ITT: We build the entire Jewish timeline, their endgame, and their crimes. I've seen bits dropped all over the chans, but I want to try and put everything together in one place. I'll take what's put here and turn into into a serious of chronological infographs.
Post Everything You've Got, including speculation.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
mega.nz
mega.nz
youtube.com
twitter.com
Andrew Carrington Hitchcock's book ''The Synagogue of Satan" does a good job of that (with some flaws). Also, that quote is miscited.
I've heard of this book? How far back does it go? Is it very comprehensive? I think I'll download it tonight.
This is a noble thread, blessed by digits.
One thing to clarify on the timeline.
Modern ethnically "Jewish" people are not the same ethnicity of Biblical Hebrews.
Today's Jews, kikes, are mostly ashkenazi, a mixed asiatic caucasoid cult that didn't come to existence till after 500ad.
I think the gist is;
...
*Ah, I don't mean to be quoting that video with my post.
Anyway, understand that he makes a point that he isn't racist and that race doesn't really matter, but if (can) you look past that you'll see it's pretty good.
What's most interesting is that the jewish creation of the jesus story, aside from incorporating other religion's stories, was to monopolize the concept of morality. The jewish concept of morality centers around who owes who and debt. If you sin, you owe a debt and that debt is paid through sacrifice. In the OT, sacrifices were common, and in the NT you had to worship jesus to renew his sacrifice for forgiving your sins. Sin is debt you pay with someone else's blood.
So here's where we get to christian nu-morality. Jews don't possess morality the way whites do but they understood the difference and the appeal of morality, similar to how a marketer wants to appeal to a new audience. So they crafted a story about jesus and portray him as a moral person. They invent the idea that you owe him because of his sacrifice and invent consequences for not worshiping him. Mainly, if you don't, you go to hell and by default worship satan. But in the meantime, you are marking yourself as immoral:
This is where it all began. Jews created their first successful monopolization of something they don't own and possess as people through christianity. They used it as a shield from criticism and that shield still works to this day because you see people citing an alleged moral code as a defense for christianity. The game is now, if you want to be moral you follow jesus, nevermind the fact that you were probably already moral because you are white.
The most telling sign of this is how consistent this is with other jewish inventions and how they shape their tricks around a faux-moral viewpoint. Commies think they're fighting for a utopia but instead bring about a jewish world order. SJWs think they're fighting for fairness (under various buzzwords), but instead let jews pass their anti-white laws. Christians think they're keeping evil away by being moral - "'Deliver us, Lord, from every evil'' - but instead let jews into Europe.
Christianity taught jews how to trick whites into worshipping something that promised them something they already had and subsequently lead them to their servitude towards jews. Even at the conceptual level, it is consistent with other jewish poisons and leads to what is known as controlled opposition. If you go against it, you are charged with immorality first and deserve damnation.
Are those nudes fucking Sarah? That is shit I really did not need to see.
Holy shit, this hubris will be your undoing.
Your non-answer betrays your evident inability to refute the post you replied to.
in Exodus something of the first importance appears: this promise is sealed in blood, and from this point on blood runs like a river through the books of The Law. Moses is depicted as "taking the blood and sprinkling it on the people" and saying, "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words". The hereditary and perpetual office of the Aaronite priesthood is founded in this blood-ritual: Jehovah says unto Moses, "And take unto thee Aaron thy brother and his sons with him that he may minister unto me in the priest's office".
The manner of a priest's consecration is then laid down in detail by Jehovah himself, according to the Levitical scribes:
He must take a bullock and two rams "without blemish", have them butchered "before the Lord", and on the altar burn one ram and the innards of the bullock. The blood of the second ram is to be put "upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons and upon the thumb of their right hands and upon the great toe of their right foot" and sprinkled "upon the altar round about. . . and upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons and the garments of his sons".
The picture of blood-bespattered priests, thus given, is worth contemplation. Even at this distance of time the question prompts itself: why was this insistent emphasis laid on blood-sacrifice in the books of the Law which the Levites produced. The answer seems to lie in the sect's uncanny genius for instilling fear by terror; for the very mention of "blood", in such contexts, made the faithful or superstitious Judahite tremble for his own son!
It is all spelt out in Exodus, this claim of the fanatical priests to the firstborn of their followers:
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of [27] beast: it is mine".
According to the passage earlier quoted from Micah, this practice of sacrificing the human firstborn long continued, and the sight of the bloodied Levite must have had a terrible significance for the humble tribesman, for in the words attributed to God, quoted above, the firstborn "of man and of beast" are coupled. This significance remained long after the priesthood (in a most ingenious way which will later be described) contrived to discontinue human sacrifice while retaining the prerogative. Even then the blood which was sprinkled on the priest, though it was an animal's, was to the congregation still symbolically that of their own offspring!
First of all, your second image is a hoax.
I was going to post the expulsion list but someone have posted it already in another thread.
So post it again.
'LITERARY RESOURCES - Zündel's Bunker
mega.nz
Michael A. Hoffman II — Judaism Discovered
mega.nz
You're right (pics related).
see pics
Accurate version.
A question to all, as I'm a little confused by this and another post. I understand the idea that the Khazars are not Israelites, and I think this video does a pretty good job explaining that idea.
>youtube.com
However, some of the ancient anthropology images above refer to Jews as more Neanderthal. Is the idea that Israelites and Khazars coincidentally both have more interbreeding from Neanderthals? Hence the European vampire myths… How do neanderthal remains in Israel tie into this? I'll go try to dig up the article and see if I can post the answer to my question.
Pretty much
Pic related is from Michael Collins Piper's Confessions of an Anti-Semite.
…and then i looked at a map. Duh. And MCP even quotes Bradley that the Caucasus Mountains were "a known refuge for late-lingering Neanderthal populations." Thanks, user
Sanhedrin 59a
But the precept of observing social laws is a positive one, yet it is reckoned? — It is both positive and negative.[1]
R. Johanan said: A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death, for it is written, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance;[2] it is our inheritance, not theirs.[3] Then why is this not included in the Noachian laws? — On the reading morasha [an inheritance] he steals it; on the reading me'orasah [betrothed], he is guilty as one who violates a betrothed maiden, who is stoned.[4] An objection is raised: R. Meir used to say. Whence do we know that even a heathen who studies the Torah is as a High Priest? From the verse, [Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments:] which, if man do, he shall live in them.[5] Priests, Levites, and Israelites are not mentioned, but men: hence thou mayest learn that even a heathen who studies[6] the Torah is as a High Priest! — That refers to their own seven laws.[7]
'R Hanania b. Gamaliel said: [They were also commanded] not to partake of the blood drawn from a living animal.'
Our Rabbis taught: But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat,[8] this prohibits flesh cut from the living animal. R. Hanina b. Gamaliel said: It also prohibits blood drawn from a living animal. What is his reason? — He reads the verse thus: flesh with the life thereof [shall ye not eat]: blood with the life thereof shall ye not eat. But the Rabbis maintain that this reading teaches that flesh cut from live reptiles is permitted.[9] Similarly it is said, Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life,' and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.[10] But the Rabbis maintain that the verse teaches that the blood of arteries, with which life goes out, [is also forbidden as blood].[11]
Why was it first enjoined upon the sons of Noah, and then repeated at Sinai? — As the dictum, of R. Jose b. Hanina. For R. Jose b. Hanina said: Every precept which was given to the sons of Noah and repeated at Sinai was meant for both [heathens and Israelites]; that which was given to the sons of Noah but not repeated at Sinai was meant for the Israelites, but not for the heathens. Now, the only law thus commanded to the children of Noah and not repeated at Sinai was the prohibition of the sinew that shrank [nervous ischiadicus], and in accordance with R. Judah's view.[12]
The Master said: 'Every precept which was given to the sons of Noah and repeated at Sinai was meant for both [Noachides and Israelites]'. On the contrary, since it was repeated at Sinai, should we not assume it to be meant for Israel only?[13] — Since idolatry was repeated as Sinai, and we find that the Noachides were punished for practising it,[14] we must conclude that it was meant for both.
'That which was given to the sons of Noah but not repeated at Sinai was meant for the Israelites, but not for the heathens.' On the contrary, since it was not repeated at Sinai, should we not assume that it was meant for the Noachides and not for Israel?[15] — There is nothing permitted to an Israelite yet forbidden to a heathen. Is there not? But what of a beautiful woman?[16] — There it is because the heathens were not authorised to conquer.[17] But what of a thing worth less than a Perutah?[18] — There it is because the heathens do not forgive.[19]
'Every precept which was given to the sons of Noah and repeated at Sinai was meant for both [Noachides and Israelites]'.
see:
The "communicating to a non-jew" quote is from Dibre David, a rabbinical text that isn't part of the Talmud. It's understandable how whoever made that image got it confused with Sanhedrin 59a, assuming it was an honest mistake and not intentional disinformation.
The confusion probably stems from: "A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death, for it is written, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance;[2] it is our inheritance, not theirs."
Bump for visibility.
I must not be as well versed in kikery as I thought (or you’re still just wrong), because even in Sanhedrin I don’t see anything that THE IMAGE claims. I see “We should kill any GOY that reads the Talmud or the Torah”, but not “their act of reading it is as if WE were to die.” I see “as if a maiden was violated”