Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Radical white supremacist terrorism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

On March 26, history was made as a white supremacist terrorist was finally charged, as the courts convened in the presence of Imams who survived the attack in NZ and risked getting coronavirus to sit at the hearing.

This guy was an immigrant who came from Australia to New Zealand with the intent of committing terrorism. He made his ideology clear on the internet. Had the West spied on him like they spy on innocent Muslims they would have caught him. Given the sophistication of programs like PRISM, however, I'm sure they already knew.

Anyway, people around the world today will learn from this incident how civilized people react when their communities are subjected to terrorism from immigrants. We Muslims are not calling for a shutdown on white men entering other countries. We are not calling for interning Muslims in concentration camps. We are not calling for racial profiling of white men at airports, or the streets, or anywhere else. We are not calling for criminalization of the Christian faith. We are not calling for white men to be deported back to Europe**. Why? Because I realize that it's not the Christian faith that was the issue. It is who is leading the Christian faith today (The white Europeans) that are the issue. Colonizer interpretations of the word of God will only lead to people imitating the colonizers, in this case, the NZ mosque shooting is clearly a subordinate replication of US foreign policy in Afghanistan, Yemen, and the rest of the Middle East.

Interestingly, if Brenton Tarrant had a US military uniform, he would be honored with medals and free health care, something which over 13% of the population doesn't even have.

**even though this would actually lower crime rates in the non-European world, especially in Palestine

Also, imagine someone saying they're calling for a shutdown of white Christians entering New Zealand. You'd be hanging from your ear like one of the hundreds of thousands of Native Americans.

Of course, you blame the gun if the shooter is white, and you blame the religion if the shooter is Muslim. If the shooter is Jewish you say he's defending his homeland.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 4/2/2020 at 10:26 PM, MuhammadFreeman said:

On March 26, history was made as a white supremacist terrorist was finally charged, as the courts convened in the presence of Imams who survived the attack in NZ and risked getting coronavirus to sit at the hearing.

This guy was an immigrant who came from Australia to New Zealand with the intent of committing terrorism. He made his ideology clear on the internet. Had the West spied on him like they spy on innocent Muslims they would have caught him. Given the sophistication of programs like PRISM, however, I'm sure they already knew.

Anyway, people around the world today will learn from this incident how civilized people react when their communities are subjected to terrorism from immigrants. We Muslims are not calling for a shutdown on white men entering other countries. We are not calling for interning Muslims in concentration camps. We are not calling for racial profiling of white men at airports, or the streets, or anywhere else. We are not calling for criminalization of the Christian faith. We are not calling for white men to be deported back to Europe**. Why? Because I realize that it's not the Christian faith that was the issue. It is who is leading the Christian faith today (The white Europeans) that are the issue. Colonizer interpretations of the word of God will only lead to people imitating the colonizers, in this case, the NZ mosque shooting is clearly a subordinate replication of US foreign policy in Afghanistan, Yemen, and the rest of the Middle East.

Interestingly, if Brenton Tarrant had a US military uniform, he would be honored with medals and free health care, something which over 13% of the population doesn't even have.

**even though this would actually lower crime rates in the non-European world, especially in Palestine

Also, imagine someone saying they're calling for a shutdown of white Christians entering New Zealand. You'd be hanging from your ear like one of the hundreds of thousands of Native Americans.

Of course, you blame the gun if the shooter is white, and you blame the religion if the shooter is Muslim. If the shooter is Jewish you say he's defending his homeland.

Hahaha 

Yea white men are lining up dying to enter Muslim countries or other 3rd world countries?

Seriously what a false analogy 

Difference is most average Muslims do not come out condemn the imperialism that their forefathers practiced rather they call it their golden age.While in the west atleast officially no one ( other than British skin heads or french imperialists ) brag about their exploits.If anything germans and many other Europeans have apologized for their crimes.

When will Arab Turks Kurds berbers persians  apologize for their crimes of pillaging plundering and enslaving ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/4/2020 at 9:46 AM, Panzerwaffe said:

 Yea white men are lining up dying to enter Muslim countries or other 3rd world countries?

But there government's are. So y they would be interested in doing the things which are already being done and justified at high levels

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

When will Arab Turks Kurds berbers persians  apologize for their crimes of pillaging plundering and enslaving ?

Salam the propaganda about Persians mainly comes from other Pan.x groups that you mentioned & also it’s not first time that you accuse Persians /Iranians without any reliable evidence just based on your poor judgment & low level of your  knowledge about history of Persians/Iranians .

Edited by Ashvazdanghe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 4/4/2020 at 9:46 AM, Panzerwaffe said:

Hahaha 

Yea white men are lining up dying to enter Muslim countries or other 3rd world countries?

Seriously what a false analogy 

Difference is most average Muslims do not come out condemn the imperialism that their forefathers practiced rather they call it their golden age.While in the west atleast officially no one ( other than British skin heads or french imperialists ) brag about their exploits.If anything germans and many other Europeans have apologized for their crimes.

When will Arab Turks Kurds berbers persians  apologize for their crimes of pillaging plundering and enslaving ?

Yeah, US military men, whom Henry Kissinger called "dumb stupid animals" and "pawns of foreign policy", are indeed lining up to destabilize the Middle East just enough so the West can steal their oil.

Western imperialists always rewrite the history of their ancestors. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terrorism and use of WMDs but majority of the West believes those bombs were justified. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owning hypocritical pedophile rapist. Winston Churchill was a racist/fascist imperialist who caused thousands of Irishmen and Indians, and millions of Bengals to die in famines. Yet the British elevate him to the status of world's greatest Briton, a few spots above Newton and Shakespeare.

"Muslims" aren't a race, so for you to say "Muslims do not come out (to) condemn the imperialism that their forefathers practiced" is an absurd comment. Muslims don't have forefathers because they don't all have the same family tree. Interestingly this is a crusader argument, because it is how crusaders view Muslims in the West. I wonder if this is because you yourself are a crusader, or if you've had your mind colonized by their propaganda.

 

The Middle East did indeed have a golden age, from which you got algebra, and most of the mathematics necessary for the invention of binary computers. It was around this time that Europeans wanted in on some of the knowledge, so they did crusades and stole wealth of information from libraries in the Middle East and then burned them down. They believed this made them a superior civilization. However, Muslims knew this was wicked and foul.

That's not to say there were Muslim imperialists. Indeed there were, and they were given the greenlight to go invade the more civilized parts of the Muslim world by the British. They attacked Mecca which was predominantly Sufi at the time and started demolishing centuries of beautiful shrine architecture because "Innovation is forbidden". Interestingly, and unsurprisingly, it was these very Muslims that found common ground with the white Christian Europeans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 4/5/2020 at 1:26 AM, MuhammadFreeman said:

Yeah, US military men, whom Henry Kissinger called "dumb stupid animals" and "pawns of foreign policy", are indeed lining up to destabilize the Middle East just enough so the West can steal their oil.

Western imperialists always rewrite the history of their ancestors. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terrorism and use of WMDs but majority of the West believes those bombs were justified. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owning hypocritical pedophile rapist. Winston Churchill was a racist/fascist imperialist who caused thousands of Irishmen and Indians, and millions of Bengals to die in famines. Yet the British elevate him to the status of world's greatest Briton, a few spots above Newton and Shakespeare.

"Muslims" aren't a race, so for you to say "Muslims do not come out (to) condemn the imperialism that their forefathers practiced" is an absurd comment. Muslims don't have forefathers because they don't all have the same family tree. Interestingly this is a crusader argument, because it is how crusaders view Muslims in the West. I wonder if this is because you yourself are a crusader, or if you've had your mind colonized by their propaganda.

The Middle East did indeed have a golden age, from which you got algebra, and most of the mathematics necessary for the invention of binary computers. It was around this time that Europeans wanted in on some of the knowledge, so they did crusades and stole wealth of information from libraries in the Middle East and then burned them down. They believed this made them a superior civilization. However, Muslims knew this was wicked and foul.

That's not to say there were Muslim imperialists. Indeed there were, and they were given the greenlight to go invade the more civilized parts of the Muslim world by the British. They attacked Mecca which was predominantly Sufi at the time and started demolishing centuries of beautiful shrine architecture because "Innovation is forbidden". Interestingly, and unsurprisingly, it was these very Muslims that found common ground with the white Christian Europeans.

@MuhammadFreeman

It is also interesting to point out that the mass of the bourgeois Jews have become increasingly liberal, hedonistic, and opposed to both Orthodox Judaism and high culture. These Jews-in-name-only, intriguingly, are quite willing to dismiss racism and anti-Semitism as things of the past, as intermarriage between secularised Jews and Gentiles is higher than ever, especially in the West. Meanwhile, the effects of deindustrialisation and neoliberal capitalism have further weakened the Yiddish-speaking Jewish working classes. At the same time, bourgeois ecumenism, libertinism, and commodity fetishism are replacing both religious and secular sources of sobriety and solidarity such as religious communities and communist movements. Aside from secularism, the Old (Stalinist, communist) Left of the 1930s had some things in common with Orthodox Jews and observant Muslims: opposition to liberalism, feminism, and homosexuality—although the communists linked these sins to material rather than spiritual sources, citing the role of the ruling bourgeois-feudalist classes, the Christian (WASP) eugenicists, and their capitalist-fascist system. However, the McCarthy-era purges of the hardline, pro-Soviet Marxist-Leninists led to the ascendancy of class collaborationists and postmodernist identity projects in the 1960s.

It is no accident that there has been a concerted Western effort to lump in Islam with the old Cold-War enemy, communism; each of the two systems was and is fundamentally opposed to the basis of inherited wealth, usury, and advocates either redistributionism (Marxism) or equal opportunity (Islam’s ban on interest). The Christian West has also attempted to link Freemasonry to both communism and Orthodox (“Talmudic”) Judaism, even though the latter two, like Islam, are diametrically opposed to the Masons, albeit for varying reasons. The occult basis of Masonry, a bourgeois-feudal institution, is much closer to Christianity than to monotheistic Judaism and Islam, since the concept of the Trinity is rooted in occultist, pagan circles, e.g. (Christianised) Kabbalah. Masonry, like Trinitarian Christianity, has always been tied to the aristocracy, the high priesthood, and the subordinate financial elite. It is syncretistic and tends to merge disparate polytheisms to form a “monotheistic” synthesis, as is seen in both Trinitarian Christianity and New-Age cults. Although the rise of the occult is often blamed on Jewish conspiracy, it is arguably more of a Christian conspiracy: now that the Christian Establishment, over millennia, has destroyed and/or coopted its pagan and Judaeo-Islamic rivals, it is now discarding its “monotheist” façade and going public with the esoteric, Satanist secrets that Rome and its offshoots have always held to.

The current upsurge in anti-Semitism, (overt) fascism, and Zionist-led hostility to Islam is likely to the benefit of the Christian Establishment: a plot to keep Orthodox Jews, observant Muslims, and traditional Marxist secularists apart, and prevent the emergence of a broad anti-imperialist, counter-cultural alliance—an alliance based on a fusion of anti-capitalist and religious values alike. All too often, religious establishments have worked to benefit the capitalist-fascist elite, while certain Marxists have dogmatically rejected religion on strictly atheist, materialist lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 4/4/2020 at 6:26 PM, MuhammadFreeman said:

Yeah, US military men, whom Henry Kissinger called "dumb stupid animals" and "pawns of foreign policy", are indeed lining up to destabilize the Middle East just enough so the West can steal their oil.

Western imperialists always rewrite the history of their ancestors. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terrorism and use of WMDs but majority of the West believes those bombs were justified. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owning hypocritical pedophile rapist. Winston Churchill was a racist/fascist imperialist who caused thousands of Irishmen and Indians, and millions of Bengals to die in famines. Yet the British elevate him to the status of world's greatest Briton, a few spots above Newton and Shakespeare.

"Muslims" aren't a race, so for you to say "Muslims do not come out (to) condemn the imperialism that their forefathers practiced" is an absurd comment. Muslims don't have forefathers because they don't all have the same family tree. Interestingly this is a crusader argument, because it is how crusaders view Muslims in the West. I wonder if this is because you yourself are a crusader, or if you've had your mind colonized by their propaganda.

The Middle East did indeed have a golden age, from which you got algebra, and most of the mathematics necessary for the invention of binary computers. It was around this time that Europeans wanted in on some of the knowledge, so they did crusades and stole wealth of information from libraries in the Middle East and then burned them down. They believed this made them a superior civilization. However, Muslims knew this was wicked and foul.

That's not to say there were Muslim imperialists. Indeed there were, and they were given the greenlight to go invade the more civilized parts of the Muslim world by the British. They attacked Mecca which was predominantly Sufi at the time and started demolishing centuries of beautiful shrine architecture because "Innovation is forbidden". Interestingly, and unsurprisingly, it was these very Muslims that found common ground with the white Christian Europeans.

Yeah, US military men, whom Henry Kissinger called "dumb stupid animals" and "pawns of foreign policy",

no denying that western leaders use their poor like pawns just like those of the east but that is offtopic

are indeed lining up to destabilize the Middle East just enough so the West can steal their oil.

its called "conquest" people of middle east should be familiar with it , be thankful their women are not hauled off as slave girls and their kids castrated and used as eunuch 

Western imperialists always rewrite the history of their ancestors.

ofcourse they do, so does every imperialist, you choose to criticize ONLY the whites , why ?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terrorism and use of WMDs but majority of the West believes those bombs were justified.

after what japanese did to asia they deserved a 100 bombs not just 2, 

Thomas Jefferson was a slave owning hypocritical pedophile rapist.

no kidding , so was almost every other statesman /leader before 20th century depending on your defination.Funny you think slave owning is a slur considering you are defending the middle east who have developed an whole industry of slave ownership for thousands of yrs 

Winston Churchill was a racist/fascist imperialist who caused thousands of Irishmen and Indians, and millions of Bengals to die in famines. Yet the British elevate him to the status of world's greatest Briton, a few spots above Newton and Shakespeare.

i agree 100% , he was an utterly horrible individual and deserve all the condmenation and more, yet britain is not trying to emulate the example of churchill despite what they might think of him.If churchill was alive today he will cringe at 99% of what britons do

"Muslims" aren't a race, so for you to say "Muslims do not come out (to) condemn the imperialism that their forefathers practiced" is an absurd comment. Muslims don't have forefathers because they don't all have the same family tree. Interestingly this is a crusader argument, because it is how crusaders view Muslims in the West. I wonder if this is because you yourself are a crusader, or if you've had your mind colonized by their propaganda.

muslims are not a race but imperialism of muslim states are essentially ethnic based ummayyads were arab fascists , abbassids favored persians and later turkic groups.Muslims tend to glorify and extol these conquerers and still to this day do not apologize for their crimes.Mongols do the same, but they are so mariginal and remote nobody cares about them.And read the history of muslim conquerers it is full of references about their tribal superority over one another.Race, lineage has played a major role in leadership and conflict throughout history.

Muslims don't have forefathers ? well I'm sorry if you are a convert then really you have nothing to apologize about but many of us our ancestors robbed looted and plundered lands of nonmuslims and we are enjoying the fruits of their labor 

The Middle East did indeed have a golden age, from which you got algebra, and most of the mathematics necessary for the invention of binary computers. It was around this time that Europeans wanted in on some of the knowledge, so they did crusades and stole wealth of information from libraries in the Middle East and then burned them down. They believed this made them a superior civilization. However, Muslims knew this was wicked and foul.

haha , yes europeans were so quest of knowledge that is why 4th crusade turned against the greatest christian city constantinople while fatimids attacked sunni muslims during crusades and vice versa 

all great civilizations from sumerians to chinese made scientic innovations , muslims [ and again you said muslims have no fore fathers so let us not all claim credit for scientific innovations of central asians, turks, persians and arabs shall we ! dont be a hypocrite , if you dont want to own their crimes then you cannot own their achievements either]

That's not to say there were Muslim imperialists. Indeed there were, and they were given the greenlight to go invade the more civilized parts of the Muslim world by the British. They attacked Mecca which was predominantly Sufi at the time and started demolishing centuries of beautiful shrine architecture because "Innovation is forbidden". Interestingly, and unsurprisingly, it was these very Muslims that found common ground with the white Christian Europeans.

wahabi bashing is great , i personally have a visceral hatred for them myself but clearly OFF TOPIC 

btw the same british defended your precious ottoman empire from russians not too later in the 1850s realpolitik is not based on ideology but self interests 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
On 4/4/2020 at 6:21 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam the propaganda about Persians mainly comes from other Pan.x groups that you mentioned & also it’s not first time that you accuse Persians /Iranians without any reliable evidence just based on your poor judgment & low level of your  knowledge about history of Persians/Iranians .

wasalam 

did you not read the post I CLEARLY mentioned excesses and crimes done by ALL middle eastern groups not just persians 

now as a persian nationalist if you have a problem with that then you need to re-assess your views 

persia a country that for 2000 yrs had kingship who fought numerous wars against muslims are not guilty of any crimes ?

please save it 

as a resident of north indian plains you should be paying me reparations for what your ancestors did for hundreds of yrs most recently under nadir shah 

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 4/20/2020 at 7:02 AM, Northwest said:

@MuhammadFreeman

It is also interesting to point out that the mass of the bourgeois Jews have become increasingly liberal, hedonistic, and opposed to both Orthodox Judaism and high culture. These Jews-in-name-only, intriguingly, are quite willing to dismiss racism and anti-Semitism as things of the past, as intermarriage between secularised Jews and Gentiles is higher than ever, especially in the West. Meanwhile, the effects of deindustrialisation and neoliberal capitalism have further weakened the Yiddish-speaking Jewish working classes. At the same time, bourgeois ecumenism, libertinism, and commodity fetishism are replacing both religious and secular sources of sobriety and solidarity such as religious communities and communist movements. Aside from secularism, the Old (Stalinist, communist) Left of the 1930s had some things in common with Orthodox Jews and observant Muslims: opposition to liberalism, feminism, and homosexuality—although the communists linked these sins to material rather than spiritual sources, citing the role of the ruling bourgeois-feudalist classes, the Christian (WASP) eugenicists, and their capitalist-fascist system. However, the McCarthy-era purges of the hardline, pro-Soviet Marxist-Leninists led to the ascendancy of class collaborationists and postmodernist identity projects in the 1960s.

It is no accident that there has been a concerted Western effort to lump in Islam with the old Cold-War enemy, communism; each of the two systems was and is fundamentally opposed to the basis of inherited wealth, usury, and advocates either redistributionism (Marxism) or equal opportunity (Islam’s ban on interest). The Christian West has also attempted to link Freemasonry to both communism and Orthodox (“Talmudic”) Judaism, even though the latter two, like Islam, are diametrically opposed to the Masons, albeit for varying reasons. The occult basis of Masonry, a bourgeois-feudal institution, is much closer to Christianity than to monotheistic Judaism and Islam, since the concept of the Trinity is rooted in occultist, pagan circles, e.g. (Christianised) Kabbalah. Masonry, like Trinitarian Christianity, has always been tied to the aristocracy, the high priesthood, and the subordinate financial elite. It is syncretistic and tends to merge disparate polytheisms to form a “monotheistic” synthesis, as is seen in both Trinitarian Christianity and New-Age cults. Although the rise of the occult is often blamed on Jewish conspiracy, it is arguably more of a Christian conspiracy: now that the Christian Establishment, over millennia, has destroyed and/or coopted its pagan and Judaeo-Islamic rivals, it is now discarding its “monotheist” façade and going public with the esoteric, Satanist secrets that Rome and its offshoots have always held to.

The current upsurge in anti-Semitism, (overt) fascism, and Zionist-led hostility to Islam is likely to the benefit of the Christian Establishment: a plot to keep Orthodox Jews, observant Muslims, and traditional Marxist secularists apart, and prevent the emergence of a broad anti-imperialist, counter-cultural alliance—an alliance based on a fusion of anti-capitalist and religious values alike. All too often, religious establishments have worked to benefit the capitalist-fascist elite, while certain Marxists have dogmatically rejected religion on strictly atheist, materialist lines.

you raised some very good points , worth pondering over 

i had a book of my dad which was about how communism was a threat to everything holy , it was from 1971.Now you replace communism with islam and you can see the same old stale arguments today in anti-islamic propoganda.

However this does not mean we absolve  muslims and communists of the crimes they committed and do not honor their victims 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
Quote

Henry Makow claims to know who’s at the helm of world affairs.   Through his Canadian-based web site, SaveThe Males.ca, Henry has assured his readers that the Illuminati are pulling the strings from their headquarters in the City of London – which, in his telling, is less a City than a kind of “financial Vatican” that happens to be privately owned by the leading Illuminati “bloodline” families, primary among whom are the Rothschilds. ...

To an uninformed reader, two points come through here:  1) That Jewish financiers, such as Cassel or the Rothschilds, are somewhat motivated by Jewish religious law; and 2) The lineage of these financiers is still (“always”) Jewish. ...

 

Did you hear the one about Winston Churchill’s “Jewish” mother?  You wouldn’t if you read any random biography on Churchill, but you would if you read a book about the influence of Jewish financiers on British elites. Beyond that, the evidentiary trail usually – though unsurprisingly – goes dead.

So, what I found was that the Jewish financier Ernest Cassel was not particularly beholden to Judaism, nor was he particularly committed to having Jewish lineage, by Jewish law or otherwise.   As it turned out, he converted to Catholicism upon marrying his Gentile wife, leading to a Gentile daughter who in turn married another Gentile, whose Gentile daughter was actually the one who married the Gentile Lord Mountbatten. ...

How this is strong evidence for a Jewish infiltration of the British aristocracy is anyone’s guess. ...

Let’s take your main example of the wife of the 5th Earl of Rosebery – Hannah Rothschild.  Did you even bother to trace out the lineage of her children?  Guess how many of them married Jews?  We both know that answer: none, if any. 
 
Furthermore, you’ve dug yourself another hole of contradictions.  Your thesis rests on the supposition that Jews marry off their daughters into the British gentry in order to gain influence, since Jewish identity is passed on through the mother in accordance with Jewish law.  You leave us to infer that the male gentrified Jews thereby marry Jews themselves in order to preserve the legal chain of Jewishness.
 
Yet Simon Cowell is only Jewish on his father’s side – meaning that he is fully non-Jewish according to Jewish law.  What’s more, he has recently become engaged to a Gentile, of Muslim heritage, in fact.

Polytheist, Zionist Christians using Jews as scapegoats to foment global apocalypse?

On the other hand:

Quote

On April 20, 1926, in a hitherto unpublished statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, he (Hans Herzl, son of Zionist Theodor Herzl – ed.) said "I belong to no church and discount all creeds. I cannot be a member of a synagogue. It denies the messiahship of Jesus which to me is an indisputable historical fact. I cannot adhere to any Christian church since I do not hold that Jesus was God. My faith I would therefore call nationalism." (Note, furthermore, that Christians, both foreign and indigenous, introduced nationalism into the MENA in order to break up the Ottoman Empire on behalf of Western powers, while also spreading antisemitic propaganda to blame the upheaval on an international Jewish conspiracy. –ed)

“Suicide” of Hans Herzl

Quote

Theodor Herzl wasn’t Jewish, according to Israeli minister

Comment:

Quote

His (Theodor Herzl’s – ed.) original solution to the Jewish Question was the mass conversion of Jews to Catholicism. But that wouldn’t have helped because anti-Semitism had changed from a religious to a racial antagonism (actually, from the earliest times Trinitarian antisemites linked Jewish spiritual to racial impurity, hence the rise of the Inquisition’s “purity-of-blood” laws, leading to the rise of scientific/biological-spiritual racism in the nineteenth century – ed.), which met its ultimate obscenity in the phenomenon of Christian Jews under the Nazis – Christian by religion and Jewish by race. (Note, furthermore, that only Christians have national, that is, ethnic, state-linked churches, i.e., Latin, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Swedish Lutheran, etc. None of this idolatry has ever existed among Jews and Muslims, yet the latter always allow Christians to abuse and exploit them, because the Christians pretend to be monotheists, citing the Qur’ān’s reference to the people of the Scripture. –ed.)

The truth about Theodor Herzl

Quote

Dr. Manor was also asked about a number of statements written by Herzl which have been accused of being anti-Semitic in nature, including a statement in which Herzl said that that "the priests of the Christians are at the top of the scale and the simple Christians are better than the Jews."

Elsewhere, Herzl seems to claim that the Jews rule the world, provoke nations, and that it is on their orders that governments make peace. Some statements seem as if they were ripped from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,' the notorious anti-Semitic forgery which claims to reveal a Jewish conspiracy to control the world. In other statements Herzl seems to praise honest anti-Semites and favor mass conversion of Jews to Christianity.

Herzl: Christian antisemite posing as a Jew?

Quote

Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism wrote, “The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.”

Source

Edited by Northwest
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I think we all realize it was absolutely the goal of radical Salafist groups and terrorists to provoke reprisals from radical elements in the west (and elsewhere). 

I had been warning others about this for years, and was not surprised that the mosque shootings happened. We have to see the puppetmasters behind the scenes to understand what is really going on, and not focus on the ignorant  would-be soldiers who go on a rampage, attack innocents, and throw their lives away.

And when we say "anti-Islamic" in the US, what it invariably means is anti-Shia, or anti-Persian. It is rare to hear a mainstream news outlet denounce the Arab Sunnis or criticize the Saudis. Sure, there is the occasional outburst, but for decades (since 1979) the media has been on a crusade to denounce Iran and the Shia Muslims. Television shows like "Homeland" feature evil Iranian generals trying to overthrow the US government. Neocons scream about back-room deals with those evil Iranians! 

This all comes from Jews that run our media apparatus, and the good news is that Americans aren't falling for this propaganda like they once did. The narrative is starting to run thin. Most Americans have no ill-will towards Iran, and do not want any kind of conflict. Many want to travel to Iran to see one of the most beautiful countries in the region. 

20 years ago, we worried that American imperialism in the ME was based on securing oil. Since the US became one of the largest oil producers, this is no longer the objective. Now it is entirely about Israel trying to start proxy wars in the ME using American forces.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
On 4/21/2020 at 6:17 PM, Panzerwaffe said:

persia a country that for 2000 yrs had kingship who fought numerous wars against muslims are not guilty of any crimes ?

please save it 

as a resident of north indian plains you should be paying me reparations for what your ancestors did for hundreds of yrs most recently under nadir shah 

Salam it seems that you are mistaken Romans with Persians because Romans numerous times fought against  Muslims but wars of Persians with muslims happened  after invasion of Arab Army under command of three caliphs but conflict of Romans with Muslims continued for centuries  euntil fall of Abbasids by Moghuls that Romans used Moghuls as their ally to destroy Islam by invading from both two sides of Romans & Moghuls but about Nadir Shah it was  a tragedy that happened after defeating  India that his brutal & unstable nature caused his killing by Iranians  few years after defeating  India but his agenda about invading India based on Invasion of Ghaznawid dynasty to India by verification of Abbasid rulers   but because of hatred of Ottomans & Sunni world only story of Nadir Shah & invasion of Iranians exaggerated by historians although they categorized  Nadir Shah as a Sunni ruler but anti Iran propaganda  of Ottomans & Indians & now KSA is still alive in subcontinent due to  simplicity of people  like you that just accept propaganda  against  Iran & Shias by nationalist  Indians & wahabi backed hate preachers that are supporting by Israel & KSA in subcontinet .

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Silas said:

I think we all realize it was absolutely the goal of radical Salafist groups and terrorists to provoke reprisals from radical elements in the west (and elsewhere). 

I had been warning others about this for years, and was not surprised that the mosque shootings happened. We have to see the puppetmasters behind the scenes to understand what is really going on, and not focus on the ignorant  would-be soldiers who go on a rampage, attack innocents, and throw their lives away.

And when we say "anti-Islamic" in the US, what it invariably means is anti-Shia, or anti-Persian. It is rare to hear a mainstream news outlet denounce the Arab Sunnis or criticize the Saudis. Sure, there is the occasional outburst, but for decades (since 1979) the media has been on a crusade to denounce Iran and the Shia Muslims. Television shows like "Homeland" feature evil Iranian generals trying to overthrow the US government. Neocons scream about back-room deals with those evil Iranians! 

Maybe in the US but here in Europe there is a clear resentment towards the whole Muslim population especially the Salafi groups. Whereas in the US the media has tried to vilify the Muslims, in Europe, where presently there's quite a bigger concentration of Muslims compared to the US, it is the attitude and actions of those Salafi/Wahabi groups that tarnished the Muslims image in the mind of the European.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 8/9/2020 at 4:02 AM, modaoudi said:

Maybe in the US but here in Europe there is a clear resentment towards the whole Muslim population especially the Salafi groups. Whereas in the US the media has tried to vilify the Muslims, in Europe, where presently there's quite a bigger concentration of Muslims compared to the US, it is the attitude and actions of those Salafi/Wahabi groups that tarnished the Muslims image in the mind of the European.   

The difference between Europe and the US is interesting:

In the US, the Muslims that immigrate here are typically middle-class or upper-middle-class, from good families, don't have criminal records, and tend to be more moderate than those who immigrate to Europe. We have very few problems here with radicalism, etc. despite what certain people in the media claim. I live in an area with a lot of Sunni Muslims and a few Shia, and we have never had any issue at all. I have zero worries about terrorism. We have much bigger issues to worry about. 

European countries made a conscious effort to accept economic and political refugees from hot spots in the ME. Men that were chased out of their own countries for criminal behavior, rebellion, etc. Especially in the case of North Africans, it was people with minimal education, and some bad cultural practices (that have nothing to do with Islam). In other words, the quality of people Europe accepted in was a whole lot lower, and this led to violence, terrorism, etc. Now the citizens of European countries are angry.

The UK is a complete mess

So unfortunately, Iranians and others are unfairly blamed for the behavior of radical Arabs. This is why education in these matters is important to people of the west 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Silas said:

The difference between Europe and the US is interesting:

In the US, the Muslims that immigrate here are typically middle-class or upper-middle-class, from good families, don't have criminal records, and tend to be more moderate than those who immigrate to Europe. We have very few problems here with radicalism, etc. despite what certain people in the media claim. I live in an area with a lot of Sunni Muslims and a few Shia, and we have never had any issue at all. I have zero worries about terrorism. We have much bigger issues to worry about. 

European countries made a conscious effort to accept economic and political refugees from hot spots in the ME. Men that were chased out of their own countries for criminal behavior, rebellion, etc. Especially in the case of North Africans, it was people with minimal education, and some bad cultural practices (that have nothing to do with Islam). In other words, the quality of people Europe accepted in was a whole lot lower, and this led to violence, terrorism, etc. Now the citizens of European countries are angry.

The UK is a complete mess

So unfortunately, Iranians and others are unfairly blamed for the behavior of radical Arabs. This is why education in these matters is important to people of the west 

I think you really hit the nail on the head there, because America has a more stringent immigration policy the class of Muslim who is able to go there is far higher than in Europe. I speak even for myself here, in Europe most of us descend from the very bowels of the societies that we came from. Particularly with regards to South Asians and North Africans, in all fairness people from the middle east aren't low culture people, the Lebanese are people of business, the Iranians tend to come from intellectual families who who left because of the revolution, the Iraqis left because of the war, even the recent Syrian arrivals, despite fleeing from a conflict commit less crime than the host population of the countries they have settled in (that is the case for Germany at any rate)

There is a reason that in Western Europe, in any city where you find a high concentration of Muslims, you can guarantee the place will be a ghetto, of course we try and blame this on the evil white man, but who told us to make everywhere we go into a slum? In many cases a Pakistani from Lahore who comes to Europe doesn't want to live with the type of Pakistani who is here nor would a Moroccan from Casablanca. 

There is no end in sight because we can't even have a conversation about this, any time it is brought up in the media, Muslims don't like it and call it racist and islamophobic, and if we try and have this conversation among ourselves, of course you are a sell out or a house negro or a self hating racist or whatever.

If you read the comments on news articles about Islam, you often see people defending Muslims on the basis of this one Muslim friend that they had who was a good person, which tells me that most Europeans don't even know that one good Muslim who can show them that not all of us are bad - obviously you still have to be an idiot to not realise that there is always good and bad in any group of people, but it isn't like Muslims tend to look favourably on Europeans or give them the benefit of the doubt either so we can't really blame them for that.

In terms of sectarianism, I even reckon that some parts of Europe are the worst places in the world, I've heard of Sunnis who don't eat Iranian dates because they hate Iran so much. The only reason that there isn't more killing is because the police generally can do their job, and there are enough places outside of Europe where they can go to scratch that itch.

Edited by Ali_Hussain
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 8/7/2020 at 11:01 AM, Northwest said:

More information:

Quote

The Inquisition and “racial purity”

During the later decades of Spain’s Golden Age life for Jews under Muslim rule grew increasingly harsh. In the search for allies to evict the Moors the Catholic monarchy even embraced the Jews. Responding to the hand of friendship 40,000 Jews joined Alfonso VI whose army conquered Toledo in 1085. Although the Jews enjoyed some degree of autonomy under the Catholic monarchy it was short-lived, and gradually the ground for the Inquisition was laid. ...

The Jews of Europe, constantly under pressure to convert, were forced to wear humiliating clothing to set them apart and were forced to sit in church as observers of Catholic services. Since conversion was typically coerced, even at the point of a sword, converts were always suspected of insincerity, of secretly remaining Jews, of practicing Judaism in the privacy of their home while “passing” as Catholics in the street...

Its (the Spanish Inquisition’s – ed.) original goal was the expulsion of the Moors from Spain. The Jews, that other foreign population, were given a choice: conversion, or expulsion. ...

Although the Church insisted on the Inquisition continuing in the New World the practical need for manpower took precedence over religious fervor and few prosecutions of Conversos or, for that matter, Jews occurred. Both were a source of labor, possessed skills needed to develop the economies of the emerging colonial project. And so, “social contacts between the Jews and their Christian neighbors in America during the colonial era were not marred by the religious intolerance of the Spanish Church symbolized by the Holy Office of the Inquisition.” ...
Limpieza de Sangre: Nearly five hundred years before the Holocaust Limpieza de sangre (purity of blood) legislation was both portent and precedent for the Jewish future. Literally translated it means “purity of blood” and as applied during the Inquisition it was paired with mala de sangre, or “black/Jewish blood.” There are stark coincidences between the 15th Century legislation and the 20th Century Nuremberg legislation and this issue will be returned to following the Limpieza in 15th Century Spain. ...
With Limpieza de Sangre, 
Jewishness is… a permanent inborn characteristic that even baptism does not remove… Those who wished to hold public office had to present a certificate … showing that there were no Jews in their lineage, that they were free of… mala sangre, bad blood (William Nicholls, Christian Antisemitism, A History of Hate).” (This is evidence that Christian antisemitism has linked spiritual and racial impurity from very early days. –ed.) ...
Limpieza de Sangre as determining Jewish blood as basis for exclusion from society continued in use in Spain until removed in 1870. These laws covering social life and eligibility appear nearly identical, inspired if not adopted whole as law excluding Jews from society in Nazi Germany incorporated in the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. Prohibitions against Jews regarding marriage and sexual relations, attending school and university, practicing various professions, and employment; all were included in law by Germany and served to isolate Jew from Aryan.

Furthermore:

Quote

Because of course Zionism had a much longer Christian history than it does a Jewish history. So in that sense, Zionism is a Christian idea that was pretty much started by millenarian Protestants, since the Protestant Reformation, calling for the repatriation quote/unquote of European Jews to the Holy Land as a precursor to the second coming of Jesus Christ. And of course once these purported European Jews are quote/unquote returned to the Holy Land they would have to convert to Christianity, in order to expedite, of course, the Second Coming.

So for 300 years or so, Zionism was a Christian Protestant idea that the majority of Jewish leaders at the time, especially rabbis, had been opposed to and understood to be a call for the expulsion of Jews. So it took about 300 years before in fact Jewish intellectuals would take it up in the 19th century. Even if of course they remained that minority among Jews.

But also Zionism as a Christian idea for Christians begins much earlier. After all, the Crusades, the very basis of the Crusades of the 9th to the 11th century, was precisely an understanding that the Christian religion to which the majority of European populations had converted, was based on a geography that these European Christians did not control. So the idea was very much of the Crusades is to capture this land of Jesus Christ from which their religion or the religion to which they had converted issued. ...

So he (the Zionist Theodor Herzl – ed.) actually blamed Jews for causing anti-Semitism, rather than blaming the anti-Semites.

And he felt indeed that anti-Semites would be allies. This was not for example some tactical or accidental alliance that Zionists would make; it was actually ideologically anchored in the project itself early on. This was the understanding of Herzl, that indeed, as he had written, the anti-Semitic countries will be our friends and our allies.

Indeed he spoke about the different groups that would support the expulsion of Jews from Europe to Palestine and he also felt that, he wrote that rich European Jews (such as the Zionist, Anglophile Rothschild family and other wealthy, assimilated, Zionist-Jewish financiers – ed.) had an interest in supporting poor European Jews moving to Palestine because the presence of poor, especially East European Jews, what he called the Ostjuden, in Western Europe was causing anti-Semitism, and therefore it was the in the interest of rich Jews to finance their movement.

He also thought that poor Christians would be supportive of this because they could take the jobs of the poor Jews whom they felt had taken their jobs.

And finally of course he thought anti-Semites will definitely support this effort because of course they want to get rid of Jews (especially the more visible, religiously observant, lower-class Jews – ed.)...

...the ideas that Nordau and Herzl absorbed through figures like Wilhelm Marr influenced their vision of an exclusively Jewish homeland in historic Palestine, and how they collaborated with anti-Semitic figures in Europe, how Herzl lobbied anti-Semitic figures. I mean Herzl even attempted to offer the Pope the forced conversion of Europe’s Jews. So maybe you can take us through some of this history.

Joseph Massad: Yeah but he did that before he was a Zionist. The offer the offer to convert Jews to Catholicism was made to the Pope in 1893, about three years before Herzl had written his pamphlet The State of the Jews, or Der Judenstaat. So that was sort of his last act before he became a Zionist. (This illustrates how nationalistic Christianity, especially Latin or Western Christianity, has been throughout history. –ed.)

Ben Norton: And that racial basis is why figures like Karl Marx, whose family converted to Christianity, were still seen as Jewish, even though religiously and culturally they were not associated with Judaism anymore.

Joseph Massad: Not only that, of course because, for the Hitlerites, for Hitler and the Nazi regime, of course, anyone who was one-eighth Jewish went to the concentration camps. So in fact many Jewish converts to Christianity, whose grandparents or parents had converted to Christianity and had no religious connection to Judaism anymore, ended up in the concentration camps alongside of course Jews who had not converted. Because according to Nazism Jewishness was indeed a racial attribute and not a religious one. (Actually, according to Western Christianity Jewishness was a biological-spiritual matrix, and the Nazi view was wholly consistent with this. –ed.) ...

And here of course we should not forget Churchill. I mean Winston Churchill of course, who had been an avid supporter of Zionism, had written this tract I think around 1920 or ‘21 speaking of a world Jewish conspiracy, an international Jewish conspiracy as he called it.

Ben Norton: Which was Bolshevism (or Marxism-Leninism/“Stalinism” as officially practiced and implemented in the newly formed Soviet Russia and its constituents which formed the USSR – ex.).

Joseph Massad: Which was Bolshevism. He indeed called communism as a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Christian civilization, he told us, and that the Bolshevik Revolution for him was, quote, a Jewish revolution.

And of course, for Churchill, it was Zionism that gave hope to Jews, and that Britain must help these national Jews who were the only good Jews compared to the international conspiracy of Jews which he saw communist (anti-Zionist – ed.) Jews and Bund, the Bund, and the socialist Jews (along with the anti-Zionist, religiously observant, Orthodox Jews – ed.) as constituting. Zionism for him was the only possible ally for British imperialism, which is precisely why he allied himself with it. ...

So we see a huge coalition of Jews, religious (Orthodox – ed.) and secular (Marxist-Leninist, socialist – ed.) alike, liberal and radical alike, socialist and communist Jews, all opposed to the Zionist project, seeing it as anti-Semitic, as right-wing, and as indeed seeking the self-expulsion of Jews from Europe. ...

We see after World War One, for, example many American Jewish leaders appalled at the rise of Zionism. In as early as 1919, Julius Kahn, a Jewish congressman from San Francisco, delivered a statement endorsed by about 300 Jewish public figures, both rabbis and laymen, to President Wilson, which denounced the Zionists for attempting to segregate Jews from non-Jews according to the statement, and to reverse the historical trend toward emancipation.

They objected to the creation of a distinctly Jewish state in Palestine as contrary to the principles of democracy. These are 300 Jewish public figures in 1919 in the U.S. objecting to Zionism’s increasing infiltration of the American political apparatus at that time, especially as President Wilson had supported and endorsed the Balfour Declaration and the Zionist project. ...

But a point I wanted to make earlier when we were talking about the history of the Holocaust and Zionist collaboration with the Nazis, I think another really interesting aspect of that history that is part and parcel of this historical whitewashing, is looking at the response of the Soviet Union.

Which again, I mean the Soviet Union had a lot of problems; I’m not saying it had no problems. But there’s this stereotype in the West, this I would say blatantly false historical notion, that the Soviet Union was deeply anti-Semitic and that it collaborated with the Nazis, etc. But of course the exact opposite is true.

I mean we don’t even have time to get into the history of the 1930s leading up to the war, and how that has been distorted, but even beyond that. From the time of the Bolshevik Revolution forward, it was in fact the Soviet Union that viciously fought against anti-Semitism for the first time in Russian history.

Before 1917, as you were just acknowledging, under the czar, there were periodic pogroms; there was genocidal violence. It was after the Bolshevik Revolution at which point anti-Semitism became illegalized. You read Pravda in the 1920s and ‘30s where, whatever you think about it, but they say that anti-Semitism will be punished by death. They were very strongly against anti-Semitism. (Stalin even supported the establishment of an autonomous Jewish body in Siberia, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, centred in Birobidzhan, geared toward the Yiddish-speaking Jewish masses, precisely in order to undercut the appeal of Zionism by protecting Soviet Jews from antisemitism. –ed.) ...

@Mohammed-Mehdi @Silas @Ibn Al-Ja'abi @Abu Hadi @THREE1THREE

Edited by Northwest
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@Northwest so Catholics bullied the Jews for not converting after the Jews had come for asylum and the Catholics plan was to convert Jews into Catholic and established “Israel” although the Jews at that time were aware that the land was taken away from them by God. But the Catholics (more Iike the trinitarians) wanted to get Israel established and preach their rubbish theology in Israel everywhere and get the Jews to become “Christians”. Now the aftermath of that is the Jews who go influenced by these nutcases but remind Jews have turned their heels and went to establish Israel. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
Quote

To invade, search out, capture, vanquish and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery. - Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex that authorized the conquest and genocide of the non-Catholic world (1455)

The culture that made the Nazi death camps possible was not only indigenous to the West but was an outcome of its fundamental (dualistic, Trinitarian – ed.) religious traditions that insist upon a dichotomous division of mankind into the elect and the reprobate. - Richard Rubenstein, The Cunning of History (1978)

Colonization is civilization. If we, the superior race, take the land of other races, we must utterly destroy the previous inhabitants (following the model of the ancient Israelites in Canaan – ed.) … The disappearance of our local Indians is of little consequence. - Sir Edward Bulwer-Lytton, co-founder of British Columbia and Member of the Legislative Assembly, 1868

I believe the conditions are being deliberately created in our Indian schools to spread infectious diseases. The death rate often exceeds fifty percent. This is a national crime. - Dr. Peter Bryce to Indian Affairs Deputy Superintendent Duncan Campbell Scott, April 12, 1907, prior to his dismissal by Scott

If I were to choose to kill off half the Indian children under our care, there is no better instrument to use than your typical residential school. - Neil Parker, Indian Affairs Superintendent, 1949

The fact that European powers deliberately exterminated millions of non-Christian indigenous people in the New World is historically undeniable, constituting as it does the numerically largest genocide in world history. (7) The participation of Canadian church and state in the same crime has been and continues to be denied, especially by Canadians, despite overwhelming evidence.

Broadly speaking, it would be a strange paradox indeed for Euro-Canadians not to have conquered, de-populated, legally constrained and eradicated the Indian nations they encountered after 1497, operating as they were from precisely the same mentality and practice of “Superior Christian (bourgeois-feudal – ed.) Dominion” (8) that animated every other Vatican-authorized nation. Those who would claim a “Canadian exceptionalism” to the norm of European genocide have yet to produce any evidence to show that indigenous nations somehow fared better under Canadian rule.

On the contrary, a simple peeling back of the Great Canadian Myth of benevolence towards Indians reveals a rancid, hidden history of war crimes and mass murder on par with any criminal regime in the world. The outcome for native nations has been the same, whether in Canada, America or Brazil. ...

The economic 33 importance of eastern woodland tribes like the Huron and Iroquois to the Canadian fur trade and their usefulness as military allies ruled out a Spanish Solution of outright extermination of these Indians. But when such usefulness passed, their eradication proceeded just as thoroughly.

The very fact that the conquering Europeans had to be more circumspect and strategic in their treatment of their brown skinned targets made the role of religion all that more crucial to the success of the Canadian genocide, which can truthfully be described as a religious enterprise from start to finish. Indeed, the predominance of the churches in forming and operating colonial policy towards Indians, and in establishing and maintaining, against periodic government opposition, the murderous Indian residential school system for over a century, is unique when compared to most other nations' genocide track record.

(9) The fact that the Canadian Holocaust occurred in prolonged waves under the leadership of Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism – and their offshoots – and did so under “benevolent” guises of education and missionary proselytizing, has done much to fog and camouflage the reality of Genocide in Canada, and not accidentally. British imperialism always presented itself as a “civilizing” force wherever it exterminated local populations, a “hammer in a velvet glove” approach epitomized by General George Maitland, who in 1843 described British treatment of African tribes as “A good thrashing followed by great kindness”. (10)

Give us a child for seven years and he will be ours for life” said the 16th century Jesuit founder Ignatius Loyola – and it should be added, in the Canadian context, “at least, the few who survive.”

The full gamut of genocidal crime in Canada is outside the scope of this report. Instead, we are scrutinizing that specific Group Crime called the Indian residential school system – again, a term designed to deceive – by which all of the indigenous nations in Canada were finally brought down and decimated; and how their church, state and their corporate sponsors.

Source, pp. 31–4

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...