Thursday, March 8, 2012

Good At Getting Their Asses Kicked

Whatever they are calling themselves this century, be it Khazars, Mongols or Israelis, they have a history of getting the living crap kicked out of them in anything like a fair fight that goes back for more than a millennium. Statues all over Europe in villages show the pentagram of the Khazar shield trampled by the hooves of knights defending their villages from a group of people who just could never learn to stay in their own backyard. Every time they came out of Khazaria and tried to attack somebody, they got the serious beat down.

Compare with the Sephardic Hebrews of Palestine, people with no armies and no weapons who seem to have no record of pogrom after 2000+ years of continuous inhabitation there. According to zionist theory, the fact that the Hebrews were different, exclusive and a religious minority meant that they should have been attacked by angry mobs every 40 years or thereabouts as it was in Europe. Yet, the historical record going back to the time of Christ shows that Arabs held their jewish friends and neighbors in Palestine in the very highest regard and we cannot locate a single instance where there was any kind of violence there until the British occupation and the Balfour Declaration. With their superior financial reserves, what remained for the Hebrews but a love of children to someday passively assimilate their entire area as far as the Nile, as long as they had boots on the ground to live in the houses and lands of those they would displace only through the gentle means of assumption? The prophecy for Abraham would have come to pass through simple consolidation of the population there. If the jews of Europe had wanted to join them, why would they have a need to do anything other than purchase a house and live in enclaves wheresoever they wished? Who would've been able to stop them? It is not as if anyone's permission was required. To this day, the problem with Israel is that nobody jewish wants to live there.

The problem with all these arguments I have made is that they make way too much sense.


Anonymous said...

There are no Khazars. The Khazar theory is complete and utter nonsense. The fact that most Jews don't look Asiatic or Semitic is because of the dispersion.

If you think the promise made to Abraham's seed concerns only "Hebrews" assimilating the land "as far as the Nile" by "gentle means" it means that you do not understand or ignore on purpose the New Testament and the writings of St Paul. It seems that you favor a consensual type of Jewish supremacism.

There were never 'Hebrews" being peaceful folk who never stirred trouble and nobody ever turned against them you. They had the same religious consciousness and ethnic-national awareness they display today and there was always enmity between them and the gentile population wherever they lived at whatever period be it Hellenistic, Roman or Byzantine that would often break into bloody revolts and massacres as in Alexandria and Cyrene:

'Meanwhile the Jews in the region of Cyrene had put one Andreas at their head and were destroying both the Romans and the Greeks. They would cook their flesh, make belts for themselves of their entrails, anoint themselves with their blood, and wear their skins for clothing." - Dio Cassius.

They have not changed to the slightest, they are the same Christ-killing scum and cursed race they were 2000 years ago.

Texas Arcane said...

No Khazars? Sir, you are sorely mistaken. There's no "theory" about Khazars. The origins of the Ashkenaz are plain as day.

Your atrocity stories about jewish freedom fighters don't qualify as tales of oppression by jewish interests. How come Scottish resistance to Roman tyranny is any more or less heroic than the Maccabees? The jewish people showed their mettle by rebelling against Roman control, this doesn't make them gypsy leeches. They wanted the Romans to get the hell out like anybody in the world with some verve.

The Hebrews coming to live in the holy land is not jewish supremacism. It's the opposite. How could you claim peaceful inhabitation of Palestine by Sephardics was all some sinister plot for thousands of years? It is also the alternative to what is happening there now.

Perhaps your own judgement is largely affected by emotion on this issue. Study the facts and the contrast between the former and the latter will be very clear to you.

Anonymous said...

Freedom fighters? Is this some neocon preparing the way for another "humanitarian" intervention? Although your definition is ironically correct, albeit in an unintentional way, since the term "freedom fighters" has been associated in recent times with the worst kind of terrorist and murderous scumbags that the neocons use in order to destroy sovereign nations and establish kosher protectorates divided among sectarian lines that fit their world domination agenda.

How does exactly turning against their Greek, Roman, Egyptian and other non-jewish fellow citizens, including Jews who they considered to be too Hellenized and Romanized, burning their temples and slaughtering them qualifies as resistance against the oppressors? It doesn't. More often than not only they wouldn't challenge the authority of the empires they happened to live under and the Jewish leadership would be allied with the Roman administration since, like every minority, they had interest in stable government. However this superficial adherence to stability could not keep at bay the racist supremacist hatred, that would break into murderous violence whenever they felt they had a good chance, and is no different at all from from the one we are witnessing today in the region and anywhere else the Jews gained the upper hand as in Bolshevist Russia, where they would hide it behind the "proletarian revolution". Can you point to the Briton-Celtic population of Britain slaughtering unarmed civilians, women and children belonging to other tribes of the island as part of their resistance against the Romans?

No matter how veiled and based on peaceful "assimilation" of the region "reaching the Nile", your rhetoric reeks of Jewish supremacism and it justifies displacement, colonizing and occupying lands reaching much further than the lands Jews themselves should feel entitled to and are historically associated with. You choose to ignore and evade my reference to the New Testament where it is clearly stated by St Paul that the seed of Abraham is not a particular ethnic group but the entire converted Christian population - Jewish or Gentile - and that this prophecy is not going to be fulfilled with a particular ethnic group living in the land but has already been fulfilled with the coming of Christ. I see little difference in what you say with the beliefs of Christian Zionists besides an artificial and totally fabricated division among "Khazars" and "Hebrews", and a less pragmatic utopian belief of consensual domination as opposed to a forced one, since your interpretation of Scripture is dominated by tribal interests and not the universal Christian message of the New Testament that superseded them. It is this adherence to the tribal and the expectation of a Messiah that would serve their tribal interest that made Jews reject Christ - another proof that Jews haven't changed a bit since that time.

And what is plain as day is that modern Jewry is as ethnically diverse as all the places they have inhabited during their dispersion, starting with the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, and that they do not constitute of a single ethnic type - "Khazar" or other. (See Acts 2:5-11)

Anonymous said...

PS. The Old Testament is not a road map for the redistribution and division of Palestinian land along ethnic lines. It is a Holy Book aimed at preparing the Jews for the arrival of the prophecized Messiah, and since they rejected Him God made a new covenant with His new Israel or Abrahamic seed ie the followers of Christ of all nations. There is no Manifest Destiny pending, it has come to pass and has been fulfilled with the arrival of the Messiah. I don't see how what you claim is any different from the "Greater Israel" agenda currently at works from the Nile (your words) to Mesopotamia, besides the different "peaceful" approach compared to the current Zionist regime's violent one, and perhaps the fact that it involves a different Jewish ethnic composition than the current one which you seem to believe it exists based on the Khazar theory. In the end they're both based on the same premise and look forward towards the same end.

Texas Arcane said...

Ashkenaz and Sephardic are so sharply divided in Israel itself they are as far apart as black and white in the United States.

The Ashkenaz hated Hebrews enough to subject them to gamma radiation in schoolbuses for the explicit purpose of using them as guinea pigs or research animals.

There is hardly anything fabricated about the division.

As for your suggestion that jews were much different from others in fighting the Romans, I have to say you have a very idealized image of such revolutionaries. In any event, it was hardly jewish revolution that was uniquely rebellious during the Roman era. The Romans were constantly suppressing revolt everywhere during the latter part of their empire.