Concentrate Your Fire -- 5/30/2015

[David York]

I thank Michael Olanich for his kind words, and for transcribing the series entitled "Background to Treason". I wonder how many months of tedious work that took.

I wish that I had time to entirely read "Background to Treason". I read Part 1 only as far as the beginning of the part about the Balfour Declaration. It was refreshing to experience his honesty and brilliance again. Dr. Pierce was a great blessing to our race for many reasons. His loss was tragic. Dr. Pierce was so awesome that he qualifies as a "god" according to the ancient meaning of that word, i.e., a role model with extraordinary qualities who is worthy of our "worship" and emulation, in my opinion.

My own view is that:
1) One's God or idol is whatever or whomever one thinks good, whether it be the sun, a certain kind of behavior, someone like Dr. Pierce, Elon Musk, a Jew called Jesus, a mythological character like Thor, life in general or just the most sentient life, i.e., Cosmotheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lu ... e#Religion?
2) One's goals in life, e.g., for humanity to become a multi-planetary species, are one's religion.
3) The more lies one believes, the more insane one becomes.

Dr. Pierce talked briefly about the origins of the Semitic Jews in a series I transcribed last year entitled "Background to Treason: A Brief History of U.S. Policy in the Middle East". Specifically, Part 1: From the Exodus to the Balfour Declaration - http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=1081

Some of Dr. Pierce's conclusions would have been different if he had had access to the results of recent and on-going genetic research.

I have already provided evidence that the Fertile Crescent was the exclusive homeland of Aryan farmers before they were conquered by Semitic herdsmen from southern Arabia. The Hebrew Bible refers to the original inhabitants of ancient Canaan as being Hittites, Amorites, etc., i.e., Hamites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamitic#Hamitic_hypothesis (not Semites).

Some scientists may claim that the ancient Canaanites were Semitic because Aryan languages entirely disappeared from ancient Canaan. I suspect that Semitic herdsmen would have exterminated the entire Aryan population of ancient Canaan if they had not needed slaves to produce their crops, haul their water, construct their buildings, etc. and that:
1) Hebrews immediately killed Aryan slaves whom they overheard speaking Indo-European languages, e.g. Kurdish.
2) Aryan farmers fled from ancient Canaan to Europe and elsewhere in Eurasia in order to avoid being killed or enslaved by Hebrew and other Semitic tribes of herdsmen.

Transcription of the whole series took roughly 2-3 months. The articles, put together, are equivalent to nearly 30 pages of National Vanguard magazine, from where the series was transcribed.

True enough that Dr. Pierce's conclusions would have indeed been different; you're very astute Permela. The Khazar theory of Jewry has been debunked because of recent discoveries that European Jews and Semitic Jews do have genetic commonalities.

We were planning to add an appendix to Part 1 to update Dr. Pierce's understanding of the matter 3 decades ago. But, I never got around to it unfortunately.

If you're interested in writing an appendix with the documented data provided -- only 1-2 paragraphs needed -- nothing too long, please private message me and I'll give you my e-mail address. However, if you're comfortable just using PM's, that's fine as well. Thanks!

Thank you MIchael, Nolongersilentusa and Parmela for enlightening me about the debunked Khazar theory. I wasn't aware of the new research that makes that Khazar theory obsolete. I think Natvan should post an article about this, since it still seems to be an accepted theory and I haven't heard anyone in the Alliance leadership other than Michael point this out yet.

[Kevin Alfred Strom]

I did say this about the Khazar hypothesis, in http://nationalvanguard.org/2010/10/a-j ... s-america/ :

Subsequent research has shown that the “Khazar hypothesis,” i.e., Freedman’s and Arthur Koestler’s idea that Ashkenazi Jews are almost entirely of Khazar descent, is wildly exaggerated. For example, Science News for October 3, 1998 stated “Wider genetic studies of diverse present day Jewish communities show a remarkable genetic cohesiveness. Jews from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, North Africa and European Ashkenazim all cluster together with other Semitic groups, with their origin in the Middle East. A common geographical origin can be seen for all mainstream Jewish groups studied. This genetic research has clearly refuted the Khazar story — Khazars: a pre-10th century Turko-Asian empire which reportedly converted en masse to Judaism. Researchers compared the DNA signature of the Ashkenazi Jews against those of Turkish-derived people, and found no correspondence. …The DNA tests results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.”

The demise of the Khazar hypothesis doesn’t much vitiate Freedman’s argument that the “blood right” of Jews — who do show some degree of mixture with their host populations and who are probably less related to the original inhabitants of “Israel” than are the Palestinians — to take over Palestine is a sham. And, of course, it doesn’t at all affect his insider revelations of Zionist intrigue. – Kevin Alfred Strom

And we did publish this from http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/04/no- ... -european/ :

All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East.

Virtually none came from the North Caucasus, located along the border between Europe and Asia between the Black and Caspian seas.

The finding should thoroughly debunk one of the most questionable, but still tenacious, hypotheses: that most Ashkenazi Jews can trace their roots to the mysterious Khazar Kingdom that flourished during the ninth century in the region between the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire, Richards and Ostrer said.

The genetics suggest many of the founding Ashkenazi women were actually converts from local European populations.

and my note above the article states:

We knew that Jews were hybridized to some extent with Europeans already; the science just confirms it. But there are several other studies showing that, despite this hybridization (which facilitates mimicry, always useful for a parasite), Jews are still more closely related to other Jews than they are to their host populations.

I don't think that there is no Khazar ancestry in Jews -- the historical record does show that at least the elite there converted to Judaism. It's just not anywhere near as significant as Koestler thought.

Oddly enough, though, it doesn't matter much whether it's true or not: Jews are a hybridized race no matter how you look at them -- partly European, partly Near Eastern -- in which a kind of hyperethnocentrism and hatred of the Other, and duplicity in dealing with the Other, and deconstruction of the host society, have been distilled and concentrated in unprecedented virulence and strength. That is what is relevant for us.

All the best,

Kevin.

[Michael Olanich]

Yes, Kevin is quite right, NV.org has published some information on the topic.

Here are some additional links with more info from davidduke.com:

http://davidduke.com/rethinking-khazar-theory/

http://davidduke.com/khazar-theory-koes ... interests/

Dr. Duke implies the Jews used the Khazar theory as a defense to confuse anti-semites and shield Jews from criticism, at least that's what he gathered from Koestler and his motivation behind writing The Thirteenth Tribe. It is conceivable.

I believe debunking the myth serves at least one useful purpose: Although highly hybridized as Kevin said, it does lump in all Jews as being one unique race unto themselves. Too often I have heard people aware of the Jewish problem say that the Khazar Jews (i.e. European Jews) are not true Jews, only in the sense that they share the religion, but are essentially Europeans who believe they are Jews. It doesn't add up. There must be racial commonality because nearly all Ashkenazi Jews are imbued with the strong in-group/out-group instinctual response to Gentiles, and also take into account that most have strong, facial Semitic features. Religion alone can't do that -- the answer lies at the genetic level.

Kevin, I remember in your ADV program "Jewish Weakness" I believe you said that European Jews who don't show strong instinctual levels of the Jewish in-group strategy are cast aside and are no longer considered to be Jews by the rest who do share this trait. And the former are much more likely to marry outside their Jewish group. As Gentiles how should we view these few, rare instances of ostracized Jews? If they have children with a non-Jew, is it safe to say those children will not be raised in a Jewish environment and also have weak instinctual tendencies, so whatever Semitic genes they may possess is inconsequential? Can they be classified as racially European by other Whites?

But then I think of your documented theory of "regression to the mean" that you had discussed while talking about African blacks, which I believe. Can the same hold true for one quarter Jews? Can those genes and instincts revive themselves to the point where the person re-converts to Judaism, even after having been raised in a non-Jewish environment? I think I'm stretching it here a bit, so I'm leaning towards that not being the case. My guess is whatever alien dna left is diluted to the point where it can't affect the person's behavior anymore.

A lot of questions I'm throwing out there, I know. I just started churning this over in my mind by reading this thread.

[Michael Olanich]

Thank you MIchael, Nolongersilentusa and Parmela for enlightening me about the debunked Khazar theory. I wasn't aware of the new research that makes that Khazar theory obsolete. I think Natvan should post an article about this, since it still seems to be an accepted theory and I haven't heard anyone in the Alliance leadership other than Michael point this out yet.

Dan, thanks for the compliment but I'm not a leader in any capacity within the NA, I'm just a member.

Although, I do wish to take a more pro-active role in the near future. I like the work I'm doing now but I still feel as if I'm not doing enough, and I am saddened by some of the recent events. But I'll continue to help with the NA in every way I know how.

[David York]

I did say this about the Khazar hypothesis, in http://nationalvanguard.org/2010/10/a-j ... s-america/ :

Subsequent research has shown that the “Khazar hypothesis,” i.e., Freedman’s and Arthur Koestler’s idea that Ashkenazi Jews are almost entirely of Khazar descent, is wildly exaggerated. For example, Science News for October 3, 1998 stated “Wider genetic studies of diverse present day Jewish communities show a remarkable genetic cohesiveness. Jews from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, North Africa and European Ashkenazim all cluster together with other Semitic groups, with their origin in the Middle East. A common geographical origin can be seen for all mainstream Jewish groups studied. This genetic research has clearly refuted the Khazar story — Khazars: a pre-10th century Turko-Asian empire which reportedly converted en masse to Judaism. Researchers compared the DNA signature of the Ashkenazi Jews against those of Turkish-derived people, and found no correspondence. …The DNA tests results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.”

The demise of the Khazar hypothesis doesn’t much vitiate Freedman’s argument that the “blood right” of Jews — who do show some degree of mixture with their host populations and who are probably less related to the original inhabitants of “Israel” than are the Palestinians — to take over Palestine is a sham. And, of course, it doesn’t at all affect his insider revelations of Zionist intrigue. – Kevin Alfred Strom

And we did publish this from http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/04/no- ... -european/ :

All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East.

Virtually none came from the North Caucasus, located along the border between Europe and Asia between the Black and Caspian seas.

The finding should thoroughly debunk one of the most questionable, but still tenacious, hypotheses: that most Ashkenazi Jews can trace their roots to the mysterious Khazar Kingdom that flourished during the ninth century in the region between the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire, Richards and Ostrer said.

The genetics suggest many of the founding Ashkenazi women were actually converts from local European populations.

and my note above the article states:

We knew that Jews were hybridized to some extent with Europeans already; the science just confirms it. But there are several other studies showing that, despite this hybridization (which facilitates mimicry, always useful for a parasite), Jews are still more closely related to other Jews than they are to their host populations.

I don't think that there is no Khazar ancestry in Jews -- the historical record does show that at least the elite there converted to Judaism. It's just not anywhere near as significant as Koestler thought.

Oddly enough, though, it doesn't matter much whether it's true or not: Jews are a hybridized race no matter how you look at them -- partly European, partly Near Eastern -- in which a kind of hyperethnocentrism and hatred of the Other, and duplicity in dealing with the Other, and deconstruction of the host society, have been distilled and concentrated in unprecedented virulence and strength. That is what is relevant for us.

All the best,

Kevin.

Oh Okay Kevin, sorry. I vaguely remember reading that 2010 article on Benjamin Freedman but I guess I overlooked the note at the bottom about the subsequent research on the Khazar hypothesis. I also completely missed that more recent article "No Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews are partly European". It does seem intuitive to me that the European portion of the Ashkenazi Jew would come from the mother since it makes more sense that a foreign wealthy Jewish man could probably buy love in Europe than for a Jewish Woman to be the fancy of some European man. I find it most likely that the European traits that certain Jews have came about in this fashion, which is a little odd because Jews seem to claim that a person has to be born from a Jewish mother to be considered Jewish. I think there are loop holes around that rule. There is no way that half Jews on the Paternal side are completely left out of the tribe.

[David York]

Yes, Kevin is quite right, NV.org has published some information on the topic.

Here are some additional links with more info from davidduke.com:

http://davidduke.com/rethinking-khazar-theory/

http://davidduke.com/khazar-theory-koes ... interests/

Dr. Duke implies the Jews used the Khazar theory as a defense to confuse anti-semites and shield Jews from criticism, at least that's what he gathered from Koestler and his motivation behind writing The Thirteenth Tribe. It is conceivable.

I believe debunking the myth serves at least one useful purpose: Although highly hybridized as Kevin said, it does lump in all Jews as being one unique race unto themselves. Too often I have heard people aware of the Jewish problem say that the Khazar Jews (i.e. European Jews) are not true Jews, only in the sense that they share the religion, but are essentially Europeans who believe they are Jews. It doesn't add up. There must be racial commonality because nearly all Ashkenazi Jews are imbued with the strong in-group/out-group instinctual response to Gentiles, and also take into account that most have strong, facial Semitic features. Religion alone can't do that -- the answer lies at the genetic level.

Kevin, I remember in your ADV program "Jewish Weakness" I believe you said that European Jews who don't show strong instinctual levels of the Jewish in-group strategy are cast aside and are no longer considered to be Jews by the rest who do share this trait. And the former are much more likely to marry outside their Jewish group. As Gentiles how should we view these few, rare instances of ostracized Jews? If they have children with a non-Jew, is it safe to say those children will not be raised in a Jewish environment and also have weak instinctual tendencies, so whatever Semitic genes they may possess is inconsequential? Can they be classified as racially European by other Whites?

But then I think of your documented theory of "regression to the meme" that you had discussed while talking about African blacks, which I believe. Can the same hold true for one quarter Jews? Can those genes and instincts revive themselves to the point where the person re-converts to Judaism, even after having been raised in a non-Jewish environment? I think I'm stretching it here a bit, so I'm leaning towards that not being the case. My guess is whatever alien dna left is diluted to the point where it can't affect the person's behavior anymore.

A lot of questions I'm throwing out there, I know. I just started churning this over in my mind by reading this thread.

thanks for that link, I'm reading the Duke article now. It's a little long, but interesting I guess. Your welcome for the compliment. Sorry about the rank confusion.

[NoLongerSilentUSA]

If you read this article: http://nationalvanguard.org/?s=marcion& ... mit=Search there was this guy named Marcion who lived in the 1st-2nd centuries AD and who nearly succeeded in getting the Old Testament Expunged from the Bible. He was unsuccessful but in his journey he clearly showed how the God of the Old Testament, which he called the God of Wrath, was completely different and separate from the God of the New Testament, which he called the Alien God. The first God was a God that was solely created for the Jewish people, the second was a God that represented all people not just the Jews. If Marcion had succeeded in getting the Old Testament expunged from the Bible, there would be no Christian Zionism today. The New Testament does not show any special treatment for the Jews and is actually anti-Semitic. The Old Testament is what makes Christians confused today and believe that Israelis are somehow God's chosen people. I would highly recommend you read that article on National Vanguard. After reading it you can get a pretty good appreciation that the God that the Old Testament talks about is almost the polar opposite of the God that is talked about in the New Testament. I think Christians today don't really think much at all because if they did they would notice a big contradiction between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Christian preachers today seem to emphasize the old testament because they want a pat on the head by their Jewish masters. Thanks for pointing out the Khazar disinfo theory (Thanks to you too Parmela ). I believe it was started by Benjamin Freedman as you mention but I've heard it repeated many times since then.

Thanks for sharing the article on Marcion. I read it. As mentioned in the article, Marcion knew there was something wrong with the people claiming to be the people of the Old Testament and wanted to put as much distance as possible between Christians and those who gave rise to the "Jews" of today. It is too bad he didn't succeed on that point.

From the article on Marcion, comparing the Old Testament "Creator-God" with the New Testament "God of true goodness":

So there are two Gods, then, who in many respects are the “antithesis” of each other. But an important distinction to make is that Marcion did not regard the Old Testament God as the devil, or as pure evil. Rather he is simply the God of the law, and Marcion viewed the law, keep in mind, as not without some positive aspects, including a limited measure of justice. To be sure, the God who gave this law is petty, fickle, impatient, jealous, and warlike.

The article makes it clear that Marcion did not believe the Old Testament god was "The Devil" that Jesus referred to, so we are still left with the Pharisees having a different god, their "father the devil" who "is a liar, and the father of it."

It is fine if Jesus wanted to redefine God and lead people towards a new spirituality that he thought was better. Good for him. The personalities "Yahweh" and "Satan/Lucifer/The Devil" still represent different entities in the Bible though, and they are referred to differently. Also, there is other evidence that the people we call "Jews" today were infiltrators in the time of Jesus and not the people of the Old Testament. For example, in Revelation 2:9 we see the statement "I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." This statement is evidence that those who believed their god was Satan were pretending to be Jews to deceive those who believed their god was Yahweh, and it is also evidence that the Satanists were not Jews. We also see some of the evidence that these people were infiltrators by comparing the Old Testament with the Talmud. See the images below and note the quote from the rabbi stating that Judaism is not the religion of the Hebrew Bible.

00594_StoryJews26-27.jpg (144.88 KiB) Viewed 4573 times

00746_Moralsofthe.jpg (130.73 KiB) Viewed 4573 times

00747_Moralsofthe2.jpg (124.11 KiB) Viewed 4573 times

[/size]

[NoLongerSilentUSA]

00748_Moralsofthe3.jpg (121.02 KiB) Viewed 4573 times

And we did publish this from http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/04/no- ... -european/ :

All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East.

Virtually none came from the North Caucasus, located along the border between Europe and Asia between the Black and Caspian seas.

The finding should thoroughly debunk one of the most questionable, but still tenacious, hypotheses: that most Ashkenazi Jews can trace their roots to the mysterious Khazar Kingdom that flourished during the ninth century in the region between the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire, Richards and Ostrer said.

The genetics suggest many of the founding Ashkenazi women were actually converts from local European populations.

Reflecting on previous mtDNA studies, carried out by Behar, Atzmon and al concludes that all major Jewish population groups are showing evidence for founder females of Middle Eastern origin with coalescence times >2000 years[6]

Further (Genetic) Evidence to Prove Jews are in Fact a Race
http://theforbiddentruth.net/viewtopic.php?t=113

The results of a given study on Jewish ancestry will depend not only on the population sampled but also on the strata of the population that was sampled. For example, I would expect to find a lot of mixing with European descendants in the lower strata of the Jewish hierarchy, but if we could sample the most powerful Jewish families, I would expect to find them to show a much stronger Middle Eastern ancestry. It really comes down to the questions "Who are we going to count as a Jew?" and "Who does the Jewish leadership count as a Jew?" It is highly likely that the Jewish leadership views the more mixed Jews as expendable useful idiots to be disposed of once they have won their 2000-year-old war by "clever deception."[/size]

[David York]

Thanks for sharing the article on Marcion. I read it. As mentioned in the article, Marcion knew there was something wrong with the people claiming to be the people of the Old Testament and wanted to put as much distance as possible between Christians and those who gave rise to the "Jews" of today. It is too bad he didn't succeed on that point.

From the article on Marcion, comparing the Old Testament "Creator-God" with the New Testament "God of true goodness":

So there are two Gods, then, who in many respects are the “antithesis” of each other. But an important distinction to make is that Marcion did not regard the Old Testament God as the devil, or as pure evil. Rather he is simply the God of the law, and Marcion viewed the law, keep in mind, as not without some positive aspects, including a limited measure of justice. To be sure, the God who gave this law is petty, fickle, impatient, jealous, and warlike.

The article makes it clear that Marcion did not believe the Old Testament god was "The Devil" that Jesus referred to, so we are still left with the Pharisees having a different god, their "father the devil" who "is a liar, and the father of it."

It is fine if Jesus wanted to redefine God and lead people towards a new spirituality that he thought was better. Good for him. The personalities "Yahweh" and "Satan/Lucifer/The Devil" still represent different entities in the Bible though, and they are referred to differently. Also, there is other evidence that the people we call "Jews" today were infiltrators in the time of Jesus and not the people of the Old Testament. For example, in Revelation 2:9 we see the statement "I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." This statement is evidence that those who believed their god was Satan were pretending to be Jews to deceive those who believed their god was Yahweh, and it is also evidence that the Satanists were not Jews. We also see some of the evidence that these people were infiltrators by comparing the Old Testament with the Talmud. See the images below and note the quote from the rabbi stating that Judaism is not the religion of the Hebrew Bible.

I'm glad you read the article. I'm sorry it didn't really answer your question though. You're correct Marcion didn't consider the Old Testament God to be the Devil, so I guess there has to be some other aspect as to what Jesus was talking about when he called the father of the Jews the Devil. I'm familiar with that passage you posted from Revelation 2:9, but I used to think it referred to the Khazar Jews pretending to be the Jews of the Old Testament, so that Christians would perceive them as God's Chosen people and therefore let them get away with all kinds of crimes. But now that I know that the Khazar theory was debunked, I'm not sure what to think of that passage. It does fit however that whoever these people in Israel today are that are calling themselves Jews are Impostors to gain the support of Christian Zionists. If they weren't Khazars they must of been some other people that decided they were going to be Jews at some point. I read somewhere that the Jews don't use the Old Testament at all in their religion, instead they use the Talmud, Torah and some other book. I think I read that in Which Way Western Man?. So it's interesting that whoever the Jews that were spoken of in the Old Testament are not the current Jews that practice from the Talmud and Torah. I believe that there are Lucifarians, and that those are predominantly Jews. They are the same bunch that created the illuminati and other secret societies. I don't personally believe in any of this Christianity or Satanism myself, but I know that others do and that it is indeed useful as we see today for Jews to gain support from Christians simply by pointing to lines in the Old Testament that say they are God's Chosen people, or in other words Christian Zionism. I think the details of all the spirituality in Christianity and Satanism is pretty much all mumbo jumbo, but it serves a purpose for the Jews, and that is that it unifies their race and weakens ours.

[Kevin Alfred Strom]

I think the details of all the spirituality in Christianity and Satanism is pretty much all mumbo jumbo, but it serves a purpose for the Jews..

I agree. And arguing about "what Jesus really said," as some do, is sort of like arguing about what Santa Claus "really said."

With all good wishes,

Kevin.