Germany raids over 200 supected neo-Nazi premises

[Hugo Böse]

Originally Posted by Curious

Yes, but how do they manage to live on such a low income?

Amongst muds it is not unheard of that up to ten or more people live in a small apartment, which is often times subsidized by the government, the women who don’t work prepare meals out of scratch, so the cost of food is cheaper, these people also don’t have to pay for daycare because there are always relatives around who can take care of the spawn. If you live ten to an apartment you don’t spend much on big screen TVs, furniture, appliances and so on, your utility bills are also lower. These muddy types generally live in larger cities where they don’t need to have a car, which again saves money.

You must also take into consideration that large numbers of muds, even if they have papers, work illegally, they don’t pay any taxes, which in Europe can take up to half of your income.

In Germany, it is the Leftists that wave Israeli flags, while the Rightists wear Palestinian scarves, at least so I thought.

Depends on what kind of leftist, the hard core Marxist types will tend to wave Palestinian flags, the more mainstream left-liberal types are the ones who tend to have a hysterical fetish for the wonderful, moral and untouchable jewz. Regarding the rightists, in general I would guess they don’t like neither group, again it depends on what kind of rightist.

This might create tensions with other Muslims, especially North Africans in the Netherlands.

It’s always good to educate people about the jew, particularly muslims.

[Karl Lueger]

Originally Posted by Right is Right

I´ve never heard of such a thing, I have the impression that the Turks are not notably anti-semitic, might be that their country was deeply jewed at some stage in its history, I recollect reading that during the time of the Turkish empire jews were welcomed, there is even a rumor that Kemal Ataturk had some jew blood in him.

" In 1992, Turkish Jewry celebrated not only the anniversary of this gracious welcome, but also the remarkable spirit of tolerance and acceptance which has characterized the whole Jewish experience in Turkey. The events which were planned symposiums, conferences, concerts, exhibitions, films and books, restoration of ancient Synagogues etc. will commemorate the longevity and prosperity of the Jewish community. As a whole, the celebration aimed to demonstrate the richness and security of life Jews have found in the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic over more than five centuries and show that indeed it is not impossible for people of different creeds to live together peacefully under one flag."

esp. when defined by a common hatred of all things European...

http://www.naqshbandi.org/ottomans/p...protectors.htm

[Hugo Böse]

That is very interesting, I had no idea Turkey’s kosherness went to such depths. No wonder one hears that other muslims don’t like Turks.

[Curious]

Originally Posted by Right is Right

Depends on what kind of leftist, the hard core Marxist types will tend to wave Palestinian flags, the more mainstream left-liberal types are the ones who tend to have a hysterical fetish for the wonderful, moral and untouchable jewz. Regarding the rightists, in general I would guess they don’t like neither group, again it depends on what kind of rightist.

I was thinking Anti-Deutsche and Nationale Sozialisten.

Originally Posted by Karl Lueger

" In 1992, Turkish Jewry celebrated not only the anniversary of this gracious welcome, but also the remarkable spirit of tolerance and acceptance which has characterized the whole Jewish experience in Turkey. The events which were planned symposiums, conferences, concerts, exhibitions, films and books, restoration of ancient Synagogues etc. will commemorate the longevity and prosperity of the Jewish community. As a whole, the celebration aimed to demonstrate the richness and security of life Jews have found in the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic over more than five centuries and show that indeed it is not impossible for people of different creeds to live together peacefully under one flag."

esp. when defined by a common hatred of all things European...

http://www.naqshbandi.org/ottomans/p...protectors.htm

Originally Posted by Right is Right

That is very interesting, I had no idea Turkey’s kosherness went to such depths. No wonder one hears that other muslims don’t like Turks.

Nevertheless, Milli Görüs is said to spread 'anti-semitism'.

[Karl Radl]

Originally Posted by Right is Right

That is very interesting, I had no idea Turkey’s kosherness went to such depths. No wonder one hears that other muslims don’t like Turks.

Well although there has been no serious evidence advanced for the 'Young Turks' being crypto-jews (the best I've seen is newspaper clippings and they can't be considered 'evidence' of jude blood). The Ottoman Empire, i.e. modern day Turkey (well in essence), has a long history of philo-Semitism as does Islam in general actually, but the Ottomans are particularly bad. In so far as for a long time for example there were entire families of governors (I think one dynasty ruled over Syria for a few centuries) who were jews, a large proportion (if not most) of the Ottoman civil service were jews, the entire Ottoman Imperial Customs Service was jews (so much so that the official language for communicating between each post and officials was Hebrew), a good proportion of those who loaned money to the Ottoman's were jewish bankers (sometimes converts to Islam: often not) as well as a portion of those raised to noble status in the Ottoman Empire (like Duke Joseph [Mendes] Nasi for example) etc.

The famous (1492: I think) letter often cited in support of the Protocols signed by 'The Prince of the Jews' in fact refers to a particularly Islamic custom of appointing a personal representative to govern the jews in the Sultan's name. I forget the representative's actual title in the Ottoman Empire, but it was the Nagid in Egypt. The Ottomans worked very closely with the jews and this has survived in that Turkey is possibly Israel's only friend in the Middle East.

Just some additional background...

[Hugo Böse]

Originally Posted by Curious

Nevertheless, Milli Görüs is said to spread 'anti-semitism'.

I´ve seen these guys mentioned in the news before, I got the impression that the German government doesn´t like them very much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milli_Gorus

In 1975 the Turkish politician Necmettin Erbakan published a manifesto that he gave the title Millî Görüş, ‘The National Vision’. It spoke only in the most general terms of moral and religious education but devoted much attention to industrialization, development and economic independence. It warned against further rapprochement towards Europe, considering the Common Market to be a Zionist and Catholic project for the assimilation and de-Islamization of Turkey and called instead for closer economic co-operation with Muslim countries. The name of Millî Görüş would remain associated with a religio-political movement and a series of Islamist parties inspired by Mr. Erbakan, one succeeding the other as they were banned for violating Turkey’s laïcité legislation (sounds like something a kiked regime would do RisR). Following the ban of the Virtue (Fazilet) Party, a rift that had been developing in the movement resulted in two parties taking its place, the Felicity (Saadet) Party representing Erbakan’s old guard, and the Justice and Development (AK) Party led by younger and more pragmatic politicians around Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who claim to have renounced on a specifically Islamist agenda. The AK Party convincingly won the 2002 elections and formed a government with a strong popular mandate, that brought Turkey closer to acceptance of islamic law.

Among the Turkish immigrants in Western Europe, Milli Görüş became one of the major, if not the major, religious movement, controlling numerous mosques. Like the movement in Turkey, it went through some remarkable changes, not least because the first generation, which was strongly oriented towards what happened in Turkey, is gradually surrendering leadership to a younger generation that grew up in Europe and is concerned with entirely different matters. Milli Görüş’ public profile shows considerable differences from one country to the next, suggesting that nature of the interaction with the ‘host’ societies may have as much of an impact on its character as a religious movement as the relationship with the ‘mother’ movement in Turkey.
The movement has 300,000 European members.[1]

[Hugo Böse]

Originally Posted by Karl Radl

The famous (1492: I think) letter often cited in support of the Protocols signed by 'The Prince of the Jews' in fact refers to a particularly Islamic custom of appointing a personal representative to govern the jews in the Sultan's name. I forget the representative's actual title in the Ottoman Empire, but it was the Nagid in Egypt. The Ottomans worked very closely with the jews and this has survived in that Turkey is possibly Israel's only friend in the Middle East.
...

Didn’t Mohammed have major problems with jews, if I am not mistaken there are passages in the Koran damning these creatures, I recollect reading somewhere that Mohammed cleansed the entire Arabian peninsula of jews.

[Karl Radl]

Originally Posted by Right is Right

Didn’t Mohammed have major problems with jews, if I am not mistaken there are passages in the Koran damning these creatures, I recollect reading somewhere that Mohammed cleansed the entire Arabian peninsula of jews.

Not particularly: it depends how you read the Koran as I recall. It depended how Mohammed was feeling at the time [i.e. when the jews of two towns didn't capitulate to him he wrote some famous lines about jews being apes and pigs and such (I can check my copy if you like)]: the general English version printed today is the Wahabi version I believe (which is hostile to jews). Some of Mohammed's first converts were also jews as I recall as well: Oliver wrote an interesting appendix on it where he noted that the split between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims could be traced back to some said early jewish converts.

As for the Arabian peninsula as far as I know Mohammed left jewish settlements who didn't resist him and submitted to Islam alone and allowed them to worship in peace. He did make them pay a tax as non-Muslims however, but that's about it.

Historically however jews have never had it too bad under Islam, although von Leers (who later converted to Islam) suggested that they did by using the singular exception of Morocco (where they were confined to a ghetto type area under the Almohads for example) rather than the more general example of the Islamic world. In fact many of the 'scholars' quoted of Islamists and Arabs as proof of 'Islamic ingenuity' were jews usually living in Islamic Spain.

There has even been what Bernard Lewis, a Zionist jew incidentally, calls a 'Judeo-Islamic Synthesis' in that both religions and groups (jews and Arabs) have largely combined their efforts in a great many things and that this 'synthesis' was demonstrated by the tolerance of jews by Arabs when they were walled up and occasionally slaughtered in Europe as well as that both religions and groups have borrowed heavily from each other. In fact Christians were more often the target of Islamic rage than jews as far as I know.

[Curious]

Originally Posted by Karl Radl

Oliver wrote an interesting appendix on it where he noted that the split between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims could be traced back to some said early jewish converts.

Abdullah Ibn Saba

Originally Posted by Karl Radl

Historically however jews have never had it too bad under Islam, although von Leers (who later converted to Islam) suggested that they did by using the singular exception of Morocco (where they were confined to a ghetto type area under the Almohads for example) rather than the more general example of the Islamic world. In fact many of the 'scholars' quoted of Islamists and Arabs as proof of 'Islamic ingenuity' were jews usually living in Islamic Spain.

There has even been what Bernard Lewis, a Zionist jew incidentally, calls a 'Judeo-Islamic Synthesis' in that both religions and groups (jews and Arabs) have largely combined their efforts in a great many things and that this 'synthesis' was demonstrated by the tolerance of jews by Arabs when they were walled up and occasionally slaughtered in Europe as well as that both religions and groups have borrowed heavily from each other. In fact Christians were more often the target of Islamic rage than jews as far as I know.

Kevin MacDonald says that jews were kept at a shorter leash than in Christian Europe, but anyway, nowadays, I think the muslims regret any tolerance they shew the jews.

[Karl Radl]

Originally Posted by Curious

Abdullah Ibn Saba

That'd be the chap I do believe.

Kevin MacDonald says that jews were kept at a shorter leash than in Christian Europe, but anyway, nowadays, I think the muslims regret any tolerance they shew the jews.

Well to be honest: I don't rate MacDonald's grasp of jewish history since it is more than a little muddled IMO and I contend his theory of ethnocentrism (I argue that egocentrism is the key not ethnocentrism and that MacDonald is only talking in what can seem to be not what is) is incorrect (since it doesn't explain quite a lot of things). Although that said his three books and several articles are valuable as contributions to the literature and highly original in their thought. However that is besides the point.

European Christians (you have to distinguish between them and the Arabic and polygot Christians) have kept jews on a much shorter leash historically than Muslims: I think for largely biological reasons (since European pagans did precisely the same and this practice was only developed further and made systematic by the advent of Christianity as the religion of Europe). Arabs are closely related to jews so to them jews are just part of the family with a different religion: yes that leads to the odd religious-based purge, but not race war as in the conflict between Europa and der ewige jude. Jews make sense to Arabs and vice versa (which is why incidentally why there is a lot of cross over between the two).

However the Arab (i.e. more or less the Muslim) is not actually anti-jewish: he is anti-Zionist. They don't particularly care about jews per se. What they are opposed is the existence of a non-Islamic state in the middle of what they consider to be the Islamic world, killing their Arab kin (Palestinians) and restricting Muslim access to Islamic holy sites in Israel (such as the Dome of the Rock, which quite a few jews want to blow up to rebuild their temple). All Islamists seem to actually want is to put jews under Islamic law again: otherwise they don't seem to bothered about them other than when they are Israelis and/or Zionists.

You can see they aren't anti-jewish in actuality when for example you've had left wing Israeli historians convert to Islam, marry an Arab girl and be accepted as part of the Arab community. You've also got plenty of jews running around the anti-Zionist Arab community (for example one of Al-Qaeda's spokesmen is a jew convert) and the House of Saud (the main proponents of 'Islamic anti-Semitism' according to the jews) is debatably descended from jews (a jewish trader and/or jewish Bedouins who moved to Saudi Arabia supposedly).

[Vaughn]

Originally Posted by Karl Radl

Well to be honest: I don't rate MacDonald's grasp of jewish history since it is more than a little muddled IMO and I contend his theory of ethnocentrism (I argue that egocentrism is the key not ethnocentrism and that MacDonald is only talking in what can seem to be not what is) is incorrect (since it doesn't explain quite a lot of things). Although that said his three books and several articles are valuable as contributions to the literature and highly original in their thought. However that is besides the point.

I've read his three books. What are some problems you see with his arguments, I'm curuous?

[Karl Radl]

Originally Posted by Vaughn

I've read his three books. What are some problems you see with his arguments, I'm curuous?

They don't explain the numerous exceptions to his rule of ethnocentrism, nor the rabbinics, it doesn't offer cogent explanation of internal jewish spats (which are common and even more fierce than their polemics against outsiders), the fractious nature of jews in general or their cultural concepts, which do not display ethnocentric characteristics (such as chutzpah and schmoozing for example: i.e. where jews con each other). Nor most importantly do they really fit with jewish history or with the phenomenon of hofjude (court jews) or the jewish banking dynasties etc. Nor do they really fit with the jewish stories of the Torah or Tanakh too well either unless you are taking them very loosely.

I can post a small part of the rough first draft of an article I am writing if you like since it should help explain some of the objections I have in more detail.

[Vaughn]

Originally Posted by Karl Radl

I can post a small part of the rough first draft of an article I am writing if you like since it should help explain some of the objections I have in more detail.

Yes, that would be good. I'd like to see what you have to offer.

[Curious]

Originally Posted by Karl Radl

That'd be the chap I do believe.



Well to be honest: I don't rate MacDonald's grasp of jewish history since it is more than a little muddled IMO and I contend his theory of ethnocentrism (I argue that egocentrism is the key not ethnocentrism and that MacDonald is only talking in what can seem to be not what is) is incorrect (since it doesn't explain quite a lot of things). Although that said his three books and several articles are valuable as contributions to the literature and highly original in their thought. However that is besides the point.

European Christians (you have to distinguish between them and the Arabic and polygot Christians) have kept jews on a much shorter lease historically than Muslims: I think for largely biological reasons (since European pagans did precisely the same and this practice was only developed further and made systematic by the advent of Christianity as the religion of Europe). Arabs are closely related to jews so to them jews are just part of the family with a different religion: yes that leads to the odd religious-based purge, but not race war as in the conflict between Europa and der ewige jude. Jews make sense to Arabs and vice versa (which is why incidentally why there is a lot of cross over between the two).

However the Arab (i.e. more or less the Muslim) is not actually anti-jewish: he is anti-Zionist. They don't particularly care about jews per se. What they are opposed is the existence of a non-Islamic state in the middle of what they consider to be the Islamic world, killing their Arab kin (Palestinians) and restricting Muslim access to Islamic holy sites in Israel (such as the Dome of the Rock, which quite a few jews want to blow up to rebuild their temple). All Islamists seem to actually want is to put jews under Islamic law again: otherwise they don't seem to bothered about them other than when they are Israelis and/or Zionists.

You can see they aren't anti-jewish in actuality when for example you've had left wing Israeli historians convert to Islam, marry an Arab girl and be accepted as part of the Arab community. You've also got plenty of jews running around the anti-Zionist Arab community (for example one of Al-Qaeda's spokesmen is a jew convert) and the House of Saud (the main proponents of 'Islamic anti-Semitism' according to the jews) is debatably descended from jews (a jewish trader and/or jewish Bedouins who moved to Saudi Arabia supposedly).

Islamic 'anti-Semitism' isn't race-based. But neither is non-Identity Christian 'anti-Semitism'.

How many Arabs convert to Judaism, after the rise of Islam?

[Karl Radl]

Originally Posted by Curious

Islamic 'anti-Semitism' isn't race-based. But neither is non-Identity Christian 'anti-Semitism'.

That's debatable actually: for example the Spanish Church and Aristocracy had a purity of the blood doctrine (I forget the Spanish name off hand) from the Visigothic era onwards, which stated that if you had Moor or jude descendents then you were not to be trusted and given rank in the Church.

The stumbling block in Christianity has always been the issue of baptism and whether it wipes out bad intentions/seed line/racial biology.

As it happens in the 19th century there arose a branch of Protestantism known as the 'German Christians', if I recall correctly, who mixed racial science with Christianity. Another example would be Nietzche's sister (Elisabeth) and her husband, Bernhard Foerster, who combined racialism, nationalism and Christianity. All this was a long time before Identity Christianity (I am discounting BI here) was even born of course.

Then you have people like Luther who suggested that jews were born from an evil seedline in his 'On the Jews on their Lies' and therefore would never be genuine converts. You also have the unofficial policies with the Catholic Church, which were to stop jude converts achieving positions of power (the battle inside Catholicism between anti-Semites, like myself and EG, and philo-Semites is a whole story in itself).

Just to give a few general examples of my point.

In Islam there is far less of this in that Islam has never really, to my knowledge, ever sought to purge itself of jude converts, while European Christianity has. The point is simply that race plays a key factor in religious understanding in that if an alien convert comes into the group then they, regardless of what official doctrine may say, will usually react suspiciously to them. However with Islam, because the jew and Arab are close genetic kin, there isn't that inbuilt aversion.

How many Arabs convert to Judaism, after the rise of Islam?

I don't know any accurate figures in the literature, but there are some examples of it that have been cited in the Ottoman Empire for example. However at a guess I doubt it would have be very many, because Judaism is a much more strict theology, in terms of what you can and cannot do, than Islam is [as I understand Islam anyway].

However I don't see what this has so much to do with anything: since I was talking about intellectual and cultural crossover, which is what Judeo-Islamic Synthesis refers to.

[bmwbiker]

Originally Posted by Right is Right

That is very interesting, I had no idea Turkey’s kosherness went to such depths. No wonder one hears that other muslims don’t like Turks.

Turks and Jews are like brothers....they mixing, loving, atacking together...and for long time ago.

Croatia was land who stoped Turks to envade Europe..for that glorious war which is last for 400 years, Croatia was gained from Popes name "wall of christianity"..and still is..

Intresting thing about Turks is that Turks was responsibile for making Izrael into desert...Izrael was forest land, with worm clima with big pastures and forests of Lebanonian Cedar....Turks cut all Cedar for ships and disorting micro clima so then Izrael become desert.
In fact of that all, Jews love Turks...that is true love

[Curious]

Originally Posted by Karl Radl

That's debatable actually: for example the Spanish Church and Aristocracy had a purity of the blood doctrine (I forget the Spanish name off hand) from the Visigothic era onwards, which stated that if you had Moor or jude descendents then you were not to be trusted and given rank in the Church.

Limpieza de sangre

Originally Posted by Karl Radl

However I don't see what this has so much to do with anything: since I was talking about intellectual and cultural crossover, which is what Judeo-Islamic Synthesis refers to.

Most surely; consider the concepts shittuf and shirk; milhemet and jihad; lashon hara and ghiba.

As a sidenote; would you consider Christian Identity part of the Judeo-Islamic Synthesis, or part of mainstream Christendom?

[Eilert]

German nationalists are obviously doing something right . . .

[Karl Radl]

Originally Posted by Curious

Limpieza de sangre

Again: thank you that was the term I was thinking of.

Most surely; consider the concepts shittuf and shirk; milhemet and jihad; lashon hara and ghiba.

I am most familar with milhemet: I presume you mean milhemet mitzvah (defensive war) rather the milhemet reshut (authorised war of expansion)? Since as far as I know jihad is a defensive war although it depends on the definition of what defensive is I suppose (since I've read of some Imams trying to extend this to mean 'war in defense of Islam' i.e. a war of conquest/pre-emptive strike rather than merely a defense of Islamic land).

As a sidenote; would you consider Christian Identity part of the Judeo-Islamic Synthesis, or part of mainstream Christendom?

Personally I would classify them as a fringe Protestant group within Christendom with some leanings towards Calvinist and Dispensationalist thought. It also depends on what Identity Church you are looking at, because some for example reject the Book of Esther from the Old Testament, while others seem to include it.

I must admit though: although I've got a plethora of e-books by Swift as well as various CI theologians and preachers. I haven't gone through them yet so I am merely giving my general impressions from a brief review of the ideas and theology.

As for Judeo-Islamic synthesis perhaps a good representation there-of might be suggested to be Sufism since although again I haven't looked into Sufism in any great detail: it seems to share the same basic forms as mystical Judaism, which was around in the areas in which it originated and it has certainly come into heavy contact with jews and hence jewish ideas about mysticism (you can see some direct similarities to the concept of the Shekinah as well as the use of the 'names of God' in Judaism to the Dhikr and Muraqaba for example).

[Curious]

Originally Posted by Karl Radl

I am most familar with milhemet: I presume you mean milhemet mitzvah (defensive war) rather the milhemet reshut (authorised war of expansion)? Since as far as I know jihad is a defensive war although it depends on the definition of what defensive is I suppose (since I've read of some Imams trying to extend this to mean 'war in defense of Islam' i.e. a war of conquest/pre-emptive strike rather than merely a defense of Islamic land).

If you were a muslim, would you consider taking over the West to be defensive warfare, after all, the West is complicit with Zionism?