We're all Amalekites now

Here's a mindfuck from uruknet via wrh. Have a read. Do you think he might be a racist, this Rabbi? Ha ha ha ha.

Amalekites, eh? Wonder at the nature of 'Amalekites'. If you object to the slaughtering of innocent men, women and children, and condemn the mindset from which this springs does that qualify as an attack on Jews? Does that make you an Amalekite? Who but a sub-human shit wouldn't object to it and ask the question? Who then, the fearful and the silent excluded, isn't an Amalekite?

Sure enough the media will be full of calls that moderate Jews condemn such extremist views. Just joking. Only Muslims have to jump through hoops in this fashion. There will be no such calls because the Rabbi's views will never be aired. And silence differs from a nod and a wink how, exactly?

I understand that the Rabbi is an extremist and that the majority of Jewish people do not assert such views. Except for Zionists of course. Zionism was always as precise a definition of murderous racism as has ever existed. The Rabbi is them and they are he. We might also exclude Talmudic Jews. The Talmud is exceeded in its racism only by its secular version the Protocols of Zion. Personally, I recommend to all that they, in a spirit of honest inquiry, read the Protocols and decide for themselves if its description as a forgery rings true. Me, I've decided it's the logical, and perhaps even inevitable, translation of the Talmud into a secular 'how-to'.

Of course, the majority of Jews are neither Zionists nor Talmudic. They're non-religious. Here's where we discuss the flip-side 'ethnic' aspect of Jewishness - but let's just cut to the chase and say it's bullshit. It's arguable whether Ashkenazi/Khazari Jews are Turkic or Caucasian but either way they're about as Semitic as I am. If I was to say they define themselves as Jewish because they chose to hand their definition of themselves over to others I'd be in an unassailable position.

So, if they're not religious and their not ethnically Semitic, what are they? Apart from a people who, wherever they go and whomever they live amongst, choose to remain 'other'? And how is this not racist? How is it that the people they live amongst, who object to this perpetual choosing of 'otherness', cop the racist tag? They're anti-racist surely? If I was to describe the proud Jewish tradition of fighting racism as a sham designed to allow them to continue their own racism would I be wrong? Forget words, only actions count. The proof of the pudding of anti-racism is really simple - you smile as your kids marry the locals and cease to be 'other'. Sure enough, this is fought tooth and nail.

Regardless of historical Jewish assertions of being anti-racist, any people who so define themselves as being 'other' - generation after generation for the last 1200 years - is racist. The Rabbi's prescription of slaughter is merely the standard Jewish form of passive racism pushed to its ultimate conclusion. Again, let's cut to the chase. Let's see if any of the moderate Jews in the media have anything to say about the Rabbi's call to murder.

They'll say nothing, of course. Nor will they allow anyone else to do so. If anyone succeeded at this we'd see how far moderate Jews are from the Rabbi in viewing people as Amalekites. They know an Amalekite when they see one. And they know what an Amalekite deserves. They deserve assassination by media. It was always thus. The Rabbi merely says it out loud.

I call this murderous, racist Rabbi motherfucker (and anyone who's with him) out. If that makes me an Amalekite, dandy. I'll wear the title as a badge of honour. Who's with me? No need to decide. It's the Rabbi's appellation and he's decided for you. If you condemn the racist slaughter of innocents and choose not to be silent, you're it. The Rabbi has already stitched the Amalekite label onto your clothing. There's nothing for it, you may as well stand up and declare - We're all Amalekites now.