On Pogroms

[Numar Patru]

An excessive focus on Christianity ignores 1) tensions between Jews and non-Christians such as Pagans and Muslims, 2) the rising secular strain of “anti-Semitism” from the 19th century and beyond.

Comparative speaking, the tensions between Jews and other religious groups has been tiny compared to that between Jews and Christians. Even among Muslims, antisemitism was a rare expression before the advent of Zionism — rare enough that it hardly warrants mention beyond noting that Christians’ experience in the Muslim world was similar. Jewish relations with the Greeks and Romans were colored by the territorial conflicts between them. You can find expressions by Greeks about Persians or by Romans about Carthaginians that are far worse than what either ever said about Jews during the pagan period.

Some Jewish writers seem very attached to religious explanations. I have been puzzled to see Jewish authors like Wistrich trying to play up the supposed Christian roots of Hitler’s anti-Semitism. That is quite off base, imo.

I agree Wistrich is wrong on this point and would say Christianity as the primary wellspring of antisemitism diminishes beginning with the Reformation. Even Luther’s denunciation of Jews, while employing economic language, hinges on a theological argument about Jews as accursed, however. He was, after all, a Bible adherent.

With increasing modernity and liberation for both Jews and the peasantry, direct economic competition between the two groups occurs largely for the first time in much of Europe. Where the Enlightenment tradition has taken hold, antisemitism is more likely to take on a national, ethnic, or racial cast: we hate them because they aren’t us. Where it has not and the peasantry remains highly religious, antisemitism largely remains religious in its origins: we hate them because God does.

And yes, the hatred runs both ways and is much more pronounced among Jews where Jewish liberation is incomplete or reversed. Ironically, Jewish contempt for non-Jews was least pronounced in Germany, where liberation was more or less total.

[Numar Patru]

I don't care what someone says about a dead jew on a stick. Not unlike Pontius Pilate, I wash my hands of what the jews choose to do with one another.

Then why mention it?

As a disinterested observer, I do not fail to notice how childish and trite it is to slander a dead man and to bind it in to holy scripture. It tells me something about the type of people who would do this.

When I mention that you're unable to see things from anything but your own perspective, this is what I mean. You have two religions, both of whose holy books says things about the other that are uncharitable to say the least.

Christians say (notably first, chronologically speaking): Jews are an accursed people and will be unless and until they drop their beliefs and adopt ours. Jesus proved who he was and for them to reject that truth is a rejection of God himself. They deserve whatever happens to them.

Jews say (in response): We reject Christians' view of Jesus and instead view him according to our tradition and rules. If it's true that he really proclaimed himself to be God, then he sinned in a major way and is being punished eternally for it. He was one of us and we have a right to say something about this matter.

You say: Christians were probably right about those Jews.

Another thing I don't fail to notice is what the talmud says about me, and what jews say about me. You do understand that considering me a beast of the field kindles in me a type of contempt that is hard to define, do you not?

This is when your pretense of being well read on this topic really breaks down. There is nothing in Jewish theology that suggests that non-Jews are "beasts of the field." To say that is to completely misunderstand the Jewish liturgical tradition as embodied in the Talmud and the import, or lack thereof, of such statements. It also ignores the historical context of such statements.

I also can't help but notice that the jewish religion has a rather odd rite for oathbreaking. Why would a culture do this? In my culture, an oathbreaker is one of the lowest forms of human filth. For the jew, this is not only tolerated, but, enabled, by their faith.

Presumably, you're talking about the Kol Nidrei ritual of Yom Kippur? What you suggest is a gross misunderstanding of what it is, what it covers, why it is said, etc.

If the jew would stay in their eruv and keep their nose out of my affairs, that would be fine. They travel well outside their lane however and even seek to stifle my speech. They also want to remove my right to defense. This too kindles in me a type of contempt that is hard to define.

I don't understand what you're talking about.

If jews think they are gods chosen people, that's fine with me, go, be gods chosen people, go, be jews, be the best jews you can be, far, far away from me.

If the jew thinks that some jew that was stuck to a stick boils in excrement, fine. Tell the world. Don't hold your tongue in certain company for profit. When you are exposed, it will come across poorly. Go, crow your hate for jesus. Scream it from dusk till dawn. That's fine. Don't be like a cat and try to cover it up.

Do you think this is the sort of thing Jews talk about when they're among themselves, a thousand years after any significant contribution was made to the rabbinic literary tradition about Jesus? This kind of discourse is (thankfully) limited to a small percentage of ultra-Orthodox Jews mostly concentrated in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Most Jews are ecumenists and view Christianity with a baseline level of respect. The ones who aren't frankly save their vitriol for Muslims when it comes to critiquing the religions of others, which should tell you something about how historical context colors these things, but you don't have the ability to think critically at that level.

The jewish branch of the human tree is twisted and only yields rotten fruit. How happy I would be to see this branch cut from my grove and put into it's own garden where it could be as childish and petulant as it liked, and produce the bitterest and most rotten fruit without me having to run across it.

Jewish culture is like a woman, cheating on her 5th husband, keeping up a wealth of lies, and wondering why she can't find a good man. Arrogant, petulant and destructive.

Lol. Tell me again how you don't hate Jews.

[Stubble]

Lol. Tell me again how you don't hate Jews.

Here I thought I had been very clear, when describing my judenhass earlier, because of a similar misunderstanding on your part, I had basically said, I hate jewish culture. I don't hate people who happen to be jewish. How is that yet not clear to you. I hate jewry.

Then why mention it?

Because of the dishonesty surrounding it. Again, it's the dishonesty.

When I mention that you're unable to see things from anything but your own perspective...

Again, you misunderstand. To write 'your mother was a whore and you are a bastard' in a holy book is juvenile. To then deny it is feminine. The story of jesus truly is a tragedy. If he was right, a grave error was made. If he was wrong, there's no reason to bring his mother in to it.

I don't understand what you're talking about.

Gun control legislation and 'hate speech' legislation are authored and pushed predominantly by jews. The involvement of 'aipac' and their control over my representatives is a different issue, but not wholly unrelated. Again, jews are a state within a state, and they seek to usurp and control every place they go.

Do you think this is the sort of thing Jews talk about when they're among themselves, a thousand years after any significant contribution was made to the rabbinic literary tradition about Jesus? This kind of discourse is (thankfully) limited to a small percentage of ultra-Orthodox Jews mostly concentrated in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Most Jews are ecumenists and view Christianity with a baseline level of respect. The ones who aren't frankly save their vitriol for Muslims when it comes to critiquing the religions of others, which should tell you something about how historical context colors these things, but you don't have the ability to think critically at that level.

I won't bother linking videos and articles then.

[Numar Patru]

Again, you misunderstand. To write 'your mother was a whore and you are a bastard' in a holy book is juvenile. To then deny it is feminine. The story of jesus truly is a tragedy. If he was right, a grave error was made. If he was wrong, there's no reason to bring his mother in to it.

You’re ignoring the context in which these things were written. Jews were under attack by Christians on the basis of the Christian faith, and a non-zero number of Jews were converting away from Judaism.

And it’s not like the Talmud in its totality is a “holy book.” Do you even understand what it is? Do you comprehend that not every passage in the Talmud constitutes an authoritative opinion? There is a lot in the Talmud that has been ignored for centuries and will continue to be ignored.

Gun control legislation and 'hate speech' legislation are authored and pushed predominantly by jews. The involvement of 'aipac' and their control over my representatives is a different issue, but not wholly unrelated.

Considering the sheer number of children regularly murdered with guns in the US and the utter lack of limitations on freedom of speech here, I’d say you have nothing to worry about.

Again, jews are a state within a state, and they seek to usurp and control every place they go.

No, Jews pursue their self-interest where they go, just like everyone else does, and that self-interest might or might not align with yours. In your case, it doesn’t, so you blame their Jewishness. It’s juvenile.

Virtually everywhere they live outside Israel, Jews are a tiny minority. They therefore pursue political policies that protect minorities. It’s not rocket science.

[Stubble]

And it’s not like the Talmud in its totality is a “holy book.” Do you even understand what it is

Which talmud.

But yes, I understand that it is a collection, not a 'book'. It's, what, 1,200ish years of history and debate? Expansive as it is I'm surprised it is contained within so few pages (relatively].

Expensive too. Have you priced a set in English lately?

[Numar Patru]

The Babylonian Talmud is the one most Jews use. The Palestinian Talmud is both less extensive and less authoritative.

The Jewish religious viewpoint is that it covers Jewish law from Sinai (1250 BC) to around 500 CE. More likely it covers from around 100 to 500 CE.

I bought it on CD about 25 years ago and spent maybe $100. That was before the whole that was put online by Sefaria.

[Stubble]

Eight grand for paper is spicy. ABE Books, 1930's era.

I haven't bit. I got a pdf format copy from chabad iirc.

Some of the stuff in there man...

You can say what you want about context or whatever. To know that a girl under 3 will have her hymen grow back, but over 3 won't, that's a subject and type of specificity that is discomforting. You know?

[Numar Patru]

Of course it is. But the idea of bride price is what’s at issue in discussions like that one, and Jews were far from the only culture with such concerns.

The way to think about the Talmud is to compare it to SCOTUS. Except rather than waiting for a case to be brought on an issue before making a ruling, rabbis sat around for centuries and just thought about any possibility that might arise. And instead of recording just the majority and minority opinions, they recorded everyone’s opinion.

So the matter at hand is that a man doesn’t receive a bride price for a daughter who isn’t a virgin. Rabbi X says, “What if she’s not a virgin but it’s through no fault of her own, e.g., she was molested?” And Rabbi Y says, “Let’s put the cutoff at three years old.” Rabbi Z might say, “Let’s make it nine,” etc. Depending on how important the topic is, a vote might be taken.

You and I can both look at that as perfectly crazy. But no one anywhere in 500 CE didn’t see premarital virginity as a huge deal. And Judaism is a highly legalistic religion. Thus the Talmud.

[Stubble]

I'm aware. None of that addresses my point...

The knowledge and specificity about exactly how old a girl can be and her hymen grow back.

That's like looking at Alfred Kinsey's table 43 and realizing, there are people out there...

[Numar Patru]

I mean, I don’t think they actually grow back, do they? My understanding was that the reference was a metaphor, i.e., it would be as if it grew back.

[Stubble]

Forgive the video title, and watch.

https://odysee.com/@towerruth8:0/Jews-babies:d

Apparently, they do, as confirmed by modern medicine.

[Numar Patru]

Pretty sure that rabbi isn't a doctor.

[Stubble]

Pretty sure that rabbi isn't a doctor.

Pretty sure that rabbi isn't a doctor.

You missed the part where there was a doctor in the room, didn't you.

I digress.

Going back to your original post, here is an ai oration of part of 'My Struggle' by Adolph Hitler. It is fairly concise and not overly long.



There is a longer slightly better version on odysee, but, odysee links won't directly load in the mini player.

https://odysee.com/@PaganBear:0/video_2 ... 02-32-59:e

I highly recommend th slightly longer odysee version.

[Numar Patru]

Do you think I haven't read this? Why are you posting it? What am I supposed to glean from this?

[Stubble]

Do you think I haven't read this? Why are you posting it? What am I supposed to glean from this?

Well, your original post was asking dumbly about the jewish question. As someone who opposes jewish infiltration and subversion of my homeland, and someone who walked a very similar path to Mr Hitler, I felt this excerpt from Mien Kampf was quite relevant to your original query.

As someone who continues to study the current state of affairs and judaism, and who harbors judenhass now, perhaps if there is some spot you are absolutely blind here, I can lend you a torch and shed some light.

What exactly don't you understand?

It's quite clear cut and very concise.

Going back specifically to before 1492, as you had called at earlier, I pointed at ritual jewish murder and the disputation of Paris, as well as the gates of Toledo and some other things, because those were the main drivers in those times. Usury and usurpation were certainly on the list, they were not chief however.

Broadening the timescale to today, when looked at in retrospect, this excerpt from Mr Hitler rings the bell of truth, over and over again. None of the words ring hollow. Every bit of it the truth.

Surely you are not so blind as to miss the parallels.