Have this been debunked?

...

you can gain Israeli citizenship by demonstrating your Jewishness through a genetic test. Judaism is more than a religion.

jews are the original atheists since they have no souls

So Israel believes in and enforces the Nuremberg Laws on Jewish racial identity.

Doesn't change what I said one bit. If you don't believe in the Torah and if you don't believe in God, you're not a Jew, simple as that.

Spbp

That’s wrong accoding to Judaism and most Orthodox Jews

It's self-debunking, just check the sources.

jews are atheists
have you looked into every source?

>no argument

>have you looked into every source?
I'm only missing Snyder. Judging by trustworthiness of people who make such infographics it's quite possible data attributed to him are either manipulated or completely made up.

Reminds me of this, someone posted it several weeks ago so i added all info, Iam not real sure how are some German Architects or American musicians related to Stalin or Jews tho

Most common consensus is that you remains a jew but you are less likely to have an afterlife than a goy.

>not real person
What did he mean by this?

Stalin saw what the jews had in plan with the Bolshevik revolution, so he pretended to be with them for a bit, got in power, quickly purged all the jews and saved the white race and Russia before it got jewified. God bless Stalin

>you can gain Israeli citizenship by demonstrating your Jewishness through a genetic test

no you can't. law of return doesn't work that way. stop talking from your ass, retard.

>quickly purged all the jews

Wew, user. Just because your little theory about USSR being Jewish can quickly be dismantled by Stalin's purge doesn't mean you can just jump to another stupid black and white theory that treats Jews as some singular hivemind.

It’s undeniably true that the number of Jews in the Soviet government has been drastically reduced by the Stalinist purges and that Stalin has deliberately targeted Jews

He purged everyone, Jews were just harder to replace. Plus he left some Jews in fairly high positions (namely Kaganovich) and often used Jews to kill Jews.

Only nation that was targeted openly and explicitly were the Pollacks.

The Jewish religion is carnal and materialistic. Hence why they rejected Christ: they wanted the saviour to be THEIRs and only theirs, and they wanted him to be a great king whose kingdom was of THIS world.

I don't think you understand the jewish religion if you don't recognise how materialistic it is. Jews are supposed to be rewarded for their actions IN THIS world, not in the next.

And yet jews who don't believe constantly refer to themselves as "Jewish", strange.

>infographs
>600 page books but no page number

Stalin purged the Jews and the Soviet Union became more nationalistic and less of a "permanent revolution" internationalist threat as a result (inane American propaganda aside).

Stalin, as bad as he was, did the world a favour. Trotsky was much worse, and his intellectual descendents (the American neocons--also jewish) are still wreaking havoc to bring about their world utopia today.

>Stalin purged the Jews and the Soviet Union became more nationalistic
Are you Burger or something? Stalin ended Korenizatsiya and only started with nationalistic propaganda with Great Patriotic War.

> Trotsky was much worse, and his intellectual descendents (the American neocons--also jewish)
Oh wait, you are legit retard.

>Stalin has a huge power struggle with the rest of the Soviet leadership.
>A lot of Jews end up dead.
Huh

> Jews are supposed to be rewarded for their actions IN THIS world, not in the next.

Literally the opposite of a bible lesson I remember from school.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Opposition

Most of those either had nothing to do with opposition at all, submitted to Stalin or even stood on his side during his struggle against Trotski.

>Jews are supposed to be rewarded for their actions IN THIS world, not in the next
>what is Olam Ha-ba?

The more you /pol/tards talk about jews, the more you show you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

you're thinking of the New Testament

Sorry, but are you saying that the neocons aren't predominantly jewish, or that Trotsky didn't want permanent revolution (i.e. the most destructive and subversive of all Marxist doctrines), or that the neocons don't trace their intellectual origins back to Trotsky?

I think you'll find that all those things are true, and Irving Kristol (and others) were former Trotskyists who basically saw the US as the new engine with which to bring about radical worldwide change (i.e. utopian thinking).

Sounds to me like you might be one of those retards who goes "hurr durr if it was Trotsky instead of Stalin communism would've worked"

>Olam haBa (afterlife) is rarely discussed in Jewish life, be it among Reform, Conservative, or Orthodox Jews. This is in marked contrast to the religious traditions of the people among whom the Jews have lived.

>In contrast, the Torah is obsessed with this world, so much so that it even forbids its priests from coming into contact with dead bodies (Leviticus 21:2).

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/afterlife-in-judaism

To the extent that they believe in the "afterlife" they mostly believe in triumphal resurrection. I didn't say the concept was completely absent: i said it is non-important and their focus is on the temporal, in strict contrast to the other religions. IF you can't see how this makes them more carnal and materialistic then you are braindead.

Jews are an ethno-religious group.

...

I don't really give a fuck about about American politics or your little conspiracy theory, however claiming linearity between Trotski and the American neocons is plainly retarded. Even in the most critical question of "Jewishness" they were in different camps, Trotski being follower of Marx who wanted to erase Jewish identity and Neocons supporting the state of Israel.

And don't derail the thread no further with this neocon nonsense and focus on Russia.

3 to 5 are really poor sources; likely to be biased and ignorant.

1 to 2 are more interesting but upon further examination it's really hard to imagine the Cheka/OGPU/NKVD as a Jewish organisation when the only Jewish head in its entire existence was Yagoda, who was purged quickly because he was deemed incompetent or unwilling by Stalin.

That having been said, Jews were greatly overrepresented in the Old Bolshevik notables. But then so were Poles, Armenians, Georgians, etc. The thing they had in common was that they were individuals from the second rate minorities of the Empire who had decent access to education and urban environments but also nationalism and natural resenment for the Russification policies, which could easily have pushed them towards the endemic radical ideologies as young men in the early 1900s.

And nearly all of them were exterminated by Stalin (unlike the Caucasians) anyway.

>completely ignoring the point
>realising you can't refute it so resorting to "i don't give a fuck"

You do know that childishly calling something a "conspiracy theory" doesn't invalidate it don't you? The ideological affinities between neocons and trots are stark and obvious to anyone that has read into them; a large amount of the neocons are ex-Trots who never changed their way of thinking for that very reason. They both believe in the fantasy of their being a kind of "end of history" (communism in one case, liberal democratic capitalism on the other), and seek to spread this supposedly enlightened doctrine through extreme military force--they care nought for people's local traditions and heritages, and think you can fit their universal model for the future and for "progress" onto the entire world.

Effectively, they are religious fanatics with an ideological screed as their religion. Whether they claim religion or not is completely irrelevant. They support Israel why? Because Israel is their equivalent of a Communist country in a region filled with hostil actors who want to destroy the fruits of the revolution (just a liberal-democratic Americanist revolution rather than a communist one).

They are both fundamentally Marxist in nature, being materialistic and steeped in the ideology of progress, the right side of history, the end of history, universalism, and so on. You can draw a direct line from one type of thinking to the other. I can only assume you have't really looked into it. Even in the UK most of the neocon who supported the Iraq war were former Marxists, and many of them also Jewish (Nick Cohen, David Aaranovitch, Melanie Phillips). Though it is clear American jewish power was the engine for this development. They always want world revolution for some reason--ask them why.

what's the source on this graph? did the ussr perform a public census every year on its ethnic groups? i'm doubtful

Of course it has been debunked.
Listing ENTIRE BOOKS as your source, rather than page numbers, is how you operate if you're spewing bullshit and need to cover up your traces.
hoax quote

...

>be persecuted and pogrom'd for centuries by the regime
>100 years later autists on a Belarusian Goatriding Forum are surprised you take up arms against said regime the first time opportunity arises

The USSR didn't do any census early on since they rejected the idea of ethnicity and at first even that of a state.

>lenin was russian
>trotski was jewish
>stalin was georgian
>frunze was moldavian

There was a census in 1926 or 1927.

>completely ignoring the point
Your "point" is entirely irrelevant to the topic. It's just another wikipedia-fueled Dunning Kruger in action.

>realising you can't refute it so resorting to "i don't give a fuck"
Really? You derail thread about history of USSR with some nonsense about American politics you made up in your head after browsing wikipedia for two hours and claim victory when people are not interested in American politics?

>They both believe in the fantasy of their being a kind of "end of history"
Holy Hegel, how unique. We must stop them and bring back cyclical perception of time@!

>They support Israel why? Because Israel is their equivalent of a Communist country in a region filled with hostil actors who want to destroy the fruits of the revolution
Thats some next level bullshitery. Right wing support for Israel is based on either racist or geopolitical claims.

>They are both fundamentally Marxist in nature
brainlet.jpeg

Ethnically focused?

Yes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_All-Union_Census_of_the_Soviet_Union

This is very interesting. How precise was this, I find it kind of hard to believe there were only 2 million Georgians and 4 million Uzbeks?

>muh dunning-kruger
>makes no argument
>thinks he's smart

What an utter brainlet you are. And no, it's completely relevant to bring up what is currently the most powerful version of Marxist thinking still operating in the world today.

>right wing support of Israel

Imagine thinking universalist (and materialistic) liberal democrats are "right wing"--this couldn't be more antithetical to right wing thought.

>Holy Hegel

Hegel was not a materialist. These things are not comparable.

>cyclical perception of time
>of time

You are a literal retard.

>muh dunning-kruger
Yup, that's where you fall in. I saw way too many of your types in here to identify what's happening. Want me to name some of their theories?

>>And no, it's completely relevant to bring up what is currently the most powerful version of Marxist thinking still operating in the world today.
>Modern American politics are relevant to pre-WW2 USSR history
>Capitalism is the most powerful version of Marxism

>Imagine thinking universalist (and materialistic) liberal democrats are "right wing"--this couldn't be more antithetical to right wing thought.
Yea, dude. Right wing thinking totally didn't flipped to materialistic, liberal democracy over the course of 20th century.

>These things are not comparable.
Totally not, neither is Jesus or Fukuyama. It's only communist Jews who push this shit.

>You are a literal retard.
Because you couldn't comprehend a joke aimed at you? Interesting way of through.

I think we need a new formulation of "Dunning-Kruger" at this point.

"Morons who think they're super-intelligent and sophisticated because they read Howard Zinn and Jared Diamond resort to citing the Dunning-Kruger effect whenever they are bamboozled by an argument they are too stupid and too poorly-educated to understand."

>muh you don't agree with me, and only stupid people disagree with me: it must be that blasted dunning-kruger effect at work again!!

t. brainlet incapable of grasping anything outside of their own extremely narrow-minded and quasi-educated perspective.

These are usually the same sorts of people who start arguments with "science says" and other absurd inanities.

When you cite a book written by a NSDAP member in 1936 talking about the jews in the Soviet Union as a legitimate source don't expect to be taken seriously at least

>Yea, dude. Right wing thinking totally didn't flipped to materialistic, liberal democracy over the course of 20th century

This is antithetical to all right wing thought. It didn't "flip" (as if that which is claimed to be based on immutable principles, on the hierarchies of nature, "eternal truths" on the metaphysical, and so forth, can suddenly flip into being materialistic and constantly changeable).

What you are calling "right-wing thinking" here is just another brand of liberal thought, which is by its very nature not right wing, being radical and egalitarian in nature. It is not conservative, it is not hierarchical, and it is not right wing. Try embracing a worldview that isn't completely anchored to viewing all of human history from a 50-100 year perspective of complete myopia.

Conservatives and right wing people have in all times and all places opposed the rule of merchant interests, the merchant class, and the elevation of economics to the supreme value--this is a liberal and marxist obsession, and just because modern discourse is dominated by these perspectives, that does not make them right wing.

What is right wing changes from country to country and from time to time.

>Conservatives and right wing people have in all times and all places opposed the rule of merchant interests
Too bad, that's like early 19th century, pal. In 20th century and especially during the cold war it was the left which opposed """merchant interests""".

>and just because modern discourse is dominated by these perspectives, that does not make them right wing.
Yes it does. Left-right dichotomy is a PRACTICAL distinction based on the fact in most countries there are always two opposing sides with somewhat simmiliar qualities.

What makes you think your fringe Evola-tier definition of 'right wing' is the proper one? It's not like the definition of right-wing was patented in the French Revolution and unavailable to any other use later troughout history. It wasn't even defined as you are defining it now.

Also
>Liberalism is anti-hierarchical
>Muh rule of merchant interests
Make up your mind.

Oh, and why are those ruling merchants not 'natural hierarchies'?

Because that guy isn't a merchant.

>Less than 50 Jewish victims
>All in some sort of position of power within the Bolshevik party
>compared to over 20 million Whites, kulaks and Ukrainians murdered by Bolsheviks before WWII

My point is that I think it'd be coherent for an anarchist to describe a hierarchy, any hierarchy for that matter, as un-natural (from a theoretical point of view, anarchism is an unfeasible meme) but for someone who actually believes in muh natural hierachies to claim those merchants ruling entails an 'un-natural hierarchy' sounds rather arbitrary. It's the kind of thing I'd expect from some butthurt aristocrat who fell out of power who thinks he totally represents a natural hierachy unlike those sneaky merchants.

Interesting observation, have you considered that it might have been a list of random VIPs?

>Whites, kulaks and Ukrainians
Kek, that's like the most retarded way to describe victims of USSR.

No, the most retarded is saying they murdered 20 million Christians.

>before the war
No. And most of them were not murdered by rather starved to death. Famines killed more people than Gulags and executions. And of course more Jews died in the Soviet Union, those are only the communist Jews killed in the purges. After the SU invaded Poland Polish Jewish officers were killed in Katyn, many Jewish families were deported to Kazakhstan and Siberia.

They're a short-sighted bunch.

truly, how dare this man post historical information in a picture format on this history image board. Forsooth it boggles the mind

>i know what makes a person jewish better than the jews do!

the 5th source is literally just some random american preacher who lived in russia and was passing along rumors he heard while living there

>Whites, kulaks and Ukrainians
holy shit

>can't trust what war time enemies say about each other
>especilly those evil rotten disgusting nazis!! raah!!

pottery

imagine unnironicaly quoting 2 Jews, random preacher, journalist and SS officer when talking about supposed Jewish influence in USSR

imagine believing that any time someone says something negative about jews it is clearly due to either malice or internal corruption (germany/russia) but if something positive is said about them its automatically true

honestly, what reason do you have to DISBELIEVE all those sources you mentionedother than that they don't "sound creditable to you"

>why aren't all my sources accepted instantly :(
Boo hoo you faggot.

>nyeh nyeah! I won't listen to reason and you can't make me!
am I supposed to be insulted?

Because the definition is the only one that makes sense and applies cross-culturally. If you see American Republicans as "conservative" or as right wing, then there is something very wrong with your definition. They don't conserve anything, and their ideology is fundamentally an egalitarian and levelling one.

And what does Evola have to do with it? These understandings way predate Evola you clownish imbecile. By having a consistent outlook you can mark a similar outlook and perspective in people as far apart, and in as different places as Cato, Montaigne, Burke, even John Adams--that is a common thread and the basis of a worthwhile definition. Calling Burke and Ted Cruz by the same name is a complete absurdity, but you do it, because you're evidently retarded, and your perspective is clearly completely defined by the fads of the moment.

Your myopic, and time-rooted definitions, which are fundamentally arbitrary and open to a complete subjectivism of interpretation, are completely meaningless; being as changeable as the winds they serve no function and only confuse people and trick them into somehow thinking there is something "conservative" about the radical force of unfettered capitalism (the most radical force the world has ever seen, destroying values, traditions and organic forms of living, the world over).

>some butthurt aristocrat

Sounds like an emotionally-invested argument to me.

And "your point" is stupid. Hierarchies always emerge, despite people's attempts to deny them; honest hierarchies that are rooted in tradition and in the open are far superior to dishonest ones that hide behind the rhetoric of egalitarianism and freedom, while ignoring the fact that it is specific values that have come to dominate a society (those of the economic class). Communism proclaimed the equality of humanity too, and it produced just as debased hierarchies, where the worst and lowest elements of a society rule.

How would you describe the victims of Soviet democide then

>Organisation which aims at stopping 'Judeo-Bolshevism' might not be completely honest about Jews or communism
Why yes I suppose I should instantly believe something that reads like a /pol/ tract, starting with Extermination of the Valuable National Element of Russia Through Jewry.
solargeneral.org/wp-content/uploads/library/dr-hermann-greife-slave-labor-in-soviet-russia-1937.pdf

And i should say, older, traditional and natural hierarchies were based on an acknowledgment of superior and inferior people, rather than a denial of the fact that there are gulfs between one man and another.

They also emerged, in their own places, distinct from one another, but sharing the same basic assumptions, that are natural and inherent to all life. The modern liberal-democratic order emerged in one place and was spread by force and by propaganda to the rest of the world.

There is a difference, and if you can't see it you must be either blind or demented or both.

Not to mention that it has caused a chaotic spiral that promises to eventually extinguish all human life if it continues to be left unchecked. Allowing such a thing just because you have a bigoted perception of aristocratic rule is rather conceited and deranged, if you ask me (and evidently fuelled by ressentiment)

This thread in a nutshell/tl;dr:
>Widely accepted truth that isn't hard to find out about
>The few Marxists on Veeky Forums get buttblasted and start redefining what it means to be a Jew
>They start detailing the thread even more by bringing up irrelevant topics
>They can't even "debunk" it
This is getting sad.

Actually:

>They also emerged, in their own places, distinct from one another, but sharing the same basic assumptions, that are natural and inherent to all life.

>Marija Gimbutas investigated the Neolithic period in order to understand cultural developments in settled village culture in the southern Balkans, which she characterized as peaceful, matrilineal, and possessing a goddess-centered religion. In contrast, she characterizes the later Indo-European influences as warlike, nomadic, and patrilineal.

>Although some houses were larger than others, Indus Civilisation cities were remarkable for their apparent, if relative, egalitarianism. All the houses had access to water and drainage facilities.
>The Vedic period saw the emergence of a hierarchy of social classes and coalesce into Janapada (monarchical, state-level polities).

Pigeon maneuver, really?

>Its a make a post detailing the whole thread and how I've won the argument even though I actually haven't post

...

Now that the status quo is capitalism, they are conserving the status quo. So even if conserving was what defines 'right-wing', they are right-wing. Also, you still couldn't explain how liberalism is egalitarian but those damn merchants rule you or why your definition of 'right-wing' is the valid one. Nice butthurt rant deflecting from your incoherence and arbit, though, you retard.

>Although some houses were larger than others, Indus Civilisation cities were remarkable for their apparent, if relative, egalitarianism. All the houses had access to water and drainage facilities.

lol. "apparent, if relative" = i want to say it is but it wasn't really. Can't say house size and drainage is really much to go on desu.

Also, there are pretty obvious why "peaceful and matrilineal" cultures; neglecting the reality of life as struggle is really the death-knell for any people. Competition is endemic to life--you can't simply ignore that reality if you don't want to be pushed aside. Same reason Etruscans got murked by the Romans.

Oh, and liberalism never says that everyone will be le rich merchant or capitalist, so what is dishonest about it? >It's not fair those merchants rule, it's unnatural! The people I want to rule are natural rulers because reasons!!1
Kek, stay mad.

And I never said your understandings were created by Evola, learn to read.

arbitrary definition*

We are developed enough to not fear invasion from the steppe, so there is no reason for not being peaceful. Those invaders caused cultural decline. We are not animals.

>hurr durr they maintaining status quo, status quo defines right wing

This is such a brainlet kind of understanding. The sort promulgated in mindless pol science 101 classes that Hobbes as the archetype of right wing or conservative thought. It is childish and historically inaccurate, truly simple-minded--an easy template for quarter-educated morons. "capitalism" is not some kind of static thing: it is one of the most rapidly changing and morphing things that has ever existed. The word itself "capitalism" is a left-wing coinage. As soon as you place economic concerns in the centre of life you have left right wing thought. The only thing these people conserve are the mechanisms of rapid and wholesale radical (and perpetual) change, and that is the complete antithesis of anything conservative.

>you still couldn't explain how liberalism is egalitarian

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Literal first sentence:

>Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

They don't "rule me" either, but their values and assumptions dominate the culture, because this is what happens when the mass are released from all sensible restraint and allowed to be entirely ruled by their passions (self-destructive materialism and indulgence, like a dog who you give a constant access to food). This isn't a complicated concept, but apparently your pea-brain is struggling to grasp it.

>why your definition of 'right-wing' is the valid one

I explained that in detail in my last post. Try to read it: you might learn something a bit more sophisticated than "CAPITALISM IS DEE STATUS QUO THERFORE THOSE WHO SUPPORT CAPITALISM ARE RIGHT WINGERZ HURR DURR"

*that has Hobbes

>It's not fair those merchants rule, it's unnatural

It has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with not valuing a mass low-level culture devoid of any sophistication or merit (completely vapid and fatuous and tumbling off a cliff's edge of its own making).

I also prefer to not rampage around the world destroying people's native cultures and traditions and putting this mass anti-culture in its place.

t. José Ortega

>I also prefer to not rampage around the world destroying people's native cultures and traditions and putting this mass anti-culture in its place.
Like Christianity? I'm an atheist but I wouldn't call it anti-culture.

>those invaders caused cultural decline

What cultural artefacts did the neolithics leave behind exactly? The people from the Steppes spread culture thousands of miles in multiple directions.

>We are developed enough to not fear invasion from the steppe, so there is no reason for not being peaceful

Oh boy. You would've thought that the carnage of the 20th century would've put this kind of mindless utopian thinking to bed, but here you are, after only a few generations of relative peace, pretending human beings have magically overcome the realities of life.

How childish does a person have to be to actually think this shit? This is a history board, and if you know anything about history, you know it's jam-packed with war and conflict. We haven't evolved magically over the past 70 years you complete nitwit. Our supposedly "civilised" countries talk a lot of rhetoric about "peace" and "humanity" and "freedom", yet they have been engaged in bombing and forcing the world into being like us.

It's you who brought 'conserving' into a discussion of what 'right-wing' means to argue why certain people are not right-wing according to you, you absolute retard. You're ranting against your own point.
That wiki article doesn't talk about equality in every aspect, hence why there are business elites. If there are people who can sway huge amounts of people into muh mass culture and self-destruction (according to you), that pretty much entails a hierarchy.
And even with MTV, pop music and whatnot, more people know about high culture than a Middle Age commoner. You can listen to classical music on Youtube, watch renowned paintings online, etc. And we're at the most peaceful time in History and capitalism has gotten the most people out of poverty. How is this period any more destructive than the Middle Ages for instance?

And you're really ignorant if you believe old hierarchies didn't revolve around force. I'm sure illiterate peasants loved toiling away in the fields for enlightened aristocrats.
Besides, there's nothing more honest about old hierarchies than capitalism-derived ones.

Christianity when it lost its hierarchy became rather anti-cultural, yes. Just look at the Puritans and the levellers and the diggers, for examples, and now at the American mass churches (and compare them with what was created by orthodoxy and catholicism).

The universalist tendency in Christianity was always dangerous, I agree on that.