Skip to main content

The Biggest Irony in History. There Are Few Semites In Israel, Only In Palestine, Israel Are The Antisemites.

The Creeping Death Strategy that MSM keeps silent on is a genocide against true Semites

There are few descendants of the Israelite tribe or the Hebrews from the old testament that have been settled in Israel by the British Bankers who created the State of Israel, 
90% percent of Israeli's (and every single PM of Israel there has been) are Ashkenazi Jews from Europe and Asia, or the Russia steppes of Georgia which used to be known as Khazaria, The king of Khazaria converted the nation to Judaism in the 8th Century as a political move after finding the nation caught between the Christian and Islamic movements and wishing to remain affiliated and risk his nation being targeted by either side. The Semites from the bible days are not Khazar/Europe/Asian descendant outsiders moved to Israel from various backgrounds who happen to be of the Jewish faith (Those who were moved in after the war by the British bankers). No, the Semites are the modern day Palestinians (and a few Syrians, Jordanians and Egyptians) who remained there from biblical times and are the only true Semites. 

It follows logically, and is A FACT that Antisemitism, if being used accurately, when applied in a general sense (not referring to small pockets of the population like in Israel) can only apply to treatment of the Palestinians. Since Israel is the biggest know perpetrator of human rights violations against the Palestinians it means that Israel are, in reality, the biggest Antisemitic force on the planet!

And now you know.


Popular posts from this blog

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

First and foremost,  what is this so called 'consensus' anyway.  You will be horrified to find out,  it's not specifically that global warming is man made.  It's simply that humans contribute to climate change in an unknowable way and to…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.

Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…

You Don't Know What Capitalism Is So Stop Using The Word!

I am writing this for one purpose, to be able to post it every time the issue comes up in conversation to prevent myself from dying of boredom on a few key issues with label intellectuals, you know, the sort who drop labels for the singular purpose of demonstrating their talent at dodging real issues by posing as someone who knows the definition of a word.

When it comes right down to it, I personally think most economic and, for that matter, socio-economic systems across the entire capitalism/ socialism spectrum could work if corruption could just be reasonably controlled.  Many forget that Socialism still runs on the capitalism economics system and the finer points actually come down to policy and regulations. This is often missed.  That being said, I am fairly sure that many of the criticisms of communism for example are valid, and views that it does not work especially well because it tends to kill the inventiveness and passion of the human spirit do stand, but not for the reasons…