Criticism of Jews as a Collective (Not Just as Individuals) is Ethical and Warranted

[TlsMS93]

If there were no distinction at all, then what we observe would be statistically impossible. It has to be something about "Jewishness" (which is the "anti-Semtic" explanation) or it has to be factors correlated with being Jewish (Cofnas-style apologetics).

As I said, it’s possible that Jews are overrepresented in academia for reasons that are “Jewish,” i.e., the traditional Jewish emphasis on education. Certainly, the large Jewish presence in the legal profession is even more related to specifically Jewish causes, mainly the very high value that the study of law has had within Jewish culture for centuries. This is something even someone as wrongheaded (IMO) as KMac understands.

This strikes me as neither antisemitic nor reliant upon a belief that Jews are inherently intellectually exceptional for whatever reason, genetic or otherwise.

Are you going to leave out nepotism, ethnocentrism, and ideology completely? Duly noted. Your position might have some weight to it if it weren't for the evidence of Jewish collective ambitions, which is absolutely overwhelming.

My larger point, however, remains, which is that you wouldn’t see Jewish overrepresentation in certain fields had Jews not accomplished/obtained/whatever “whiteness” first. That’s particularly true about academia, since even places like Harvard used to have a numerus clasus.

Jews sought to obtain 'whiteness' in order to subvert white society. It's that simple.

My mother’s family is Italian American. She has two first cousins who were vice presidents at Exxon Mobil — highly successful, very wealthy execs. That doesn’t happen if their parents hadn’t been made white at some point.

My father, who’s half Jewish, is a PhD and has two first cousins who are also PhDs. This is on the Jewish side of his family, where there were only eight grandchildren overall. I can’t explain why that happened but that those PhD are all half Jewish (lot of intermarriage in my grandmother’s family — they were very Germanized Jews) and that none were raised Jewish or particularly identified as Jewish (one non-PhD cousin on that side is a Methodist clergyman) would seem to indicate that the Jewish half of their ancestry wasn’t particularly decisive. Rather, that my father and one of his cousins don’t have Jewish surnames and that none of the three was raised Jewish was probably an advantage for them at the time (all were born in the 1940s).

Thank you for explaining why you have a subjective bias on this matter. The data and history speaks to much more than your own anecdotal experiences do. We agree Jews do not have some inherent, genetic superiority over anyone and I would even agree they are raised to emphasize certain practices which can be beneficial in areas like law (given their practices in argumentation, including deceptive practices like 'pilpul'). What you leave out is their collective power-driven ambitions which motivate them to gravitate to not just law but to every major institution in society which can be leveraged to subvert the best interests of that nation (in favor of exclusively-Jewish interests).

If Jews simply acquired power then used it to improve the lives of the other people of that host nation, people would fucking love the Jews (myself included). But we know through thousands of instances throughout history (well-documented, indisputable), that this is 100% not the case at all. Jews have always used their power exclusively for Jewish interests and in ways that cause immense harm to the host population - certainly on a macro scale. The isolated exceptions are so isolated and exceptional as to be meaningless, when discussing the Jewish collective as a whole.

Jews run the media - our media lies. Jews run finance - inflation explodes. Jews run foreign policy - we kill and die for Israel. The list goes on and on, wherever they rule.

Exactly. It has a lot to do with the clash of mentalities between Jews and gentile nations. Some do not care how Jews get rich, while others may see this as an accumulation of influence that will not necessarily be for the collective good or will be used to subvert such collective good.

Take the German case, for example. Germans gave and give great importance to their productive creations, especially if it benefits their collective. In this case, what did the Jews as a collective do about this? What brand of engine, tire or other sophisticated item passed through Jewish hands? Perhaps one or another unnoticed invention, such as the creator of Ziklon B? But it is a needle in a haystack. They usually get rich through unconventional means of production, such as bank loans or middlemen, with the flimsy excuse that their countries have always denied them the right to work in productive roles. The State of Israel is modern largely thanks to the import of Western technology.

Germans, on the other hand, are almost never harassed wherever they go; on the contrary, they gain a prominent position in the intelligentsia because their gifts of adding productive value for the common good give them this right. Countries where money counts more than what is produced are generally where Jews gain influence and spread subversive values, since if such a nation reflects on how to accumulate savings, they will lose power and influence.

[Hektor]

.....

Exactly. It has a lot to do with the clash of mentalities between Jews and gentile nations. Some do not care how Jews get rich, while others may see this as an accumulation of influence that will not necessarily be for the collective good or will be used to subvert such collective good.

Take the German case, for example. Germans gave and give great importance to their productive creations, especially if it benefits their collective. In this case, what did the Jews as a collective do about this? What brand of engine, tire or other sophisticated item passed through Jewish hands? Perhaps one or another unnoticed invention, such as the creator of Ziklon B? But it is a needle in a haystack. They usually get rich through unconventional means of production, such as bank loans or middlemen, with the flimsy excuse that their countries have always denied them the right to work in productive roles. The State of Israel is modern largely thanks to the import of Western technology.

Germans, on the other hand, are almost never harassed wherever they go; on the contrary, they gain a prominent position in the intelligentsia because their gifts of adding productive value for the common good give them this right. Countries where money counts more than what is produced are generally where Jews gain influence and spread subversive values, since if such a nation reflects on how to accumulate savings, they will lose power and influence.

Some Jews accumulate wealth through commerce and financial services, while the majority used to be rather poor though. That fact seems to be mostly overlooked. Jews engaged successfully in trade, because their community culture was rather helpful in this. They also realized the value of information or market research, advertising, etc. Things neglected by others for a long time. So with industrialization and growth of markets some Jews became extremely successful in business.

People didn't necessary bother about this. What bother folks was a change in business practices and also that Jews seemed to be more prone to use business practices considered unethical. You will however find various views on this in the literature.... If you deduct the rabidly hostile or white-knighting authors, you will however get a picture that gives a mixed review. The bad business practices aren't in dispute, but some authors will point out that a lot was simply commercial innovation and using advantage more eagerly than others...


It is untrue that Jews were prohibited from doing productive work. They were however not members of trade guilds in medieval times, since those had confessional requirements they did not comply with....

[TlsMS93]

.....

Exactly. It has a lot to do with the clash of mentalities between Jews and gentile nations. Some do not care how Jews get rich, while others may see this as an accumulation of influence that will not necessarily be for the collective good or will be used to subvert such collective good.

Take the German case, for example. Germans gave and give great importance to their productive creations, especially if it benefits their collective. In this case, what did the Jews as a collective do about this? What brand of engine, tire or other sophisticated item passed through Jewish hands? Perhaps one or another unnoticed invention, such as the creator of Ziklon B? But it is a needle in a haystack. They usually get rich through unconventional means of production, such as bank loans or middlemen, with the flimsy excuse that their countries have always denied them the right to work in productive roles. The State of Israel is modern largely thanks to the import of Western technology.

Germans, on the other hand, are almost never harassed wherever they go; on the contrary, they gain a prominent position in the intelligentsia because their gifts of adding productive value for the common good give them this right. Countries where money counts more than what is produced are generally where Jews gain influence and spread subversive values, since if such a nation reflects on how to accumulate savings, they will lose power and influence.

Some Jews accumulate wealth through commerce and financial services, while the majority used to be rather poor though. That fact seems to be mostly overlooked. Jews engaged successfully in trade, because their community culture was rather helpful in this. They also realized the value of information or market research, advertising, etc. Things neglected by others for a long time. So with industrialization and growth of markets some Jews became extremely successful in business.

People didn't necessary bother about this. What bother folks was a change in business practices and also that Jews seemed to be more prone to use business practices considered unethical. You will however find various views on this in the literature.... If you deduct the rabidly hostile or white-knighting authors, you will however get a picture that gives a mixed review. The bad business practices aren't in dispute, but some authors will point out that a lot was simply commercial innovation and using advantage more eagerly than others...


It is untrue that Jews were prohibited from doing productive work. They were however not members of trade guilds in medieval times, since those had confessional requirements they did not comply with....

Jewish innovations in these activities certainly affect the stability of countries and a lot of people go to economic ruin at the expense of privileged information or manipulating international connections to maintain privileges as the Jews did in 1933 demanding the resignation of Hitler and the return of their former positions of power within the country with the threat of boycott, something admitted and told even by their own people like Benjamin Freedman.

[Hektor]

.....

Exactly. It has a lot to do with the clash of mentalities between Jews and gentile nations. Some do not care how Jews get rich, while others may see this as an accumulation of influence that will not necessarily be for the collective good or will be used to subvert such collective good.
....since if such a nation reflects on how to accumulate savings, they will lose power and influence.

Some Jews accumulate wealth through commerce and financial services, while the majority used to be rather poor though. That fact seems to be mostly overlooked. Jews engaged successfully in trade, because their community culture was rather helpful in this. They also realized the value of information or market research, advertising, etc. Things neglected by others for a long time. So with industrialization and growth of markets some Jews became extremely successful in business. ....

Jewish innovations in these activities certainly affect the stability of countries and a lot of people go to economic ruin at the expense of privileged information or manipulating international connections to maintain privileges as the Jews did in 1933 demanding the resignation of Hitler and the return of their former positions of power within the country with the threat of boycott, something admitted and told even by their own people like Benjamin Freedman.

It depends. Overall Jews get mixed reviews. But people still could think rational about the matter. Most of their critics did deal pretty fairly with them.. But todays image is that those were all rabid, irrational Jew haters. While such folks existed, they were a tiny fraction of people and didn't have much influence neither...Ironically it was their reception in the Jewish press that actually may have drawn attention to their otherwise weak publications....

The development of German Jewish relations is quite interesting.
1. Prior to 1848 Jews were treated there as in any other occidental country. They had restrictions, but privileges as well. They were a community on their own. The could convert to Catholicism/Protestantism and the other way round was possible as well...
2. Under the Prussian Kaiser they were fully emancipated and treated rather benevolently... Although the Hohenzollern themselves weren't exactly Jew friendly, they treated them like anybody else.
3. During the first phase of WW1 most Jews sided with the Central Powers as they fought the Russian Empire, which they mostly hated.
4. This changed after the Revolution in Russia, Balfour Declaration, etc.
5. The German left was dominated by Jews or people with Jewish family. This applies also to lots of publicistic circles that were hostile to Germany under various disguises.
6. The early Weimar Republic asserted Jewish emancipation and they were able to fortify their positions. They were less harmed by inflation and actually often benefitted from the economic crisis and instability in Weimar.
7. The rises of the NSDAP got some backfiring there... And relations appear to become more toxic over time.
8. While Jews played some role in NS-agitation, their role is completely overestimated nowadays. Mostly they were picking on controversial Jewish figures and provoking reactions from the Jewish controlled press that way.
9. When the NSDAP took over Jews internationally became more hostile to Germany and Germans.

The later is mostly ignored nowadays. The picture is sketched were the Germans turned toxically hostile to Jews for no reason at all... And that's simply not true on several levels....

[ConfusedJew]

Numar Patru suggests that white people have an unfair advantage (implying public opinion is justified to counter this 'privileged' condition) but that "it's wrong to judge groups" (he says this in response to criticism toward Jews as a collective, rather than as individuals). To this, I have some questions for Numar Patru, let's call it an exercise:

1. If you believe whites have committed a disproportionately greater amount of abuses of power, and Jews relatively few, could any of this stem from Jewish disproportionate institutional [e.g. media] control?
2. Is it acceptable that people may organize themselves not only by immediate family but also according to tribe, ethnicity, culture, religion, etc.?
3. Is it not justifiable that families or collectives along these lines should typically share the benefits of their collective achievements?
4. In your opinion, does the collective behavior of whites (historically into present-day) warrant them having any particular advantages? Any at all?
5. In your opinion, does the collective behavior of Jews warrant them losing any advantages of what they (Jews) currently enjoy? As in, some accountability?

1. Jewish communities, historically, did not control state power. They were usually a minority without armies, police, or sovereign territory (until modern Israel). So historically, it’s true that state-level power abuses came overwhelmingly from dominant ruling classes, usually majority-Christian Europeans in the West.

It’s true that Jewish individuals have historically been visible in some professions: academia, publishing, media, law, finance.
However, Jews are not a monolithic bloc; they do not vote, think, or act in unison. In the US today, for example, major media companies are owned by corporations with diverse shareholders — not by a “Jewish cartel.” Power in modern societies is diffuse: wealth, corporate boards, governments, voters, regulatory agencies.

2. Yes, it is acceptable to organize by family, tribe, ethnic group, religion within lawful, peaceful, nonviolent means. Many communities preserve identity through religious institutions, cultural associations, language schools. This is a normal human social pattern. Problems arise when it shifts from cultural preservation to exclusion, forced assimilation, or scapegoating other groups. Notably, a culture based on one's skin color is really a very superficial bond.

3. It is generally legitimate for collectives to share benefits of collective achievement within limits. Families inherit wealth, communities pool resources for charity, education, or mutual aid. But legally and morally, modern societies do not permit collective punishment: e.g., taking away rights or property from an entire ethnic or religious group because of what some members do.

4. Modern democratic societies reject inherited racial privilege. In practice, European colonial expansion built systems of privilege that shaped today’s disparities. Many people argue that systemic inequality persists and should be corrected — e.g., through equal rights, anti-discrimination laws, and fair opportunity — not by creating new collective “advantages” for any race.

5. Justice is individual. If an individual commits fraud, prosecute them. If a politician or business group abuses power, regulate or sanction them. Taking away rights or wealth from all Jews because some are powerful or controversial is collective punishment — historically unjust and legally impermissible in modern states. A groups ancestry should not define their guilt or privilege.

Personally, I think the biggest advantage that Jews have is that they value education and knowledge which gives them a huge advantage in the modern world although that might change. You can't take away their knowledge or work ethic, but you can extend those cultural values to other groups.

Maybe there are other "privileges" that Jews have on average that could or should be extended more broadly. That's worth debating.

When is it ever ok to criticize whole groups of people based on their involuntary group membership?

It's "ok" when the expectation is for political systems to be so perfectly efficient as to seamlessly differentiate one member of an extremely-problematic collective from another (this is impossible). The fact is that Jews - based on hyper-ethnocentric and entitled, vindictive ideology at the core and tribal motivations even on the periphery - consistently, repeatedly replicate the same behaviors in every single nation they come to occupy (but especially Western nations, where their similar appearance to European peoples enables them to easily infiltrate and occupy any position in that society with limited suspicions/attention raised).

This is a moral issue. I personally don't believe that systematic collective punishment is acceptable. This is maybe a personal preference. But do you really want to held responsible for what your immediate family does?

The issue is not only that many (if not most) Jews overwhelmingly participate in subversive organizing and initiative at some capacity, but also the fact that there are zero comparable counter-initiatives by Jewish organizations on the areas of highest priority among Jews. There are no Jewish organizations specifically working against mass immigration into Western nations, for example, just like there are no major Jewish organizations heavily promoting the same third world mass immigration into Israel. This is just like how there are no major Jewish organizations which seek to work against Jewish over-representation (both in key position-holding and in initiatives and prioritization thereof) in sectors like media, finance, law, politics, elite academia, medicine, and any other area which is most critical and effective for subversive purposes aligning with the Jewish vision of a global future.

It is true that many Jewish communal organizations in the West broadly favor pluralistic immigration policies and civil rights, while supporting Israel’s right to maintain a Jewish-majority population under its own immigration laws. This reflects a political and historical preference for liberal democracy abroad and national identity at home — not a secret plan for infiltration or subversion.

The claim that “most Jews overwhelmingly participate in subversive organizing” is not supported by credible evidence. Jewish communities are politically diverse, internally disagree on major issues, and do not act as a unified bloc. Overrepresentation in certain professions results from historical urbanization, literacy, and networking — not a coordinated ethnic conspiracy.

No group typically lobbies to limit its own success; this is true for Jews, Protestants, Asians, or any other community. Critiquing real policy choices or lobbying positions is legitimate — but generalizing moral guilt to millions of ordinary people based on ancestry is historically, legally, and ethically unjustified.

If there are truly so many Jewish outliers who radically oppose these collective Jewish ambitions, why are they not utilizing their vast resources (given Jews have for many generations remained the wealthiest ethnic group) to counter these initiatives of the more corrupt, representative Jews?

The notion of "individualism-first" allows Jews to remain a strong collective while their 'enemies' (that is, their non-Jewish countrymen in any nation they occupy) open themselves up completely to subversion by seeing every person (and every Jew) solely as an individual and, thus, being entirely vulnerable to collective [covert, subversive] assaults upon the nation.

The truth is, I was a passionate advocate for individualism before I recognized this matter. Individualism only works if everybody agrees to it, sincerely. If this isn't the case, then the last remaining collectives become stronger than all of the rest.

I understand there may be questions I have missed or misunderstood on this matter, so I am open to challenges in this regard.

Cohesive subgroups like Jews can exploit fragmented societies but this is not a uniquely Jewish phenomenon. It’s a structural problem in pluralistic liberal orders. The fix is not to single out one group for collective punishment, but to ensure strong, fair institutions, free speech, and civic solidarity that can check any over-concentration of organized influence — corporate, religious, or ideological. Many Jewish thinkers themselves openly debate and criticize Jewish institutions. That’s proof that pluralism exists inside the community, not just outside it.

Democracies thrive when individual rights are balanced with robust civic institutions: courts, free press, plural parties, checks on lobbies, and transparency. The alternative — collective punishment or restrictions based on bloodlines — historically corrupts the rule of law and creates new forms of oppression. It doesn’t solve the collective-action problem; it replaces it with ethnic policing.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Jews DEFINITELY deserve to be criticised as a collective when it comes to the treatment of Palestinians.
If someone can’t acknowledge that it is an international Jewish collective that planned that, executed that, is still DOING that NOW, then they are clearly in denial.

Not only are Jews collectively perpetrating this ongoing, live-streamed genocide against neighbouring people BECAUSE they are non-Jews, but armies of jews collectively AND worldwide are ALSO lying, deceiving and denying it on social media and main-stream media by repeating zionist ‘hasbara’ misinformation and propaganda.

This collective behaviour is not something confined only to their support for their ethno-state-land-theft, ethnic-cleansing and colonisation programme in the Middle-East.
Nor has this collective attitude and behaviour been a phenomena of only the last eight decades since the quasi-legal creation of this colonial project. That phenomena of jews worldwide acting as a collective on certain self-serving issues has for long been referred to as ‘international jewry’.

Jews are programmed from infancy to support other jews above any other loyalties. There are even judaic laws* (Halakhah) requiring it. Supporting the genocidal occupation and ethnic cleansing in Palestine is just the most obvious example of this collective jewish behaviour.

Anyone who thinks referring to this collective phenomena is ‘anti-semitic’ has been brainwashed. As by their own reckoning, 90% of people around the world who self-identify as Jewish, wholeheartedly support the brutal treatment and mass-murder by jews of non-Jewish Palestinians, Iranians, Lebanese and Syrian because they are not jewish.

The organised Jewish community’s leadership, as well as prominent commentators like Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian, claim over and over again that polls show nine out of 10 British Jews support Israel – even if many apparently dislike its current government, the one before it and the one after it.
They support, it seems, Israel as some kind of abstraction, even as it openly and ever more ostentatiously oppresses and dispossesses the Palestinian people, besieges and intermittently kills civilians in Gaza, and is declared an apartheid state by leading human rights groups.
It makes as much sense as if I had supported apartheid South Africa 40 years ago but insisted I was not racist because I opposed the P W Botha government.
Not only that, but Freedland and other liberal Jews strenuously argue that Israel is at the core of their identity and that to criticise Israel is to criticise them. They argue that opposition from the progressive left to the political ideology of Zionism – an ideology that has entailed the colonisation of the Palestinians’ homeland and the dispossession of its people – is equivalent to hatred of Jews.
If this view is not widespread among the Jewish community, then either the media or the Jewish community itself have done an extremely good job of misleading us. Those Jews who take a contrary position, like those who supported Corbyn, invariably find themselves decried by other Jews, either explicitly or implicitly, as self-hating or the “wrong kind of Jew”.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/11/25 ... jason-lee/

* Halakhah, in Judaism, the totality of laws and ordinances that have evolved since ancient times to regulate religious observances and the daily life and conduct of the Jewish people. Quite distinct from the Law, or the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), Halakhah purports to preserve and represent oral traditions…

[Nessie]

"AI Overview
The collective fallacy refers to the mistaken idea that a group, as a whole, can be held morally responsible for actions that are the result of individual actions within that group, even if those individual actions don't all contribute to the collective outcome or if individuals within the group did not intend for the collective outcome. It's the assumption that a group's actions are more than the sum of its individual parts, and that the group can be treated as a single moral agent."

[ConfusedJew]

Jews DEFINITELY deserve to be criticised as a collective when it comes to the treatment of Palestinians.
If someone can’t acknowledge that it is an international Jewish collective that planned that, executed that, is still DOING that NOW, then they are clearly in denial.

Do you think that white people should be collectively criticized for anything? Should we blame all white people, or European descendants, for controlling the slave trade and owning slaves?

What about when European colonization led to mass deaths of Native American, First Nations, and Aboriginal populations through violence, forced displacement, intentional spread of disease, and cultural destruction. Millions of indigenous people died and some regions lost 80–90% of their pre-contact population.

What about when European empires (Belgian Congo under King Leopold II, British India during famines, German Southwest Africa) carried out mass killings, forced labor, and exploitation. They justified their actions with ideology of racial hierarchy and "civilizing missions". In some cases, entire societies were decimated: e.g., the Herero and Namaqua genocide (1904–1908) by Germany in Namibia.

Serious question.

[borjastick]

Jews DEFINITELY deserve to be criticised as a collective when it comes to the treatment of Palestinians.
If someone can’t acknowledge that it is an international Jewish collective that planned that, executed that, is still DOING that NOW, then they are clearly in denial.

Do you think that white people should be collectively criticized for anything? Should we blame all white people, or European descendants, for controlling the slave trade and owning slaves?

What about when European colonization led to mass deaths of Native American, First Nations, and Aboriginal populations through violence, forced displacement, intentional spread of disease, and cultural destruction. Millions of indigenous people died and some regions lost 80–90% of their pre-contact population.

What about when European empires (Belgian Congo under King Leopold II, British India during famines, German Southwest Africa) carried out mass killings, forced labor, and exploitation. They justified their actions with ideology of racial hierarchy and "civilizing missions". In some cases, entire societies were decimated: e.g., the Herero and Namaqua genocide (1904–1908) by Germany in Namibia.

Serious question.

Apples and pears mate, apples and pears.

[Nessie]

...
Apples and pears mate, apples and pears.

Double standards.

[borjastick]

...
Apples and pears mate, apples and pears.

Double standards.

Can't be bothered to spell it out but Nessie has, once again deliberately or otherwise, missed the point. It is not double standards so I would request that Nessie reads what was said in the above posts and thinks clearly about the implications and details of the matter.

[Callafangers]

Do you think that white people should be collectively criticized for anything? Should we blame all white people, or European descendants, for controlling the slave trade and owning slaves?

What about when European colonization led to mass deaths of Native American, First Nations, and Aboriginal populations through violence, forced displacement, intentional spread of disease, and cultural destruction. Millions of indigenous people died and some regions lost 80–90% of their pre-contact population.

What about when European empires (Belgian Congo under King Leopold II, British India during famines, German Southwest Africa) carried out mass killings, forced labor, and exploitation. They justified their actions with ideology of racial hierarchy and "civilizing missions". In some cases, entire societies were decimated: e.g., the Herero and Namaqua genocide (1904–1908) by Germany in Namibia.

Serious question.

Here's the thing, ConfusedJew: almost every single narrative that frames whites (Europeans) as especially cruel, tyrannical, or evil has been heavily exaggerated by Marxist (predominantly Jewish) scholars over the last century. Whether Leopold II in Belgium, the 'Herero holocaust', or any number of other alleged atrocities of 'colonialism', the claims commonly accepted are in stark contrast (and sometimes direct contradiction) to the complete picture accounting for and properly weighting all available evidence. Population losses were overwhelmingly to disease/epidemics (like the cattle disease epidemic which plagued the Hereros) yet, much like how the narrative has been portrayed of Native Americans (>90% of whom perished by disease in no way intended by European presence), these scheming liars/Marxists in historiography have distorted the truth to advance their war against 'Amalek' (Europeans).

One narrative about white European atrocities which I would not challenge, for the most part, is that against the native population of British India... but Adolf Hitler himself (among many other white people) also explicitly spoke out against these abuses. Thus, white people have certainly taken some accountability here.

More importantly: there are myriad movements led and promoted by white European people which explicitly speak out against and oppose all of the same cruelty and abuses (however true or not) that you describe here. There are millions of white people who speak out against the 'Holocaust', even, against transatlantic slavery, against slavery in general, and against white 'systemic racism' -- regardless of how baseless and bogus key aspects of any of these are. The point is, white organizations and people en masse have absolutely taken responsibility and accountability, empowering other groups they have felt guilt or sympathy for, etc. White people have also made extraordinary contributions, globally: the absolute best technology to-date comes from whites, the greatest infrastructure in any formerly-occupied third world nation (bridges, hospitals, irrigation, roads, etc.) comes from what whites built there, much of the wealth and eradication of disease and famine present in any of these nations comes directly or indirectly from what whites have done there. The abolition of slavery globally was a white initiative -- and a success.

Yet, despite Jews having killed far more people indisputably, and despite committing far greater abuses of theft and destruction (moral and physical) globally, and despite constant deception in global Jewish propaganda, and despite these actions continuing and even increasing in frequency and intensity into present-day, there are ZERO major Jewish organizations or movements which speak out or effectively counteract any of these Jewish-benefiting initiatives.

How do you explain this, ConfusedJew? Speak carefully -- you wouldn't want to expose your tribe as the sadistic cult that it truly is.

[ConfusedJew]

Apples and pears mate, apples and pears.

Why are they not comparable?

[ConfusedJew]

Here's the thing, ConfusedJew: almost every single narrative that frames whites (Europeans) as especially cruel, tyrannical, or evil has been heavily exaggerated by Marxist (predominantly Jewish) scholars over the last century. Whether Leopold II in Belgium, the 'Herero holocaust', or any number of other alleged atrocities of 'colonialism', the claims commonly accepted are in stark contrast (and sometimes direct contradiction) to the complete picture accounting for and properly weighting all available evidence. Population losses were overwhelmingly to disease/epidemics (like the cattle disease epidemic which plagued the Hereros) yet, much like how the narrative has been portrayed of Native Americans (>90% of whom perished by disease in no way intended by European presence), these scheming liars/Marxists in historiography have distorted the truth to advance their war against 'Amalek' (Europeans).

I'm not disputing that there are exaggerated narratives about Europeans but do you not think that many narratives about Jews are exaggerated or even simply false? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was used as motivation to kill a lot of Jews, is just one example.

I have never heard anybody call another group Amalek until very recently. This may be true of many Marxist scholars but Jews are certainly not the only Marxist scholars although Jews do tend to heavily represented in any kind of intellectual field although not necessarily any one ideology.

One narrative about white European atrocities which I would not challenge, for the most part, is that against the native population of British India... but Adolf Hitler himself (among many other white people) also explicitly spoke out against these abuses. Thus, white people have certainly taken some accountability here.

Hitler spoke out against it for propagandistic reasons to weaken the British who were enemies of the Nazis.

He didn’t oppose the concept of imperial conquest and racial subjugation as he wanted Germany to do the same in Eastern Europe. He envisioned Germans as a Herrenvolk (master race) colonizing “inferior” Slavic lands, expelling or enslaving local populations — mirroring, and in some ways exceeding, British colonial methods in India. In Mein Kampf and other writings, Hitler praised the British for maintaining racial superiority over subject peoples.

More importantly: there are myriad movements led and promoted by white European people which explicitly speak out against and oppose all of the same cruelty and abuses (however true or not) that you describe here. There are millions of white people who speak out against the 'Holocaust', even, against transatlantic slavery, against slavery in general, and against white 'systemic racism' -- regardless of how baseless and bogus key aspects of any of these are. The point is, white organizations and people en masse have absolutely taken responsibility and accountability, empowering other groups they have felt guilt or sympathy for, etc. White people have also made extraordinary contributions, globally: the absolute best technology to-date comes from whites, the greatest infrastructure in any formerly-occupied third world nation (bridges, hospitals, irrigation, roads, etc.) comes from what whites built there, much of the wealth and eradication of disease and famine present in any of these nations comes directly or indirectly from what whites have done there. The abolition of slavery globally was a white initiative -- and a success.

There are plenty of Jews who criticize what other Jews do, maybe far more than average groups. Disagreement, independent thought, and debate is deeply rooted in Jewish culture. This is partly why Jews rise in intellectual fields.

Yet, despite Jews having killed far more people indisputably, and despite committing far greater abuses of theft and destruction (moral and physical) globally, and despite constant deception in global Jewish propaganda, and despite these actions continuing and even increasing in frequency and intensity into present-day, there are ZERO major Jewish organizations or movements which speak out or effectively counteract any of these Jewish-benefiting initiatives.

How do you explain this, ConfusedJew? Speak carefully -- you wouldn't want to expose your tribe as the sadistic cult that it truly is.

How do you calculate that Jews have killed far more people than non Jewish whites? There are plenty of Jews that speak out against other Jews like I have said before. Norman Finkelstein, Peter Beinhardt, and Jewish Voices for Peace are just a small number of examples.

From what I have seen, there is nothing sadistic in Jewish culture. I don't know how you define a cult, while it tends to be somewhat insular, many persecuted minorities have developed insular cultures too.

[Callafangers]

I'm not disputing that there are exaggerated narratives about Europeans but do you not think that many narratives about Jews are exaggerated or even simply false? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was used as motivation to kill a lot of Jews, is just one example.

An unfathomably greater quantity are understated or unknown. Jews have been responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths that history does not hold them to account for, and for which they continue to perpetrate and collectively enable.

I have never heard anybody call another group Amalek until very recently. This may be true of many Marxist scholars but Jews are certainly not the only Marxist scholars although Jews do tend to heavily represented in any kind of intellectual field although not necessarily any one ideology.

You may be more secular as a Jew but the core ideology which binds your tribe collectively is centered around the traditions and commandments you share in common. All of your holidays are about taking revenge on your perceived enemies, 'remembering what they did to you', and remembering God's promises for you to inherit, enslave, and subordinate the entire planet.

One has zero trouble finding rabbinical consensus about the prophecies surrounding Edom, Amalek, etc., and how these views correlate present-day to Jewish collective behavior.

Hitler spoke out against it for propagandistic reasons to weaken the British who were enemies of the Nazis.

You're ascribing motive based on your own assumption -- what is proven is what Hitler said, what is not proven is your claim as to why.

He didn’t oppose the concept of imperial conquest and racial subjugation as he wanted Germany to do the same in Eastern Europe. He envisioned Germans as a Herrenvolk (master race) colonizing “inferior” Slavic lands, expelling or enslaving local populations — mirroring, and in some ways exceeding, British colonial methods in India. In Mein Kampf and other writings, Hitler praised the British for maintaining racial superiority over subject peoples.

"Master race" was never said and serious notions of subjugating Slavs came only after the desperation and exigencies of wartime. Himmler and others did hold a negative views of Slavs before then, and Hitler’s own pre-war writings reflected some belief in Slavic "inferiority", but there is nothing at all showing that Hitler endorsed subjugation before 1939 (and also some evidence to the contrary, e.g. the 1934 Non-Aggression Pact and his respect for Piłsudski). The pre-war focus was on broader geopolitical goals and ideological posturing, with Slavic subjugation becoming defined/actionable mainly in response to strategic needs as the war intensified. Your claims of Hitler's "imperial conquest" and "master racism" are therefore bunk, as is his desire for "racial subjugation" in general.

There are plenty of Jews who criticize what other Jews do, maybe far more than average groups. Disagreement, independent thought, and debate is deeply rooted in Jewish culture. This is partly why Jews rise in intellectual fields.

Total, unadulterated trash from you again ConfusedJew. Jews are the most ethnocentric and ideologically and politically consistent group in the history of human civilization and planet Earth.

You can lie through your teeth all you want, it has no power here.

How do you calculate that Jews have killed far more people than non Jewish whites? There are plenty of Jews that speak out against other Jews like I have said before. Norman Finkelstein, Peter Beinhardt, and Jewish Voices for Peace are just a small number of examples.

Norman Finkelstein has been denied tenure and generally persecuted for his views. Peter Beinhardt does not criticize Jews as Jews, nor even as Jewish organizations (he is a critic of Zionism). JVP is the same. Norman Finkelstein is basically your only relevant example, and only partly so, yet he is invalidated by the fact that he, too, has been persecuted and "shut down" by Jewish organizations and individuals.

Here's the critical point: despite all of the Jewish power that exists, not 0.001% of it is being used to expose Jewish schemes, to counteract Jewish power or initiatives, etc. Collectively, Jews are absolutely not (at any measurable scale) counteracting the Jewish problem. They are either perpetrators or enablers -- full stop.

From what I have seen, there is nothing sadistic in Jewish culture. I don't know how you define a cult, while it tends to be somewhat insular, many persecuted minorities have developed insular cultures too.

Uh-huh. Cool story bro.

"Trust me, I'm Jewish!"

Jews are absolutely a sadistic cult, by definition. Cutting apart and sucking on infant penises (see: Metzizah b'peh), ritual animal torture and sacrifices (purging sins through chickens, etc.), extremely violent revenge-themes in holidays like Purim and Hannukah and the Passover Seder, explicit commandments to commit genocide against people and children (wipe out Amalek), plans to subjugate all nations (see: Eruvin 43b), etc., and not to mention the religious themes attached directly to the mass slaughter against Palestinians. Jews are the most widespread and sadistic cult on the planet today -- again, full-stop.

This doesn't justify anything like wanton violence against Jews, of course -- it is simply stating a conclusive fact which is evidenced beyond any shred of doubt whatsoever.