Here's a fun fact for you: Ashkenazi were traditionally from the region of the ancient Germanic tribes. They were and are Aryan. Their ancestors too came from the Caucasus region. The problem with ethnicizing "Jews" is they iterate through maternal lines. Again, there are no "ethnic Jews". The whole point is to override ethnic groups. There is no tribe. This is why they're called parasites.
Ok, the real Phoenician Israelites were "Aryan," to me that is obvious, just because of what is written in the Bible. If the Jews wrote it they wouldn't need an additional book to warp it to suite their nature.
Nice. Not many actually make these kinds of connections.
It's not as if you are doing a very good job naming specifics.
Maybe you're right, but I get dissuaded by the tedium of doing this over and over. I find it easier to just use "Jews" to express that the term sucks. Besides, most people get all twisted up in this antagonizing cycle of "you can't disagree about Jews" and quickly abandon any actual argument about it. Maybe I'm just falling in to the posture cycle too.
They are not a race, but they are an ethnic group. https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2021/01/03/are-ashkenazi-jews-white-european/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-descend-from-350-people-study-finds/
They use "Ashkenazi" to mean that they are the Jews that mixed with the descendants of Ashkenaz. They are large-part "MENA". Arabs/ Turks/ Palestinians etc.
They do override other ethnic groups, yeah. I assumed that was either because of their epigenetics (they are predisposed to certain mental issues like schizophrenia) or because of severe conditioning. If it's conditioning it's like a cycle of abuse. I suppose we don't call mixed people an "ethnic group" we call them mulattos and so on, but they've been a distinct group for so long that they've been solidified as one.
Well, it sounds a lot better than, "parasites with unique genetic mechanisms". But, in terms of classical definitions, they don't exactly fit the criteria. Even then, the "Jews" you hear about in public spheres are used as a smokescreen, just like Jesuits use their shabbos goy puppet "Catholics" as a guise for their agenda.
I don't think the individuals can simultaneously hold wealth & influence and be completely anonymous. Even if they aren't in the spotlight, they can still be traced, it's just that they rely on people's "denazification" conditioning to not notice patterns and go about researching such things.
(post is archived)