Protestant sects also use all kinds of native european religious symbols, titles, architecture etc. If catholicism is pagan then so is pretty much every other christian cult.
By the time christianity came around rome had become a globalist shell devoid of any faith or meaning. Cosmopolitan urbanites in roman cities were rapidly cycling through foreign cults, constantly seeking after novelty and diversion. Christianity wasn't the first fashionable new religion they picked up, it wasn't even the last.
I'm disregarding the retardation about the pope being a pagan. The early christians (like all jews) couldn't build anything of their own so they latched onto existing institutions and took them over. You also have your timeline backward since catholicism was not established until after they gained control of the imperial system.
When did the catholics ever "put pagans in control?"
The only concessions a (((catholic))) ever granted a native european was when they were desperately vying for the right to groom his children and subjects. Sounds familiar come to think of it, where have we encountered this behaviour before...
> The audience of Romans is the saints of Rome. The Greek word being translated into "Gentile" is basically "ethnicities".
That's what goyim means, yes, nations or ethnicities, but in context it is used to mean "non-jews." Now given that the early christians were mostly helenised jews and the broader term "ethnicities" makes no sense in this quote, it makes complete sense to translate it as "gentiles" or "goyim" and the "saints of jerusalem" he's referring to as "jews."
The alternative makes very little sense so it would be more honest to discard it.
> I addressed this in an earlier comment in this thread chain. The saints in Jerusalem would by extension likely be at least prodominantly Hebraic in fleshly ethnicity.
Then they are jews.
> You are basically proposing a conflict between the Talmudic account vs. Christian account of scripture. There are discrepancies in the respective Old Testaments. And this is fine for conversations about the OT. But because we are looking at the NT, Christianity is the only one with skin in the game for that. The source manuscripts stand. And source manuscripts do not venerate antiChrist Jews.
The NT was also written by jews. I'm still not buying into this "antichrist jews" distinction. Jews are jews.
> The entire point is that many antiChrist 'Jews' are likely to be fake Jews. The exception is in cases like Saul to Paul where an antiChrist Jew is destined to become a Christian through divine intervention. The whole point is that all true-Jews will eventually join Christianity because none come to the Father except through Christ. An antiChristian Jew is not considered a saint.
If judaism is an ethnicity and they'll still be jew when they abandon judaism and become christian then how can someone be a "false jew?"? Alternately if judaism is a religion then how will they still be jewish when they become christians?
With your interpretation the quote makes no sense whatsoever. It makes much more sense to interpret it as the author approving of some jewish sects while disapproving of others. Still philosemitism.
> The Bible points towards true ones and fake ones.
The bible can say what it likes, this won't address the problem that jews are jews and philosemitism will ultimately be the end of europeans if we allow it to continue.
The bible is a major part of this problem, placing a jewish supremacy document at the center of our culture has lead to all kinds of completely unnecessary pro-jewish sentiment and anti-european conflict. Not to mention the perversions of history that result from european nationalists trying to square their ethnic origins with their jew-centric upbringing.
If it weren't for christianity there would be precisely zero europeans trying to claim jews are white, or jews aren't the real jews or whites are the real jews. It'd be a retarded thing to suggest.
> KJV isn't perfect, but it is 1) a good English approximation with close fidelity to the source manuscripts, and 2) is free of tainting from modern politics
But not free of the taint of contemporary politics. Just saying that you can't pick a translation you like then criticise everyone else for not using the original.
> The original doesn't say "Jews" at all. That's the point.
Again though, the people it's referring to are defined in opposition to gentiles. So these people who live in jerusalem and are not gentiles aren't jews?
> Take a moment to be scholarly about this and realize which group would want to change the phrasing. This is just an example of things that are shifted.
That goes both ways though. Christians are just as capable of rewriting their books to downplay the philosemitism when they realise how bad it is.
> It does not refer to true Jews. The passages even say as much. And the definition of Jew is further expanded on in other passages. AntiChrist Jews aren't really Jews. "One is not a Jew that is one outwardly"
Exactly. And if it's complaining about fake-jews being a problem then it's suggesting there are a group he considers genuine jews who are not a problem. So it's highly disingenuous to hold it up as evidence early christians rejected jews or acted in opposition to them.
> By claiming that Rom 15 is talking about antiChrist Jews #is# an attempt to ignore what was written.
I'm not the one making special distinctions here. I never said "antichrist jews" or tried to create any other subcategory. There is only one type of jew as far as I'm concerned and christianity is far too tolerant of them.
Rom 15 is talking about a group of people who live in jerusalem and are not gentiles. That is jews. You would have to deliberately blind yourself to conclude otherwise.
> Again, the original source manuscripts have more authority than modern English translations. Look at what the originals say. Your argument falls apart when you look into this.
> In biblical Israel, it was all the land between the Nile and Euphrates, which included Aryian people, Syrian people, Arabs, Persians and filthy fucking jews, and only a small minded moron would lump all these people together to come up with "joos".
That's nice, fortunately no one did.
What I did do was lump together the jews and the rest of the israelites, because they're the same people and their descendants are the banker clan we all know and love today.
When people use the word "african" they're referring to nigs, not berbers or boers. When people (at least in america) use the word "asian" they're referring to east asians, not turks or russians.
And yes, when people use the word "jew" they are talking about the modern descendants of the hebrews. The people who wrote the old testament are the same people running the banks, trooning the kids and grabbing any land they can get their hands on.
There are no "modern jews" or "talmudic jews" there are only "jews". The sooner you accept this the better for everyone yourself included.
So why are these "saints in jerusalem" defined in opposition to "gentiles"?
Same goes for the "synagogue of satan" thing. I was told for years by christians that it explicitly referred to jews, then I looked it up and turns out it didn't at all, in fact it says the opposite. It's another one of these "context" things where you have to ignore what is written and imagine something completely different instead because 2000 years later some guy gets jewpilled and can't deal with the fact that he's following an extremely philosemetic religion.
At this point you guys are essentially just rewriting the book to say whatever you want it to say. It's not context, it's editing.
> How small does your mind have to be to read the word "Israel" and think the word "jew"? Israel became a nation state of jews in 1948.
Stop with the retarded hair splitting and semantic arguments.
The hebrews were a historically homogenous population. They shared the same language, genetics, religion and were typically part of a unified country. The fact that they were occasionally split into the judeans and israelites (but then reunited) makes no odds, they were still the same people.
The modern word for those people are "jews". You can bitch and whine that that word originally referred to the judeans specifically but what you call them doesn't change what they are. They are the people of the old testament and the new testament. They are the founders of the religions of judaism and christianity. They are also very likely the founders of islam.
> In the NT, Israel isn't a land mass filled with hypocrites intent on evil doings.
Er... both in the OT and NT jews are pretty consistantly depicted jewing about as hard as they do today. They put a nice spin on it because they're the ones writing the book but their behaviour is pretty consistant.
What it says is that there was a unique population in the levant during the copper age (long before jewish history starts) and they're unrelated to previous or later populations.
> A picture commanded to be made of Jesus by Tiberius Ceasar. Apparently a recreation, but still in the Library of Congress so probably accurate
Firstly, that's not genetic evidence. Secondly, it doesn't really count as historical evidence either. There's precious little evidence the romans knew or cared about anyone called jesus christ until a century plus after his death. Even then only in the context of recording "btw there's this new cult and this is what they believe."
Claiming that the emperor himself was interested enough to commission a painting of some random jewish outlaw, then no one ever mentioned him again for a hundred years is not credible.
What's probable is that it's yet another 19th century fake sold to gullible collectors.
> Red hair, white skin
That passage doesn't say red hair, just that he was red and covered in hair. Crying babies are often red when they are born.
As for pale skin... it's a relative term. Just because someone's whiter than the sandnigs around them doesn't make them a nord. Taking it literally and trying to apply a modern ethnographic term is a huge stretch.
> The white race are the actual chosen people, the Israelites. This gets clear already when you see that Mount Aratat, where Noah landed with his arc is the same place where the white people, caucasusoids, come frome from, the Caucasus
Just one problem, the theory that whites originated in anatolia has not stood the test of time. All linguistic and genetic evidence suggests we evolved around the Ukraine, and if you want to go further back we came from northern central asia.
> It is also known that the blue eyed people all have a common anchestor
We got blue eyes from interbreeding with the WHG/AFF europeans. The majority of our ancestry comes from corded ware/yamnaya steppe herders.
> Writing system
Irrelevant. Writing systems were routinely swapped around in the bronze age, they don't indicated national origin. The actual language of the europeans is unrelated the the language of the hebrews. There is no good explanation for this if the hebrews were actually white.
> We have the floodmyth and stories of a rebellious knowledgebringer and (evil) serpent causing calamity with a woman involved, all around the world together with the Swastika, a solar symbol where the sun also is a common symbol for God and Jesus, with Europeans having been around everywhere even in ancient times, including the Americas
The jews didn't originate the flood myth, they stole it from the sumerians, who also aren't white. The fact that they cobbled their religion together from various white and nonwhite sources does not prove they were white.
> The chinese talk about blue eyed and blonde haired people who created a civilization and ruled for some time. A lot of egyptians mummies are shown to have had blonde hair etc.
The Tahrim basin mummies yes, also burials in Shandong. That has nothing to do with jews though.
> Three one god, the trinity being a theme in the oldest text we have deciphered so far. The trinity is another theme which draws itself across a lot of culture, from sumer to egypt, to the Nordics and of course christianity written in the Vinca Runes, found in Bulgaria (Balkans)
Trinitarianism is a very european concept yes. The early christians (mostly hellenised jews) drew heavily on native european beliefs (particularly neoplantonism) to create their religion.
This isn't my first rodeo, I've been through these arguments many many times before and never come across anything solid... it's all been tenuous wishful thinking so far.
But ok, if I watch that hour long documentary is there doing to be something with meat on it? Is there going to be genetic evidence, linguistics and archeology providing a solid argument for the idea that jews are not jews and whites are the real jews?
Because as things stand that claim is a massive stretch and only gets made by people trying to write themselves into jewish history.
I had a look through the pastebin and it's not convincing. All of those prophecies about the israelites are extremely vague and could be said to have been fulfilled (or not) by any number of ethnic groups.
Meanwhile we have the awkward problem that whites are closely related to each other, but not to the ancient hebrews. And some jews are related to whites, but all jews are related to the ancient hebrews.
We know for a fact the jews act like dickheads while writing their propaganda to make themselves look like saints, so why is it so difficult to believe that's what the bible is?
I cringed hard and closed the video. Bad etymology and anachronisms are not going to undo all the evidence that jews are jews and whites are whites:
- White populations speak indo european languages which have common gramatical features and vocabulary. Hebrew populations speak semetic languages which have nothing in common with european ones, they are more closely related to arabic languages.
- Heebs have bred into several non-semetic populations including europeans, but the genes they have in common are not european, they are a distinct semetic ethnic group.
- Their religion is a patchwork of ideas they stole from surrounding civilisations (including some european ones) but the core texts still betray their narcissistic hebrew worldview and have little in common philosophically with european thought patterns.
If it weren't for the fact that we're stuck with a jewish book at the core of our society I do not believe for a moment any white nationalist would be arguing that whites are really jews.
Broc_Liath 5 points 1.1 years ago
Those things are terrifying. They regularly eat humans too, and other komodo dragons.
/v/Reptiles viewpost?postid=6437e9a3b7d65
Broc_Liath 1 point 1.1 years ago
Protestant sects also use all kinds of native european religious symbols, titles, architecture etc. If catholicism is pagan then so is pretty much every other christian cult.
/v/subrequest viewpost?postid=6437afbfbbb7a
Broc_Liath 1 point 1.1 years ago
By the time christianity came around rome had become a globalist shell devoid of any faith or meaning. Cosmopolitan urbanites in roman cities were rapidly cycling through foreign cults, constantly seeking after novelty and diversion. Christianity wasn't the first fashionable new religion they picked up, it wasn't even the last.
I'm disregarding the retardation about the pope being a pagan. The early christians (like all jews) couldn't build anything of their own so they latched onto existing institutions and took them over. You also have your timeline backward since catholicism was not established until after they gained control of the imperial system.
/v/subrequest viewpost?postid=6437afbfbbb7a
Broc_Liath 6 points 1.1 years ago
When did the catholics ever "put pagans in control?"
The only concessions a (((catholic))) ever granted a native european was when they were desperately vying for the right to groom his children and subjects. Sounds familiar come to think of it, where have we encountered this behaviour before...
/v/subrequest viewpost?postid=6437afbfbbb7a
Broc_Liath 5 points 1.1 years ago
My whole body clenched hearing that, nightmare fuel. Glad you kept your hand.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6435b2356d18c
Broc_Liath 0 points 1.1 years ago
Risky click of the day. Wasn't sure if I was going to get ebonics or perky tits.
/v/ClownWorld viewpost?postid=64355e755335c
Broc_Liath 0 points 1.1 years ago
> The audience of Romans is the saints of Rome. The Greek word being translated into "Gentile" is basically "ethnicities".
That's what goyim means, yes, nations or ethnicities, but in context it is used to mean "non-jews." Now given that the early christians were mostly helenised jews and the broader term "ethnicities" makes no sense in this quote, it makes complete sense to translate it as "gentiles" or "goyim" and the "saints of jerusalem" he's referring to as "jews."
The alternative makes very little sense so it would be more honest to discard it.
> I addressed this in an earlier comment in this thread chain. The saints in Jerusalem would by extension likely be at least prodominantly Hebraic in fleshly ethnicity.
Then they are jews.
> You are basically proposing a conflict between the Talmudic account vs. Christian account of scripture. There are discrepancies in the respective Old Testaments. And this is fine for conversations about the OT. But because we are looking at the NT, Christianity is the only one with skin in the game for that. The source manuscripts stand. And source manuscripts do not venerate antiChrist Jews.
The NT was also written by jews. I'm still not buying into this "antichrist jews" distinction. Jews are jews.
> The entire point is that many antiChrist 'Jews' are likely to be fake Jews. The exception is in cases like Saul to Paul where an antiChrist Jew is destined to become a Christian through divine intervention. The whole point is that all true-Jews will eventually join Christianity because none come to the Father except through Christ. An antiChristian Jew is not considered a saint.
If judaism is an ethnicity and they'll still be jew when they abandon judaism and become christian then how can someone be a "false jew?"? Alternately if judaism is a religion then how will they still be jewish when they become christians?
With your interpretation the quote makes no sense whatsoever. It makes much more sense to interpret it as the author approving of some jewish sects while disapproving of others. Still philosemitism.
> The Bible points towards true ones and fake ones.
The bible can say what it likes, this won't address the problem that jews are jews and philosemitism will ultimately be the end of europeans if we allow it to continue.
The bible is a major part of this problem, placing a jewish supremacy document at the center of our culture has lead to all kinds of completely unnecessary pro-jewish sentiment and anti-european conflict. Not to mention the perversions of history that result from european nationalists trying to square their ethnic origins with their jew-centric upbringing.
If it weren't for christianity there would be precisely zero europeans trying to claim jews are white, or jews aren't the real jews or whites are the real jews. It'd be a retarded thing to suggest.
> KJV isn't perfect, but it is 1) a good English approximation with close fidelity to the source manuscripts, and 2) is free of tainting from modern politics
But not free of the taint of contemporary politics. Just saying that you can't pick a translation you like then criticise everyone else for not using the original.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=643386412b7f9
Broc_Liath 0 points 1.1 years ago
Well... it's certainly realistic XD
/v/ClownWorld viewpost?postid=64355e755335c
Broc_Liath 0 points 1.1 years ago
> The original doesn't say "Jews" at all. That's the point.
Again though, the people it's referring to are defined in opposition to gentiles. So these people who live in jerusalem and are not gentiles aren't jews?
> Take a moment to be scholarly about this and realize which group would want to change the phrasing. This is just an example of things that are shifted.
That goes both ways though. Christians are just as capable of rewriting their books to downplay the philosemitism when they realise how bad it is.
> It does not refer to true Jews. The passages even say as much. And the definition of Jew is further expanded on in other passages. AntiChrist Jews aren't really Jews. "One is not a Jew that is one outwardly"
Exactly. And if it's complaining about fake-jews being a problem then it's suggesting there are a group he considers genuine jews who are not a problem. So it's highly disingenuous to hold it up as evidence early christians rejected jews or acted in opposition to them.
> By claiming that Rom 15 is talking about antiChrist Jews #is# an attempt to ignore what was written.
I'm not the one making special distinctions here. I never said "antichrist jews" or tried to create any other subcategory. There is only one type of jew as far as I'm concerned and christianity is far too tolerant of them.
Rom 15 is talking about a group of people who live in jerusalem and are not gentiles. That is jews. You would have to deliberately blind yourself to conclude otherwise.
> Again, the original source manuscripts have more authority than modern English translations. Look at what the originals say. Your argument falls apart when you look into this.
So why did you weigh in with KJV then?
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=643386412b7f9
Broc_Liath 0 points 1.1 years ago
> In biblical Israel, it was all the land between the Nile and Euphrates, which included Aryian people, Syrian people, Arabs, Persians and filthy fucking jews, and only a small minded moron would lump all these people together to come up with "joos".
That's nice, fortunately no one did.
What I did do was lump together the jews and the rest of the israelites, because they're the same people and their descendants are the banker clan we all know and love today.
> You're a fucking idiot.
Eat shit jewcuck
/v/Christianity viewpost?postid=64340cf3b1170
Broc_Liath 3 points 1.1 years ago
Hey! You should be grateful! Normally you need a premium onlyfans account to see his bra-pics.
/v/ClownWorld viewpost?postid=64355e755335c
Broc_Liath 1 point 1.1 years ago
I'm amazed underwear companies haven't gotten more woke about this kind of thing and started producing size XXXXL g-strings.
/v/ClownWorld viewpost?postid=64355e755335c
Broc_Liath 17 points 1.1 years ago
Oh no I meant from the photo you posted. Nice beard btw! Salt 'n pepper is a classic.
/v/ClownWorld viewpost?postid=64355e755335c
Broc_Liath 0 points 1.1 years ago
When people use the word "african" they're referring to nigs, not berbers or boers. When people (at least in america) use the word "asian" they're referring to east asians, not turks or russians.
And yes, when people use the word "jew" they are talking about the modern descendants of the hebrews. The people who wrote the old testament are the same people running the banks, trooning the kids and grabbing any land they can get their hands on.
There are no "modern jews" or "talmudic jews" there are only "jews". The sooner you accept this the better for everyone yourself included.
/v/Christianity viewpost?postid=64340cf3b1170
Broc_Liath 12 points 1.1 years ago
TIL helena's cup size.
/v/ClownWorld viewpost?postid=64355e755335c
Broc_Liath 0 points 1.1 years ago
So why are these "saints in jerusalem" defined in opposition to "gentiles"?
Same goes for the "synagogue of satan" thing. I was told for years by christians that it explicitly referred to jews, then I looked it up and turns out it didn't at all, in fact it says the opposite. It's another one of these "context" things where you have to ignore what is written and imagine something completely different instead because 2000 years later some guy gets jewpilled and can't deal with the fact that he's following an extremely philosemetic religion.
At this point you guys are essentially just rewriting the book to say whatever you want it to say. It's not context, it's editing.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=643386412b7f9
Broc_Liath 1 point 1.1 years ago
The app is asking you for permission to let it access the filesystem.
/v/AskVoat viewpost?postid=64347ef13f44b
Broc_Liath 0 points 1.1 years ago
> How small does your mind have to be to read the word "Israel" and think the word "jew"? Israel became a nation state of jews in 1948.
Stop with the retarded hair splitting and semantic arguments.
The hebrews were a historically homogenous population. They shared the same language, genetics, religion and were typically part of a unified country. The fact that they were occasionally split into the judeans and israelites (but then reunited) makes no odds, they were still the same people.
The modern word for those people are "jews". You can bitch and whine that that word originally referred to the judeans specifically but what you call them doesn't change what they are. They are the people of the old testament and the new testament. They are the founders of the religions of judaism and christianity. They are also very likely the founders of islam.
/v/Christianity viewpost?postid=64340cf3b1170
Broc_Liath -2 points 1.1 years ago
> In the NT, Israel isn't a land mass filled with hypocrites intent on evil doings.
Er... both in the OT and NT jews are pretty consistantly depicted jewing about as hard as they do today. They put a nice spin on it because they're the ones writing the book but their behaviour is pretty consistant.
/v/Christianity viewpost?postid=64340cf3b1170
Broc_Liath 0 points 1.1 years ago
Here is the paper that video is referring to.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05649-9
What it says is that there was a unique population in the levant during the copper age (long before jewish history starts) and they're unrelated to previous or later populations.
This isn't really relevant to anything.
/v/Christianity viewpost?postid=64340cf3b1170
Broc_Liath 0 points 1.1 years ago
> A picture commanded to be made of Jesus by Tiberius Ceasar. Apparently a recreation, but still in the Library of Congress so probably accurate
Firstly, that's not genetic evidence. Secondly, it doesn't really count as historical evidence either. There's precious little evidence the romans knew or cared about anyone called jesus christ until a century plus after his death. Even then only in the context of recording "btw there's this new cult and this is what they believe."
Claiming that the emperor himself was interested enough to commission a painting of some random jewish outlaw, then no one ever mentioned him again for a hundred years is not credible.
What's probable is that it's yet another 19th century fake sold to gullible collectors.
> Red hair, white skin
That passage doesn't say red hair, just that he was red and covered in hair. Crying babies are often red when they are born.
As for pale skin... it's a relative term. Just because someone's whiter than the sandnigs around them doesn't make them a nord. Taking it literally and trying to apply a modern ethnographic term is a huge stretch.
> The white race are the actual chosen people, the Israelites. This gets clear already when you see that Mount Aratat, where Noah landed with his arc is the same place where the white people, caucasusoids, come frome from, the Caucasus
Just one problem, the theory that whites originated in anatolia has not stood the test of time. All linguistic and genetic evidence suggests we evolved around the Ukraine, and if you want to go further back we came from northern central asia.
> It is also known that the blue eyed people all have a common anchestor
We got blue eyes from interbreeding with the WHG/AFF europeans. The majority of our ancestry comes from corded ware/yamnaya steppe herders.
> Writing system
Irrelevant. Writing systems were routinely swapped around in the bronze age, they don't indicated national origin. The actual language of the europeans is unrelated the the language of the hebrews. There is no good explanation for this if the hebrews were actually white.
> We have the floodmyth and stories of a rebellious knowledgebringer and (evil) serpent causing calamity with a woman involved, all around the world together with the Swastika, a solar symbol where the sun also is a common symbol for God and Jesus, with Europeans having been around everywhere even in ancient times, including the Americas
The jews didn't originate the flood myth, they stole it from the sumerians, who also aren't white. The fact that they cobbled their religion together from various white and nonwhite sources does not prove they were white.
> The chinese talk about blue eyed and blonde haired people who created a civilization and ruled for some time. A lot of egyptians mummies are shown to have had blonde hair etc.
The Tahrim basin mummies yes, also burials in Shandong. That has nothing to do with jews though.
> Three one god, the trinity being a theme in the oldest text we have deciphered so far. The trinity is another theme which draws itself across a lot of culture, from sumer to egypt, to the Nordics and of course christianity written in the Vinca Runes, found in Bulgaria (Balkans)
Trinitarianism is a very european concept yes. The early christians (mostly hellenised jews) drew heavily on native european beliefs (particularly neoplantonism) to create their religion.
This still doesn't prove jews are white.
/v/Christianity viewpost?postid=64340cf3b1170
Broc_Liath 1 point 1.2 years ago
This isn't my first rodeo, I've been through these arguments many many times before and never come across anything solid... it's all been tenuous wishful thinking so far.
But ok, if I watch that hour long documentary is there doing to be something with meat on it? Is there going to be genetic evidence, linguistics and archeology providing a solid argument for the idea that jews are not jews and whites are the real jews?
Because as things stand that claim is a massive stretch and only gets made by people trying to write themselves into jewish history.
I had a look through the pastebin and it's not convincing. All of those prophecies about the israelites are extremely vague and could be said to have been fulfilled (or not) by any number of ethnic groups.
Meanwhile we have the awkward problem that whites are closely related to each other, but not to the ancient hebrews. And some jews are related to whites, but all jews are related to the ancient hebrews.
We know for a fact the jews act like dickheads while writing their propaganda to make themselves look like saints, so why is it so difficult to believe that's what the bible is?
/v/Christianity viewpost?postid=64340cf3b1170
Broc_Liath 2 points 1.2 years ago
Does he have any muscle left to shrink?
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=64339b54bbe54
Broc_Liath 4 points 1.2 years ago
> Saxon = Isaac son
I cringed hard and closed the video. Bad etymology and anachronisms are not going to undo all the evidence that jews are jews and whites are whites:
- White populations speak indo european languages which have common gramatical features and vocabulary. Hebrew populations speak semetic languages which have nothing in common with european ones, they are more closely related to arabic languages.
- Heebs have bred into several non-semetic populations including europeans, but the genes they have in common are not european, they are a distinct semetic ethnic group.
- Their religion is a patchwork of ideas they stole from surrounding civilisations (including some european ones) but the core texts still betray their narcissistic hebrew worldview and have little in common philosophically with european thought patterns.
If it weren't for the fact that we're stuck with a jewish book at the core of our society I do not believe for a moment any white nationalist would be arguing that whites are really jews.
/v/Christianity viewpost?postid=64340cf3b1170
Broc_Liath 3 points 1.2 years ago
Who could possibly have guessed that when narcissists have someone at their mercy and no witnesses they act like scum.
/v/IsraelCrimes viewpost?postid=6433f0ff34f59