Jews aren’t white politically, either.  None of the downsides of whiteness attach to Jews voluntarily.  Two salient examples spring to mind: while interviewing Morgan Freeman on 60 minutes Mike Wallace expressly evades “white guilt” by asserting his Jewishness; Joan Rivers blitzkrieged the hapless black activist Darcus Howe, who was too naive to know “white guilt” is a “goy” thing.  Then of course there’s the whole HOLOCAUST industry, which is the biggest “white guilt” trip in history; Jews use this paragon of “white guilt” to justify their aggression against the very people who pulled their asses out of the fire in WWII!

(Btw, CNN’s outright lie of a “transcript” is telling)

I think that’s I Thess. 2:15.

Jews are ‘white’. But whiteness is not a proper foundation for group identity in the first place. If white European-Americans and white Jews find themselves on the same continuum of identity it is because the former have nothing special to distinguish themselves.

Svi, for the record, CNN put out a straight transcript here:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/19/sbt.01.html

No.

They are a people apart, by their own choosing. By claiming to be white, they wish to claim all of the benefits of membership in another tribe, without conferring any of the benefits of membership in their own tribe to anyone else.

If all Jews are white, are all whites Jewish?

I think not.

Riley

The SPLC mentions that American Renaissance consistently deletes readers’ posts critical of the Jews.

Make that Amren doesn’t post comments critical of Jews.  Amren moderates comments.

If the Mossad front SPLC really labels Amren ‘“100% clean” white nationalism’ then Amren is certified as a largely useless publication for white America.  Any publication that refuses to identify and act against an alien group that is predominantly responsible for the problems it complains about ad infinitum is a useless one.

What I would like to draw attention to are the problems in Robert Reis’ essay.  To start with, such articles need to be accompanied by citations rather than leaving the reader to search for them.  Reis has also omitted many recent studies, but before I address them, the core logic is at fault.

The ability to largely genetically distinguish one population from another does not mean that these populations belong to separate races.  Please read about the phylogeographic criteria for race assignment.  With a large number of markers, closely related populations can be very well separated, as seen below.

This image was taken from recent research published in Science magazine, and they used 650,000 DNA markers.

Most Jews are Ashkenazi and these are not all Middle Eastern.  This is known from both history and genetic evidence.  The basic population structure among Europeans is a north-south distinction, followed by a distinction between the Ashkenazi and other southern Europeans.

Here are some newer studies:

Seldin MF, Shigeta R, Villoslada P, Selmi C, Tuomilehto J, et al. (2006) European population substructure: clustering of northern and southern populations. PLoS Genet 2: e142 doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0020143

Price AL, Butler J, Patterson N, Capelli C, Pascali VL, et al. (2008) Discerning the Ancestry of European Americans in Genetic Association Studies. PLoS Genet 4(1): e236. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0030236

Tian C, Plenge RM, Ransom M, Lee A, Villoslada P, et al. (2008) Analysis and Application of European Genetic Substructure Using 300 K SNP Information. PLoS Genet 4(1): e4. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0040004

In the Seldin et al. study, the Ashkenazi couldn’t be separated from other southeastern Europeans, but with more markers they could be separated.

There is no easy way to use genetic justification to definitively exclude the Ashkenazi from European mankind while including other southern Europeans.  Of course, one could exclude southern Europeans to make the matter easy, and Nordicists certainly wouldn’t be complaining, but much of European history and achievement has occurred in southern Europe, and southern European goyim are not undermining the welfare of northern Europeans.  People should keep in mind that some “Nordicists” recommending the exclusion of southern Europeans are Jews trying to prevent whites from organizing against them.  So I recommend that genetic justification be largely ignored.  Just as a dangerous white criminal belongs in prison rather than in free white society notwithstanding his being white, given the extensive history of anti-goyim behavior by organized Jews and the havoc they have wreaked on Europeans, Jews should be considered highly unwelcome aliens that are clearly outside what European mankind should call their own kind.

This image was taken from recent research published in Science magazine, and they used 650,000 DNA markers.

Yes, and did you see Figure 1 in that paper, and how it compares to Rosenberg’s previous studies, which seemed to indicate that Europeans, South Asians, and Middle Easterns all had the same underlying major genetic component, albeit with different levels of “admixture?”

Looking at the Northern and Southern European clusters, you’ll find they lie along an upper left-lower right axis.  If you more closely at the designated ethnicities, you’ll also see that this “cluster axis” “just happens to” mirror a Northwest to Southeast geographic axis, with the Irish at one end and the Greeks at the other.

Ashkenazim, particularly those with 4 Ash. grandparents (hence, “unmixed") do not lie along this axis.  Researchers may express the opinion that this may be due (at least in part) to effects of drift, but the NRY data as well as gene mutation studies (never mind actual history) suggest that these marked differences may in fact be due to the Ashkenazim’s predominant (recent) Middle Eastern ancestry.

People should keep in mind that some “Nordicists” recommending the exclusion of southern Europeans are Jews trying to prevent whites from organizing against them.

Care to point out some examples of this phenomenon? I’ve yet to encounter it outside diabloblanco’s and apparently now your fevered imaginations.

The reality, of course, is that Jewish “anti-racism” began as anti-Nordicism, and boasianism’s first target was the idea that racial variation existed in Europe.

123,

One does not need mimicry to explain Jewish “European-ness”.  The spasms of European revenge-taking would likely favour the survival of the more European-looking Jews.  And then there is a deal of inter-marriage.

Robert’s thesis perhaps requires an air-tight definition of “white”.

We are saying the same thing, I guess.  Basically, in the heat of the moment, when the torches are flaming and the cottage doors are thrown open, and the logs are being piled up in the town square, sympathy sometimes decides who is dragged to the stake and who is left seen but undisturbed beneath the bed.

Care to point out some examples of this phenomenon? I’ve yet to encounter it outside diabloblanco’s and apparently now your fevered imaginations.

How am I supposed to cite examples?  A Moshe Rothberg will not claim to be a Nordicist and argue that southern Europeans are non-white.  Hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, Moshe will claim to be Joos van den Eshof, and then proceed.  If you regularly read majorityrights, you will eventually observe this for yourself, provided that you are familiar with the subversive and deceptive nature of many members of the tribe.

Coincidentally, from the General Social Survey data The Inductivist recently finds:

‘Jews are interesting because one might predict that most of them would answer white since almost all of them self-identify as white, but more blacks and Mexicans than Jews think they have a lot in common with whites! A noticeable number of Jews feel they are very much like blacks: presumably, these folks are thinking of histories of abuse by white Christians.’

If there is a genetic explanation for this, which I believe there is, then it isn’t necessary to posit a distinction by what we think of as geographic race.  There are many genetic maladies that occur within a race.  Tay-Sachs is one such malady.  There may be others similarly clustered.  I’ve commented before that it would be a great boon to identify these genes and their corresponding group metabolic pathways that lead to human ecology horrors like the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.  It may be that there are very simple things that can be done to render these group metabolic pathways null and void if only we understood their real structure.

Are Jews white?

This question of course depends on how one defines “white”. If one considers “white” synonymous with “Caucasoid”, then Jews are white. However, if one accepts the traditional definition of whites as people of European descent, Jews are clearly non-white.

Jews are genetically distinct from Europeans
Studies of the Y-chromosome, mtDNA, and autosomal markers have demonstrated that Ashkenazic Jews derive most of their ancestry from the Middle East and have little in common genetically with the Europeans among whom they live.

Y DNA
Hammer et al. (2000) estimated that Ashkenazi male lineages are about 77% Jewish / Middle Eastern. A 23% European male admixture amounts to an accretion of less than 0.5% per generation. A newer study estimates an even lower European male contribution:

admixture analysis . . . suggests that 5%–8% of the Ashkenazi gene pool is . . . comprised of Y chromosomes that may have introgressed from non-Jewish European populations (Behar et al. Contrasting patterns of Y chromosome variation in Ashkenazi Jewish and host non-Jewish European populations. Hum Genet. 2004 Mar;114(4):354-65. Epub 2004 Jan 22.)

mtDNA
Recent research shows that the Ashkenazic maternal gene pool is also predominantly Near Eastern in origin, with minor European admixture.

While several Ashkenazi Jewish mtDNA Hgs appear to derive from the Near East, there is also evidence for a low level of introgression from host European non-Jewish populations. . . . diversity patterns provide evidence for a prolonged period of low effective size in the history of the Ashkenazi population. The data best fit a model of an early bottleneck (~100 generations ago), perhaps corresponding to initial migrations of ancestral Ashkenazim in the Near East or to Europe. . . . The observed mutational frequency peak for the Ashkenazi and Near Eastern non-Jewish populations is similar and consistent with the age of the Pleistocene expansion, which is older than that inferred from the mutational frequency peak for European non- Jews. This is consistent with a Near East origin for a major portion of the Ashkenazi Jewish mtDNA pool. (Behar et al. MtDNA evidence for a genetic bottleneck in the early history of the Ashkenazi Jewish population. Eur J Hum Genet. 2004 Jan 14 [Epub ahead of print]. )

Autosomal markers
More than two decades ago, using a small number of ‘classical’ markers, Carmelli and Cavalli-Sforza (1979) found that Jews cluster genetically with Near Easterners.

A wide scatter of the Jews was observed among clusters of non-Jews, probably due to drift [Note: Ashkenazis fall squarely within the Near Eastern cluster, with various Jewish isolates being the outliers]. However, the centroid of the Jewish populations mapped in the Middle East cluster. . . . We can conclude by using Rh and Hp frequencies that the Jewish populations show a greater similarity to their ancestral origin. According to Mourant et al. (1976), “Jews from Europe, almost indistinguishable from their European non-Jewish neighbors by their ABO and MN groups, show by their Rh groups that physically they are more nearly related to their Mediterranean ancestors.”

Carmelli and Cavalli-Sforza did conclude that Ashkenazi have “significant” European admixture, but it should be understood that half the markers in this study involved the ABO and MN blood groups. The ABO system in particular is thought to respond selectively to epidemic disease. The authors even mention that “it should also be noted that if genetic similarity between a Jewish group and non-Jewish groups living in the same geographic area is restricted to one or a few loci, it is not observed at most other loci; the more likely interpretation calls for convergent selection at that locus rather than for admixture. Thus, single locus studes are potentially misleading. Unfortunately, the number of loci studied here is not large.”

Motulsky (1980), using a larger number of markers, estimated that Ashkenazi have only 12.5% European admixture; and, since it’s also likely that some of the loci used here were subject to selection, even this lower estimate may overstate the actual level of European admixture.

More here:

http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/2.html

Hard Right
Gay porn’s neocon kingpin.

James Kirchick, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Porn magnate Michael Lucas (second from right) in the Holy Land.This was not what Patrick Cordova had bargained for. The Stanford junior, a member of the school’s student government, had wanted to host a lecture on sexual health. And he figured that a provocative and fun way to tackle the issue would be to bring a prominent pornographer to speak on campus. So Cordova sent out some invitations. The first person he heard back from was Michael Lucas--longtime porn actor and director of such films as Hunt & Plunge, The Bigger The Better, and Fire Island Cruising (editions one through eight). A fixture in New York nightlife and head of his own production company, Lucas is one of the biggest names in gay porn. His 2006 epic La Dolce Vita had a $250, 000 budget, which Lucas says makes it the most expensive porn film in history. The movie garnered best-picture honors at the annual GAYVN Awards, the Oscars of gay porn. (It also garnered a lawsuit from the company that controls the rights to the original Fellini film.) New York magazine has dubbed him the “last of the New York porn moguls.”

Lucas--a staunch advocate of safe sex who, unlike some porn directors, uses condoms in his movies--sounded like exactly the kind of guest speaker Cordova had in mind. “We were hoping that people would embrace his ideas on sexual identity and sexual health,” Cordova told me. But, after Stanford had already booked him, controversy erupted. Some students felt that Lucas shouldn’t have been invited to lecture. By the day of his speech, the storm surrounding Lucas had made its way into the pages of The Stanford Daily, where organizers found themselves defending the invitation against the protests of their outraged peers.

What had provoked such heated debate? It wasn’t Lucas’s porn. It was his politics. Lucas, it turns out, is a fervent supporter of Israel and a harsh, often offensive, critic of the Muslim world. He has called the Koran “today’s Mein Kampf” and regularly inveighs against Muslim homophobia and anti-Semitism in less-than-charming terms. “It totally escapes me how gay people can side with burqa-wearing, jihad-screaming, Koran-crazed Muslims,” he opined last year. At the talk itself, which took place this past Valentine’s Day and drew an audience of about 50, Lucas stuck to his guns. “What’s the point to respect their culture, or supposed culture, when they have a strong contempt for mine?” Lucas asked. And he wasn’t content to leave it at that. The day after he spoke, he published an op-ed in The Stanford Daily responding to the charge that he is racist. “I never in my life said or wrote a bad word about Arabs--go read any of my articles,” he explained. “My criticism was always addressed towards the religion and ideology of Islam. So I would like to ask Stanford students not to exploit the word ‘racism’ at their own convenience.”

The Stanford controversy wasn’t an isolated incident. Over the past few years, Lucas has developed a side career in political commentary to go along with his more lucrative day job. He frequently updates his blog with thoughts on world affairs, writes a regular op-ed column for The New York Blade (a gay newspaper), and has feuded with the popular, liberal gay blog Queerty. “I would be better financially if I didn’t open my mouth,” he tells me. And, yet, Lucas can’t seem to help himself.

Born Andrei Bregman to a secular Jewish family in Russia, Lucas is a graduate of Moscow State Law Academy. But he always craved celebrity, and the allure of fame enticed him to Berlin in 1995 to work as a model and prostitute. He came to the United States in 1997 and founded Lucas Entertainment the following year, eventually earning enough to move his parents and grandparents from Russia--"the putrid country of my birth"--to New York. Ever the resourceful entrepreneur, he put his father to work as a set constructor on his films.

I had read about Lucas in gay magazines like The Advocate and Out, and had met him when he gave a talk about the porn industry at Yale, where I was a student at the time. But it wasn’t until last spring--when Lucas began writing his column for the Blade--that I realized how obsessed he was with international affairs. To be sure, Lucas writes about other topics as well. On his blog, interspersed between hard-core photos, he comments on everything from professional boxing ("I would not be surprised if the majority of boxers are repressed gay or bisexual men") to the dumbing-down of society ("half the people you speak to think Pol Pot is something you buy at Home Depot"). But it is Middle Eastern politics that captivates him most.

When I called Lucas to arrange an interview, he said he was a longtime subscriber to The New Republic, and, arriving at his Manhattan office, I found The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Times of London spread out on his glass desk. (I couldn’t tell if the papers were there to impress, were film props, or were actual reading material.) When Lucas, who turns 36 this month, does wear clothes, he tends toward the form-fitting, and he sported a sharply tailored suit for our interview. He has a strong Russian accent, which is very much on display in his films. As we spoke, he occasionally paused to yell instructions at his publicist. Meanwhile, models entered and exited the room, slamming doors in search of sex toys.

You wouldn’t know it from watching his movies--which are apolitical--but Lucas has opinions on everything. He is a fan of David Brooks and the late Oriana Fallaci (though he acknowledges her homophobia), thought the Iraq war was a bad idea ("the wrong target"), considers the press soft in portraying Islamist terrorism ("it’s very upsetting that they don’t allow people to see the beheadings"), loves Nicolas Sarkozy ("I think Marc Jacobs told me that Sarkozy went to synagogue"), and hates Jimmy Carter ("this fucking peanut farmer"). While he originally disagreed with Russia’s brutal policies toward Chechnya, he now believes that America could learn something from Vladimir Putin. “The American Army can’t take Fallujah?” Lucas asks me, incredulous. “Level it!”

He criticizes Republicans, whom he calls “homophobic and anti-Semitic,” while labeling ultraOrthodox Israelis “anal warts on the body of Israeli society.” But the true objects of his ire are gay liberals whom he sees as overly sympathetic to the Arab side in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Like many Russian Jews who were forced to repress their identity under Soviet rule, Lucas’s Jewish heritage is the anchor of his worldview. He visits Israel annually. Not long after touching down there last month, he penned a manifesto on his website titled, “I stand with Israel, I stand with Jews.” Shortly after the Lebanon war in 2006, he put on a live sex performance in a Tel Aviv nightclub where IDF members were given free admission ("in the tradition of American USO-style shows,” as a Lucas press release described it).

“He’s so deeply invested in, and in love with, his roots and his people,” says Heather Fink, a former publicist for Lucas who is writing a memoir about her experience working for him. But, she adds, “I think it’s very hard for him to empathize with Muslim people, and he does sometimes write them off.” That’s a gross understatement. Last year, in his Blade column, Lucas hailed gay artist Charles Merrill’s decision to burn a rare copy of the Koran, estimated to be worth $60,000, and, in a subsequent radio interview, called the Koran an “absolutely evil book.”

Sometime after visiting Lucas, I received a package from his company. Expecting it to be Lucas’s latest cinematic masterpiece, I instead found a copy of Lee Harris’s The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West.

Like the Stanford students who thought they were putting together a lecture on safe sex only to find themselves embroiled in a controversy over Islam, members of the porn community have learned a lot recently about Lucas’s views on international affairs--probably more than most of them care to know. Unlike Stanford, however, the porn world is a place where people say and do outrageous things for a living. No wonder that, according to most of the porn community insiders I spoke with, the industry seems to be greeting Lucas’s emergence as a pundit with a collective shrug.

These insiders tend to view Lucas’s punditry as a mere extension of his brash personal style--a style that has led to frosty relations with other pornographers. Several years ago, Lucas told sex shop owners in New York that he would stop distributing his movies to them if they continued to stock those of a rival, a former Lucas actor with whom he had fallen out. “The entire industry is terrified of Michael Lucas,” an employee of a competing studio tells me, before politely explaining that’s all he can say. “He’s from the East Coast,” says Mark Kernes, a senior editor at Adult Video News. “Us people on the West Coast are more laid back.”

Lucas’s website describes him as “the epitome of the American Dream,” and, in some ways, that’s true. Americans, particularly immigrants, are experts at borrowing from different cultures in order to create something new. In the end, that capacity for borrowing may help explain Michael Lucas: He has married the pornographer’s taste for the outrageous to the brash self-assuredness of an immigrant entrepreneur to the ethnic nationalism of a Russian Jew to the subject matter of Bernard Lewis. And if the results are sometimes ridiculous or noxious--well, that’s the American way.

James Kirchick is an assistant editor at The New Republic.

Copyright © 2007 The New Republic. All rights reserved.

And if Jews don’t want the southern half of California on grounds it’s all Mexican, too bad:  they’re the ones who made it that way.  It used to be all white till they ruined it.  As the retail-store clerk’s saying goes, “You broke it, you’ve bought it!”

To “Dim-witted Non-entity”:  nothing in my comment is inconsistent with your comment’s last paragraph.  Ideas precede revolutions.  By all means, let’s go incrementally.  And when we arrive at the stage for making a final disposition of matters, let’s insist Jews and Euros live in separate countries, for the reason that Jews don’t know how to behave when living in Euro countries.  If your roommate constantly tries to assassinate you it’s time to change roommates and bar that particular one from ever being your roommate again.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html
Last update - 12:06 21/03/2008


Shattering a ‘national mythology’

By Ofri Ilani

Tags: Palestinians

Of all the national heroes who have arisen from among the Jewish people over the generations, fate has not been kind to Dahia al-Kahina, a leader of the Berbers in the Aures Mountains. Although she was a proud Jewess, few Israelis have ever heard the name of this warrior-queen who, in the seventh century C.E., united a number of Berber tribes and pushed back the Muslim army that invaded North Africa. It is possible that the reason for this is that al-Kahina was the daughter of a Berber tribe that had converted to Judaism, apparently several generations before she was born, sometime around the 6th century C.E.

According to the Tel Aviv University historian, Prof. Shlomo Sand, author of “Matai ve’ech humtza ha’am hayehudi?” ("When and How the Jewish People Was Invented?”; Resling, in Hebrew), the queen’s tribe and other local tribes that converted to Judaism are the main sources from which Spanish Jewry sprang. This claim that the Jews of North Africa originated in indigenous tribes that became Jewish - and not in communities exiled from Jerusalem - is just one element of the far- reaching argument set forth in Sand’s new book.

In this work, the author attempts to prove that the Jews now living in Israel and other places in the world are not at all descendants of the ancient people who inhabited the Kingdom of Judea during the First and Second Temple period. Their origins, according to him, are in varied peoples that converted to Judaism during the course of history, in different corners of the Mediterranean Basin and the adjacent regions. Not only are the North African Jews for the most part descendants of pagans who converted to Judaism, but so are the Jews of Yemen (remnants of the Himyar Kingdom in the Arab Peninsula, who converted to Judaism in the fourth century) and the Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe (refugees from the Kingdom of the Khazars, who converted in the eighth century).
Advertisement

Unlike other “new historians” who have tried to undermine the assumptions of Zionist historiography, Sand does not content himself with going back to 1948 or to the beginnings of Zionism, but rather goes back thousands of years. He tries to prove that the Jewish people never existed as a “nation-race” with a common origin, but rather is a colorful mix of groups that at various stages in history adopted the Jewish religion. He argues that for a number of Zionist ideologues, the mythical perception of the Jews as an ancient people led to truly racist thinking: “There were times when if anyone argued that the Jews belong to a people that has gentile origins, he would be classified as an anti-Semite on the spot. Today, if anyone dares to suggest that those who are considered Jews in the world ... have never constituted and still do not constitute a people or a nation - he is immediately condemned as a hater of Israel.”

According to Sand, the description of the Jews as a wandering and self-isolating nation of exiles, “who wandered across seas and continents, reached the ends of the earth and finally, with the advent of Zionism, made a U-turn and returned en masse to their orphaned homeland,” is nothing but “national mythology.” Like other national movements in Europe, which sought out a splendid Golden Age, through which they invented a heroic past - for example, classical Greece or the Teutonic tribes - to prove they have existed since the beginnings of history, “so, too, the first buds of Jewish nationalism blossomed in the direction of the strong light that has its source in the mythical Kingdom of David.”

So when, in fact, was the Jewish people invented, in Sand’s view? At a certain stage in the 19th century, intellectuals of Jewish origin in Germany, influenced by the folk character of German nationalism, took upon themselves the task of inventing a people “retrospectively,” out of a thirst to create a modern Jewish people. From historian Heinrich Graetz on, Jewish historians began to draw the history of Judaism as the history of a nation that had been a kingdom, became a wandering people and ultimately turned around and went back to its birthplace.

...

Sand: “My initial intention was to take certain kinds of modern historiographic materials and examine how they invented the ‘figment’ of the Jewish people. But when I began to confront the historiographic sources, I suddenly found contradictions. And then that urged me on: I started to work, without knowing where I would end up. I took primary sources and I tried to examine authors’ references in the ancient period - what they wrote about conversion.”

....

Inventing the Diaspora

“After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people remained faithful to it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom” - thus states the preamble to the Israeli Declaration of Independence. This is also the quotation that opens the third chapter of Sand’s book, entitled “The Invention of the Diaspora.” Sand argues that the Jewish people’s exile from its land never happened.

“The supreme paradigm of exile was needed in order to construct a long-range memory in which an imagined and exiled nation-race was posited as the direct continuation of ‘the people of the Bible’ that preceded it,” Sand explains. Under the influence of other historians who have dealt with the same issue in recent years, he argues that the exile of the Jewish people is originally a Christian myth that depicted that event as divine punishment imposed on the Jews for having rejected the Christian gospel.

“I started looking in research studies about the exile from the land - a constitutive event in Jewish history, almost like the Holocaust. But to my astonishment I discovered that it has no literature. The reason is that no one exiled the people of the country. The Romans did not exile peoples and they could not have done so even if they had wanted to. They did not have trains and trucks to deport entire populations. That kind of logistics did not exist until the 20th century. From this, in effect, the whole book was born: in the realization that Judaic society was not dispersed and was not exiled.”

If the people was not exiled, are you saying that in fact the real descendants of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah are the Palestinians?

“No population remains pure over a period of thousands of years. But the chances that the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judaic people are much greater than the chances that you or I are its descendents. The first Zionists, up until the Arab Revolt [1936-9], knew that there had been no exiling, and that the Palestinians were descended from the inhabitants of the land. They knew that farmers don’t leave until they are expelled. Even Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, the second president of the State of Israel, wrote in 1929 that, ‘the vast majority of the peasant farmers do not have their origins in the Arab conquerors, but rather, before then, in the Jewish farmers who were numerous and a majority in the building of the land.’”

And how did millions of Jews appear around the Mediterranean Sea?

“The people did not spread, but the Jewish religion spread. Judaism was a converting religion. Contrary to popular opinion, in early Judaism there was a great thirst to convert others. The Hasmoneans were the first to begin to produce large numbers of Jews through mass conversion, under the influence of Hellenism. The conversions between the Hasmonean Revolt and Bar Kochba’s rebellion are what prepared the ground for the subsequent, wide-spread dissemination of Christianity. After the victory of Christianity in the fourth century, the momentum of conversion was stopped in the Christian world, and there was a steep drop in the number of Jews. Presumably many of the Jews who appeared around the Mediterranean became Christians. But then Judaism started to permeate other regions - pagan regions, for example, such as Yemen and North Africa. Had Judaism not continued to advance at that stage and had it not continued to convert people in the pagan world, we would have remained a completely marginal religion, if we survived at all.”

How did you come to the conclusion that the Jews of North Africa were originally Berbers who converted?

“I asked myself how such large Jewish communities appeared in Spain. And then I saw that Tariq ibn Ziyad, the supreme commander of the Muslims who conquered Spain, was a Berber, and most of his soldiers were Berbers. Dahia al-Kahina’s Jewish Berber kingdom had been defeated only 15 years earlier. And the truth is there are a number of Christian sources that say many of the conquerors of Spain were Jewish converts. The deep-rooted source of the large Jewish community in Spain was those Berber soldiers who converted to Judaism.”

Sand argues that the most crucial demographic addition to the Jewish population of the world came in the wake of the conversion of the kingdom of Khazaria - a huge empire that arose in the Middle Ages on the steppes along the Volga River, which at its height ruled over an area that stretched from the Georgia of today to Kiev. In the eighth century, the kings of the Khazars adopted the Jewish religion and made Hebrew the written language of the kingdom. From the 10th century the kingdom weakened; in the 13th century is was utterly defeated by Mongol invaders, and the fate of its Jewish inhabitants remains unclear.

Sand revives the hypothesis, which was already suggested by historians in the 19th and 20th centuries, according to which the Judaized Khazars constituted the main origins of the Jewish communities in Eastern Europe.

“At the beginning of the 20th century there is a tremendous concentration of Jews in Eastern Europe - three million Jews in Poland alone,” he says. “The Zionist historiography claims that their origins are in the earlier Jewish community in Germany, but they do not succeed in explaining how a small number of Jews who came from Mainz and Worms could have founded the Yiddish people of Eastern Europe. The Jews of Eastern Europe are a mixture of Khazars and Slavs who were pushed eastward.”

‘Degree of perversion’

If the Jews of Eastern Europe did not come from Germany, why did they speak Yiddish, which is a Germanic language?

“The Jews were a class of people dependent on the German bourgeoisie in the East, and thus they adopted German words. Here I base myself on the research of linguist Paul Wechsler of Tel Aviv University, who has demonstrated that there is no etymological connection between the German Jewish language of the Middle Ages and Yiddish. As far back as 1828, the Ribal (Rabbi Isaac Ber Levinson) said that the ancient language of the Jews was not Yiddish. Even Ben Zion Dinur, the father of Israeli historiography, was not hesitant about describing the Khazars as the origin of the Jews in Eastern Europe, and describes Khazaria as ‘the mother of the diasporas’ in Eastern Europe. But more or less since 1967, anyone who talks about the Khazars as the ancestors of the Jews of Eastern Europe is considered naive and moonstruck.”

Why do you think the idea of the Khazar origins is so threatening?

“It is clear that the fear is of an undermining of the historic right to the land. The revelation that the Jews are not from Judea would ostensibly knock the legitimacy for our being here out from under us. Since the beginning of the period of decolonization, settlers have no longer been able to say simply: ‘We came, we won and now we are here’ the way the Americans, the whites in South Africa and the Australians said. There is a very deep fear that doubt will be cast on our right to exist.”

.....

Is there such a thing as a “Brown” race?  Is there such a thing as a “Yellow” Race?

Is it not kind of moronic to name races by “color”? Is that not simpleton?

Doesn’t Race follow closely the taxonomy of Language?  Don’t we say “Frenchmen” because they speak “French”? and they reside in Europe?  Don’t we say “German” because they speak, German?  All these groups are called “Indo-Europeans”.  I will never use the “Color” to describe a race. For me there is NO such thing as a “White” race. I’m Indo-European.  NOT White!

James Bowery: thanks for the info., most informative.

And if Jews don’t want the southern half of California on grounds it’s all Mexican, too bad:  they’re the ones who made it that way.  It used to be all white till they ruined it.  As the retail-store clerk’s saying goes, “You broke it, you’ve bought it!”

Bravo, Fred!

"When spotted, the poster should be denounced for injuring our folk as we develop tactics in this conflict.”

First of all we, we have to identify the enimie and then fully understand the nature of enemy we are in conflict with. Who are are our enemies, and what are their strengths and weaknesses? HOW CAN WE FIGHT THE BEAST??? The smartest minds are still groping for answers.

Bo, who and or or what do you beleive we are fighting against?

What tactics, if any, have been developed so far to fight back with? The Internet?

I’m ready to fight!

One thing for sure, the enimie is drowning us in a sea of color and time is running out.

We can gage by demographic trends where we stand in this battle to survive.

Sorry, but can’t win this thing by hiding from the truth. Hiding from the truth is what the live-in-a-bubble-white-liberals do.

Gee, I hope nobody figures out my identity!  Ssshhhh....

Europids -> comprised of two subgroups:

1.  Whites.
2.  Incidental whites.

Whites say, “I’m White.”
Incidental whites say, “I happen to be white.”

Whites value and own wealth.
Incidental whites value and own inflatable money.

Whites value in-Europid collectivism.
Incidental whites value in-Europid individualism.

White altruism extended to Europids first, out-Europid groups last.
Incidental white altruism extended to Europid ingroups first, Europid outgroups last.

Incidental whites are not White until they undergo behavior changes.  Until then, Whites owe them nothing.  Let’s drop the pose of the online status quo, take the moral high ground in word and deed, and become true racial liberators.

"Europids -> comprised of two subgroups:

1.  Whites.
2.  Incidental whites.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for your brilliant insights.

“Whites value and own wealth.”

Do you even know what wealth is? If so, Give examples of what you mean by owning “wealth.”

Reply to JW Part 2 – Salter’s question revisited

This will be a response to JW critiquing a non-sequitur that I never implied.  What are the ethnic genetic interests (EGI) costs to the English when 10,000 Bantu move in vs. when 10,000 Ashkenazi move in?

Blacks first.