As a convert to Orthodox Judaism, I believe that the Jews are God’s Chosen People, that the Torah is God’s revelation to the world, and that the purpose of Jews is to be a blessing to the world. These are my faith statements. Without looking through the eyes of faith, however, I see the world as composed of various forms of life competing for scarce resources and seeking to fulfill their genetic imperative to propagate. In other words, life is war.
Here is an example of brutal reality from Youtube: “Like a cuckoo, the greater honeyguide lays its eggs in the nests of other birds – in this case, a bee-eater. When they hatch, the honeyguide chick mauls its foster siblings to death with a vicious bill-hook.”
Here is the Link that Dr. Duke and Dr. MacDonald Discuss. [What] you watch is a perfect expression of Jewish driven replacement of European Children with Non-Europeans and of Jewish Replacement of Europeans in the Nest of the European Leaders such as the Ivy League which is the source of the American elite.
This video is absolutely shocking and horrorific when you think it is fundamentally what is happening to our people!
American Freedom Party candidate Robert Ransdell ran for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky in 2014 with the slogan “With Jews, you lose.”
I welcome that challenge. My faith tells me that the purpose of Jews is to be a blessing to the world. If Jews aren’t a blessing to their country, then something is very wrong. Jews need to look at themselves and ask, “Am I and are my people are blessing to the goyim?” Is it true that with Jews, the goyim lose? If so, then it is in the goyim’s interest to get rid of us. If we are a blessing to the goyim, then it is in the self-interest of the goyim to keep us around.
I don’t want to make any special pleading on behalf of Jews. If Jews are an asset to their gentile country of residence, they will be blessed by that country. They will be popular and revered. If Jews are a curse, they will be cursed. Just as the normal Orthodox Jew asks, “What is good for the Jews?,” I want and expect gentiles to ask the same question. “What is good for the Germans?” “What is good for the Americans?” “What is good for the Japanese?”
Wouldn’t it be great if unpopular groups in America asked themselves if there was anything they were doing that was hurting their popularity? I suspect most Americans would prefer to live without many Jews, blacks and Muslims and latinos around them. I wonder why? What are these groups doing that regular white Americans don’t want them around?
Every minority group should ask themselves if they are behaving themselves in a way that is a blessing to the majority population. If not, then there is no self-interested reason for the majority to keep them around.
I don’t believe there is any superior race. Different races evolved in different places. Some people are most fit for certain locations and other people for other places. Some races are great at living at high altitude, other races are great at living in the tropics, and other races thrive in the high latitudes.
I think the animal kingdom is a great analogy for how the different human sub-species relate. The introduction of cats in some places has been devastating for birds. Cats and birds usually have different interests.
Going back to the slogan, “With Jews, you lose,” I think it depends on what kind of society you want. For certain types of societies, such as a Nazi society, Jews are not a benefit. If you want a multicultural society and a proposition nation, then Jews are awesome.
It would be self-interested for birds to have the slogan, “With cats, birds lose.” It would be self-interested for the Japanese to not allow in much non-Japanese immigration, particularly very little Muslim and black immigration. For the Japanese and probably for Europeans as well, with blacks and Muslims you lose. You could make an argument that any gentile country that wants unity and cohesion around strong racial, national and religious identity, with multi-culti Jews you lose.
Wild rabbits are a serious mammalian pest and invasive species in Australia causing millions of dollars of damage to crops. Rabbits in Australia are European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in the Lagomorph family.
They were introduced to Australia in the 18th century with the First Fleet and became widespread after an outbreak caused by an 1859 release. Various methods in the 20th century have been attempted to control the population. Conventional methods include shooting rabbits and destroying their warrens, but these had only limited success. In 1907, a rabbit-proof fence was built in Western Australia in an unsuccessful attempt to contain the rabbits. The myxoma virus, which causes myxomatosis, was introduced into the rabbit population in the 1950s and had the effect of severely reducing the rabbit population.
It does not make sense that the introduction of a species or sub-species into a particular environment will only have benign results. Every species will have a differing effect. The introduction of a lion into a group of deer is going to result in a lot of dead deer.
In reaction to an invasive pest, Australia mounted a rabbit holocaust but it was not successful. So they turned to chemical warfare instead and it was more effective. I wonder if there are chemical weapons that affect different groups of people differently.
The rise of Jews in Australia meant the end of the White Australia policy. So if you want a return to a White Australia policy, and given the universal tendency of Jews in the West to side with the Coalition of the Fringe against the core, then I fear it would make sense to have a “With Jews, you lose” attitude, particularly with regard to Jewry’s political and cultural power.
I think the concept of invasive species is a good analogy for immigration. Immigrants always affect the native population, and often negatively.
An invasive species is a plant, fungus, or animal species that is not native to a specific location (an introduced species), and which has a tendency to spread to a degree believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy or human health.[dubious – discuss]
One study pointed out widely divergent perceptions of the criteria for invasive species among researchers (p. 135) and concerns with the subjectivity of the term “invasive” (p. 136). Some of the alternate usages of the term are below:
The term as most often used applies to introduced species (also called “non-indigenous” or “non-native”) that adversely affect the habitats and bioregions they invade economically, environmentally, or ecologically. Such invasive species may be either plants or animals and may disrupt by dominating a region, wilderness areas, particular habitats, or wildland-urban interface land from loss of natural controls (such as predators or herbivores). This includes non-native invasive plant species labeled as exotic pest plants and invasive exotics growing in native plant communities. It has been used in this sense by government organizations as well as conservation groups such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the California Native Plant Society. The European Union defines “Invasive Alien Species” as those that are, firstly, outside their natural distribution area, and secondly, threaten biological diversity. It is also used by land managers, botanists, researchers, horticulturalists, conservationists, and the public for noxious weeds. The kudzu vine (Pueraria lobata), Andean Pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), and yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) are examples.
An alternate usage broadens the term to include indigenous or “native” species along with non-native species, that have colonized natural areas (p. 136). Deer are an example, considered to be overpopulating their native zones and adjacent suburban gardens, by some in the Northeastern and Pacific Coast regions of the United States.
Sometimes the term is used to describe a non-native or introduced species that has become widespread (p. 136). However, not every introduced species has adverse effects on the environment. A nonadverse example is the common goldfish (Carassius auratus), which is found throughout the United States, but rarely achieves high densities (p. 136)