Monday, April 14, 2008

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.


Anonymous said...

I'm with ya all the way. Me, les Visable, and thousands of other folk who've (sorry the web cliche) woken up to who is behind all the violence and slaughter.
Ricero, Rense, Bollyn. All of us
who read books about WWl and ll that have been suppressed. What ever comes. comes.
We all die anyway, why not die fighting?
Thankfully, in this day and age we can actually know who the enemy IS!
A blessing in it's own right. We don't even have to hate them for what they do. We can take action without hate.

nobody said...

Me, I don't hate anybody. Redemption by way honestly facing the truth of who one is and the truth of one's actions is always possible. Unlikely but still possible. I would offer it to the worst of the worst. I've said so many times here and anyone who has the time and energy to prowl through the archives (short though they are) will see a consistent message.

Otherwise Buddha was right in telling us we should shed fear. I'm in no rush to be uttering the phrase 'It's a good day to die' but there's something perfect in its elegance.

Anonymous said...

This Rabbi simply states that anyone in any age who defies his kind are to be slaughtered, and that it's justified by the Talmud.
And yet people ask what sort of mindset could have been present to commit the dreadful crimes of 911. Religious fundamentalism is the true enemy of us all, whether it's Christian, Jewish or even Muslim.

Visible said...

A great write Nobody. Telling the truth is a bummer. There's no upside except the knowledge that you've done it and the privilege of living with yourself.

nobody said...

Thanks Les,

You make my day. And you say there's no upside, ha! You and the fine people who drop in here are the upside. As always I remain your student.

Anonymous said...

Great blog. I often tell everyone that the only hope we have is the internet. Sure, they've done their best to fill it with useless crap to distract us -- but they can't keep us from the truth. That will be their downfall.

I honestly think they believe we have to have a world war now because otherwise, when the economy totally tanks, and people have to focus on surviving -- the power of the TV will fade and people will begin to wake up. If we don't have some massive distraction and new enemies -- they know they will be hunted down. Our job is to do whatever we can to make sure that happens so when the shit hits the fan -- we can make sure justice is done and the people really responsible are held accountable.

Anonymous said...

If you like reading information with a high degree of validity for advancing towards a true conclusion [] ..once the individual who has been brainwashed into the braindeadgoy straightjacket of talmudic terrorist "politically correct" "Jewish" "narrative"...can begin to "deprogram"....eventually unlearning the lies will lead one to examine what Jesus actually said to the nonyiddish speaking "talmudic terrorist" Pharisees in John 8. Then Read Obadiah , and Matthew 13.

Carmenisacat said...

"Therefore, make obedience to Allah the way of your life and not only your outside covering, make it your inner habit instead of only outer routine, subtle enough to enter through your ribs (up to the heart), the guide for all your affairs, the watering place for your getting down (on the Day of Judgement), the interceder for the achievement of your aims, asylum for the day of your fear, the lamp of the interior of your graves, company for your long loneliness, and deliverance from the troubles of your abodes. Certainly, obedience to Allah is a protection against encircling calamities. expected dangers and the flames of burning fires. "

...Ali ibn Abi Taleb, May Allah be pleased with the Ahl Bayt (household of the prophet)

Don't worry friend...we are the successful and they are the losers.
Big, big losers.


jgarbuz said...

Well, the Bible clearly states that that extermination of the Amalekites is an imperative, because they will never cease to try to destroy Israel. The prophet Samuel chose David to replace Saul because Saul was too lenient towards the Amalekites and didn't extrrminate them as ordered. But the Arabs are not the Amalekites. Some of them may be, but then Amalek can be amongst the Germans, Americans, or anyone who bears a deep held desire to racially exterminate the Jewish people. I think the rabbis is wrong in lumping in all Arabs as Amalekites. Hamas may be, but not all the Palestinians. One has to be careful in labelling a whole group as "Amalekites."

Anonymous said...

Congratulations nobody, your blog's come of age (young as it is).
randy has a point 'We don't even have to hate them for what they do. We can take action without hate.' Isn’t that the basis of justice; no revenge.
scarlett, I don't thing you're wrong. TV is a one way path (as someone noted recently) the internet is interactive, that's the beauty.

Anonymous said...

Like a spy with so many passports, the Jews have so many phony labels to produce when anyone tries to identify one. But "Khazar Ashkenazi" is like the phony detour sign the cartoon character plants to get away from his pursuers one more time.

Despite what the Jews SAY, the Jews have married the locals and they have an active breeding program to produce blue eyed, blond Jewish children. There are already many of these about.

Anonymous said...

I just wonder when the jews will finally get sick enough of the evil that the zionist perpetrate in their names and actually do something to stop the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians in palestine and those other zionist wars in the making.

kikz said...

tag.... i'm it >:)


Anonymous said...

"PPS Anytime you feel like blitzing apollonian, it's fine with me.
8:22 AM

* * * * *

Jew Instructed For Editorial Strategy
(Apollonian, 14 Apr 08)

Hey dipshit, I saw above-quoted in one of ur posts over on "smokingMirrors" blog; just what do u mean by "blitzing," stupid punk?--is that ur slick little kike-speak for "censoring," stupid-ass?

"It's fine w. u"? Dumbass little puke-ball--who do u think u are, anyway?--presumptuous kike filth.

If u censor my stuff, shit-for-brains, it only means u're Jew, queer, or sympathizer therewith, brainless scum; that's all.

There's not too much to be said to Jews, u know, as they're Talmudic psychopaths, by definition (see,, and for good Talmudic expo).

U pretend there are Jews by race, but not by religion, totally overlooking fact Jews are collectivists, this collectivism part of their religious-configured mentality, even if the scum pretend they're not Talmudically-observant.

For example, Jews pretending they're not Talmudic/religious WILL STILL INSIST "Jews are persecuted," which is just secularist version of Talmudic self-pity, self-righteousness (Pharisaism), and persecution-complex.

Hence then Jews by race are always affected and coerced by Jews of religion/Talmud, poor, deluded ignoramus; the only ones who aren't are extremely few, surely regarded as retards by Talmudists--and I don't really know of any, in all truth.

The only possible type of Jew-by-race who turns into humane human being is one who DOESN'T AND WOULDN'T WANT TO BE KNOWN AS JEW--in same manner as one would never want to be known as former child-molester or former psychopath.

CONCLUSION: So go ahead and censor this essay of mine, u puke; I DON'T REALLY NEED JEW-FRIENDLY SHIT LIKE U ANYWAY, filth. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

nobody said...

Ha ha ha ha,

That apollonian is a crack-up ain't he? Mate, Do you really want to spend your life being this hateful? Might there not be another way? If this mindset you have, this definition of you in regards to others, is so negative and unpleasant perhaps it's wrong? If you are at odds with everyone except other hate-mongers might you not wonder at this? Does it bring joy to anybody? Whatever it is you define yourself as, is a delusion, a thing of nothing, a puff of smoke to be observed dispassionately as it floats away never to be seen again. If you wish it, that is.

As for me, I clumsily lurch towards casting off fear and more nearly approaching selflessness. Certainly I suck at it but that's not to say it isn't a worthy goal.

Otherwise I posted you here so that I might say the above. If you wish to persist in you nasty invective - I'll be your huckleberry. I shall gladly blitz your invective and insert a note saying who it was and why I blitzed it. If that makes you unhappy and has you running about cursing my name then so be it. I wish you well.

Anonymous said...

flimflam apollonian, flimflam

nobody said...

Otherwise to those who posted with less spit-flecked comments (avoiding the caps lock key is a good start) I thank you.

But I should say that as a student forever seeking the most elegant solution I'm not much given to what I call impossible riddles. It's my opinion that looking for answers by delving ever more deeply into them will provide only confusion. I view the bible as just such a riddle. Quoting chapter and verse at me will, frankly, make my eyes glaze over.

I only use the word 'Amalekite' as a vehicle for discussing a world view I consider as wrong as a thing can be. Perhaps I was not clear as I should have been. As far as I'm concerned there's no such thing as Amalekites. And anyone tweaking his variation of an impossible riddle to prove that a given set of people deserves death in turn deserves to be called on his lies and presented with solidarity and fearlessness.

Otherwise to those incapable of viewing the world in any terms other than those of your impossible riddle perhaps this is the wrong blog for you. By all means drop in but, here, arcana gets short shrift.

Anonymous said...

a short book report . . .

has nobody discovered The Controversy of Zion, by Douglas Reed yet?

the whole text of the book is posted on the internet here . . .

this is an encyclopedic presentation of the whole 2,600 year history of the jews vis-a-vis the "amalekites" (i.e., the rest of humanity)!

i believe this is a pretty long book (said to be 300,000 words) and i have read about a third of it, and have found it to be absorbingly intertesting! i dived into it at Chapter 6, and just kept reading and reading . . .

it's so massively informative both in facts and insights that i found myself wondering, how could one person have written this?? yet it's not at all 'ponderous' to read.

the link (above) has not only the book itself, but also an author bio, and two interesting "background" links ("Reed and the Jews" and "How Odd of God"), containing quotations from the author's other books that show how his personal relationship with this topic developed and deepened over several decades, until he finally came to write the book in 1951–56.

the book was never printed till the late '70s.

IMO, the internet is where this book is now going to find its readership. Also IMO, the readers who will gain the most from reading it will be . . . jews.

ellis t,
"bringing down that hit to comment ratio . . . one comment at a time"

Anonymous said...

apollonoan is probably a (closet) Jew
You could probably trace his heritage back to the House of Judah so this is why he comes across as being so irked.
Because he knows that the promise (the Covenant promise of the Birthright that was given to Joseph) was given to the House of Israel not the Jews (the House of Judah). So he misses out. Bad luck mate!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
nobody said...

Hey Ellis,

Good onya (as we say here). The comments to hit ratio now stands at 0.902612%. Wild huh? Perhaps people were struck dumb. Who knows? And I'll check that thing out. I like the idea of dipping in and out.

Otherwise Tony, there I was enjoying the sounds of sensible conversation and you go bringing up the aforementioned. You know what they say...

nobody said...

Aargh! Summon the devil and he will appear!

In the time it took me to tap the last comment the aforementioned lobbed up and had a spray about Hegelian something or other. My eyes glazed over and I consigned the whole thing to the Impossible Riddle bin. Oh and the second comment was him snavelling up Tony's bait. Have you not ever fed magpies Tony? It never ends well mate. Oh okay, a bit of ham occasionally is alright but daily...

Otherwise Apollonian, do you have your own blog at all? Feel free to rail at me there.

Anonymous said...

You got the scalpel out nobody?

nobody said...

Yes, I find a Swan-Morton 10a suits me pretty well. Otherwise that was my first apollonianectomy and all things considered it went pretty well I thought.

And now I'm off for a quick nine rounds...

Anonymous said...

I've just read your article nobody.
Make's you angry, doesn't it?
Most of the world at the moment is a nasty, nasty place.
And as you say this attitude of the Jewish religion is all part and parcel of their faith. Elitism, racism, apartheid, exploitation and murder; it’s Kosher!
Shouldn’t they (or at least the Zionists) be ‘Enemy No. 1’ to the rest of the world - not Islam which doesn't have such a manifesto?
Where is the rational humanitarian argument? Where is the indignation?
Where is international law?
Nothing? Don't understand.

Anonymous said...

Would it be too far out there to suggest that the repugnant idea that was once without and people or a nation is now trying to confiscate for itself a 'race'. Through urging those of European origin to accept immigration without end, whispering to European "Goyim" that there is no such thing as race and that intermarriage is a noble contribution to the end of racism, Jews could become the "Whites" of the world.

It fits neatly within the maniacal realms of crazed Judaic psychopathology.

Anonymous said...

You mentioned earlier Julia Gillard and the email tapping thing.

The beauracrats v Julia? Maybe

Let her know you are unhappy (email)

ps. If you think this is inappropriate nobody – bin it!

nobody said...

Now showing at the cinema - Rendition.

I declare it a masterpiece, ha ha.

Anonymous said...

The author of the Article wrote that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were 'forgeries'. I would request
of this author, kind sir, what is a forgery but a copy of an original???
The zionist jews persist in calling
said Protocols a 'forgery'. Are they
not hanging themselves with their
insistence that the 'Protocols" are
a forgery???

nobody said...


For a minute there, you had me wondering. So I read my own article again. Perhaps you should do the same. As far as I'm concerned it was unambiguous.

Paraphrasing Frank Zappa - If it's you against the media, bet on the media. Truth in the face of the all-pervading conventional wisdom put forth by the media will inevitably appear to sound nutty. In the face of this delusion machine you will convince no one. The only way to convince people is to give them the means to convince themselves.

And that's precisely what I did. If you want to sway people, questions are better than answers; and suggestions that people go see for themselves are better than bald statements that are completely at odds with everything they understand. Can you dig it?

Otherwise I think you choose a particularly weak argument. I can easily shoot it down but only by coming from the opposite tack. This is less than ideal since I'm not in disagreement with you, merely your choice of argument.

The Niger Uranium forgeries that purported to be official government documents and prompted Dubya's state of the union speech were not copied from an original. There was no original since the uranium sales never took place. That doesn't mean they weren't forgeries. They were precisely forgeries.

If you want to win a debate, an argument pivoting on definitions, particularly such a weak argument, ain't the way. Don't address the label. It's a waste of time. Address the thing itself.

Otherwise, as a general rule, you should always adopt the other side's POV and attack your own arguments. Think laterally because they will. If a particular point fails you should abandon it or concede it from the outset.

See how you go.