Guess what? Despite the genocide, Jews are the still most moral people in the history of the world.

17 replies
  1. Marcali
    Marcali says:

    How can you be a force for good and bad at the same time?

    [Bolshevism] among the Jews is nothing new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.[43]

    • Shitting Bull
      Shitting Bull says:

      @ Marcali
      Yes, we’ve all seen Churchill’s famous statement 105 years ago. Zzzzz. Tension between groups of Jews, notably Zionists and Internationalists, have taken a different shape since WW2 and later Soviet championship of Arab nationalism.
      Judeophobia in the ancient world, medieval Christendom, post-Enlightenment and in the face of Israel have similar but also different features. The Ten Commandments (or at any rate most of them) were quite a useful list, and Christians have followed suit. Jews have been disliked primarily because of their ethnocentric arrogance and financial malpractice. Someone said they suffer from self-righteous political autism, but there are many exceptions, usually denounced as self-haters. For an enquiring novice, I would recommend MacDonald’s “Critique”, Bernard Lazare, Dan Cohn-Sherbok (2007), Peter Schaefer, Gilad Atzmon, Peter Winter, Jerry Muller, Jonathan Goldberg and Nesta Webster – a small assortment selected from the 6 million titles available.

  2. Bill Williams
    Bill Williams says:

    The Magna Carta is very anti-semitic. These Jews are inveterate liars using that document to uphold their parasitism.

  3. Tim
    Tim says:

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrocq6y6NDCc0URyRJY130N9Dm15KgwOu

    Entertaining theories that sometimes make you smile. I find it difficult to apply such generalizing categorizations. I am understood pretty much everywhere, provided it is within our cultural sphere. By that I mean, of course, northwestern Europe and the English-speaking countries overseas.

    One could also say the “Germanic” countries. Even a Pole or an Italian can be very foreign to me. However, I would argue that it is less culture than ideology that forms a peer group. In other words, the way of thinking largely stems from one’s outlook on life and political stance.

    Thus, there is no misunderstanding between Americans and me, provided that our basic intentions are the same. Between me and a fellow countryman with vastly divergent political convictions, the conflict can be much more irreconcilable. Much of what I say to Americans is not understood at all by many of my fellow countrymen.

    You put on the glove of the English language, so to speak, but still live out your mentality, which is inseparably intertwined with you. I like to communicate in English as a kind of mental exercise: “How do I have to express myself so that I am understood?”

    But I enjoy talking as imaginatively as possible in my native language just as much. In principle, I always remain the same: I would express exactly what I want to say in any language. If I had to work in a Chinese company, I would have to bend over backwards.

    But your environment rubs off on you, and if all Chinese people conceal their true thoughts out of respect, you end up doing the same. As a great lover of East Asian cuisine, I often visit Asian shops, where many of these hypocritically grinning, slant-eyed dwarf people communicate.

    Fortunately, I don’t understand a word, but just think: “These people have a strange way of quacking, like on the duck pond in the garden.” But since these people are very distant and at the same time taciturn and non-confrontational, I don’t care whether they stand around stupidly or are invisible.

    https://pdfhost.io/v/LXXqwybkJ2_Hall_-_Cultural_Differences
    https://pdfhost.io/v/hZKdy2sL5S_Meyer_-_Culture_Map
    https://pdfhost.io/v/ELNCTHuQ62_Hofstede_-_Cultures_and_Organizations

    • Tim
      Tim says:

      Skimming through Hofstede’s book, I stumbled across an interesting paragraph on page 85:

      “Feelings toward other nations vary not only with uncertainty avoidance but also with masculinity. The combination was illustrated in Figure 6.1. The Axis powers from World War II (Germany, Italy, and Japan) were all located in the lower right-hand quadrant: strong uncertainty avoidance plus masculinity. Under the conditions prior to the war, ethnocentric, xenophobic, and aggressive tendencies could get the upper hand in these countries more easily than in countries with different culture patterns. Fascism and racism find their most fertile ground in cultures with strong uncertainty avoidance plus pronouncedly masculine values. The paradox is that these same values in the postwar period contributed to these countries’ fast economic recovery. A culture’s weaknesses may in different circumstances become its strengths.”

      Let’s be blunt: either Hofstad’s theory is flat‑out wrong, or he didn’t have the backbone to follow it through. If you ask me, war is nothing less than the ultimate exercise in uncertainty. You could just as well call it a “collective high‑tech thrill ride of destruction.”

      And the same goes for impulsive, reckless, over‑the‑top macho behavior—like some drunk weaving through traffic at 90 miles an hour. That’s not about logic, that’s about adrenaline and testosterone. In other words: male territory.

      Flip side? The neurotic obsession with safety, the compulsive need for harmony, the pathological avoidance of conflict and risk. Let’s be honest: those are traits you’ll mostly find on the female end of the spectrum.

      And here’s the kicker: of all people, the effeminized, ultra‑“liberal” Brits—the folks who’ve been bowing to a “queen” for centuries—score lower than most on the “uncertainty avoidance index.” You couldn’t make this up.

      Remember what I’ve said before: the titans who built Germany’s so‑called economic miracle? Most of them were ex‑Hitler Youth. That means they grew up being hammered into discipline and self‑discipline. They were hardened. Same story in Japan.

      Back then, it was considered shameful to act soft, to whine, to turn trivial nonsense into a “problem” instead of, you know, solving it. Compare that to today’s world of fragile egos and tantrums over nothing. The old saying still applies: *A Germanic heart knows no pain.*

      Now, don’t get me wrong: I’m no fan of blind recklessness. But I do believe in calculated risk—real, measurable risk. No risk, no fun. War doesn’t count. Neither does running into a bunch of Middle Eastern migrants unarmed like that young American fool in Dresden did.

      Calculated risk means something else. It means moving in silence, beneath the radar of public attention, making progress toward your goal while looking like an innocent bystander. That’s Sun Tzu 101.

    • Emma Smith
      Emma Smith says:

      A new solidly documented balanced STRICTLY FACTUAL study of Jewish misbehaviors and the consequent “longest hatred” still needs to be written.

  4. Vitalma Pevere
    Vitalma Pevere says:

    What a grotesquely false and shameful article! Mr. MacDonald published it without the slightest comment. Does this mean that, as a genuine pro-Zionist right-winger, he agrees with this rubbish? I’m afraid so.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Few things are more important in a war—and a war is what we are certainly in—than knowing what the attitudes and concerns of one’s enemies are. This article is highly revealing of the Jews’ strategic thinking.

      Mr. MacDonald published [the article] without the slightest comment.

      Don’t you think that the article speaks pretty plainly for itself, with especial regard to the falsity of its claims? Or does KM err in his implicit assumption that this site’s habitués are intelligent enough to get the point without elaborate explanations or disclaimers?

  5. Martin
    Martin says:

    Everything anyone ever needed to know about the Jews was stated by Christ Himself in John 8:44. “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.”

    Not one word written in that article is truthful.

    • Arnold Bannerman
      Arnold Bannerman says:

      There are also different verses in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus was regarded as a Jew (John 4.9) from whose people salvation comes (4.22) and buried as one (19.41-42).
      You have to prove the biological lineage and cultural connection between the Judean establishment of AD/CE 33 and the AIPAC, WZC, Likud & JLC fraternity today.
      That doesn’t mean that the IDF are kindness itself and a source of unvarnished fact.

  6. PvtCharlieSlate
    PvtCharlieSlate says:

    Theodor Fritsch (1852-1933)
    The Riddle of the Jew’s Success published 1927
    /
    If one wished to sum up Jewish morality in one concise phrase, it would read as follows: “All is moral which brings advantage.” The Jew is incapable of applying a higher standard to the values in life than that of advantage or profit.
    /
    … the Jew is meditating everywhere on confusion and exhaustion, on ruin and dismemberment. He seeks his advantage in the injuries of others, his advancement in the oppression of his fellow men, who do not happen to be Jews.
    /
    The Jewish perception can be formulated in yet another way: “Morality is the art of overreaching other people, and of creating, at the same time, the impression of a benevolent disposition — in fact, of representing what is in reality an offence against others as an act of charity.
    /

    • Shitting Bull
      Shitting Bull says:

      So now you know, over a century later. Fritsch’s book (which Hitler recommended to young students) has some interesting material, which can be matched against modern studies, penned before WW1, but spoiled by his naive closing endorsement of the “Protocols” which are demonstrably not genuine.

Comments are closed.