Society Magazine

X. The Changing Faces Of Semites, Anti-Semites, And Other Racists

Posted on the 26 January 2016 by Lugalcain @ur_sheep



Off the bat I would like to say that we should be at a time when no speech is disallowed. Kike, spick, dago, nigger, homo, faggot, dike, raghead, kraut, limey, sandnigger, scalawag, dothead, chink – in my view it should all be allowed, and If I left your particular sensitivity out you can be sure it’s simply for the sake of brevity. While using words in themselves does not constitute hate (“There’s a dago”) they can be used for insulting purposes (“That’s a stupid dago”), or even threatening purposes (“Let’s kill that dago”). For me, only the latter should be disallowed, without inviting a hate charge or even a justified punch in the mouth, and disallowed only because a crime is implicit in the statement (threat to kill). But because I would allow them doesn’t mean they should be used, or used haphazardly.

But of course, I also think we should be advanced enough so that we can keep our doors unlocked, that crime should be something largely in the past.

I understand that these ideals might not appeal to everyone, so I want you to know where I stand, the sticks-and-stones-may-break-my-bones-but-names-will-never-hurt-me mentality. It is necessary for one who deifies free speech. As a writer and lover of liberty my idea of free speech is a holy matter, and I would allow you to direct any of those epithets at me if it means the right to say them will be preserved. Excepting criminal implication, I am for unconditional free speech. As the great Voltaire said, I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it. Yes I have been hurt by words, yes words can lead to blows, and yes, none of that changes my opinion.


But what if everyone felt or thought this way? We may just find out. Right now most of the world is in a period of transition, of change, nearing a situation many would call instability. Forced immigration, the retarded brainchild of the European Union, is bringing mutual race hatred, something forced busing and integration in the States could have shown would be a failure. Some justify it as part of the “master plan” of the ruling oligarchs to have us destroy each other while these oligarchs sit back and sell coffins:

1. To-day I may tell you that our goal is now only a few steps off. There remains a small space to cross and the whole long path we have trodden is ready now to close its cycle of the Symbolic Snake, by which we symbolize our people. When this ring closes, all the States of Europe will be locked in its coil as in a powerful vice.

2. The constitution scales of these days will shortly break down, for we have established them with a certain lack of accurate balance in order that they may oscillate incessantly until they wear through the pivot on which they turn. The GOYIM are under the impression that they have welded them sufficiently strong and they have all along kept on expecting that the scales would come into equilibrium. But the pivots – the kings on their thrones – are hemmed in by their representatives, who play the fool, distraught with their own uncontrolled and irresponsible power. This power they owe to the terror which has been breathed into the palaces. As they have no means of getting at their people, into their very midst, the kings on their thrones are no longer able to come to terms with them and so strengthen themselves against seekers after power. We have made a gulf between the far-seeing Sovereign Power and the blind force of the people so that both have lost all meaning, for like the blind man and his stick, both are powerless apart.

3. In order to incite seekers after power to a misuse of power we have set all forces in opposition one to another, breaking up their liberal tendencies towards independence. To this end we have stirred up every form of enterprise, we have armed all parties, we have set up authority as a target for every ambition. Of States we have made gladiatorial arenas where a lot of confused issues contend …. A little more, and disorders and bankruptcy will be universal ….

4. Babblers, inexhaustible, have turned into oratorical contests the sittings of Parliament and Administrative Boards. Bold journalists and unscrupulous pamphleteers daily fall upon executive officials. Abuses of power will put the final touch in preparing all institutions for their overthrow and everything will fly skyward under the blows of the maddened mob.

Protocols of Zion III 1-4, my emphasis.

In Germany, Sweden, France, Britain, Spain and Holland, just to name a few, immigrants claiming to be displaced Syrians – but who are mostly Turks, Sudanese, Iraqis, Somalians, Afghanis, and the like  – are being given entry into those nations at a rate resembling an Exodus. A process that used to take prospective citizens months and sometimes years to accomplish, that is, gain entry into a free foreign land, whether through the immigration process or by the invasions of war, is now being done overnight. The influx of foreigners into these nations, at the rate of sometimes tens of thousands at a time and without much regard to available resources or the will of the people, has all the markings of the wolf being given free reign in the henhouse, without many weapons, but a danger to the entire population. Looked at from above, in elapsed time, and what is going on in Europe looks like an invasion by barbarian hordes.


Do these sound like racist words? It’s amazing what the sensitivities of people can project. Even should a country adopt the idea to close its borders completely, it would be silly to be against immigration as a rule. Exceptions would have to be made for real asylum seekers and people from abroad who have something to contribute. Isn’t that what it’s all about? Helping our fellow men in need? Being able to select the best and brightest, and helping the helpless, as much as we are able? 

Our gripe should never be against an enire population or race, our gripe should be against those warmongering whores who have somehow gained control of the world, and who have dictated policy in the EU and everywhere else. We should send our criticisms at the “elected officials“, who have been given the keys to our homes, and promptly opened them up to all sorts of unnecessary threats.

Remember their credo, these infidels, which is 1) create a threat, 2) publicize and expand the threat, 3) offer a solution. That this “final solution” usually ends up costing something, and always more than the original problem, makes no difference to the contractors and financiers benefitting from the charade. To stir us up against each other, is what the oligarchs want at the present time. They want us to save them the trouble, want us to fight each other, some say so that our rights can be suspended or revoked in the name of “National Security“, think Patriot Act on steroids. Others have claimed that this state of affairs is to bring about a Police State, and it has been proposed that most people will welcome the ensuing atrocities for the sake of their security; the assumption is many, if not most, people will choose bread and safety over freedoms. And when over half of the adults in America are currently receiving one type of check or another from the government, it’s not hard to envision such a scenario. In some countries in Europe it’s even worse, Ireland for instance working on upwards of a 70% dole rate, when unemployment and welfare is combined.

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” – Ben Franklin

Acts of true love should never expect gratitude, or need thanks. But to add insult to injury, upon entry into these nations, these immigrants are given food and shelter, something about which they have had the inclination to complain. The thanklessness of many of these invaders has not gone unnoticed, as thirsting men are being given water, and their response is to complain the water is too cold.

Speaking of complaints, hundreds so far have been lodged by native citizens against these new immigrants, especially in Sweden and Germany, crimes which are disproportionately sexual-related. In response to this threat, native citizens form groups like citizen militias, and in turn these militias get denounced as racists, mostly by the immigrants but often by their own people.

All during this process, while economies and national unities are being destroyed, we are witnessing yet another pillaging. Many ancient places, cities important to the history of civilization, if they are not being destroyed by bombs, are tinkering on the brink of cultural chaos. Monuments one of a kind, one by one, are being dessimated, as sure as Damascus itself, most recently, has come to resemble post-firebombed Tokyo. It’s almost as if there is a plan to intentionally destroy all known and famous historical landmarks in the Middle East.


As the officials of the world tighten their tolerance in response to the racial problems, imposing gag orders, curfews, and the like, we should keep in mind the freedoms we have already won, and remind ouselves not to let those who would ruin a good thing interfere with our way of life. Instead of curtailing speech, it needs now, more than ever, be extended. It needs to progress, and so, get even more free, in the face of these threats.


The earth we live on, the people in it, and the organizations they form, as a matter of course, change over time. This inevitable aspect of life in the world, this notion that individuals and their associations (as well as the globe and its arrangement) are works “in progress”, is nothing new, and the discussion of change, or apparent change, has had a long tradition. From Heraclitus‘ ancient idea of the constant flux, to the archaic theory of “evolution” which began at least with those ancient Greeks, continued with men like Lamarck, and ended with the fictions of Darwin, on to the Catastrophic theory of Velikovsky, and then to the modern idea of “an ever–expanding universe“, the thesis that change is a fact, and perhaps necessary fact of the world, has been constantly reiterated in different ways. Plato himself served to settle the debate somewhat by reconciling the changing world presented by Heraclitus with the “all change is illusory” formal world of Parmenides. But even Plato would acknowledge that the world which appears to us is always changing.

Regarding race, whatever that might be, our attitudes have changed, as sure as have the faces, and the places where you find them. Consider the status of the Irish, or the Italian, in America today, compared to 150 years ago. Once considered both low-class humans, treated at first not unlike the freed slaves, today, with a grin perhaps, the geniuses of ethnology have found them alike enough to be the same race, “Caucasian“. It seems what you are has become less a matter of actual genealogical history, and one more of self-identification.

You are in many ways the same person today that you were when you were 5 years old. You have the same personality, the same cadence and meter, and the same motor. Your birth certificate shows you to be the same entity. But, in other ways, you are quite different, and change is evident just to look at you. You have grown, you have learned more and become more experienced and intelligent. You have mastered crafts you didn’t know before. You yourself are a good example of change. All of this, and without yet taking into account your family and the culture you live in, this culture being so much more important than race.

In another way, look at the Earth. We know it has endured floods, global catastrophe, ice ages, species coming (over 18,000 last year alone) and going, and so on. It is still the Earth, but change is its most apparent quality. Every day brings its own weather.

I offer this not to be pedantic, or illustrate the idea of the “category mistake“, but to get us on the same page. I want you to understand that change is a reality on this Earth. We can tip our hat to Parmenides and those like him, who find something wrong with the prospect of a world in flux, but at the same time we know it is change, and often sudden, drastic change, which most affects our planet, and ourselves individually. Permanence is not for the things in the material world.

Now if change is real, perhaps all there is, we must spend another minute to understand its nature. For instance, is change a matter of mutations and chance, a numbers game, or is change something purposeful, toward a desired (or desirable) end? What do we mean by “progress”? Is all change progress? We have tried to answer some of these questions, and more, in Truthopia prior.

Progress is a specific type of change, a change that improves and advances, whether it be you, something you are making, or the human condition you work in. While all progress is evidence of change, not all change is evidence of progress, and indeed, some change is very regressive when the fallout is examined. Too many times I have encountered people who look upon the past as if it was tutti a primitive, unenlightened, or comparatively ignorant time. They insist typing is better than penmanship, TV better than theater, email better than letters, and so on.

While I would be the first to admit and laud the advances in certain few fields of technology, the convenience of modern amenities often obscures the detriments produced by those very same advances (nevermind the byproducts, fallout, etc.). We once sent messengers, letters, and telegrams, now we can communicate instantly by telephone or email. Here we see change regarding human communication is real, and it can be seen as progress. We change, society changes nonetheless in response. 

Consider the current state of general scientific theories, or what qualifies as “proof” in the social sciences, or the rewriting of (certain only) history. Professionals and laymen alike, it appears to me, see the changes within and from the sciences – the new theories – and automatically assume that the “new science” is some sort of advance on the “old science”. And one would think that, given the advancement of time and accumulation of further knowledge, these theories would improve. But do they really? Are some theorists conflating “newness” with “progress“?


As a global population, for instance, we have changed from believing in an “Atlas” (or pillars, or ether, or…) that holds up the world, to believing – most of us quite blindly as to why – the theory that “gravity” does the job. But one glance shows there is no advance in this determination, since as little is known about gravity as is about Atlas, nevermind that they could be the same. An example from another area of science could be that for all our years of medical “practice” people still live only as long today as they did in BC times. Assuming they were well-fed, and conditions were good, some evidence exists that the ancients lived even longer, and perhaps fuller lives. That it was once believed the Earth is flat, that the stars and celestial bodies are contained within our firmament, that we ourselves are the center of the universe, that the planet and its situation is conducive to life as a creation of God, are more examples of superceded theories not necessarily advanced for the change.

Today there are, about a quarter of us thinkers, those of the atheist mindset, those who hold the belief that our existence in the universe is due to chance, our position in space a matter of luck and circumstance, our variety of and forms of life consequent upon probability and genetic mutation, with little of Intelligence behind it all. Even though the Big Bang and Evolution systems justify themselves as the product of “honest research”, and this they may be, still we have to ask if we are any better for the move. I’ve discussed in past chapters the way these chameleonic theories change themselves at any sign of being wrong, in order to accommodate the conflicting data without having to discard the theories. I have spoken about how it is therefore logically, or really in any way save force, impossible to get rid of either one. Like gods (ironically, and widely believed-in…) they are omnipresent, they are omnipotent in the minds of the journal-mongerers, and they are omniscient, in that they continue to expand in scope, like a plague, whether right or wrong, sucking up all the evidences against it like a multi-headed vacuum cleaner. Is this an advance on the human condition? Is it better than the idea that everything is contained and ordered by God for us and us alone in the universe?

The many gaps and irregularities these theories have produced, and the problems they have caused for any possibility of a unified and coherent body of knowledge spanning all disciplines, cannot be underestimated. Less than 150 years ago we had no idea what DNA was, but less occasions for having to determine paternity, or guilt. No, when it comes to new theories and new technologies, change is by no means always indicative of advancement, or progress, at least not any more than a man who thinks his tattoo or piercing has somehow made him more handsome.

I can now zip to your home 60 miles from me in just an hour, a trip that would have, by horse and carriage, taken me at least all day, and so, I should reckon this combustion motor also a progressive change. But what do I miss along the way, as I speedily pass by all those places that could have been my horse’s watering holes, my friends I now could never meet? What sights and sounds are now reduced to blurs and roars?

Not all change is progress, and it can be argued that much supposed modern “advance” is really not progress at all. Even given all our intellectual advances, and financial experts, spend some time finding out where your country ranks as to, for instance, child health and education, or the economy. The policies and theories have changed, sure, but there is no real advance to show – for all the effort.

Now let us consider history for a moment. History is the human account of what once was, what has already happened. In the simplest understanding, it should be the most certain of all disciplines since it deals with what has occured in retrospect. History need not predict outcomes. After a war, the historically-minded reporter, for example, need just tally the bodies and report the number of casualties, a number which should not change significantly once the tally is complete. But, as time moves on, we see even the most obvious of historical facts have come under scrutiny, whether the ancient history timeline of Manetho, the amount of dead reported by Herodotus, or the honesty of the contemporary writers doing the critiquing.

Realize that today we are living in a world where instant communication has closed our distances one to another. We are at a time when authors of numerous merit, reporters of dubious associations, and politicians of questionable origin, crazy people and children alike, all can have equal time on the pages of the internet. The genius and the imbecile might have blogs hosted on the same server, and this is more the case than not. While allowing a plurality of voices avenues of expression is a good thing, no verification of facts is required to publish, and that is a bad thing. It is also bad because, for all its rabid anti-censorship campaigns, still a warped, arbitrary – and often downright totalitarian – person-driven censorship still exists. What usually gets censored are those voices antagonistic to beliefs of the moderator, or the standpoint the web site embraces. Just visit a chat room or discussion board and see how fast you get banned for not drumming the company tune, or for putting up any kind of fight.

Unfortunately, and in large part because of this “net neutrality”, it is becoming almost impossible to determine true from false and fact from fiction about anything seen online. Just think about photographs alone. It’s reached the point that any picture, story, or claim we hear, that we don’t see or witness with our own eyes, whether we recieve it through media or in print or online, we must be skeptical about, and check the legitimacy of the source(s). Most people are not natural researchers inclined to investigate every fact they hear, and most are not inclined to sustain a many-faceted inquiry into anything. They just want to know the best car/toothbrush/wok to buy. So, most people find sources they like and/or trust, and take their words as fact.

Moral choices and ethical considerations are no less difficult. So, most people pick a faith, pick a political party, and let those define the truth for them. When we trust a source, we have put our faith into that source, and actually, we are acting on faith, that what we are being told is true.

This world of ours is a far cry from the recent past, where what was true or not was decided by our father and mother, or our church, or our teachers, or by direct observation. For nearly every positive statement available today there exists, or will soon exist, an antithesis to take into consideration. Sometimes these are good alternatives. Sometimes they are just unsubstantiated drivel meant to confuse people just because, just for a laugh, or to sell some product. But as soon as you read an article saying “Proof There Was A 9-11 Coverup”, in today’s world, you will soon come across one saying “Proof Of Coverup Debunked”.

When change is inevitable, but not necessarily indicative of progress, and this condition occurs simultaneously with our being in a time when we cannot be certain any secondary source a true or legit one, we can have a very difficult time even accumulating legitimate data to evaluate. And this is precisely the state we are now in. One who would judge things based on reason, so as to help make choices perhaps, now finds him or herself confronted with contradictory information at every turn, rendering the actual facts, let alone rational judgment of them, nearly impossible.

What happens, usually, to summarize, is we accept certain sources, and we believe what those sources tell us. Whether really true or not, it is difficult today to determine, and takes more work than should be necessary, and than most will attempt.


Now, given these facts, I want to discuss the meaning of, among other labels, the word “Semite”, and particularly how it has changed, and whether how it is changed is indicative of progress. Biblically, and somewhat historically speaking, a Semite is a descendant of Shem, one of the three sons of Noah charged with repopulating the world from the area of Ararat after the flood. According to the tradition most in the West know very well, and which probably goes back to ancient Sumer, God became angry with all the sinfulness on the Earth and decided to flood it to get rid of all the vermin. He saved Noah and his family by having Noah build an ark, load up all the animals in pairs, and so on. When this ark finally landed, upon Mount Ararat, Noah and his family set to work starting the world again.


Upon landing and the clearing of the waters, when the bird did not return, Noah’s family disembarked and began reestablishing society. Ham, the dark-skinned son who had previously angered Noah, was sent to the south; Japeth, the white-skinned son, was sent north; and Shem, the favored son, was sandy-skinned, and stayed in the area. It is from this Shem that the Israelites claim descent. As I have discussed in previous sections, this story of Noah is nearly a carbon-copy of the ancient Sumerian story of Zisuthra, and some variation of it is found throughout the traditions of the world.

Before we dismiss the idea of a Shemite straightaway as a product of myth and fable, or a joke from the imagination of a drunken orientalist (sorry Eichhorn…), let us understand that despite these dubious origins the idea of a Shemite persists for several reasons. The ancient Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, and several other groups are often cited by academia, still today, as being Shemites, and so the term has been adopted to actual contemporary ethnographic use.

There is quite a bit of discrepancy between the Shemites spoken of in the Bible and the Shemites spoken of by historians. Part of our mistake in understanding the term Semite today lies in this discrepancy.

By 1855, the French scholar Ernest Renan, one of the pioneers of Semitic philology, wrote complaining: “We can now see what an unhappy idea Eichhorn [sic; should be Schlozer apud Eichhorn] had when he gave the name of Semitic to the family of Syro-Arab languages. This name, which usage obliges us to retain, has been and will long remain the cause of a multitude of confusions.

“I repeat again that the name Semite here [Renan is referring to his pioneer study on Semitic philology] has only a purely conventional meaning: it designates the peoples who have spoken Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic or some neighboring dia­lect, and in no sense the people who are listed in the tenth chapter of Genesis as the descendants of Shem, who are, or at least half of them, of Aryan origin.”

Renan was of course right in pointing to the dangers of taking “the generations of the sons of Noah” as a basis for philological class­ification. He might have gone further. The descendants of Ham, conventionally the ancestor of the Africans, include, in addition to Egypt and Ethiopia, Canaanites and Phoenicians, who lived in the Syro-Palestinian area and spoke a language very similar to Hebrew.

Phenotype? Language relationship (often obscure)? A glance at the people of the world does seem to show very observable and distinguishing region-based characteristics. All around the Mediterranean coast, to this day, from the north shores of Africa to the southern beaches of Europe, the people look predominantly similar. They are in the main, the non-imports, of wavy or curly dark hair, of average height and weight, of tanned or swarthy, but not black complexion, and they are lively and loud in demeanor. Head north into Europe and you find people of lighter features, greater height, who are in the main more reserved, more thinkers than actors on impulse. Head south and you will find “blacks“, with the liveliness of the Mediterraneans, excellent physical skills, and ancestor worship, ranging in size from pygmies to giants. We can imagine, then, how people in the immediate vicinity of Ararat can have their variety, based on the story.


But what about all the other people of the world, who seem unexplained by the story of Noah, like the island peoples of the Pacific, the American Indians, the Chinese and Japanese, and the indigenous peoples of all lands? Are they also a product of the repopulation by the Noah family? Were they spared from the flood? Were they renegades or exiles from the main population groups? Is this why they get a separate box to check on government forms and applications?


Many lively answers exist for these questions, but it is not my purpose here to relay them. Some light is shed on these questions by apocryphal books and later commentaries, but little by actual history. According to some of these ancient texts Japeth, Ham, and Shem stand for human types based on the triumverate constitution of man, that being his mind, his soul, and his body, and it is for this reason that they were singled out from among all Noah’s children. Ham, we understand, was faulty because he dedicated his life to, and emphasized, the physical or bodily aspect, at the expense of the mental and spiritual aspects. Similarly, Japeth stands for the people who emphasize the mind, to the expense of spirit and body. Even Shemites, who emphasize and concentrate on the spiritual, do so at the expense of the mental and physical aspects. It seems that Israelites claim to be Shemites based on being the most perfect. But whether Shemites and Israelites are actually related by descent is another story entirely.


We spend this time deciding what a Semite is because by the historical record this is not entirely clear. If I were a king in 2200 BC times and I needed to decide my “origins” to relay to my people, why would I choose either Ham or Japeth when it was Shem who was favored by God? Abraham, literally A-Brahm, or Abram, we know, came from Ur in Mesopotamia. The foundations of his beliefs then also came from Babylon, which explains several of the early Hebrew tales being found also in Mesopotamia. In fact, some have argued that there were no Jews before the Talmud and Talmudists, “Jews” being due to developments in Persia around 500 BC. Before that onset of rabbinical vindictiveness and chest-pounding superiority – some have said, a hijacking of the creed by a polytheist pagans – a Hebrew was a member of a certain tribe. Possibly it was the Habiru (or Khabiri, khabiru, etc.), a sect that believed in a single God, in origin a Mesopotamian tribe, that is their origin. We do know that upon moving west this band settled in the Levant, and their trials and tribulations afterward have been handed down to us in the oldest books of the Bible.

While academia usually considers Judaism an outgrowth from Sumeria, there is an argument which would claim that it was the Mesopotamians and Egyptians who stole these stories from the Hebrews, that is, that the Hebrews pre-date both the Egyptians and Babylonians. This is where the identification of Hebrews with Semite becomes a necessity for the Jewish chronology.


Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Judges, and the rest carry us on a genealogical and historical exposition following this tribe steered all along the way by God. They were “Semites” because they hailed from a so-called Semitic people originating in Mesopotamia. In earlier days, scholars supposed the main rival of Semites to be the Aryan race, possibly the race of Sargon I and most likely Sargon II, father of Sennacherib. The races had so mixed, though, by even the time of David, that any claim to being either pure Semite or pure Aryan would seem to have been just a distant memory, and perhaps neither type ever really existed at all.

God punishes his favored people numerous times for, among other things, marrying and having children with pagans. Add in the blood of the Scyths, and the Caucasus people around the Black Sea, the Afghanis (Achimedeans), the Sea Peoples, and the Philistines, and the rest, and by the time of Solomon, an Israelite, or Hebrew, ceased to be an identification of a person of a specific race and had instead become the name of a believer in a certain religion. Aryans, Semites, Nubians, and their mixes could all be Hebrews, at least up until the time of the rabbis, when rules for descent and restrictions on marriage were imposed.

Characterized by belief in a single God, at a time when most of Babylon was still pagan-inclined, could help explain Abraham’s move out of Ur,  around 1700 BC. We should note, though, that under the rule of Akhenaton (Ra, around 1400 BC) Egypt itself began turning away from polytheism, and through Zoroaster (Ahura Mazda, about 1500 BC) the Mesopotamian regions as well were gravitating toward the idea of a singular, all powerful God. The chronologies are close enough that who came up with the idea first is difficult to say.

The Biblical chronicles give us the generations after Noah in detail, carefully noting the lineage and reign of his children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, on down the line, who would together serve to repopulate Earth after the flood. While the Bible follows the line of Shem, we know the lines of Ham and Japeth, as well as the rest of Noah’s progeny if there were any, also contribute to the expansion. We are told stories that sound strangely believable, as “Jews” are often scolded and punished by God, not merely coddled as the favored child in every verse. But He also allows them, his chosen people – according to these chosen people – many transgressions He would not tolerate in people not so selected.

For one who thinks, who can read between the lines, we find that an Israelite, or person of God, favored by God, is eventually shown in the Bible to be of no certain race or even ethnicity whatsoever. To prove this remember the fate of the Hebrews and the “Nation of Israel” in the Bible. Eventually they are divided into the ten “lost” tribes of the north, who eventually become lost amid everyone else in the world, and the tribe of Judah, the most favored of God, even of whom it also said God will “sift” through, like grain through a mesh. What God means in the Bible seems to be that the “organization” of Israelites is not the designation of a race, or even a religious presence. An Israelite is rather a certain type of person who is a chosen favorite of God, all of them being, collecively, his favored people. You cannot do anything, by my reading of these scriptures, to become person of God, or an Israelite. You will be chosen wherever you are, and even, whatever you currently believe. Together, the sum of these chosen, is Israel, the dispersed TYPE of person.

Now, given this interpretation, there cannot be any such thing as an anti-Semite. Any true Semite has long since ceased to be one in any identifiable sense. It is, at best, like saying a contemporary Swede is a Viking.

It is not even clear what one could do today that could be considered anti-Semitic, given the Semite’s more or less extinction as workable phenotype. That people who live in the nation called Israel today, and people who call themselves Jews, by mother or by decree, think they are related to the earliest Jews, is a laughable error. As is also the relative silence that accompanies the Biblical proof that between dispersion, dissemination, and destruction by Aryans and Romans, God Himself ordered all the real People Of God be distributed amongst all the nations of the world.

More questions remain, such as what about the rebuilding of the church, of Jerusalem, and the rest. Who will be doing this work? Self-proclaimed Jews or actual Hebrews as we describe them, chosen by God as his kingdom? Again, many books have been written in these regards, which we do not have time here to cover, and which are just indirectly related to the changing nature of knowledge about Semites and race that is our present matter at hand. See here and here for example.

Now, what people MEAN by anti-Semitism today is another thing entirely. What they mean is discrimnation against a self-identification, someone who considers him or herself Jewish. People today call themselves, as a collective body, “Jews”, whether they follow the rule of law or not. They like to trace themselves back to Abraham and David’s line, but in reality a pagan in Ethiopia might be more related to both. Palestinians, native to the area, are definitely more related, by blood, to Abraham, than any of the imports which colonized their land. THESE present so-called Jews, for the most part, are children predominantly of Japeth’s line, Germans, Slavs, Turks, Russians, and so on, no more genetically superior or evident of God’s children than an American Indian, who himself might well be, according to Scripture, one of the chosen.

What people mean today, when they use the term “anti-Semite”, is that the person so accused hates Jews, or speaks against Jews, or stirs up hatred against Jews. Whether the criticism is valid or not, the charge is usually a death knell, so much so that most so accused have been found “guilty” merely by the accusation. Say someone is an evil person and you’re fine. Say they are Jewish and an evil person and, although it may be fact, you can be levied with a hate crime or discrimination charge.

Today, a Jew is someone who either belongs to the Judaism church, or who considers him or her self Jew based on family lineage. What this usually means is their mother declared herself a Jew, or one of the maternal line, and by this, they are Jews. These people, then, identify themselves as Semitic, and so thereby attempt to justify the use of the term “anti-Semitic”. Of course, anti-Jew would be more appropriate, but this too is misleading because, as we have seen, few to none of them today are, or can be, related to Abraham by blood. Even if they were to be, as we have seen, this blood line is not in itself a guarantee of being Hebrew, or God’s Chosen. A self-determination of you being king doesn’t make you one.

God himself said he dispersed his People among all peoples. Quite possibly, the alleged or even real anti-Jew today could realistically be himself more Jewish – related to Abraham, favored by God – than the alleged, or self-proclaimed Jew he rails against.


Now, given what we have discussed so far, let’s summarize. God’s chosen People hail from no race distinguishable in these, our times. The mingling of blood and moving of people from place to place, for thousands of years, has rendered any such relationship unlikely. The people who call themselves Jew today are nearly all “white”, possibly even Aryans, that have relocated from southeastern Europe and whose families somewhere along the line adopted the Talmudic religion. While “Aryan” has long since been discarded as useless and with racist undertones, its contemporary “Semite” holds firm in the academic vocabulary. Israeli citizens of European origin look nothing like the people native to the region even today. All they have in common with Abraham is a name (“Jew”), a name of a nation (“Israel”), and a self-description which astonishingly omits or under-emphasizes the real culture and race from which they came, be it German, Slav, Pole, or whatever else is in their blood.

So while on the surface it seems impossible that anyone today could be anti-Semitic, based on the fact that WHO KNOWS anymore who is or not a Semite, or whether the appellation was ever a correct or legitimate one based on genealogical history, we do know there are ways the charge can have merit. Whether today’s Jews be actual Jews or not, and they define themselves as such, and are attacked because of this self-identification alone, the charge is legitimate as discrimination. But what is decidedly NOT anti-Semitic, or even anti-Jew, given this understanding, is to question historical things such as:

  1. “The Holocaust”
  2. The Nuremberg Trials
  3. “Gas Chambers”
  4. Hitler and his treatment of self-proclaimed Jews
  5. Monopoly of business and banking, as cartels, throughout history

…and so on. It pains me, to this day, to know that men can write about, speak about, and make movies about bestiality, mass murder, dismemberment, cannibalism, and life on other planets, or question the history of the discovery of America, cite the main lot of politicians as so many scumbags, make a living out of virtual theft, or berating Christianity- but they CANNOT, in too many places in the alleged free world, discuss any of the “Jew”-related matters enumerated above without facing the prospect of ostracism (in academia and nearly every publishing house), fines, and even imprisonment. HOW CAN IT BE that nothing, nearly nothing is taboo to say or write about in this world, unless it concerns “Jews” or the Holocaust, and by extention certain events of World War II, and the wars themselves?

If anything related to alleged Jews can be said, it is that their religion, the Talmudic religion, is the most discriminating and insulting of all religions. It repeatedly states superiority compared to Gentiles, recommends Gentiles be used for Jew gain, openly calls non-Jew women whores, and recommends treating them as such, or even as animals, advocates sexually mutilating children, and so on, so much so that by its influence a book was actually written called “Kill the Best Gentiles“.


Many books exist that show the historical cronyism, financial monopolization, and shady dealings characteristic of the self-declared Jew in modern society. Today, to be Jewish does not mean to be close to God, or even adherent to the Talmud’s dictates. Many self-identified Jews rarely go to synagogue, and most do something contrary to the law, like eat pork or work on the Sabbath, or date non-Jews. No, today to be a Jew really means to be in a certain type of club, one which makes extra effort to take care of its own members, which hires its own, promotes its own, and elects its own kind.

Surely, you will object, there exist solitary, kind Jews, who are poor perhaps, who show no signs of being benefitted at all by these kabals of which I speak. Their existence, you will say, disproves my theory.

Such men are, I can say, just good men, and their religion or belief system really has no impact, just as it has no impact on who are the real children of God. THIS good person, for example, just happens to be Jewish, just like many fine men who just happened to have worn the swastika.

Hitler at Dortmund Rally

ca. 1930s, Dortmund, Germany — Hitler at Dortmund Rally — Image by © Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS

Now all of this doesn’t take away the very real problems of racism and other forms of discrimination. If, say, 11 of 12 members of the Port Authority of New York are self-described Jews, to make note of this, as well as the disportionate number of seats, is by no means anti-Semitic, and not just for reasons of history we have already cited. It is, quite plainly, stating a fact. The fact cannot be overridden by sensitivities, especially those based in shadowy histories. When we note the ratio of power and money to numbers, concerning self-called Jews, we cannot but be shocked. To this claim that Jews control the money, Jews become offended, often hilariously so, emphasizing the fact the “most of the money” does not equal “all the money”, and so on. This, while their less than 2% of humans in the world own over 25% of all the wealth, and control many more businesses and means of production.


Whereas before these would be considered anti-Semitic, we now know that they are merely statements of fact; it is not to round up and jail all the Jews that we recognize this, or to condemn them en masse. It is rather to state facts which do not correspond to the expected numbers or common sense. It is THESE abnormalities that even demand our attention.

You cannot be racist against Jews in general because these Jews are not a race. You can be discriminatory against people calling themselves Jews, however, as you can for discriminating against individual Catholics or Baptists or Blacks; regardless of their real ancestry, you have insulted what they have adopted for themselves personally. But for mere words, even slurs, we must accept them and move on. Discrimination is refusing someone equal time based on race or gender or whatever else, it has nothing to do with nicknames and epithets. Like everyone today, so-called Jews speak of tolerance, yet, also like most of the “discriminated against” today, they are, least tolerant of ideas and language which questions their own beliefs and alleged history. Free speech must never be compromised for any reason, and when it is stopped, it is most likely by people afraid of, or offended by, what will be said. To me, that is offensive.

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog