About Hunter Wallace 12381 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. Dan Poole, all the books and articles I’ve read over the last few years about Jewish DNA shows Middle Eastern, Semitic ancestry for both Sephardim and Ashkenazim Jews. As a person who has some Sephardim ancestry, I know this is true.

    Your belief that the Jews of today are still the chosen people is incorrect. No Christian organization believed that idea until very recent times. The Scriptures clearly teach in the Gospels, Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews that the Old Covenant that granted the Jews that status was done away at the cross, and that the only Israel that God recognizes today is the Israel that believes in Jesus Christ, namely the Church. Read Romans 9-11 for a quick study on this.

  2. Mosin, the debate is somewhat theological but it is also historical and directly political.

    Rudel, the first graph you link to is helpful, and I can only comment very briefly now but want to point out that the jews aren’t halfway between me and my northwestern european people and the middle easterners. They are located squarely on the side of the near eastern and arabian people, probably starting more around 65% of the distance towards the sand peoples.

    They also, as you point out, did not have blonde hair indigenously and picked this up from the europeans. The ‘genius’ of the ashkenazi jew is the rape of the european female. For about every 80-100 jews in my area, you might find one dirtiest of blonds. You will find none who look anything like a purely native northwestern european. Besides their darkness their facial and bodily structure is simply too semitic to pass for my people except in some large crowd. To find a single jew who could even approach the walking target that is the purebred anglo celt, you’d have to expand the survey to about 225-250. It is that rare.

    How on earth pro-Whites call these people ‘white’ is beyond me. They are not european people. Yiddish is more closely germanic no doubt, but who cares. Their term for me is shiksa, meaning literally ‘abomination’ and ‘dirty.’ Shaygetz is the male equivalent but a jewish male can be called this pejorative while no jewish female was or is ever called a shiksa.

    Like any self respecting white woman would look twice at a jewish male. They are entirely un-masculine, generally ugly, and entirely undesirable.

  3. Re: ‘Mosin, the debate is somewhat theological but it is also historical and directly political:

    NYYankees, I know. I was making the point that I don’t even participate in some of the ‘debates’ (I would rather call them tangential discussions) that are supposedly started exclusively by me on ‘every single’ (!!!) thread.

    Well, since the rest of you have gone far off the topic of Beck’s support of GLAAD into borderline ‘theological’ territory, I will briefly, cautiously, join you:

    I considered the Khazar theory more than thirty years ago, AFTER I had finished seminary (never heard of it there) and I read all I could, ordering material by interlibrary loan, because I immediately grasped that it could help me fight the premillennial heresy that was strongly entrenched in many of the schools and churches. I was hopeful but also objective, so I was not convinced — and that was before any DNA evidence was available — so I found the Khazar theory to be of very little use in combatting premillennialism, except to say it is very likely that some Ashkenazi have some of that non-Semitic heritage. But we should not NEED the Khazar theory at all to combat the heresy. It should be enough just to prove that Premillennialism is extremely bad exegesis. I believe Premillennialism is much weaker now than it was thirty years ago, but unfortunately many RIGHT doctrines are being held more loosely in many places.

  4. Error correction: ‘far off the topic of Beck’s support of GLAAD’ should have been: ‘off the topic of Big Sodomy Defeated’ Either way, it’s still a tangent, but I thought we were on the other thread. Sorry.

Comments are closed.