No. Those are not quotes from the Talmud, although the 3rd and 4th (Sanhedrin 66a and 101a) come closest to being paraphrases. The rest change concepts and/or omit necessary context.
Ironically, all the Talmud passages are intended to show cases of mercy drawn from other arguments from Moses, where the Mosaic laws when stated alone without that context are strict. That worked for awhile, but Jesus demonstrated both that the laws were even stricter than that and that mercy must still be shown via attributing the punishment to him rather than to the offender.
Just in my mind as a reminder to be cautious in my not mistaking your sense in the future.
jews judge White people as GROUPS.
Which, when done by individual Jews, is just as wrong.
It's appropriate to use demographics, up to a point. For instance if an office publishes a demographic judgment that frees them up to use individual demographics to determine their response, because that would be a published known determination. So if police or immigration are using racial profiling to the degree that it's used transparently in accord with published guidance, instead of arbitrary, that might be justified. The presidents have often restricted nationals of certain nations in many ways, and your further restrictions could be conceivably approved via Constitutional processes if there were critical mass. So if you were to say it's obvious that Jews provoke and sabotage white civilization to greater extent than other races, there's evidence in that direction and I don't press the point of the evidence but only the overstatement of what can be concluded.
But you don't say that, you blame a group that includes innocent children. (Unless you mean original sin, the theory that all Jewish children are inherently bad is self-destructive.) A "group" is incapable of action except by individuals or through delegation. A "group" cannot provoke and sabotage, only individuals can, unless the group delegates the individuals knowingly. Under the law, it wasn't "the J6ers" who entered the Capitol, it was a list of published individual names. Similarly, races do not by any deliberative process delegate crime to be carried out by race representatives. It's not (all) "Jews" that label that hate speech, it was the ADL via agent Jonathan Greenblatt (Name That Jew For Real). Nobody else is officially labeling it hate speech.
You can retain all the nationalism and noticing if you simply refuse collectivist language about attributing the actions of some to all as a group. Since you know it's wrong when done to you, Jesus says don't do it to others.
Not true. Both are methologically flawed in their counts. The list of 109 rows of 108 entries gives one source, which gives Grosser as its source, which lists 81 entries; the meme does not indicate where it got the other entries. The list of 1,030 (sometimes given as 1,031) does have many entries that are not cited and sourced, starting with "3 B.C. - Egypt Jews Expelled." on the second page. So you're baiting me by telling me I'm lying and being so bald about it.
More interesting, Grosser's methodology is also problematic because, though we presume he did good historical research, he has been criticized for some of the misspellings and/or typos on his published list, casting doubt on a few entries. However, counting them as 81 valid historical events, and doing the very interesting tracing of which nations were involved, we find there were only 20 actual national expulsions, from 12 nations, rather than municipal or regional, as seen below. (Grosser properly emphasizes that the list includes "towns, principalities, dioceses, regions and sometimes whole countries and empires".) The total number of modern countries for the expulsions is only 22, though depending how we identify past countries that could be increased. The 81 are analytically (and I may still be erring seeing as everyone else is):
Algeria 1: Oran; America 1: Confederacy (Grant); Austria 3: 2 plus Vienna; Britain 1: England; Czechia 4: Bohemia 2, Moravia, Prague; Egypt 1: Alexandria; France 13: 3 plus Alsace 2, Bordeaux, Bremes, Metz (Clement), Savoy ("Savory"), Sens, Strasbourg 2, Uzes; Germany 23: 3 plus Augsburg, Bavaria 3, Brandenburg, Brunswick, Cologne, Franconia 2, Frankfurt (Frankfort), Hamburg, Heilbronn ("Hielbronn"), Lubeck, Mainz 2 (Mayence), Regensburg, Worms, Wurttemburg ("Wurtemburg"), Wurzburg 2; Hungary 1; Italy 7: 1 plus Cremona, Genoa, Naples, Papal, Pesaro, Vicenza ("Vincenza"); Latvia 1 (Livonia); Lithuania 3: 2 plus Kaunas ("Kovad"); Morocco 1 (Arab); Netherlands 1; Poland 3: Sandomierz (Sandomir), Warsaw, Wroclaw (Breslau); Portugal 1; Romania 1: Galati (Galatz); Russia 5: 3 plus Villages 2; Spain 3: 1 plus Visigothic 2; Switzerland 2: 1 plus Zurich; Tunisia 1: Carthage: Ukraine 4: 1 plus Kyiv (Kiev), Malorussia 2 (Rus).
Imagine someone says 109 countries and is asked to list them and the list of countries includes "Diocese of Clement", "Savory", "Kovad", "Depor Pale", "Countrysid", and "Gen. Grant's Jurisdiction". That would make the real expulsions get laughed off too. And that's my point.
To turn "nearly always centerpiece of cultural life" into "center of entire group existence" is not as bad a twist as your others, but it still is unjustified by your source. More important, the Talmud being foundational to thought doesn't mean every off-color joke in the Talmud is foundational to every person as it's often inferred here. The Bible is foundational to Christian thought, but most Christians don't know a thing about the porno jokes in Ezekiel 23:20.
We've demonstrated that "murder" doesn't apply, that "40,000" is highly inflated and includes obesity deaths and imagined deaths, and that "kids" includes a number of belligerents over 16. Your continuing to use such inflammatory language shows you don't yet understand how to report accurately.
I hear around here that abortion is a war on Christians and white people and has killed millions of babies in the last two years. So your focus is also imbalanced.
Nobody here claims the Holocaust was a genocide, so I don't have occasion to rebut that; but if someone did I'd be happy to point out the word is newspeak there too. I don't know why it would be a problem that a people recovered from a genocide later, so that too is off. Sorry, I don't see anything redeeming in your comment.
I implied that people here routinely refer to 109 countries without a source, which is easily shown to be true by search. I gave a source and demonstrated that there is no list of 109 countries and the original count is 81 expulsions from a smaller number of countries.
You tell me: Does Germany 1938-1945 count as two countries just because it's listed on two lines?
I also said that repeating the claim "109 countries" backfires when it has no source: even if it could be proven true in retrospect, it poisons the well against belief that 81 expulsions are real or deserved, which creates sympathy for Jewish narrative.
You held the lists "were 100% accurate", but it was inaccurate for the list to say 109, and this casts doubt on whether its additions to Grosser were scholarly or arbitrary. You say solecistically I held "the actions taken by the fake rabbi on the radio don’t exist"; well, of course the fake rabbi didn't take those actions, but even if you mean the actions described are taken by others, there is no evidence for the most outrageous of them, and the ones that there is evidence for are well-poisoned by mixing them up with the fake rabbi and the outrageous claims. This casts doubt on whether these things are motivated by truth or by a desire to confuse the narrative and divert away from the truth. This forum knows many examples where powers release a false narrative to distract from a similar-sounding true narrative that would discredit them. If you preach blood in burgers you distract from MBP.
TLDR: Your implication that accuracy is optional for whitists seems to undermine your stated cause. Your statement that my true statements are false because your false statement is true (as if I claimed the actions didn't exist) is the height of untruth. I do love demonstrating when you are logically mistaken, but I don't always do it; maybe next time I'll find something to agree with you about. God bless.
Since you define Judaism as rejection of Jesus, I would never convert someone to that, but would only convert to acceptance of Jesus.
I have been invited to rabbinical synagogues, been invited to study the Torah and Talmud, and been invited repeatedly to all the liturgy (I don't recall hearing the Birkat haMinim though in modern liturgy). I don't know what you would mean by secret witchcraft; the worst that happens is that someone might sneer about "Yeshu" in the lobby without wanting to start a conversation. Synagogues often host open houses for the community.
The purpose of the (occasional) security is the same as at churches, to keep trolls out. Just as nobody goes into a church and curses Christ and lasts long, nobody goes into a synagogue and curses Jews and lasts long. If you're a polite and considerate inquirer, you'd be surprised what they will reveal to you.
I disagree with the state funding any religion (although I think keeping the state out of things like taxation and licensure is good too). I'm not confident your description is accurate, but if it is I oppose using taxpayer funds for anyone's religious security expenses.
I grew up mostly Presbyterian and learned the traditional covenantalist eschatology of John, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and their friends. In the children's catechism I memorized that Old Testament saints were saved by believing in a Messiah to come. In time I realized that there was no difference between their faith (starting with Abel, Heb. 11) and ours except for the amount of historical content increasing over time; and the later rabbinical adjustments were a great change from the faith of Jesus's Jewish circle. If my views based on the primitive Christian tradition were wrong, they would be disproven, and I would want them to be. I trust that others also want their own wrong views if any to be disproven.
Yes, many Jews promote abortion, which is baby sacrifice. Yes, some Jews promote interfaith dialogue, speak in churches, and I suppose some might moderate forums about Christianity (which is why our own forum calls for regulars to commit to Christ in the top post; I don't recall you committing there). It's clear that some of these Jews want to prove that they are right and Christians are wrong, but sometimes you see advance of open-minded dialogue. Since Romans 11 indicates that the cause of Jesus will win in this dialogue, we persevere as creative evangelists to the Jews. (You do believe in evangelism to all races, don't you?)
Yes, many Christians are brainwashed with Zionism, defined as allegiance to Israel in spite of itself. What the Bible actually teaches, and as I've said many times, is that Christians have all the spiritual covenant, and many nations have national covenants for good and/or ill, and Israel's national covenant has some of the best and the worst promises. Yes, many Jewish concepts tend toward homogenization of the Gentiles out of self-preservation and greed motives.
Now that has nothing to do with whether I preach authentic White Christian culture and civilization. I do preach "no collectivism", partly because it's a GAW rule, and partly because I learn from the Bible that there is no preference of persons. Authentic White Christian culture and civilization does have a thread of collectivism in it, but this is not necessary for any race-supportive Christian nation to exist. Demographic judgments are acceptable without becoming collectivist, and indeed they appear in our Declaration and Constitution. Collectivism crosses the border when it judges the innocent with the guilty, when it judges men, women, and children equally for the sins of the unnamed few. There are about two passages in the whole Bible when a judgment is made against the children of the race, and when given it's always because they're being tried as adults for idolatries they committed knowingly at their level of understanding. So if you have a problem with that it can be discussed civilly.
I do thank you for the civil discussion and the opportunity to agree with you generally and to point out where your view of me isn't supported by evidence.
There is no one good, not even one. If you define "Jew" such that someone who accepts Jesus and is made good is no longer a Jew, then sure, and there would be no good Gentiles either.
Jesus being the exception, we could also say there is exactly one Good Jew in 2025. Unless we want to engage the theory Jesus wasn't Jewish, which I've shown has no traction.
I said I debunked it, and I proved that I debunked it, which was done by inference to the best explanation. I didn't say I had the smoking gun (though a criminal conviction for doing the same thing another time is usually pretty strong evidence).
If you mean Martin, that was just a miscommunication that I could explain to you. If you think I'm a traitor to the Church in some other way, we can also talk that out. Maybe I said something nice about some Jew other than the Lord and the first pope and all the Bible authors? Let's talk. What's our standard?
You don't get people believing events are true by having a fake rabbi claim them, you don't get people believing in 81 expulsions by telling everyone 109 countries without a source, you don't get people believing that someone predicted 6 million by citing 100 pages that didn't predict that. I didn't claim the actions described by the fake rabbi didn't happen, I claimed he's fake and it hurts the case to cite him.
Actual human beings rely on evidence, if you want to evidence the realities you cite please go ahead. If you don't care whether people believe you then you have nothing to change. But some days I have hope for you because you act like you do care, in spite of yourself.
So glad you think so! Did you have a better idea?
Thank you Veil! "Put you down" meaning "write you in", sorry if that was ambiguous.
I probably have an overprotective air to my deliberations. Also a few folks know that I've worked among the mods of c/Christianity to keep a pretty stable community there 5 years so I had a few ideas about interpretation.
I agree that refusal to censor content is essential and a consensus view of this forum. The difficulty is forum-sliding tactics contrary to the stated goals, which include high-count low-quality comments, high-count focused-topic posts, and ignorance of human standards of civility and respect. My perception is that by my joining in raising the question about moderation 2 weeks ago I have probably drawn extra accounts here and increased the level of violations. Apparently I shouldn't have called everyone's attention to the current anarchic status so boldly when I could have built consensus behind the scenes instead first, as I tempted opportunists. Maybe we'll get a mod team that can respect all views including dealing with the stated views of insincere-seeming accounts.
This 2004 story isn't even archived on the Daily Mail site, it only exists in the meme form above. Interestingly, it relies primarily on the testimony of a liberal Jew, human-rights watcher Rabbi Arik Ascherman.
The police position: "I know there was violent rioting, serious rock throwing. It's unclear what happened," said police spokesman Gil Kleiman. "As a general rule, we do not expose civilians to physical damage willingly." This does not seem to have been followed up on, but to call it a 20-year-old war crime even if fully corroborated would demean the actual rapes and possible targeted killings that are being accused in the current war.
The child was Mohammed Badwan whose father Saeed Badwan was also involved. Ascherman could have snapped the photo before he was arrested for interference.
If you're going to use a human-shield argument, it's better not to lean on photos produced with clear agenda (see Ascherman's bio) when you can find straightforward examples judged by the military, such as when two staff sergeants of the Givati Brigade were convicted, sentenced, and demoted 2010-10-03 for forcing a child at gunpoint to open packages that might have been booby-trapped.
I'm pretty transparent about my votes, I downvote what I don't think the community should have more of. I did downvote your accusation about my motive without your knowing my motive. I see that recently I gave you three upvotes (including your statement "Can't we just accept" that I didn't need to reply to); no other downvotes; and neutrality on the rest. I don't see that I downvoted any reply to your contributions. I trust that my correction on these points is sufficient.
I appreciate that you're explaining your judgment of my motive by an appeal to silence, but there is another contributor here who regularly reminds me not to judge motive when only the movant knows it.
The reason I'm analyzing is to allow mods to use objective principles. If a rule is just "no trolling" and no mod objectively defines it, then we get arguments over trolling and either an objective definition arises anyway, or it remains ambiguous and exploitable.
If a majority of the board does not agree, it's very easy for one to propose a better analysis and to get agreement. But leaving them ambiguous is not analysis. By default, everyone is presumed to agree with the extant ambiguous rules because they contribute. It's better to get disagreement on the ambiguity out in the open early, rather than to wait until it becomes an issue.
Yeah, I had a couple specific instances in mind when I suggested people speak up. In this thread I can say that if u/JosephGoebbel5 thinks that (the very mild) "Karen" is respectful rather than "attacking the person", that ought to be clarified rather than left ambiguous. If dozens of brief bickering comments by u/DresdenFirebomber and u/RealWildRanter are not "comments of exceptionally low quality", then we need to know.
I am on the record that censorship refers to prevention of viewpoints, not of behaviors, and discipline refers to prevention of behaviors, not of viewpoints. Personally I believe a mod ought to redirect or contextualize content if some of it can be rescued from a violative comment. But if being punished for breaking rules is censorship, then they aren't rules anymore because nobody is punished. If it's actually true that others than you think that it's censorship to enforce the rules as they are written and defined, then we don't need a mod at all. But it appears to me people do want enforcement of the written rules, so I gave my view on what that looks like.
I'll be happy to put you down as thinking that punishment for violations is censorship. Will you acknowledge my statement that my motive is for the rules to be enforced because I believe the rule of law is better than unregulated anarchy?
I learned from Scripture that there was a real group in Philadelphia and Smyrna and knew that for many years. So when I came across the history showing who that group was, I recognized it immediately. Jesus said warn those two cities about that group, and that was the primary surface meaning. For you to assume he's warning you about something very different that contradicts the plain words is eisegesis. It's possible but it would be one of a thousand interpretations of the book.
I came to Win because there were dependable privacy-oriented conservative Christians and I could freely share community and weed out errors. When I realized that group was being targeted by collectivists, I found myself weeding out one particular class of errors more than any other. When people defame Christians, Muslims, or others unjustly, I weed that out too.
I have no problem accusing any number of Jews freely; let's pick on Shatner and Nimoy today for promoting a globalist view of politics and race relations. What I have a problem with is accusing "the Jews" as a group, when that means every man, woman, and child. I haven't needed to change my pretty simple boundary in five years.
I'll be happy not to ping you next time. I trust then you want a moderation team?
I have no problem with those saying the majority of nominal Christians are part of the beast system. Personally, I'm sure it's between 1% and 99% myself.
People who use the term "synagogue of satan" against its Biblical use, in Jesus's own mouth, are adding to Scripture and at risk of having plagues added to them. You miss so much of the work of satan when he throws you a set of human shields that you give him free rein with 99% of humanity as if you must defend a theory that it all flows through one minor race.
I'll be happy to build on the post and expose the Biblical applications of the seven works of satan today, but it exposes everyone, not any particular race. Focusing on the race is the problem. Demographics help but they do not judge the innocent with the guilty.
For example, on 9/11 only one nation’s intelligence operatives were caught openly celebrating over the destruction.
See, that's a hasty generalization. I know Muslims were celebrating, including filmmaker Osama bin Laden, who was an intel op for (checks dynamic notes) Columbia. So I also see that Paul and Sivan Kurzberg were also celebrating and were accused by the FBI of being Mossad. So I don't generalize.
your entire framing neglects the actual issue, which is that the talmud contains anti-human, anti-Christian, blasphemous filth, and it is the widely-acknowledged center of their entire group existence.
In the link from this OP I go into great detail about where the Talmud can be criticized levelly. But to criticize the Talmud for a joke about (what might be) Jesus in hell is equivalent to criticizing Jesus for a joke about (what might be) Caiaphas in hell, Luke 16. It contains exactly one unequivocal report of a testimony directly against Jesus of Nazareth. It is not "the acknowledged center of their entire group existence" anymore than the totality of all thoughts on Scored is an acknowledged center of our entire group existence when we are on its site. Jews disagree with each other and with the Talmud all the time, it's as if they all agree on that. So your characterization is again immoderate, and you have had a habit of not realizing it, and my work with you often focuses on helping you realize it.
Here's some of the criticisms I quoted there: On superstition: "Another manifestation of Divine immanence .... the Bath Kol was not always accepted as final." "The tide of sorcery .... in the later period even Rabbis succumbed [to], and credulity prevailed over faith." "Many customs are condemned .... perhaps evidence that they had been assimilated by members of the Jewish Community. Among these 'Amorite ways' are the following: 'A woman drags her child among the dead.'" On exclusivism: "We do occasionally meet with dicta which breathe a very different spirit [from universalism]. Typical examples are: 'A Gentile who occupies himself with the study of Torah is deserving of death ....'" "Harsh sayings ... with respect to non-Jews often spring from the conviction that 'Gentiles are addicted to licentiousness' (Yevamot 98a). The Rabbis were revolted by the low standards of conduct they saw practised around them." "Some of the bitter sayings were wrung from anguished lips under extreme provocation. The most criticized utterance of this type is: 'Kill the best of the Gentiles! Crush the head of the best of snakes!' .... His words expressed his personal feelings; but to quote them as illustrative of Talmudic ethics is grossly unjust." On unscrupulousness: "With regard to a girl it was urged that the father's duty was to secure a husband for her at an early age .... She was considered to have arrived at this stage when she was twelve and a half, although she ceased to be a minor when she passed her twelfth birthday." "Figures are, of course, exaggerated."
So of course when you overcriticize I point that out, and if someone undercriticizes I point out that it's too uncritical.
Well, that and Holocaustianity.
I have no idea what this means or how it applies to me. There are a number of easily shown hoaxes here where a Jew claims Holocaust experience and then recants, and usually I just upvote those because there's little to add. I don't know that those need a separate post, because their status is pretty well agreed, whereas OP is not but it appears ought to be. Which leads to:
It also neglects the existence of many people, including one who just commented here (u/TallestSkil) who do the work of fact checking claims like that without turning it into a jew suck-fest appologia.
I was trying to think of whom else to ping, and Skil would've been good, but he saw it anyway. What he does isn't often "fact-checking". His habit of declaring presumptive victory every other sentence doesn't appeal to the truth seeker, and he has never been able to form a cogent "supersession" doctrine of some people or covenant in the Bible removing entirely and taking the place of some other. He said nothing specific when he could have. In each of the cases of OP I am the equal time and the fact checker. I'll be happy to see what specific errors people find in OP, but they're not advanced with namecalling and intemperate misstatement.
I quoted the rules the way they are. I analyzed them to give objective measurements of how they can be understood so as to minimize miscommunication. I see that there is already a culture of leaving the rules ambiguous, but that would allow selective enforcement, and it seems clear there's a consensus against that. The mod team will be called on to give equal intellectual courtesy to all, including those who actually are trolling, and so it will help to have objective rather than subjective standards. If you wish to point to some specific where my objective interpretation can be improved, go ahead, but you're not doing so, and instead attributing a motive without knowledge of my motives.
Glad to have your unqualified support!
Did you like how I anticipated you by pointing out that those who protest illogically are indistinguishable from those who support the Jews and advocate for sympathy with them?
Hope I can earn you some sheqalim, I don't earn any for myself. I'm getting paid by One Jew (Jesus) and it's in eternal securities. So I hope even more that you're getting paid by that One Jew too.
Add:
- Hebraeorum gens: False and true text.
Graph, these are the ones I looked into and found easy problems.
We already have posts on the Liberty being a failed attempt to involve the US in the Six-Day War, 9/11 being controlled demolition, Ehud Barak and cronies raping minors, the ICJ investigation of Medinat Israel for Gaza war crimes, and more than enough variations of subversion. Those are not areas where I have expertise or study, or where a narrative clearly arises from the known data that can be demonstrated in a single paragraph.
The group of narratives presented all have in common that their presentation theme is "bad Jews". Your group of narratives have the theme "bad things" and their conspiracy theme is "bad Jews". I have no problem with, and have sometimes participated in, the listing of bad actors in each of these, and the noticing of the disproportion of Jews among them. When we can catch a Jew creating a false narrative, such as when Nathan Rothschild traded deceptively to corner British market assets by having advance knowledge of Wellington's victory, then I am happy to pull aside that false narrative too.
The difference is that if I say the evidence is that Vladimir Popov or James Wickstrom lied, we don't have people maimed and dead about it (directly), but if I say the evidence is that Zelenskyy or Wallensky lied then we do have death and calls for justice, and all your categories (except the last of general subversion, unless indirectly) do relate to measurable death that calls for justice. They are complex enough to need more detailed review than I can offer in an hour's time. Even though I'm a 9/11 truther from way back, I recognize that I can't pin down the murderers simply without supernatural help, and I can only speak what I know and trust that the truth will direct the systems of justice to act (on penalty of having Jesus act at a time and place of his choosing in the event of their continued injustice). Because of this, I usually don't consider my data sufficient for an OP on hard topics; I find it enough to support those who are doing good research by promoting its goodness, and to assist with weeding out bad research when it's obvious given my own experience.
Incidentally, your list of hoaxes includes one weak research point, namely the use of the Jewish-invented newspeak word "genocide", and the characterization of Palestinian Arabs as "native" when Arab families and Jewish families both go back in the land over a thousand years. "Native Palestinian Jews" are now called Israelis because "Palestinian" has always been a misnomer; the Jews had to choose in the false dilemma between either getting called Philistines by exonym, or getting told they can't live in a land called Philistia by exonym. So if the subject were "the war deaths of the Arab population of the Gaza Strip" then it'd be neutral, and also discussed many times between us. See, that's easy to pick out. But feel free to quote Ilana Mercer at length here and I'll have nothing easy to pick out.
I didn't dismiss them, I pointed them out and said they would increase the total from a modern reckoning, and said the right categorization of the scope of the expulsions ranges from towns to empires, as Grosser neutrally stated. There simply is no continuous concept of the word "country" over the period that would allow us to claim 109 countries on the data we have. I recognize the problem but I believe I dealt with it sufficiently.
Add: Takeaway, there may possibly have been 1,000 official governmental acts against Jews in thousands of years, but without any methodological comparison to official governmental acts against anyone else (from municipal on up) that data is worthless. At current rates, American liberals will have conducted 1,000 official government acts against Christians, and Trump will have conducted 1,000 official government actions against (109) other nations, any day now.