The Jewish Question

To what extent do most here address the Jewish question? We are left wing NATIONALISTS, so yes it is understood we are Nationalists for the European-Ethnic, but do Jews fit into this group? How far do we go in addressing the Jewish question?

I think we can all agree, that a gentile capitalist exploiting the workers is just as bad as a Jewish capitalist exploiting them. We should not be standing behind either. However; Jewish individuals do own 4/5 of the major media corporations and is it not obvious how hateful these media corporations are to those of the European-Ethnic? I believe Jews in general, are very hateful and hostile to Europeans. Even Socialist thinkers like Noam Chomsky do not like us, although some of what he says is good. I believe Noam Chomsky is a fan of giving all the illegals here healthcare, which would come out of our pockets.

I do agree with the fact that not all Jews are hateful and bad though. Look at David Cole, and even Karl Marx. Just looking into "On the Jewish Question" you can see his problem with Judaism as a religion. Even Joseph Goebbels said that Marx was not bad, and that his ideology was hijacked.

The word nationalism means a lot of things to me. It means opposing globalization and it can at times mean racialism but it can also mean support one nation over another nation (say Ireland vs. England) and it at times could mean something that isn't racial. But at times it is racial.

Metal Gear wrote:The word nationalism means a lot of things to me. It means opposing globalization and it can at times mean racialism but it can also mean support one nation over another nation (say Ireland vs. England) and it at times could mean something that isn't racial. But at times it is racial.

Well if buy into the concept that our race is our nation. Which I do. Nationalism is against globalization and thus seeks to preserve uniqueness. A Nation should be composed of a unique race, with unique values and ideals moving in the same direction. All with a unique culture. That's what constitutes a nation and nationalism, from my point of view.

In my opinion most people are the product houndreds of years of jewish masonic manipulation to the extent that they have forgotten who they are and now show 100% jewish thought and behavioral pattern.

Judaism isn't a race or a religion, its just an idea; an idea of how to dominate and terrorize other people.

Here is a swedish production showing our enemy and how he has managed to manipulate and play us as pawns on a chessboard, resultiung in hideous suffering for, not only us, but the entire humanity.

Personally I have nothing against the jewish people (My best friend is 1/3 jewish and he's like a brother to me)

Judaism or the jewish folk are not a threat to our people... zionism is on the other hand, it is the equivalent of our nazism ''Hitlerism''. We should rather focus our attention on the zionists and their puppets rather than spending our time trying to think about something that was was done before in history.

WodzuUK wrote:Personally I have nothing against the jewish people (My best friend is 1/3 jewish and he's like a brother to me)

Judaism or the jewish folk are not a threat to our people... zionism is on the other hand, it is the equivalent of our nazism ''Hitlerism''. We should rather focus our attention on the zionists and their puppets rather than spending our time trying to think about something that was was done before in history.

I have no quarrel with anyone because they have some Jewish ancestry. The question is, do (most) Jews have an inherent hatred of gentiles and especially Aryans? Taking a good look at their holy books, their practices, their history, and what members of their ethnic espouse, I would say the answer is yes. Not only that but I would say they are a very sick people (probably stemming from their ethnic faith). Just take a look at a Jewish Shechita video, anyone who does not have a problem with that is no friend of mine. Period.

Now, I do not want to purge all Jews or all those with Jewish ancestry, like your friend. I am almost quite certain your friend does not harbor hostilities to us as a people or think that Shechita is a noble, holy, practice. However; I do believe it would be quite futile to abolish capitalism and not get rid of the Jews as a people. They are not part of our nation, and have different interests, obviously. This runs counter to Nationalism. Likewise; I think it would useless to get rid of the Jews and keep capitalism intact.

Why did this get moved to the reactionary section, by the way? I don't think it was "reactionary" to anything.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:Why did this get moved to the reactionary section, by the way? I don't think it was "reactionary" to anything.

I don't quite understand the importance of the so-called "Jewish question" in this day and age. We are not here to address any imaginary features of Jewish world domination, but to realistically analyze capitalism and to develop a feasible socialist nationalist alternative.

Why are concrete (in this case Jewish) contributions relevant when analyzing a systematic flaw?

SSocialistStateSS wrote:I have no quarrel with anyone because they have some Jewish ancestry. The question is, do (most) Jews have an inherent hatred of gentiles and especially Aryans? Taking a good look at their holy books, their practices, their history, and what members of their ethnic espouse, I would say the answer is yes. Not only that but I would say they are a very sick people (probably stemming from their ethnic faith). Just take a look at a Jewish Shechita video, anyone who does not have a problem with that is no friend of mine. Period.

Now, I do not want to purge all Jews or all those with Jewish ancestry, like your friend. I am almost quite certain your friend does not harbor hostilities to us as a people or think that Shechita is a noble, holy, practice. However; I do believe it would be quite futile to abolish capitalism and not get rid of the Jews as a people. They are not part of our nation, and have different interests, obviously. This runs counter to Nationalism. Likewise; I think it would useless to get rid of the Jews and keep capitalism intact.

Jewish ritual animal slaughter, while I find it to be disagreeable, is hardly a common Jewish practice, and it certainly does not present itself as particularly egregious in the context of religious history. Zionism is a reactionary movement which cannot be associated with the Jewish "race," but a specific segment of the global Jewish population. There are a considerable number of left-wing Jews who stand opposed to Zionism, and Noam Chomsky is among them.

Furthermore, I do not understand where reactionary nationalists derive their self-righteous condemnation of Zionism when considering their own reactionary hatred of other groups—their own zealous pursuit of oppression and domination. I do not understand why you fail to grasp the hypocrisy in this. A reactionary nationalist group cannot complain in a normative sense when another reactionary nationalist group gains dominance over them, as it is the simple extension of "competition." If you find it acceptable to take from other ethnic populations by force or exploitation, then your protests when another does so to your own are vacuous at best. In most of the global South, for example, it is the "white" man who represents the oppressor; who exploits the workers of such nations in the same manner that most reactionaries claim Jews exploit "us" in the West.

In any case, the most serious problem in the global North by several orders of magnitude above the rest is the system of capitalism itself. Zionism will never be anything more than a historical footnote.

WodzuUK wrote:Personally I have nothing against the jewish people (My best friend is 1/3 jewish and he's like a brother to me)

Judaism or the jewish folk are not a threat to our people... zionism is on the other hand, it is the equivalent of our nazism ''Hitlerism''. We should rather focus our attention on the zionists and their puppets rather than spending our time trying to think about something that was was done before in history.

You can not be 1/3 jewish. The jews are not a race or a people, but a religious community. To the degree that they share genes and affiliation to a people the Azkenazi are Khazars, decendants of a turkish/mongolian people from the russian plains around the caspian (khazarian) sea. Your friend might be 1/3 khazarian, but he is either a jew or he isn't. The same goes for the term "secular jews"; they don't exist. Secular Zionists however, do exist, and make up the majority of todays Israel.

What is regarded as the international jewish people is an invention and the recreation of a khazarian identity under false pretenses. The neo khazarian politics is zionism and it has the entire world in its evil grip.

Ergo, what people refer to as a jewish question should be referred to as a zionist or even plutocrat question. Capitalism and all its ills, inhumanity and opression is alongside christianity (judaism for goyim), islam (judaism for other goyim) and the secret societies of freemasonry. In short, what we have is a relatively small group of absolute psychopaths manipulating the entire world through their financial, political, religious and media power.

Race has nothing to do with it. Hitler understood a lot, but not enough to fight the fight without comitting some injustices himself. Opportunists like the verbal thug Julius Streicher did what he could to fuel this.

Look, I can even be selfcritical to national socialism.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:Why did this get moved to the reactionary section, by the way? I don't think it was "reactionary" to anything.

It did not strictly involve the initial inquiry, but rather the content of certain (subsequent) posts. Careless (racist) generalizations about the character of the Jewish people, collectively, clearly violates forum policy.

There is no problem with a reasonable analysis of certain ideologies and histories associated with various ethnic groups. However, using such as a pretext to begin disparaging an entire ethnicity is irrational. Any and all such threads/posts will be redirected to the Opposing Views subforum.

I don't quite understand the importance of the so-called "Jewish question" in this day and age. We are not here to address any imaginary features of Jewish world domination, but to realistically analyze capitalism and to develop a feasible socialist nationalist alternative.

If you think it is all that imaginary. Not that they didn't already conquer Europe 2000 years earlier under the name of the Catholic Church or anything.

Jewish ritual animal slaughter, while I find it to be disagreeable, is hardly a common Jewish practice, and it certainly does not present itself as particularly egregious in the context of religious history. Zionism is a reactionary movement which cannot be associated with the Jewish "race," but a specific segment of the global Jewish population. There are a considerable number of left-wing Jews who stand opposed to Zionism, and Noam Chomsky is among them.

You're right, I think the capture of gentile children was much worse in religious history when compared to Shechita. I was under the impression that this form of "Kosher Slaughter" along with the blessing is what really made the meat kosher. Zionism is definitely a problem, but not particularly the topic of this thread. More so the topic is do Jews hold a certain hostility for gentiles, more particularly Aryans, as a people? Whether it be a genetic or cultural thing. I appreciate a lot of what Noam Chomsky is about and talks about but he is also for opening the boarders and wants to give "Undocumented Workers" free healthcare. Sorry, but that would hurt the white working class and he knows it. Also what is this undocumented worker BS? I thought the proper term was illegal.

Furthermore, I do not understand where reactionary nationalists derive their self-righteous condemnation of Zionism when considering their own reactionary hatred of other groups; their own zealous pursuit of oppression and domination. I do not understand why you fail to grasp the hypocrisy in this. A reactionary nationalist group cannot complain in a normative sense when another reactionary nationalist group gains dominance over them, as it is the simple extension of "competition." If you find it acceptable to take from other ethnic populations by force or exploitation, then your protests when another does so to your own are vacuous at best. In most of the global South, for example, it is the "white" man who represents the oppressor; who exploits the workers of such nations in the same manner that most reactionaries claim Jews exploit "us" in the West.

Well, I am not a "reactionary".

In any case, the most serious problem in the global North by several orders of magnitude is the system of capitalism itself.

Agreed.

My stance is not that Jews should be blamed for things, but that similar to Christianity and Islam, the religion of Judaism is reactionary. So Jews should reject Judaism. They don't have to necessarily reject the national label of "Jew" like a German can be labeled "German" without being Lutheran.

I have some paternal Jewish ancestry, but that still leaves me a Gentile based on Jewish law except in some reform sects where either line is acceptable.

Noam Chomsky failing to oppose immigration doesn't somehow imply he possesses some deep-seated hatred for people of European descent. Chomsky is an anarchist and, therefore, believes in a borderless world based upon the principle of free association. Virtually every anarchist in history (Jewish and gentile alike) espoused that ethic, so it should come as no great surprise. Moreover, leading figures in the nationalist movement have always gone to great lengths to highlight Jewish support for immigration in the Global North, but (as I noted in the 'Educational Videos' thread) they conveniently omit the numerous Jewish individuals who actively fought against immigration throughout contemporary history.

In the history of socialist thought there have basically been two prevailing theories about Jewish identity and behavior: Karl Marx's theory (elaborated in "On the Jewish Question") and Eugen Dühring's theory (elaborated in "The Jewish Question as a Question of Race, Morality and Culture with an Answer based on World History"). Marx's position was that Judaism was merely an extension of Jewish economic life, which was historically characterized by usury and exploitation. Therefore, Marx felt that Jewish and gentile people would be liberated only when the capitalist mode of production was superseded by socialism—"The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism" (Judaism representing a cultural embodiment of capitalism). Following the proletarian revolution, I presume Marx felt that identification based upon religious affiliation would gradually fade into oblivion, thereby enabling Jews to easily assimilate into gentile society and rending the "Jewish people" itself a relic of the past.

Eugen Dühring, on the other hand, argued that since Jewish identity was racially determined, genuine assimilation could never be expected. Consequently, the only solution he saw to the question was to encourage Jews to move to their own nation somewhere outside of Europe. Notable socialists, like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Charles Fourier, etc. espoused views very similar to Dühring's, while most other socialist theoreticians (Engels, Lenin, Stalin, etc.) took a more Marxian approach to the issue.

Personally, I don't think the Jewish people constitute an ethnic group radically different from those found in Europe, and believe it should be left up to individual Jews to decide whether they wish to remain (and therefore assimilate) within gentile nations, or to live in their own, self-determined, Jewish homeland. Within a socialist mode of production, exploitation (whether committed by Jews or gentiles) will be transcended, and special interest groups—i.e., the Israel lobby influencing foreign policy decisions—will no longer be able to exert influence upon our political institutions. The infamous 'Jewish Question' really isn't that difficult to solve.

Celtiberian wrote:Noam Chomsky failing to oppose immigration doesn't somehow imply he possesses some deep-seated hatred for people of European descent. Chomsky is an anarchist and, therefore, believes in a borderless world based upon the principle of free association. Virtually every anarchist in history (Jewish and gentile alike) espoused that ethic, so it should come as no great surprise. Moreover, leading figures in the nationalist movement have always gone to great lengths to highlight Jewish support for immigration in the Global North, but (as I noted in the 'Educational Videos' thread) they conveniently omit the numerous Jewish individuals who actively fought against immigration throughout contemporary history.

Yes, but I think Jews are naturally attracted to such ideologies. Whether it really comes from a deep-seated hatred for Europeans or not. Let us not forget how many Zionist Jews have control over our media and banking institutions. Some Jews do support anti-immigration (it is especially common with the neo-cons), but do they really want to preserve our race and heritage?

In the history of socialist thought there have basically been two prevailing theories about Jewish identity and behavior: Karl Marx's theory (elaborated in "On the Jewish Question") and Eugen Dühring's theory (elaborated in "The Jewish Question as a Question of Race, Morality and Culture with an Answer based on World History"). Marx's position was that Judaism was merely an extension of Jewish economic life, which was historically characterized by usury and exploitation. Therefore, Marx felt that Jewish and gentile people would be liberated only when the capitalist mode of production was superseded by socialism—"The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism" (Judaism representing a cultural embodiment of capitalism). Following the proletarian revolution, I presume Marx felt that identification based upon religious affiliation would gradually fade into oblivion, thereby enabling Jews to easily assimilate into gentile society and rending the "Jewish people" itself a relic of the past.

I don't think they adopted Judaism as a result of capitalism. Judaism has been around for thousands of years; even before capitalism. I think it is a sick religion put together by a sick degenerated race of usurers and exploiters.

Eugen Dühring, on the other hand, argued that since Jewish identity was racially determined, genuine assimilation could never be expected. Consequently, the only solution he saw to the question was to encourage Jews to move to their own nation somewhere outside of Europe. Notable socialists, like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Charles Fourier, etc. espoused views very similar to Dühring's, while most other socialist theoreticians (Engels, Lenin, Stalin, etc.) took a more Marxian approach to the issue.

I like this idea. I hear Madagascar would make a great Jewish homeland.

Personally, I don't think the Jewish people constitute an ethnic group radically different from those found in Europe, and believe it should be left up to individual Jews to decide whether they wish to remain (and therefore assimilate) within gentile nations, or to live in their own, self-determined, Jewish homeland. Within a socialist mode of production, exploitation (whether committed by Jews or gentiles) will be transcended, and special interest groups—i.e., the Israel lobby influencing foreign policy decisions—will no longer be able to exert influence upon our political institutions. The infamous 'Jewish Question' really isn't that difficult to solve.

I don't want to ever assimilate with their ethnic. I believe they are totally different racially from the Aryan. Spiritually and physically. I know it is easy to solve, I have my own easy answer, I was just wondering what others here thought about it.

Celtiberian wrote:Noam Chomsky failing to oppose immigration doesn't somehow imply he possesses some deep-seated hatred for people of European descent. Chomsky is an anarchist and, therefore, believes in a borderless world based upon the principle of free association. Virtually every anarchist in history (Jewish and gentile alike) espoused that ethic, so it should come as no great surprise. Moreover, leading figures in the nationalist movement have always gone to great lengths to highlight Jewish support for immigration in the Global North, but (as I noted in the 'Educational Videos' thread) they conveniently omit the numerous Jewish individuals who actively fought against immigration throughout contemporary history.

In the history of socialist thought there have basically been two prevailing theories about Jewish identity and behavior: Karl Marx's theory (elaborated in "On the Jewish Question") and Eugen Dühring's theory (elaborated in "The Jewish Question as a Question of Race, Morality and Culture with an Answer based on World History"). Marx's position was that Judaism was merely an extension of Jewish economic life, which was historically characterized by usury and exploitation. Therefore, Marx felt that Jewish and gentile people would be liberated only when the capitalist mode of production was superseded by socialism—"The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism" (Judaism representing a cultural embodiment of capitalism). Following the proletarian revolution, I presume Marx felt that identification based upon religious affiliation would gradually fade into oblivion, thereby enabling Jews to easily assimilate into gentile society and rending the "Jewish people" itself a relic of the past.

Eugen Dühring, on the other hand, argued that since Jewish identity was racially determined, genuine assimilation could never be expected. Consequently, the only solution he saw to the question was to encourage Jews to move to their own nation somewhere outside of Europe. Notable socialists, like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Charles Fourier, etc. espoused views very similar to Dühring's, while most other socialist theoreticians (Engels, Lenin, Stalin, etc.) took a more Marxian approach to the issue.

Personally, I don't think the Jewish people constitute an ethnic group radically different from those found in Europe, and believe it should be left up to individual Jews to decide whether they wish to remain (and therefore assimilate) within gentile nations, or to live in their own, self-determined, Jewish homeland. Within a socialist mode of production, exploitation (whether committed by Jews or gentiles) will be transcended, and special interest groups—i.e., the Israel lobby influencing foreign policy decisions—will no longer be able to exert influence upon our political institutions. The infamous 'Jewish Question' really isn't that difficult to solve.

I agree with everything here except with the part about assimilation. If anything, they should be forcibly expelled from our states and relocated to a sparsely populated part of the globe, such as somewhere in Africa. Then, after a period of colonization and economic support from Europe, we could say our farewells and then sever ties with them.

(Madagascar has been suggested, but the population of Madagascar has expanded rapidly over the past half century, so there would be no room.)

Edit: Celtiberian, Where exactly did you locate that English translation of Eugen Dühring's writings? I wouldn't mind perusing them.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:Yes, but I think Jews are naturally attracted to such ideologies.

To which ideology are you specifically referring? Anarchism? That would be rather odd, considering two of the earliest and most influential individuals in the history of anarchism (Proudhon and Bakunin) were explicitly antisemitic.

Furthermore, I think it's absurd to suggest that any ethnic group is "naturally" attracted to any particular political philosophy. The ideological heterogeneity found amongst the Jewish people alone is proof of this.

Whether it really comes from a deep-seated hatred for Europeans or not. Let us not forget how many Zionist Jews have control over our media and banking institutions.

Bankers, be they gentile or Jewish, simply follow the logic of their institutional role within the capitalist mode of production. That private banking inevitably leads to harmful outcomes is an indictment against the institution itself, not the individuals who happen to be working in the financial industry.

As for the mainstream media, it's merely an extension of the corporate sector—the "news" which is selected to be aired is intentionally screened so as to make sure it does not portray corporations, or capitalism more generally, negatively (I suggest learning about the 'propaganda model' Chomsky and Herman expound upon in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media). Nothing of substance the media airs is there for anything other than advancing bourgeois interests.

Some Jews do support anti-immigration (it is especially common with the neo-cons), but do they really want to preserve our race and heritage?

The Jews who vehemently opposed immigration in the early 20th century (e.g., Berger, Gompers, etc.) were left-wing labor activists, and yes, many of them explicitly sought to maintain the United States as a racially homogenous nation. The notion that there's some innate, genetic propensity for Jews to seek to undermine the ethnic integrity of gentile nations is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

I don't think they adopted Judaism as a result of capitalism. Judaism has been around for thousands of years; even before capitalism. I think it is a sick religion put together by a sick degenerated race of usurers and exploiters.

The Jews had indeed been involved in proto-capitalist industries (e.g., money lending, merchant trading, etc.) for millenia. But to think these economic roles didn't affect the development of Judaic culture and, consequently, Jewish behavior, is naïve. We're essentially at a 'chicken or the egg' causality dilemma, wherein you believe that negative Jewish behavioral characteristics are caused by some uniquely horrible genetic endowment the Jewish people possess; while I contend their genetic endowment differs very little from that possessed by most Europeans, and their disproportionate position in finance is a result of their unique cultural history as a people.

I don't want to ever assimilate with their ethnic. I believe they are totally different racially from the Aryan. Spiritually and physically.

Being an atheist and a strict materialist (in the philosophic sense of the term), I'm going to intentionally avoid matters of "spirituality" here.

As far as their racial character is concerned, the phenotypic traits usually associated with Jews can be also be observed within several gentile populations; so too can their haplogroup markers. There's obviously a continuum, but many Jews are so heavily mixed with Europeans that they're virtually indistinguishable from them.

Bladridigan wrote:Edit: Celtiberian, Where exactly did you locate that English translation of Eugen Dühring's writings? I wouldn't mind perusing them.

There's a book entitled, Eugen Dühring on the Jews, which is basically an English translation of his work, The Jewish Question as a Question of Race, Morality and Culture with an Answer based on World History.

Aside from that, very little of Dühring's writings have been translated into English. Of course, Friedrich Engels famously critiqued Dühring's sociological and economic theories, as well as his variety of socialism, in Anti-Dühring: Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science, so you can read about Dühring's philosophy there. However, if you're interested in a less biased, and more concise analysis of Eugen Dühring's socialism, I recommend reading Alberto Chilosi's article, "Dühring's Socialitarian Model of Economic Communes and its Influence on the Development of Socialist Thought and Practice."

To which ideology are you specifically referring? Anarchism? That would be rather odd, considering two of the earliest and most influential individuals in the history of anarchism (Proudhon and Bakunin) were explicitly antisemitic.

Not any specific ideology, just ones that are harmful to Europeans. If Anarchism calls for a world with no borders, then it is definitely anti-European.

Furthermore, I think it's absurd to suggest that any ethnic group is "naturally" attracted to any particular political philosophy. The ideological heterogeneity found amongst the Jewish people alone is proof of this.

Once again though it is not a specific ideology. Only that they seem to gravitate to a spectrum of ideologies that are harmful to Europeans. From media bosses, to banksters, to college professors they all seem to espouse anti-white rhetoric. Lets just remember what the Jewish professor Dr Noel Ignatiev said about us.

Bankers, be they gentile or Jewish, simply follow the logic of their institutional role within the capitalist mode of production. That private banking inevitably leads to harmful outcomes is an indictment against the institution itself, not the individuals who happen to be working in the financial industry.

I think it is both the system, and those who use it. Like I said Jews gravitate to these roles.

As for the mainstream media, it's merely an extension of the corporate sector—the "news" which is selected to be aired is intentionally screened so as to make sure it does not portray corporations, or capitalism more generally, negatively (I suggest learning about the 'propaganda model' Chomsky and Herman expound upon in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media). Nothing of substance the media airs is there for anything other than advancing bourgeois interests.

I think it is for the destruction of Whites, White culture, and white values. That is why so much race mixing is spewed forth and so much sex culture poured out.



The Jews who vehemently opposed immigration in the early 20th century (e.g., Berger, Gompers, etc.) were left-wing labor activists, and yes, many of them explicitly sought to maintain the United States as a racially homogenous nation. The notion that there's some innate, genetic propensity for Jews to seek to undermine the ethnic integrity of gentile nations is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

I disagree. The Jewish elite would love nothing more than to rule over a mongrelized people with no identity rather than face us as proud Aryans.

Being an atheist and a strict materialist (in the philosophic sense of the term), I'm going to intentionally avoid matters of "spirituality" here.

As far as their racial character is concerned, the phenotypic traits usually associated with Jews can be also be observed within several gentile populations; so too can their haplogroup markers. There's obviously a continuum, but many Jews are so heavily mixed with Europeans that they're virtually indistinguishable from them.

Being a follower of the ancient Indo-Europan beliefs I believe race is spiritual and "assimilating" with them would destroy our racial and spiritual characteristics as a race.

Even if many Jews dislike Europeans and select their viewpoints out of spite, it does not mean that Jews are the cause of every problem (capitalism is) and it does not mean that every individual Jew does this. Basically what I am saying is that anti-European Jews can be drowned out and marginalized if there was a socialist revolution, because then there is control and direction over society.

Finally, I would guess that many anti-European Jews truly believe they are doing the morally right thing. Somebody who is a bit naive and a bit stubborn can easily be made to believe that.

And of course most people oppose explicit racialism, even Jews. They'll bring up Ethiopian Jews and converted Jews if accused of racialism, even though of course Judaism is passed from Mother to child.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:Not any specific ideology, just ones that are harmful to Europeans. If Anarchism calls for a world with no borders, then it is definitely anti-European.

Anarchism was created by racially conscious Europeans, so to call it "anti-European" doesn't make any sense whatsoever. At the time anarchism was conceived of, there was virtually no non-Caucasian immigration coming into Europe, so the idea of transcending the nation-state and replacing it with a confederation of freely associating syndicates didn't exactly conjure up images of swarms of non-European peoples immigrating to the continent, or what have you. The early anarchists didn't feel a government enforcing border laws was necessary to preserve ethnic or cultural integrity, they believed the people themselves could be trusted to do that. And don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that I agree with this form of governance, I'm merely explaining the theory to you.

Once again though it is not a specific ideology. Only that they seem to gravitate to a spectrum of ideologies that are harmful to Europeans. From media bosses, to banksters, to college professors they all seem to espouse anti-white rhetoric. Lets just remember what the Jewish professor Dr Noel Ignatiev said about us.

I presume you're referring to ideologies like "multiculturalism," and suggesting that Jews naturally gravitate towards them because they consciously realize such theories undermine European interests, correct? If so, I submit to you that the real reason multiculturalism has been embraced to the extent it has in the Global North is because it assists in making capitalism more functional, not because a secret cabal of powerful Jewish elites desire to witness the genocide of the European people. Noam Chomsky accurately explained the logic of bourgeois multiculturalism as follows:

"See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist—it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn't built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super-exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist—just because it's anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic—there's no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it's a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all of the junk that's produced—that's their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance."
Chomsky, Noam. Understanding Power, p. 89

I think it is both the system, and those who use it. Like I said Jews gravitate to these roles.

Jews frequently work in those fields because they come from a culture which nurtures and rewards traits conducive to success in the financial industry. Are some individuals naturally born greedy sociopaths? Of course, but they can be found within any ethnic population you choose to analyze. If you were to hypothetically "Aryanize" the economy (as was done in the Third Reich) and changed nothing else, a group of gentiles would soon emerge to fill the positions the Jews formerly occupied, and they would behave in exactly the same manner.

There's a saying, "in capitalism, scum rises to the top." The root cause of this phenomenon is due to the fact that individuals who possess a relatively callous view of humanity will generally be quite successful in the competitive realm of capitalism—because they haven't any regard for ethics, and thus possess no empathy for those they may cause harm to in the pursuit of profit (i.e., the proletariat). Again, this can be attributed to the structural requirements of capitalist firms and the nature of market competition.

I think it is for the destruction of Whites, White culture, and white values. That is why so much race mixing is spewed forth and so much sex culture poured out.

The reason we're observing our culture became more hypersexualized is because sex is a base instinct and, consequently, sells—just as violence does. When you live in a world guided by the profit motive, marketing agencies are going to take advantage of whatever traits induce pleasure in the human psyche and commodify them (regardless of how crude they may happen to be). As for why miscegenation is actively promoted, refer to Chomsky's quote above.

I disagree. The Jewish elite would love nothing more than to rule over a mongrelized people with no identity rather than face us as proud Aryans.

I think it's erroneous to separate elite Jewish interests from the capitalism, for without capitalism these so-called "Jewish elites" could peruse no agenda of their own. Empirically speaking, we know that bourgeois Jews use their great wealth and power to influence the foreign policy of the United States (in order to protect Israeli interests), as well as to outlaw any symbols, organizations, books etc. which they feel threaten the Jewish people in some capacity. Beyond that, the Jewish bourgeoisie is engaged in nothing uniquely beneficial to the Jewish people and they have the play by the same rules as the gentile bourgeoisie—and their interests in this respect are ultimately identical (as they have to be): to maximize profit by whatever means necessary.

Being a follower of the ancient Indo-Europan beliefs I believe race is spiritual and "assimilating" with them would destroy or racial and spiritual characteristics as a race.

Again, I cannot really comment on something for which I have no reason to believe exists. Race does exist, it's is a biological, empirically verifiable fact. Conversely, 'racial spirits' are metaphysical constructs. Moreover, there exist no 'pure' ethnic groups in Europe; every contemporary nation is an amalgamation of generations of genetic and cultural interactions and exchanges. The Spaniards are a mixture of ancient Iberians, Basques, Celts, and (to a lesser extent), Romans, Visigoths, Suebis, and Vandals (the precise composition of the mixture obviously varies from region to region); likewise the Brits are a fusion of numerous Germanic invasions intermingling with their indigenous stock, etc.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:If you think it is all that imaginary. Not that they didn't already conquer Europe 2000 years earlier under the name of the Catholic Church or anything.

Are you seriously attempting to dismiss the total history of the Catholic Church as a subversive Jewish conspiracy? The Catholic Church has existed as an independent entity for millenia with a fluctuating disposition toward Jews.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:You're right, I think the capture of gentile children was much worse in religious history when compared to Shechita. I was under the impression that this form of "Kosher Slaughter" along with the blessing is what really made the meat kosher. Zionism is definitely a problem, but not particularly the topic of this thread. More so the topic is do Jews hold a certain hostility for gentiles, more particularly Aryans, as a people? Whether it be a genetic or cultural thing.

There is no innate tendency of one population (in this case, a heterogeneous ethno-religious group) to harbor hostility toward another. Even if it were true, which I would find to be highly unlikely, it would be exceedingly difficult to provide substantial proof. Within the diversified Jewish "community," you find Jews who are both in favor of "white" nationalism and opposed to it. Needless to say, the historical events of the last century have influenced the majority of Jews to view European expressions of nationalism with skepticism and general abhorrence. The same, however, applies to the majority of gentiles. The approach that subsequent nationalist organizations have adopted since the end of the second world war (namely, of a reactionary nature) has not served to alter this position for the better in the least, but they have served to damage the credibility of nationalism to a nearly irreparable extent.

I appreciate a lot of what Noam Chomsky is about and talks about but he is also for opening the boarders and wants to give "Undocumented Workers" free healthcare. Sorry, but that would hurt the white working class and he knows it. Also what is this undocumented worker BS? I thought the proper term was illegal.

As a socialist, Noam Chomsky supports universal healthcare for all, as do I. What most individuals find disagreeable is the double standards involved with providing illegal immigrants healthcare at tax payers' expense. If healthcare were available to all, then it would be more economically efficient than our existing system even if a segment of the population existed parasitically, as the sheer dissolution of the cartel that is the AMA would result in far more reasonable prices ($130 to have a doctor examine and clear my ear in less than 15 minutes).

Well, I am not a "reactionary".

Your insistence upon the resolution to this "Jewish question" is reactionary at its core.

Agreed.

Then you agree that the Judenfrage is a non-issue.

As a socialist, Noam Chomsky supports universal healthcare for all, as do I.

As a socialist, one that resides in the UK, I would like to say that I most definitely do not support universal healthcare. I'm sick of paying healthcare for anyone that decides to turn up here whilst our own people, the people that actually pay for it because there is no such thing as free healthcare, are put to the back of the queue. IMO the National Health service should be for the Nation, the clue is in the name, it should not be universal.

All universal healthcare has done for us is encourage people with AIDS, and any other disease, to come here for free treatment and I'd quite happily shut the door on the lot of them.

BTW I used to post here when the forum first started, my name on stormfront was legion**, but I've forgot what my password and username was here.