The Jesus Seminar’s red letters
I have read The Five Gospels (pic left). It has bold letters in black (words attributed by the evangelist to Jesus but not of Jesus), letters in gray (ideas that might or might not come from the historical Jesus), letters in pink (ideas that could have come from the historical Jesus), and red letters (words that, according to the authors, probably were used by the historical Jesus).
The book was published by the Jesus Seminar, a group of professional exegetes of the New Testament. The Seminar was founded by the academic Robert W. Funk (1926-2005). It is interesting that the book puts almost all the gospel of John in black and gray print. That is to say, the consensus in New Testament scholarship is that very few actual Jesus words found their way in the fourth gospel. As a reviewer put it:
Funk… said that, in all, 31 sayings in the four biblical Gospels and several apocryphal sources fell into the “red” category of authentic sayings (only 15 of which are actually different, due to parallel versions in more than one gospel). They included the good Samaritan and mustard seed parables, the advice to love your enemies and some Sermon on the Mount pronouncements such as, “Blessed are you poor, for you shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Another 200 sayings were accorded pink votes, meaning that Jesus said something similar to the recorded words. Together, the red and pink sayings constituted about 20% of the total; another 30% fell into the gray class. “A gray vote meant that some of the ideas may have gone back to Jesus, but not those words,” Funk said.
I am sceptical of the Jesus Seminar. I agree with Joseph Hoffman’s comparison of the Seminar with a talking doll: “The Jesus of the [Jesus] Project is a talking doll with a questionable repertoire of thirty-one sayings. Pull a string and he blesses the poor.” Nevertheless, the main product of the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels, is a gem to understand the zeitgeist that is destroying the white race.
Pay attention to the subtitle of this site, ‘Love is murdering the white race’, a quotation from what Alex Linder wrote not long ago in Gab (I believe that out-group altruism, ultimately inspired in the words of Jesus, is destroying the Aryan DNA). Why not quote those verses in red and some pages of the book’s introduction to illustrate my point? Keep in mind that the liberal scholars of the Jesus Project, well versed in the Greek language, did not actually break away from Christian ethics that, according to the Führer, has taken mankind a giant step backwards.
In the Preface the authors explain: ‘The Five Gospels has many authors. It is the collective report of gospel scholars’ that ‘produced a translation of all the gospels known as the Scholars Version. And finally, they studied, debated, and voted for each of the more than 1,500 sayings of Jesus in the inventory’. A few pages ahead, in the introduction, these scholars say, ‘among the reasons for a fresh translation is the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas’. However, in this blog post I’ll concrete myself to quote the ‘talking doll’ sayings of the canonical gospels, omitting both the Gospel of Thomas which has some verses in pink and red, and the Gospel of John which has none in red.
It’s very refreshing to read a translation that employs colloquialisms. Unlike the Shakespearian King James Bible, the Mark gospel is very colloquial in the original Greek. For instance, in the Scholars Version, when the leper comes up to Jesus and says, ‘If you want to, you can make me clean’, Jesus replies, ‘Okay—you’re clean!’ Also, the term ‘Kingdom of God’ in most Bibles is translated from the original Greek as ‘God’s imperial rule’. I agree on this point with the Jesus Seminar, as even the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible strikes the ear ‘as faintly Victorian’, not fully vernacular. Moreover, in the Scholars Version, which is free of ecclesiastical control, the term ‘son’ is not capitalised when referring to Jesus.
Because New Testament scholars believe the Gospel of Mark was written first, they placed it first among The Five Gospels (red colour means that the colour actually appears in this 553-page book):
Pay the emperor what belongs to the emperor, and God what belongs to God! (Mark 12: 17).
The scholars also used red letters in the parallel Matthew and Luke quotations of the above saying.
Don’t react violently against the one who is evil: when someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other as well. When someone wants to sue you for your shirt, let that person have your coat along with it. Further, when anyone conscripts you for one mile, go an extra mile. Give to the one who begs from you… Love your enemies (Mark 5: 39-43).
This is what is murdering whites. Non-whites don’t believe such nonsense. But nowadays even the staunchest atheists unconsciously subscribe these words of Jesus. On page 143 of the book the words ‘Our Father’ appear in red. The next words is red appear fifty pages later:
Heaven’s imperial rule is like leaven which a woman took and concealed in fifty pounds of flour until it was all leavened (Matthew 13: 33).
The Parable of the Leaven appears in Matthew and Luke. In both places it immediately follows the Parable of the Mustard Seed. In Heisman’s Suicide Note it was interpreted thus: ‘In Jesus’s parable, it was the way of the Kingdom of God: a dangerous, pungent shrub with fiery effect that takes over where it is not wanted. Love was not only beneficial, but also necessary, to the health of the Roman patriarchal-imperial order. However, too much of a good thing can become absolutely deadly if not controlled within proscribed bounds’. Incidentally, this late Jew, Heisman, seemed to harbour a morbid pleasure on the subject of how the Jews infected whites with ethnosuicidal ethics.
I won’t quote the next words in red, thirty pages later, because it is the entire Parable of the Vineyard Labourers (Matthew 20: 1-15): too long for this blog entry. But let’s quote the next red letters that appear in the Gospel of Luke (6: 20-21):
Congratulations, you poor!
God’s domain belongs to you.
Congratulations, you hungry!
You will have a feast.
Congratulations, you who weep now!
You will laugh.
A couple of pages ahead we see again in red ‘love your enemies’ and in the same Luke chapter, another quote of that we have seen above:
When someone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other as well. When someone takes away your coat, don’t prevent that person from taking your shirt along with it. Give to everyone who begs from you (Luke 6: 29-30).
Again, I won’t quote page 323 even though the long Parable of the Samaritan appears in red. But this unquoted parable is the perfect example of out-group altruism—and the exact opposite of in-group altruism in the Old Testament! (Remember the Bible in a nutshell: Ethnocentrism for me but universalism for thee.) Twenty pages ahead we see once more the Parable of the Leaven in red, but this time it’s the Luke version of it. On pages 357-58 we see, all in red, most of the Parable of the Shrewd Manager (Luke 16: 1-8) that I won’t reproduce here either to keep the entry short.
My two cents. As to the hypothesis if the actual words of Jesus are retrievable or not it’s irrelevant who’s right: Hoffmann or the Jesus Seminar. What matters is that whites have been programmed, by Christianity, to commit ethnosuicide. To me, these words in red, whoever they came from—a Jew named Jesus or a Semitic evangelist—beautifully depict the Western zeitgeist.
Love is murdering the white race.
48 replies on “Jesus’ love is murdering whites”
In his haste to push the idea that Christianity was some kind of plot, Heisman got carried away here. There’s nothing dangerous about mustard, the plant. I grow it in my garden, and it’s actually pretty valuable and quite tasty. It has fine nutritional qualities, can be used in salads like lettuce, but is much easier to grow than lettuce and requires very little water. The flip side of being easy to grow though is that t does tend to “take over where it is not wanted.” He at least got that part right.
“Love was not only beneficial, but also necessary, to the health of the Roman patriarchal-imperial order. However, too much of a good thing can become absolutely deadly if not controlled within proscribed [sic] bounds’.”
I’m assuming Heisman meant “prescribed” rather than “proscribed”. The problem here is that love of the out-group, or at least, non-hostility towards it, is indeed beneficial to the rulers of an empire. That’s why Rome promoted it, and also why Alexander did. After conquest, you have to assimilate a conquered people, and you can’t do that if you remain at odds with them. But there is no way to limit this technique, because to use it at all means that race will suffer. Like all technique, it doesn’t regard the human consequences of employing it. It’s an efficient way to build an empire, and that’s why it was used. That it also destroyed race wasn’t considered until it was too late.
Heisman loved this kike.
Btw, C.T., congratulations on reaching your seventh decade. With luck, these years will turn out to be as good to you as mine have been to me. Keep giving the Christians and the Jews hell for another sixty years!
Ex Catholic priest Crossan is a part of this Jesus seminar, I think.
He calls the crucifixion: “a most certain event; as historically certain as we can be…”
even though the Jews wouldn’t have crucified anyone at Passover. That is against Jewish Law. Josephus – who was a Kohen- would have written about such a major break of Jewish religious law. The synoptics have Jesus Killed on the 2nd day of Passover whilst John has him killed on the first day of Passover.
Crossan sees Jesus as “a pacifist who resisted Roman tyranny.” He must then reject as ” unhistorical” those sayings of Jesus whereby he wants his disciples to kill non believers in front of him – at an auto da fe, the heretic was killed in front of a crucifix.
Crossan sees Jesus as he himself is.
He has a video on YouTube:
“How to remain a Christian after reading the Bible.”
Why would anyone want to remain Christian after reading the horrific blood curdling tales of the Bible? This video addresses this dilemma.
Please provide Gospel quotes where Jesus says he wants his disciples to kill non-believers in front of him.
In the manner typical of Jewish attack, Jews leave no stones unturned, providing some form of lie, misdirection or subversion for every goy. Since there are Christians that refuse to give up their belief, Jews have authoritative Christians who, like Crossan and Ehrman, misinform gullible Christian dupes.
This is the Jews’ use of personality cults over hard evidence one can clearly find for themselves. This is only possible because Jews have programmed the idiot goyim to listen to personalities instead of researching evidence themselves. That is why the trade tower lie worked so effectively on the gullible masses. Look how many “debunkers” continue promoting Dan Dickbreath’s and Peter Pigfuck’s official nightly Jews’ media version of the story.
Jews promote anyone and anything that hides them and their culpability for the atrocities they commit. Crossan is but one of a number of useful idiots, “re-formed” Christians, that blame Rome for the problems Jesus suffered in the Gospels. Crossan maintains Jesus was rebelling against Rome so the entire narration story is one of Jesus’ sedition against the Roman state. It’s pure bullshit, leading people away from the Jews’ murder of Jesus.
The fact is, it was Temple priests that were the problem. Rome was just the means Jews used to get rid of the priestly rebel thorn in their side. Here is the evidence that clearly shows Crossan’s useful idiocy as an apologist for the Jews.
Note how this runs directly counter to the previous story in Mark. To wit:
So where does the Roman governor, Pilate, find any sedition by Jesus against Rome? Instead, he states he finds no fault with Jesus. And who are clearly the voices behind pressing Pilate for Jesus’ crucifixion? “The chief priests and elders of the Temple.”
Here are just a few of the clever arguments Jews use to confuse the
Gospels’ narration of Jesus and his mission.
Jesus never existed, he was a made up character.
Jesus was an Aryan, so the story has nothing to do with Jews
Jesus was merely an amalgamation of various characters from ancient
history. This idea was heavily promoted by the slick video presentation called Zeitgeist.
The story of Jesus was actually the story of Julius Caesar.
Jesus was an enemy of Rome, that is why he was crucified.
Jesus was no different from other Messiahs claiming to lead the Jews.
Jesus was a nobody reinvented by Christians to promote their religion.
Note how each of these redactions distance the story from the Jews’ murderous culpability?
“Please provide Gospel quotes where Jesus says he wants his disciples to kill non-believers in front of him.”
Let’s look at Luke 19:12-27, wherein this so-called “Prince of Peace”, with stereotypical Jewish bloodthirstiness, urges his followers to bring his enemies before him and kill them so that he can enjoy seeing them die. Also note the characteristic Jewish obsession with usury, even to the point of enjoying the cruel sadism of taking every last bit of money from those who have nothing. Jesus obviously approves of usury in a big way; in a very Jewish way, he is no stranger to greed. In this parable, it is understood by the Apostles that he is speaking of himself.
These are words and deeds and mindsets that are incomprehensible if Jesus was a white man, and they only become understandable when it is realized that Jesus was a Jew, with the inborn racial arrogance, sadism, and parasitic greed so typical of that alien race.
Is it not obvious this is a parable told by Jesus about a man of noble birth who appoints himself as a despotic king and not a direct quote concerning Jesus’ intent?
Once again, the ball is clearly off court here.
But where is your evidence that Matthew 8:5-13 is a “Christian redaction”? You need some in order for your idea that Jesus came only for the Jews to remain even a possibility. The passage plainly contradicts it.
No, it’s not obvious. The only way to interpret Luke 19:12-27 is as a reference to Jesus himself. Otherwise the telling of this parable has no point, and would be unique and discordant with the rest of the Biblical narrative, like Jesus suddenly telling a joke. A better question would be why anyone would think it’s NOT about Jesus. If someone were committed to defending the proposition that Jesus was a “nice guy”, worthy of “love, admiration, and respect” he might try to explain it away in that fashion, but it would be strictly a desperation move and clearly incorrect.
Definition of parable: Usually a short, fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle, the Biblical parable of the Good Samaritan.
Opening line: (Luke 19:12) “He (Jesus) said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.”
What rule of English would say Jesus is addressing himself here? And where else does Jesus indicate he abides by investment, usury or trading of money? Where does one find Jesus doling out money in the Gospels? Many other Gospel stories clearly illustrate Jesus profound opposition to the Temple’s usurious financial dealings alluded to in the parable of the noble man. In fact, is it not the money changers he attacks in the Temple?
Mark 11, “Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written,
‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.”
And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him; for they were afraid of him, because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching.”
Luke 20:19 “And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them. And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.”
Right now I’m watching two nuns kick a soccer ball around the park – Oh the metaphorical irony of it all.
“What rule of English would say Jesus is addressing himself here?”
As I said, it’s the only way it makes sense. It also fits in with the overall Biblical narrative that those who reject Jesus as King will be tortured in Hell forever. Furthermore, most of the Christian commentaries on this passage I’ve seen have no doubt Jesus was referring to himself, and classics scholar Revilo Oliver interprets it that way too. Your perverse interpretation just doesn’t seem to fit the facts very well.
Btw, when Jesus quotes the OT and says “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations”, “the nations” is usually a translation of the Hebrew word goyim (i.e., non-Jews), and so this would appear to be more evidence that Jesus saw himself as coming not only for Jews, but for everyone.
You are seeing YOURSELF in this Christ Character, just like Crossan.
“This idea was heavily promoted by the slick video presentation called Zeitgeist.”
Carrier and Price criticised the “scholarship” of this film.
“Vexilla Regis Prodeunt…” “The flags of the King go forth…” Roman Catholic Hymn.
Even though Jesus is QUITE CLEARLY ALLEGORISING HIMSELF HERE, even referring to his second coming, I knew that you would try to weasel out of it.
But it doesn’t matter: the Roman Catholic Church – taking Christ at His Word – actually DID KILL HERETICS IN FRONT OF HIM.
“B-But.. that isn’t muh realz Christianity!”
It was the only form of Christianity that existed until the rise of the Cathars and the Waldensians.
It’s not love but masochism.
Well, at least the speech of this guy a couple of days ago strikes me as love for the wrong ethnicities (together with love for whites):
Pre-Christian Europeans didn’t talk like that…
So replace Christianity with what? Christianity has been replaced by a mix in different degrees of technology, consumism, Chistian-Zionism, Islam, Holocaust cult and so on. It varies depending on the country.
And the hole in people’s soul has never been bigger.
Replace with NS of course (read the Table Talks).
Doc, nobody is obligated to “replace” your religion with anything. If you have a tumour, do you slowly muse on what to put in its place, or do you cut it out and end its tyranny?
Remember! Jesus was a Jew talking to Jews, first century Jews no less. Consider how vastly different and inverted modern Jewish culture is from other cultures. Now magnify that by two thousand years of insane bloodlust and you can see how easily it is for the modern mind to misinterpret these stories.
The Gospels have nothing to do with the goyim ~ nothing ~. Jesus’ only concern was with first century, Temple Jews, a fact he clearly states in both Matthew 10 and 15 in the story of the Canaanite woman.
Matthew 10 – “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
This is clearly the stuff of red letters. Of course, what Jesus actually said was: “Oy Vey! How many times I gotta’ tell ya’ – stay the fuck away from those goddamned gentiles!”
Matthew 15 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Ba da boom! There it is again! How many times does this guy gotta tell you he’s only there FOR THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL before you believe him? And if you say “bu, bu, but Arch, we’re all the lost sheep of Israel,” you’re expelled from class for hopeless stupidity. Consider Jesus would not even talk to this goy hottie with a hot problem from hell and then compares her to a dog. So Jesus is going to come back to forgive the goy dogs their sins? Does that make any doggone sense?
(Actually Jesus wasn’t being mean spirited, he was just making an example for his disciples that were more than a few loaves short of a miracle. Oy Vey! How many times I gotta’ tell ya’ ’bout them gentiles? One more time and I’m not saving you.)
When one applies twenty-first century logic to these stories ~ well ~ try applying twenty-first century goy logic to twenty-first century Jews and you can see the problem writ large.
Until these great scholars start talking about Jews and only Jews, they are just blowing more consecrated kosher smoke up your ass. But then that is sweet savor to the lord.
“How many times does this guy gotta tell you he’s only there FOR THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL before you believe him?”
He supposedly performed the miracle anyway.
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
So apparently there are exceptions. It’d be pretty funny though if, after having made the woman grovel, it turned out he was just saying that to get rid of her. Just like a Jew, no?
Jesus really was a nice guy. In fact, last time we had lunch, he picked up the check. As I said, he was just using the woman as an example of what happens bringing goy into the picture. But if you want to go over the deep end, consider this might have actually been set up to drive his point home to his disciples about avoiding goyim. Sages do things like that you know. The Lazarus/tomb thing was obviously a staged event to highlight the problem of the para aduma.
Note how the woman pesters the disciples until they go to Jesus to plead with him to get her off their backs. And his reply? Without addressing the woman, he turns and and says;
“Hey, didn’t I tell you a few chapters back to stay away from these goyim? Now this, maybe now you’ll start paying attention to what I tell you. If we bring goyim into the picture there won’t be any time for the lost sheep, and they’re the only ones with the problem I’m working on here.”
Your “argument”, such as it is, would be more convincing if he hadn’t worked the miracle for a goy woman. How you can claim to hate Jews but continue to “love, respect, and admire” Jesus is beyond me — unless perhaps, like Hitler, you think that Jesus wasn’t a Jew.
“Gelil Haggoyim” or “Galilee.” means “Region of the Gentiles.” Hitler used this to postulate that perhaps Jesus wasn’t Jewish.
Apparently Jews didn’t really settle in large numbers in the Galilee until after 70 A.D., The destruction of the Temple. I am pretty sure that there weren’t “synagogues” in the Galilee until after 70 A.D. It is debated whether Nazareth even existed prior to 70 A.D. with good arguments on both sides. Anachronisms such as these – could they be definitively proven – are another silver bullet against Biblical Christianity.
There is no historical evidence of a village called Nazareth until after the first century. This confusion stems from the fact that while a Nazareth did exist, it was not a village.
The Nazarene were an Essene sect of which Jesus was a member. All indications point to Nazareth being a very small Essene monastery where Jesus was trained as a priest to carry out his mission against the Temple.
The monastery was then abandoned after the successful Essene attack on the Temple and taken over by locals to later become the village of Nazareth.
Let’s put the fact that there is no evidence to attest to Jesus being a historical figure to the side. That still leaves Christian WNsts with the idea that he is an important mythological figure for Aryans to follow.
Now, evidence points towards him being Jewish, but let us say he wasn’t – So what? People blindly assume that because he wasn’t a Jew he must have looked like Ryan Gosling or Robert Redford. This ignores the fact that Gandhi, for example, was “not a Jew”. Should we follow in his footsteps? What does he say that warrants our ears?
Now, WNsts understand this question, so they try to prove that Jesus did not like Jews. There are no examples I can find of Jesus not liking Jews. The story of him whipping them out the temple does not prove antisemitism but, rather, his hatred of greed and avarice.
But let us say for a minute that he was an anti-Semite – Guess who else was: Prophet Muhammad. Why aren’t WNsts and comedians like James Mason spouting lines like “put on the full armour of Allah”.
The point being: If Jesus was a Gentile, why do people (“people” meaning James Mason and “culturally Christian” WNsts) assume that because Jesus was not a Jew he must have looked like how Ganymede is painted, when he would have been fucking brown-skinned Sand Nigger?
Answer: Because WNsts are unable to distinguish between the structure of their inner selves (programmed by parental introjects—the subject of my two volumes in Spanish) and the historical, empirical world.
By the way, I had already written a phrase about John the Evangelist for the forthcoming Krimilnalgeschichte post that echoes what you wrote above about projecting Aryan physiques onto ugly Semites. Stay tuned…
I don’t like the idea that “Jesus wasn’t a Jew.” As Alex Linder once gabbed: “He is king of them!” I only mention that Hitler mentioned Galilee as being a predominantly gentile area in 1 A.D. in one of his table talks.
Why all this prejudice against sand-niggers?
The people of Western Europe would be sand-niggers, too; if the Islamic world had succeeded in conquering them.
And your point is, of course, that only Christianity with its fluffy halos and feathery wings could have stopped “The people of Western Europe” from being sand-niggers. This conclusion is ridiculous and knee-jerk in every way.
The so called “miracle” addressing the woman’s daughter is a secondary issue. Healing was not considered a miracle by first century, Temple Jews unless it involved an unintended consequence to the law, like healing on the Shabbat, an act that would be considered work, forbidden during that time.
Therefore, by first century Jewish standards, healing the Canaanite woman’s daughter would not be considered a “miracle” but merely the traditional act of healing. It was cunning Christians that redacted Jesus’ healings as “miracles” to further aggrandize Jesus’ mythical, divine status.
Let me say that again, According to first century Jewish definition, a miracle was defined as “an act that had unintended consequences to Temple Law” Knowing this is critical to understanding Jesus’ actions.
Once again, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Jesus attacked and destroyed the Jews’ first central bank, known as the “second Temple.” He did this to save his people with the selfless act of becoming the Temple’s final blood sacrifice. Like Hitler, Jesus used the Jews own power and authority against them to destroy their corrupt, religious, banking system. So what’s not to love and respect about a man that successfully brought Jewish power to its knees through an act of selfless dedication to one’s people. Cannot the same be said of Adolf Hitler?
(Why do I get the distinct impression I am addressing one of the latest generation of Jewish troll-bots here?)
Comparing Adolf Hitler to an anorexic Jew who was so useless that his own people didn’t want him is shameful. And apparently we are “Jewish troll-bots”. Are you sure about that? Is it us who are expressing love for a Jew who never existed, or is it you?
It matters in no way that Yeshua hated temple law. Not only did he not exist but he was egalitarian and his religion is killing White people, so no: the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
Interesting we see the Hebrew name “Yeshua” used here and not elsewhere. And let me get this straight, Jesus did not exist, yet he hated Temple law? What kind of logic is this if not Jewish logic? This is why I suspect Jewish troll-bots for some of the responses I see.
Jews are killing ALL the goyim, white or otherwise. Take a look at the destruction they are presently wreaking against the defenseless Palestinians.
Gunshot Gaza: Hospitals Struggle To Treat Surge In Firearms Injuries; New Types Of Complex Injuries In The Palestinian Territory Are Leading To Lifelong Disabilities As Prompt Comprehensive Care Is Beyond The Scope Of Already Fractured Health Services, Reports. British Medical Journal, August 10, 2018.
Jesus was a racist, not not an egalitarian. Again look at Matthew 10 and 15. In the manner typical of Jews, you falsely attribute later Christian attitudes to Jesus. Such machinations are typical of the Jew. In confusing Christianity with Jesus, Jews hide the fact that Jesus had nothing to do with Christians or Christianity, and even more importantly hiding Jews as primary antagonists in the Gospel stories. As cousin “Aw Shucks” Clinton might have said – It’z the Jews stupid!
One – More – Time
(1) Jesus WAS a Jew
(2) Jesus was NOT a Christian.
(3) Christianity did not exist until long after the death of Jesus.
(4) Jesus had NOTHING to do with what was later termed “Christianity.”
(5) Jesus was not a Jewish seditionist against Rome and Roman governor Pilate exonerates Jesus of any seditious actions.
(6) Jesus had nothing to do with the so-called “gentiles,” clearly saying so in the Gospels.
(7) Jesus only concern was for his people laboring and suffering under the Temple’s corrupt sacrificial system administered by greedy, power hungry Jewish priest.
(8) Jesus was nailed to, and died on, the cross as the final blood sacrifice of the Paschal lamb; an act that permanently absolved all Israel of those sins defined by the 613 mitzvot that ONLY apply to Jews.
If one steps outside these basic facts, then they are merely chasing religious rabbits down Jewish holes much to the Jews’ delight.
So no actual arguments. Just call me a “Jew troll-bot”, despite having no evidence, and then say a bunch of shit which you also have no evidence for. Do you have any EVIDENCE for the points which you state.
And by all means, call me a Jew again.
Boy you do ever miss the mark. Have you been reading any of the above comments disputing or clarifying yours and others mistaken beliefs? How do you define “argument” anyway?
You allude to the ad hominem attack, a famous Jewish tactic that attacks the character of a person to divert attention away from their opponents’ claims and accusations. Where exactly do you find ANY evidence of such an attack? Note carefully what I write – “This is why I suspect Jewish troll-bots for some of the responses I see.”
Can you define the word “suspect?” Is it not obvious I am not making any direct accusation here, instead you take my suspicions personally and label yourself as such. And show me where I call you a Jew.
The fact is Jews are famous for putting words into their enemies’ mouths, but perish the thought I would even consider you might do such a Jewish thing.
You are literally calling me a Jew right now. Do you understand this? When you say, in regards to my comments,
You are calling me a Jew with no evidence. You are calling the people here who are guilty of the horrible crime of disagreeing with you of being “Jewish troll-bots”.
Arch, do you not understand the contradiction in sucking a Jew’s dick who never even existed, then accusing everybody of being Jews? Don’t you understand why this makes you look disrespectful and extremely rude? Make a fucking argument. I want an argument where you provide actual evidence to back up your claims. Everybody here has given you ample opportunity to provide evidence and yet you won’t. It’s all just assertions and paranoia (apparently the Jews are out to get you).
Where is the evidence for ANY of your claims?
Whether you want to call it a miracle or a healing doesn’t make any difference. The point is that he did reverse himself about coming just for the Jews by helping the white woman. Nor is she the only one. He also heals the servant of a Roman centurion in Matthew 8:5-13, a very interesting passage in which Jesus says that Heaven will be a multi-racial affair, including many non-Jews, viz:
And by the way can you guess to whom Jesus refers to in this parable? With stereotypical Jewish financial bloodthirstiness, demanding a return on investment, and demanding followers to bring their enemies before them to kill them so they can enjoy seeing them die – why bless my soul, it’s none other then the Temple and its priests.
The end of that chapter in Luke reads with these words from Jesus, “Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.” Again that “house of prayer” would be the Temple.
So is this red, gray or black text? And what race is this servant? Perhaps a follower of the Temple?
So much Gospel bullshit is Christian redaction to elevate Jesus to the divine, egalitarian status applied by much later Judaeo-Christians. Like the litmus test of “denying” the Jews’ sacred Hallowedhoax, the litmus test here is that which applies to the Temple and its laws. Any Gospel narration not addressing those subjects is questionable at best. Does this story of the Centurion’s servant meet that criteria?
@ Spahn Ranch,
You have a point in quoting Luke. Remember: when the Imperial Church started to crush its enemies, St Augustine used a verse from a parable by Luke to rationalise forced conversion.
But I’ll speak of another parable.
In the post I said I wouldn’t quote the Parable of the Shrewd Manager that contains several of the 31 verses of the Gospels that the Seminar granted red letters. It is a parable that troubled its earliest Christian interpreters and I don’t want to type (there’s no PDF) the reasons in The Five Gospels that moved the scholars to add red letters to Luke 16: 1-8a (8b and the rest of the fourteen verses of the parable are black except 13 which is pink).
The following is the Scholars Version of the Parable of the Shrewd Manager. What most headaches have produced pious Christians, who believe 8a to mean Jesus the teacher, is that the parable does commend the manager for his shrewdness:
I won’t type the rest of the parable except saying that the black verse above (8b) is also black in the Scholars Version. The parable is so Jewish that I am astounded that the ‘children of light’, especially advocates of Christian Identity, still believe that the Yeshu rabbi was an Aryan.
The worldview offered by Semitic religions is at odds with the one of European ones, be it Gaul or Roman.
Semitic religions have an arrogant one that maintains man, or at least a “Chosen Tribe”, have special favor from their god (a stand-in for their abusive father) and are not bound by the same laws of creation as the beasts. The world outside of man’s settling is a haunted, dangerous, world. Christianity maintains that man is an effective angel that fell into beastliness (which no doubt played a major role in the birth of the noble savage myth), rather than a beast that rose above.
Yes, Jesus says and does many extremely Jewish things in the NT. It seems strange to me that Arch Stanton professes to love him while at the same time acknowledging that he was a Jewish supremacist who despised white people. That’s the ultimate conclusion of Judaism indeed!
Wrt to Hitler’s idea that Jesus was not a Jew and the CI opinion that Jesus was an Aryan, in the TT even Hitler acknowledges that Jesus’ mother “may well have been” a Jewess. But even if his father was Aryan, as seems to be implied, having a Jewish mother would still make him a Jew by Jewish law and also under the Nuremberg laws, since he was a member of the Jewish religious community. The admiration for Jesus among non-Christians or even fanatical anti-Christians such as Hitler is hard to explain. I’ve observed those raised in a Christian culture are often afflicted with it though. The Christ myth deeply permeates Western thought.
And that’s exactly why psychological autobiographies are so important, as (IMHO) admiring Jesus is no other thing than a parental introject.
If my theory is true, second or third generations of NS men (say, had Hitler won the war), thoroughly educated in Aryanism with non-Hebrew models, would not admire the crucified rabbi.
It is a pity that the main thrust of my two books in Spanish cannot be conveyed in blog format for the simple reason that, in long biographical narratives, you need the space of a novel. But I hope my writings on the subject will be available in English if the ethnostate is actually born…
All you need to say is that Hitler was ignorant on subjects he knew little about or didn’t properly study. See his comments on Islam.
(Mark 5: 39-43).
This is what is murdering whites. Non-whites don’t believe such nonsense.
pretty much says it.
@ Arch Stanton,
There are two basic problems with the thesis of your novel about Jesus:
(1) At best it is an educated guess about the life of the historical Jesus. At worst it’s pure projection from the POV of a WN: mere literary fiction.
(2) Even if the historical Jesus fought as you say (remember that I don’t trust the gospels) against the Temple of Jerusalem, ran by Sadducees, that is still a quarrel between two factions of 1st-century Judaism. Why should it concern us?
Why should whites side the Pharisee faction against the Sadducees of the Temple in the times of, say, the conquest of Pompey when two Jews, Hyrcanus II (associated with the Pharisees) and Aristobulus II (supported by the Sadducees) fought for power?
Even before, in times of the Maccabees, there were bitter disputes between them. On the one hand, the Pharisees, the fundamentalist sector that had the support of the multitudes; and on the other, the Sadducees and representative of the Temple: a group of priests more ‘progressive’, more ‘bourgeois’ and in better dealings with the Greeks than the purist Pharisees.
With time the Sadducees’ writings would be destroyed by the Romans, so the vision we have today—actually the sources you used for your novel—represent the point of view of the winners, which some scholars relate to the Jesus faction, as the New Testament relates that he was on good terms with some influential Pharisees (but again: I don’t trust the NT).
Was the point of conflict between Jesus and the Temple political or religious? Was it fully historical as narrated by the gospels? I don’t know and I don’t care. What we know for certain is that, at the time that the gospels were edited, the Sadducees had lost their leadership and the Pharisees were the sole repository of religious authority.
But the point is that no true Aryan should have a horse in this race. Only Xtians have it with their love for the crucified rabbi.
Changing subjects, this is the second time you insinuate that those commenters who disagree with you might be Jews. Do you know that Alex Linder gets extremely upset with this sort of accusations coming from commenters at his VNN forum?
Finally, I am tired to fix your double-indented paragraphs. I’d recommend you to open an account in WordPress as proofreading before using any formatting here.
As a newbie to these interesting site there is a pattern here that strikes me:
The inward despise in these threads seems stronger than anything, and the kikes looking in from the outside must be laughing.
You say that the Sadducees lost to the Pharisees and that the fight within the jewish communities goes back for millennia. maybe so, but towards the goyim they are always united.
Something to learn from that?
I do not have the scholarly background to question Arch Stanton’s view as Christianity being something created by somebody else than Jesus, and that he was not a Christian.
But I find the discussions stimulating, as we all should.
And I ask the moderator to moderate the tone (we are civilised Aryans in this settings), and not the opinions. As far as I can see both sides here have fundamental questions regarding the source of Christianity.
what we’re discussing falls under the as subject of the various life apps each of us has installed in our minds, both by our own choices, and the various programs and malwares our parents/ lack-of-parents, churches and schools downloaded.
what angers me is the role of the nation-state-local governments in programing their citizens. we pay taxes and hold elections to chose and fund what we hope are good politicians who will define/ chose/ build programs the help individual citizens live more peacefully and contribute more fruitfully to their collectives.
angering me as well is the role of the MSM in augmenting our programming with a suite of products that we can chose to buy and download and install and execute.
and along come subversives, in all these organizations and industries, and through the power of $$$ and personality and various personality flaws and disorders, sway the masses on their program choices. such that today, liberalism is the most widely downloaded and installed and running suite of programs.
all the while nature shows us that it places a much lower value on life, the pumping of blood through one’s physical system, than “civilized” mankind does. (as well as rooted and thriving plant yields from seed production. as anyone knows who tends landscaping surrounding their houses, raw seed production waaaay outnumber tap rooted plants from all those seeds. in nature, life is cheap. and abundant.) out, away from cities, predator and prey, i.e. the law of the jungle, is the rule. not civil “rule of law” and wrought by all levels of governments.
ruminating all of this, what choices do i make?
– get the hell out of the city, as city life is a very unnatural existence.
– get the hell away from industry: all the various captialisms, financial, food, health, education, ….
where to go? and how to survive? maybe at this present devolved point, death from natural exposure to the elements while trying to live in the wilds is preferable to uncivilized life in the cities.
Arch Stanton has sent me the below 3,133-word email as a response to what I said above. I don’t claim having read it all but will reply tonight in a separate post. Incidentally, this thread is already too long and I’m closing it. If you want to say something before my tonight’s post on Arch is up, please do it here.
______ 卐 ______
I was gong to post this as a comment; instead, I decided to send it directly. Your questions are italicized.
Questions: Are Judaism and Islam acceptable in your view? If not, why do you not address the other religions that have long been as destructive as Christianity? If so, once Christianity is destroyed, will Judaism and Islam remain acceptable in your view? I note your attempt here is directed at saving the white race, yet the fact is the white race now comprises around 8% of the global population, a figure that is rapidly dwindling thanks to Jewish programming efforts. If you convert the entire white race away from their Christian beliefs, what percentage of the global population have you actually addressed? Consider what might be accomplished if the world were rid of all three murderous, Judaic religions. Why help Jews destroy Christianity while providing Judaism and Islam a free pass?
Let me being with a few basic premises. If one cannot agree with these premises, based on observable facts, then it is useless to proceed. One may as well believe Jesus is their savior coming back to deliver them from perdition.
(1) Jews are a duplicitous, lying, thieving, murdering race of parasites.
(2) Jews are the people of hate who hate their enemies with long-standing, historical, vehement hatred unique to their race.
(3) All non-Jews are the Jews’ enemies as evidenced by their derogatory term “Goyim,” meaning “cattle.” One of the primary sacrificial animals of Judaism is the cow, therefore, Jews view their goyim host as no more than the sacrificial animals they once slaughtered for their pleasure. However, there are some enemies Jews hate far more than others.
(4) Jesus and Hitler are, far and away, THE two most hatred men in Jewish history. Since the time of Jesus, it has been recorded time and again how Jews have used Christian children for ritual sacrifice. Jews mock the crucifixion of Jesus in videos like this,
The girl in the video mocking the crucifixion says, “Yeshu was an enemy of the Jewish people. He attempted to convert us all into Christians.” According to Jews, you have helped take on their Christian enemy, thus helping to facilitate their destruction of yet another foundational principal of western culture. By contrast, I work to expose Jews’ as the enemy of Christians. Herein lies the basic difference in our approach. However, we both strive for the very same end the destruction of this Jewish based religion. Your approach focuses only on Christianity, while my approach focuses on the Old Testament as well as the new, thereby discrediting all three Judaic based religions.
There must be good reason for the fact that two disparate, historical figures garner the same intensity of hatred from this race of duplicitous, lying, thieving, murdering parasites. Is it logical that one of these characters is a work of fiction or hazy, historical half myth? One only needs to extrapolate the Jews’ reaction to Hitler and National Socialism to understand how they have woven the story Jesus for the past two millenia. Yet, we are to believe Jesus did not exist or that he was a mere mythical shadow of what is described in the Gospel narration? Considering the overwhelming evidence of the Jews’ hatred for Jesus, is that a logical premise?
According to the Gospel, Temple Jews murdered Jesus by Roman proxy, then hounded, harassed, and no doubt murdered, his followers using mafia-type muscle like Saul/Paul. Why would Temple Jews do this? What did Jesus and his followers do to suffer such intense Jewish hatred? Jesus must have done something monumental from the Jewish perspective, in the same manner Hitler did something monumental from the Jewish perspective.
Educated guess? No. My work is based on not on guesswork, but thirty years of research extrapolating small remnants of factual evidence. It might be better put that I connect historical dots. I have taken historical minutiae and woven it into a story that can be understood by anyone living in the physical world. I refute the magic and mysticism of the religious zealots, replacing their absurd unbelievable stories, with ones based on real-world human nature and physical fact.
Is it plausible that, as a boy from the Galil outback, by age thirteen Jesus would have extensive knowledge of Temple law and custom, imparted only through oral transmission, to a point that would astonish Temple authorities? Somebody had to teach Jesus these arcane, orally transmitted traditions and laws on a level that could only be attributed to either the Temple itself, or some other monastic order with intricate knowledge equal to that of the Temple priests.
The Essene were just such a group with just such knowledge. The Essene did exist as one of the three major groups of first century Jews as reported by Josephus. They were in direct opposition to the Temple as indicated by the nature of discoveries at Qumran, although it is said the Qumran sect practiced animal sacrifice.
Jesus was an Essene as evidenced by the Gospel description of his being a Nazarene. Essene opposition was indicated by the saying, “nothing good comes out of Nazareth .” Josephus writes about the Nazarene/Essene connection. Note both Christians and Jews ignore the Essene factor in the story. One would do well to ask why the Essene have dropped down the memory hole. Why is it no one is interested in where Jesus came from? Why, among all the carful descriptions of Biblical blood linage’s and genealogy, are the Essene totally overlooked? Why is it no one bothers to ask the question “who were Jesus’ people?” Might this be because recognizing the Essene would lead to a study of the people from whom Jesus sprang and might not such knowledge bring forth a new line of questions about who Jesus actually was and what he was doing in the Temple ?
While Nazareth is referred to in the Gospels, there is no recorded evidence for its first century existence outside the Bible. Therefore, for Nazareth to exist at the time of Jesus, it had to be something besides a village. The Essene were a reclusive monastic order, as again evidenced by the alleged Essene of Qumran. It is more than just likely that a similar monastery was founded not far from Bethlehem north, the most likely birthplace of Jesus. Why is the northern Bethlehem location more likely than the one South of Jerusalem? Consider the cobbled up version of Jesus’ birth involving a completely unverifiable and unbelievable Roman census. What is the logical conclusion of Jesus’ birthplace? A location about a kilometer from Jesus’ home in Nazareth, or one well over a hundred kilometers to the South for an absurdly conducted census for which there is not a shred of evidence to be found among reliable Roman sources? This history, ignored by Christians, is critical to understanding Jesus and his mission. Leave out the Essene and their influence and you have the image of the lone gunman, a son ‘o god that comes out of nowhere to deliver the world from sin – a premise you eschew.
Judaism and the Jewish culture provide a clear road map as to how things would have transpired in ancient times. Despite the Jews’ lie of the Khazar theory,” modern Jews exhibit the exact same murderous proclivities as their ancient ancestors and this is logical considering the millennia of blood sacrifice practiced from the early days of the Tabernacle onward through history. The primary reason for the Christians’ ignorant interpretation of Biblical narration is due to ignorance of the Jews, the people who wrote the book for, and about, their people. Absent the Jew, the Bible is a book of absurd religious magic and mysticism that appears as total nonsense. Include the Jew, and one discovers a road map for historical Jewish behavior up to the present.
“Even if the historical Jesus fought as you say (remember that I don’t trust the gospels) against the Temple of Jerusalem , ran by Sadducees, that is still a quarrel between two factions of 1st-century Judaism. Why should it concern us?”
The reason the quarrel between the two factions is important because it demonstrates that, at the time of Jesus, the Torah was a secret oral tradition of blood sacrifice passed on only to priesthood initiates. Thus, the average Jew in the region would only have been privy to information deemed necessary by Temple priests. One can see this same form of control in the secrecy policies of the Zionist American Government, where minions are only provided certain knowledge on a “need to know” basis, keeping everyone outside the top level of control, compartmentalized and in the dark about overall details of secret government policies. You will note that early Christian leaders also used this same form of secrecy for control, holding their ceremonial masses in a dead language, few outside the educated priesthood could understand, while limiting the written word to a few regional Bibles firmly under the priests’ direct control. In fact, the church’s tight control over the written word was again a major issue during the reformation, i.e. the demand for Bibles written in a language and form that could be understood by the common man.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ § ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your website has two focuses, pro National Socialism and anti-Christianism. Jews hate Christians as much, or worse, than they hate their much ballyhooed, Nadzee Chimera. Your intense focus on anti-Christianity is therefore a natural draw for the Jewish hater willing to overlook one aspect of your website to effectively use the other to their advantage. Jews are well known for this type of duplicity and have already effectively dealt with the Nadzee issue; after all how many Nadzees can one find walking down the street versus how many Christians? How many legions among the gullible masses still believe the Jews’ mythical Hallowedhoax, was orchestrated by demonic Nadzees though a whispered campaign that gazzed six million Jews in the twinkling of an historical eye? The Hallowedhoax myth makes obvious the extent to which Jews have programmed the gullible goyims’ view of Nadzees. Compare this with the number of true believing Christians and it is obvious where the remaining problem lies for Jewish control. Thus, your anti-Christian stance, and scholarly attack on the subject, presents a natural asset for Jewish exploitation.
“Why should whites side with the Pharisee-like faction against the Sadducees of the Temple in the times of, say, the conquest of Pompey when two Jews, Hyrcanus II (associated with the Pharisees) and Aristobulus II (supported by the Sadducees) fought for power?”
I fail to understand the relevancy of this minor question. Why would whites side with any Jewish faction outside perhaps the desire for money or power? Where are the “whites” in the Gospel narration? Perhaps the Romans? And where do they takes side in the Jews’ internecine disputes?
“Even before, in times of the Maccabees, there were bitter disputes between them. On the one hand, the Pharisees, the fundamentalist sector that had the support of the multitudes; and on the other, the Sadducees and representative of the Temple : a group of priests more ‘progressive’, more ‘bourgeois’ and in better dealings with the Greeks than the purist Pharisees.”
You place far too much emphasis on the Pharisees, as do Gospel authors. Pharisees are a red herring. The Sadducee priests controlled the monstrous Temple structure, the very symbol of religio/political power in first century Judea . The Romans even borrowed funds from the Sadducees’ Temple coffers to fund their construction projects. First century Sadducee controlled the nation’s wealth, while Pharisees controlled nothing outside perhaps public opinion. While that might be pertinent to a minor degree, those controlling the wealth call all the important shots. What both you and the Gospels say about the Pharisees is comparable to saying politicians and lawyers exert as much control over America as the central banks of the Federal Reserve. Yet what do Jews say about this? “Let us control the money of a country and we care not who makes its laws.” This is the maxim of the house of Rothschilds, and is the foundation principle of their banking system. No doubt, this explains the reason for the Roman’s destruction of Sadducee writings.
“Was the point of conflict between Jesus and the Temple political or religious?”
Here again, knowledge of first century Jewish culture is paramount to answering this question. First century Jews made none of the fine distinctions we make today between religion, politics, law, and economics. All fell under the auspices of the Temple ; all were defined and governed by Temple law. This then was not a question of politics or religion, but one of law. Jesus’ dispute was with Levirate law and the corrupt authorities who put themselves in a position to dictate those laws governing all Jewish life. This in fact is what the parable of Luke 19 is about, a man of lesser nobility who makes himself king over a distant land and then has his servants administer his laws and tax the people.
“Was it fully historical as narrated by the gospels?”
Yes, it is historically documented in the Gospels, though not fully. Extensive, minute details described in the Gospels are what validate its historicity. However, one must learn to read behind the lines, obscured by both religious Jew and Christian, to understand the true nature of these stories. You should care about this because the secrets to the very crux of your efforts, lay in the depths of these stories. There are many that have discovered the historical basis of the Gospels, but as they do not incorporate the Jew, much of their assessments are skewed and obscured to a point where little sense can be made outside the accepted Christian norm. The Jews’ master stoke was divorcing themselves from the Gospel narration, for without the presence of the Jew, the Gospel stories are naught but an absurd, hodgepodge collection of religious magic and mysticism.
“What we know for certain is that, at the time that the gospels were edited, the Sadducees had lost their leadership and the Pharisees were the sole repository of religious authority.”
Absolutely correct. It was Jesus’ actions in questioning, and demonstrably refuting, the law that was fundamental to bringing about the eventual destruction of the Temple , ending Sadducee leadership. The classic example of Jesus’ rebuking Temple law is found in the stories of “raising the dead.” Research the Para Aduma and see for yourself the facts about this non-miraculous, real world detail of the magical, “raising of the dead.” First century Jews had a saying, “a man worked one day to pay his taxes, one day to pay his rent, one day to feed his family and all the rest went to the Temple.” I use this as evidence of the Temple ’s onerous financial burdens upon the people. I then combine that burden with the Jews’ well known proclivity for forging religious artifacts and that Jews claim only nine red heifers had been sacrificed from the time of Moses to the first century. I then combine these admitted details with the Jews well-known proclivity for overcharging and cheating people out of their money to extrapolate the fact that the exceptionally rare ashes of the red heifer used in the Para Aduma’s ritual purification rites would have represented a tremendous financial burden to those invoking the sacrificial penalty for touching a dead body.
One does not have to delve far into the Jews’ tight-fisted culture (as signified by the old joke about the invention of copper wire being attributed to two Jews arguing over a copper penny) to realize that Jews would have buried their loved ones alive as opposed to facing the immense sacrificial taxation of the Para Aduma. Many other details in these stories serve to further confirm this was the case. Like Jesus saying, “they are not dead, but asleep,” and the curious detailed description of Jairus, a wealthy, privileged member of synagogue officialdom. The story of Jesus raising Jarius’ daughter demonstrated that even a wealthy member of the privileged class could run afoul of Temple law, driving one to the point of asking for help from a renegade priest who delivered Temple redemption services at no charge.
Why a daughter? It is fact that female children were of secondary importance in first century Jewish culture and while a rich man might go to the point of paying the penalty for a first-born son, a daughter would have been considered unworthy of the expense. Such are the details surrounding these stories that validate the Gospels as something more substantial than mere Christian myth. And finally, there is that bizarre and otherwise inexplicable fear of begin buried alive Jews often exhibit in gruesome detail in books and movies combined with the fact that burying Christians alive was a favorite torture method used by communist Jews of Soviet Russia. Such historical references put the truth behind Jesus’ actions beyond mere conjecture or “educated guesses.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ § ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Those whining and accusing me of calling them Jews are merely projecting their own identity fears on me. The fact is, I do not give a good goddamn if one is Jewish or not, it makes no difference what-so-ever to me. As I have written repeatedly, while I find absolutely no purpose or reason for such mudslinging and backbiting, Jews find it most productive in distracting others from providing information and rational discourse they oppose. Many times, I have been accused of being a Jew on different websites, as this is a classic troll tactic used against anti-Jew websites. Yet you will not find me whining and kvetching about how someone unfairly accused me of being a Jew. I ignore such nonsense and move on with pertinent information for the reader. Jews take up valuable time and web space with such divide and conquer tactics. All I can say to these accusers and slanderers is don’t blame me if the Yarmulke fits . . .
Nowhere do I accuse anyone of being a Jew or even intimate such a thing. I said I suspected Jewish trollbots. Trollbots are not Jews, but products of their perverse technology. Trollbots are sophisticated algorithms that can now mimic complex human responses, but you know this. I merely point out Jewish practices and some of the more vitriolic commenter’s immediately re-frame these as accusations, which is exactly the manner in which trollbots work. This serves to create the type of reaction to which I now respond, taking up both my time and yours.
I have already decided to give up on the use of HTML blockquotes as they never seem to turn out right. Henceforth I will only use quotation marks.