — with a particular set of skills that makes them the default winners in the open society. All I ask is that the elite be elite, not hostile foreigners with a clunky, irreverent, and trollish sense of art. I refuse to be ruled by vicious, vulgar people who hate my Christ, and hate my towering fascist physique.

[Guest]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toBWYvtobH0
https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1548091490310.jpg

[Guest]

@GraalChud are you Jewish? The extreme animus against Christianity coupled with your extolling of the Jewish perspective of history points to a Semitic origin. I mean with your the Jewish perspective of history you fill in a lot of the blanks with this philo-Semitic canard(which only a Jew would inherently feel the need to do); a quick “muh 2200 years of persecution” would have worked fine.

[GraalChud]

@GraalChud are you Jewish? The extreme animus against Christianity coupled with your extolling of the Jewish perspective of history points to a Semitic origin. I mean with your the Jewish perspective of history you fill in a lot of the blanks with this philo-Semitic canard(which only a Jew would inherently feel the need to do); a quick “muh 2200 years of persecution” would have worked fine.

To answer your initial question: no, I'm something like 60-70% NW European (Northern Irish/Scots-Irish, Gaelic Catholic Irish, and English), 25% Lithuanian, and the remainder of my ancestry is Dutch and German. 

In any case, I'm unsure how you could've read what I wrote here and concluded that I harbor some "extreme animus against Christianity", seeing as Christianity was not particularly important to what I wrote and came up only to explain the basis for much of Europeans' anti-semitism (which was a good thing; in fact, it's one of the only things good things to come from the Catholic Church other than the crusades) and when discussing the shift from a more religiously-oriented anti-semitism (that of Martin Luther, the Spanish Inquisitors, etc.) to a racially-oriented version, a la Hitler (which, in my opinion is infinitely superior to its religious predecessor). Merely acknowledging these two things, noting that the Church did do right by the Jews (this is indisputable, as the Church did things like issue papal bulls calling for Jews to be protected from pograms - see Sicut Judaeis), and pointing out that conversion was oftentimes considered by Jews to be an appropriate means of avoiding anti-semitic attacks (after all, coversos were a thing), is not "Jewish" in any capacity, you babbling retard.

Also, the "Jewish perspective of history" is relevant when discussing the motivations of the Jews, you buffoon. Of course I'm going to talk about how Jews perceive their own relationship to Europeans, a perception that focuses largely on their persecution by our ancestors (which I believe to be a good thing), when I'm discussing the basis for their hatred of Europeans. How on earth you believe I was supposed to avoid this after claiming that a major, if not the primary, impetus behind the kikes' hatred of the White man is rooted in his historical relationship thereto without going into how many Jews subjectively perceive their people's time in Europe is beyond me. How you could've inferred that I'm a philo-semite is equally confusing, seeing as I personally think that the SS's liquidation of Europe's Jewry was the most righteous act committed in the 20th century, if not the entire 2nd millenium A.D. 

Finally, through your use of the exceptionally stupid "if you reject a religion centered around the teachings of a Jewish man and his alleged fulfillment of the Jewish Messiah prophecy, you're a Jew" argument that is most common amongst Nick Fuentes' fans (many of whom are brown) and Christian Identity types, you've exposed yourself as not being particularly bright. This sheds some light on how and why you drew such stupid conclusions from what I said in my original post. Perhaps you'd be more at home on a site like Christogenea or some "America First" circle on Twitter, as either seems more appropriate for someone of your intellectual calibre.

[Trevor Bauer]

@GraalChud are you Jewish? The extreme animus against Christianity coupled with your extolling of the Jewish perspective of history points to a Semitic origin. I mean with your the Jewish perspective of history you fill in a lot of the blanks with this philo-Semitic canard(which only a Jew would inherently feel the need to do); a quick “muh 2200 years of persecution” would have worked fine.

He's trying to sneak in a persecution narrative (they were never to my knowledge; persecution implies it's wrongheaded or unjustified) under the guise of a sort of high-minded antisemitic wordplay. But where is the sin? Episodes like 'the Inquisition' were righteous, and far less bloody on a yearly basis than the havoc wrought by Jewish imposition of black and migrant crime on a single mid-sized American city like Milwaukee, WI over, say, the course of a balmy 4th of July weekend. If 3,230 Inquisition-related deaths over a 353-year period is agreeably factual, then this outrageous period of persecution took the lives of 9 people as a yearly average, with only a portion of those victims being Jewish.

[GraalChud]

He's trying to sneak in a persecution narrative (they were never to my knowledge; persecution implies it's wrongheaded or unjustified) under the guise of a sort of high-minded antisemitic wordplay.

This was already addressed in the ShoutBox yesterday: I did not mean to imply it was bad through my use of the words "persecution" or "oppression." There are plenty of critiques one could level at what I wrote, but this isn't among the best of them. 

Had I gone the route of downplaying European persecution of Jews, I'd not only be disregarding 2,200 years of the Jews being put in their place, but would have also been forced into the same sort of box that many Holocaust deniers find themselves in: the "it didn't happen/they're lying about the numbers, but also it was a good thing!" box, or I would have had to resort to wholesome chungus historical revisionism that would've ultimately harmed my point (that point being that Jews have a perception of their time in Europe as being one marked by persecution on the part of Europeans, which is probably the main impetus behind their hatred for us). As I said to Guest, I'm unsure why this is being seen as apologia for Jews when, to the objective reader who isn't looking to take issue with what was written before even reading it, it clearly isn't.

[Chud]

@GraalChud are you Jewish? The extreme animus against Christianity coupled with your extolling of the Jewish perspective of history points to a Semitic origin[...]

To answer your initial question: no[...]

This is the forum's ten thousandth post. Congratulations!

[The Green Groyper]

Regarding Jewish(or rather Israelite) history, even more biblical minimalist scholars will acknowledge that Israel existed by the 8th century BC. (I tend to think David and Solomon were in fact real historical figures). So there was a Judahite or Israelite Iron Age kingdom in the levant for the last millennium before Christ.

One that seems to have emerged in canaan(whether or not you put stock in the biblical narrative, it is their homeland). The Israelites and later Judeans only interacted with Indo European people’s in the Philistines(notably their main nemesis in large parts of the Old Testament) and other Semitic tribes-Moab, Ammon, Edom, and so on. Meeting the Greeks only with Alexander and the time of the Diadochi. And then the Romans. 

What is clear is the Babylonian exile had a massive effect on Jewish identity, as well as the deportation of the ten tribes by Assyria.

This effected how the Jews saw themselves in relation to these greater powers, and their idea of being chosen and of God.

Notably in the book of Joshua(historical arguments aside) the Hebrews are an invading coalition of tribes-fighters and exterminators of cities. They remain a fractious bunch during the time of the judges(a loose confederation).

This notion of the Jew as merchant, as alien, as disconnected from the soil-from violence is an emergent trait. It wasn’t the case in the ancient Israelites who were as warlike as any other near eastern Semitic people.

[Guest]

To answer your initial question: no, I'm something like 60-70% NW European (Northern Irish/Scots-Irish, Gaelic Catholic Irish, and English), 25% Lithuanian, and the remainder of my ancestry is Dutch and German. 

Very cool! But a yes or no is sufficient. I don’t actually care about your pedigree.



[quote pid="10000" dateline="1695753913"]
In any case, I'm unsure how you could've read what I wrote here and concluded that I harbor some "extreme animus against Christianity", seeing as Christianity was not particularly important to what I wrote and came up only to explain the basis for much of Europeans' anti-semitism (which was a good thing; in fact, it's one of the only things good things to come from the Catholic Church other than the crusades) and when discussing the shift from a more religiously-oriented anti-semitism (that of Martin Luther, the Spanish Inquisitors, etc.) to a racially-oriented version, a la Hitler (which, in my opinion is infinitely superior to its religious predecessor). Merely acknowledging these two things, noting that the Church did do right by the Jews (this is indisputable, as the Church did things like issue papal bulls calling for Jews to be protected from pograms - see Sicut Judaeis), and pointing out that conversion was oftentimes considered by Jews to be an appropriate means of avoiding anti-semitic attacks (after all, coversos were a thing), is not "Jewish" in any capacity, you babbling retard.
[/quote]
Were you nervous when writing this? I was referring to your other pedantic posts on this forum.


[quote pid="10000" dateline="1695753913"]
Also, the "Jewish perspective of history" is relevant when discussing the motivations of the Jews, you buffoon. Of course I'm going to talk about how Jews perceive their own relationship to Europeans, a perception that focuses largely on their persecution by our ancestors (which I believe to be a good thing), when I'm discussing the basis for their hatred of Europeans. How on earth you believe I was supposed to avoid this after claiming that a major, if not the primary, impetus behind the kikes' hatred of the White man is rooted in his historical relationship thereto without going into how many Jews subjectively perceive their people's time in Europe is beyond me. How you could've inferred that I'm a philo-semite is equally confusing, seeing as I personally think that the SS's liquidation of Europe's Jewry was the most righteous act committed in the 20th century, if not the entire 2nd millenium A.D. 
[/quote]
Sorry, I miss interpreted because of your post’s ignorance. It was weirdly made and I didn’t understand why certain points were obviously avoided, but I now know it due to general lack of knowledge(which I left as a possibility in my other post). 

Finally, through your use of the exceptionally stupid "if you reject a religion centered around the teachings of a Jewish man and his alleged fulfillment of the Jewish Messiah prophecy, you're a Jew" argument that is most common amongst Nick Fuentes' fans (many of whom are brown) and Christian Identity types, you've exposed yourself as not being particularly bright. This sheds some light on how and why you drew such stupid conclusions from what I said in my original post. Perhaps you'd be more at home on a site like Christogenea or some "America First" circle on Twitter, as either seems more appropriate for someone of your intellectual calibre.

Again, were you nervous while writing this? I will take your word on you not being jewish so you can calm down.

[GraalChud]

In your response, you made only 2 points worth responding to: 

1) "I was referring to your other pedantic posts on this forum."; and

2) "Sorry, I miss interpreted because of your post’s ignorance. It was weirdly made and I didn’t understand why certain points were obviously avoided, but I now know it due to general lack of knowledge (which I left as a possibility in my other post)".

To address the first of them, let me get this straight: I made a set of posts in a different thread wherein I voiced my opinion on certain topics related to the history and development of Christianity (without disparaging it much, if at all, mind you), so your response is to bring it up in an entirely different thread in which I've posted something largely unrelated to those opinions as evidence that I am a Jew?

I get that you might have some strong personal feelings regarding Christianity and towards those who don't share your high opinion of it, but this just seems like an excuse to vent your petty grievances with me over my own personal beliefs about your faith (although I maintain that I've yet to really talk about my opinion of Christianity as a whole; from what I can remember, I've only voiced that I'm not a Christian in the ShoutBox and explained why, and have talked at length about how I believe that Christianity has undergone significant changes since Christ's death, and things related to these two things, never attacked it or dismissed it entirely). Not only that, but there's nothing pedantic about noting historical processes through which a religion changes, processes talked about by academics. 

To address the second, do tell me what crucial things I've so "obviously avoided" in my explanation of the Jew's hatred of Europeans? Oh, wait, you don't have to tell me, because I already know - you're frustrated that I didn't shoehorn a theological spat, one in which you're clearly highly invested in, that took place between a bunch of Jews in Roman Judea circa 20-30 A.D. into my analysis of why Jews hate Europeans! How foolish of me to leave this out, as I seem to have stupidly forgotten that Roman Judea, inhabited by Jews at the time period in question, was a veeeeery European place inhabited by Nordic Evropan men. In my foolishness, I somehow overlooked the glaringly obvious key to the question being discussed: that the Jews hate White Europeans because 2,000 years ago, Jesus Christ, a Jewish man from the Levant, disagreed with both the Pharisees and the Sadducees over matters related to (Jewish) religious laws and adherence thereto!

Granted, you'd have maybe had a point if your issue was that I didn't do enough to link European conversion to Christianity to our anti-semitism, but this was largely accounted for in my analysis of the topic we're discussing, as I not only (rightly) noted that Europeans had kicked off hostilities with the Jews before Christ had even been born (starting with the Greek conquest of the Levant and continuing into the Roman era), but also did mention that our adoption of Christianity did fuel our anti-semitism in no small part, particularly in the medieval period. Even if you had a point in bringing this up, I cannot overemphasize the fact that it is not merely because Europeans were/are Christian that Jews hate us, but rather because we took OUR version of Christianity and used it as the basis for persecuting them (something that we had already been doing as pagans for centuries before most of Rome converted), rendering your point moot. The Jews don't just hate Europeans because they merely happened to adopt Christianity; were this the case, they'd hate Mexicans, Filipinos, Ethiopians, Armenians, etc. as much as they do Europeans for having adopted the religion that you seem to believe that they base their entire identity around hating.

In accordance with the principle of charity, I'll assume that you had a more substantive critique of my analysis of this issue and were not upset solely because I didn't mention Jesus enough for your liking. Or, it could be the case that I am wrong in assuming that this is what you're mad about me "so obviously avoiding" in my analysis. For this reason, I'll ask you once more: do tell me what crucial information I left out in my analysis of the historical roots of Jewish animosity toward Europeans. 

Lastly, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but you write (and argue) an awful lot like Casual Rapist. Either you're aping his writing style (intentionally or on accident), or you're him and are using a guest account for whatever reason (perhaps to avoid any reputational damage that might come from losing an argument on the topic you seem to care most about). I'll let you tell me which it is.