WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2024 Poal.co

750

Edit: actually, commenters bring up some good points and they shouldn't be called anti-amalekites. The subject should still be brought up though.

Even if someone accusing us of being antisemetic is not a religious jew, we can ask "well do you associate with any religious jews?". According to guilt-by-association logic, someone who associates with antisemites must be an antisemite. If that makes sense, the logic should be the same for anti-amalekites.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130330043424/https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/05-14-05/

Even though the mitzvah to eradicate Amalek is mainly incumbent upon the community, every individual Jew is commanded to fulfill it, as well. Therefore, if a Jew meets an Amalekite, and has the ability to kill him, but refrains from doing so, he has neglected this mitzvah(Sefer HaChinuch 604). The descendants of Amalek are currently unknown, but if one would ascertain that a particular person is an Amalekite, who follows their ways, it would be a mitzvah to kill him.

This is a very extreme belief. Even the most extreme neonazis typically don't think that they are morally obligated to kill any jew they meet on the spot just for being ethnically and religiously jewish. But jews argue that this belief is not extreme because they can't act on it for now since they don't know for certain who is a descendant of Amalek.

This video has the viewpoint of multiple rabbis commenting on the subject. Since Hitler rose to power in Germany, Germany is widely considered by jews to be the location of many descendants of Amalek. Others say the United States has many Amalekites. Some say the Amalekites are also in middle eastern countries such as Palestine, Iran etc. A couple rabbis in this video say that even babies should be killed if they are descendants of Amelek. (The last rabbi in this video says that. I don't remember who else said it) https://www.bitchute.com/video/fAqlEEcEBxc/

Though apparently there are jews who think Amalekites should just be killed on the spot, there are also jews who believe it is forbidden to kill a descendant of Amalek if that descendant agrees to submit to the Noahide laws and pay a tribute to the jews. I guess that could be called a more moderate view. https://web.archive.org/web/20130330042355/https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/05-14-08/

Supposedly we are extremists if we take issue with this.

Edit:

Found some other more moderate views on Wikipedia

>A few authorities have ruled that the command never included killing Amalekites. R' Samson Raphael Hirsch said that the command was to destroy "the remembrance of Amalek" rather than actual Amalekites;[48] the Sfat Emet said that the command was to fully hate Amalek rather than performing any action;[49] and the Chofetz Chaim said that God would perform the elimination of Amalek, and Jews are commanded only to remember what Amalek did to them.[50]

So if knowledge of this belief about Amalek catches on among the goyim, the media will probably say that these more moderate beliefs about Amalek prevail.

Edit: actually, commenters bring up some good points and they shouldn't be called anti-amalekites. The subject should still be brought up though. - Even if someone accusing us of being antisemetic is not a religious jew, we can ask "well do you associate with any religious jews?". According to guilt-by-association logic, someone who associates with antisemites must be an antisemite. If that makes sense, the logic should be the same for anti-amalekites. https://web.archive.org/web/20130330043424/https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/05-14-05/ >Even though the mitzvah to eradicate Amalek is mainly incumbent upon the community, every individual Jew is commanded to fulfill it, as well. Therefore, if a Jew meets an Amalekite, and has the ability to kill him, but refrains from doing so, he has neglected this mitzvah(Sefer HaChinuch 604). The descendants of Amalek are currently unknown, but if one would ascertain that a particular person is an Amalekite, who follows their ways, it would be a mitzvah to kill him. This is a very extreme belief. Even the most extreme neonazis typically don't think that they are morally obligated to kill any jew they meet on the spot just for being ethnically and religiously jewish. But jews argue that this belief is not extreme because they can't act on it for now since they don't know for certain who is a descendant of Amalek. This video has the viewpoint of multiple rabbis commenting on the subject. Since Hitler rose to power in Germany, Germany is widely considered by jews to be the location of many descendants of Amalek. Others say the United States has many Amalekites. Some say the Amalekites are also in middle eastern countries such as Palestine, Iran etc. A couple rabbis in this video say that even babies should be killed if they are descendants of Amelek. (The last rabbi in this video says that. I don't remember who else said it) https://www.bitchute.com/video/fAqlEEcEBxc/ Though apparently there are jews who think Amalekites should just be killed on the spot, there are also jews who believe it is forbidden to kill a descendant of Amalek if that descendant agrees to submit to the Noahide laws and pay a tribute to the jews. I guess that could be called a more moderate view. https://web.archive.org/web/20130330042355/https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/05-14-08/ Supposedly we are extremists if we take issue with this. Edit: Found some other more moderate views on Wikipedia >>A few authorities have ruled that the command never included killing Amalekites. R' Samson Raphael Hirsch said that the command was to destroy "the remembrance of Amalek" rather than actual Amalekites;[48] the Sfat Emet said that the command was to fully hate Amalek rather than performing any action;[49] and the Chofetz Chaim said that God would perform the elimination of Amalek, and Jews are commanded only to remember what Amalek did to them.[50] So if knowledge of this belief about Amalek catches on among the goyim, the media will probably say that these more moderate beliefs about Amalek prevail.

(post is archived)

[–] 2 pts

Start calling them Amalekites. They’re not Semitic by any stretch of the imagination.

[–] 0 pt

Eh, I guess some are semetic and some are Khazars and some are a mix. That's a whole other discussion. I think if you're talking to a jew and you bring up the subject of Amalek, it's best to stay on topic as much as possible so that they can't easily escape uncomfortable questions by taking the opportunity to change the subject.

[–] 1 pt (edited )

I’m gonna go down the rabbit hole big time here, and those of you who aren’t Christian (and many who are) have likely not heard any of this before, but here we go…

Back then (and likely even now) not every sentient humanoid being on the planet was “human.” What I mean is that there was a hybrid race and these were not 100% pure stock human. Goliath, for example (and all other giant races) were an example of this.

There were entire tribes of these hybrids, and the Amelakites were one such tribe.

This is a subject that very few Christian ministers will even touch, and perhaps even Jewish rabbis don’t touch it, either (I’m not Jewish so I don’t know). But it’s all right there in the Old Testament, most of it in the first book of the Bible. Genesis 6 is one such section.

This continues to the flood, where the Bible says that “Noah and his family were perfect in their generations.” I remember the first time I came across that passage, something didn’t sit right with me. I thought “what does that mean.”

It means that at the time of the flood, Noah and his small family (8 people total) were the only ones left in the entire earth who didn’t have hybrid genes.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, God considers the hybrids to be an abomination, which is why he wiped them from the earth in the flood…

But, it’s also why he commanded the early Israelites to wipe them from the face of the earth.

I had always wrestled with some of those Old Testament scriptures which “called for genocide”, and this subject has been used as a blunt force object by atheists and such to attack the scriptures. But then I finally realized he wasn’t telling them to kill off other humans. These “people” weren’t humans to begin with.

The mechanism by which the hybrid race was made, I do not know, but my understanding is that satan and his crew possessed the knowledge for genetic experimentation (dinosaurs as one other example; and the dinosaurs where also judged by God).

Nimrod was a giant hybrid, for example. The way I understand it, he was the first “mason” and the Masonic lodge is nothing more than a continuation of his agenda (which is implicitly the agenda of satan).

There are reasons why many people have claimed to have had sightings of these “reptilian” beings, and I imagine it’s why many of the world’s leaders are accused of being such “beings”.

And you look at all of the experimentation in genetics, the jab, all of it.. it’s ALL tied together and in my opinion, it’s all a continuation of what satan has tried to do since the very beginning: pollute the human genome so that God’s most prized creation (us) would be tainted and beyond redemption.

Ie, Christ didn’t die to save hybrids..he died to save human beings.

The reason why the Smithsonian hides the skeletons of the giants should be evident to you now: all governments on this planet are under the spell of mystery Babylon (the secret societies that began under Nimrod), and those skeletons (among other things) would not only prove the Bible true, but generate a conversation like the one we’re having right now, which is not to their advantage.

They want you to believe, rather, that you were seeded on this planet by a race of aliens (who are actually satan’s hybrid offspring)..so that when they bring about “the great deception” mentioned in the bible, you’ll fall for it. They’re priming you for that great deception even now, with the governments slowly admitting the existence of UFOs. What will follow will be a disclosure of “alien seed theory”. Don’t be deceived.

All of that to say, Amelikites, in the most literal sense, aren’t even humans…assuming any of them exist anymore to begin with. I do believe that there are some similar beings among us, but they have learned to keep a low profile (for now) as history has probably taught them that God is not on their side. Their father is literally and figuratively, satan.

Extrapolating further, God instructs Joshua (and those under his authority) to wipe out ALL of them. Do not leave any alive. Do you see why now? Beyond that, God also instructed the early Israelites not to procreate with these other tribes, not to mix with them. I’m sure you can see why now. Apparently though (I believe) some of them disobeyed and procreated with them anyhow, made families with them. Perhaps this is where the passage “you who call yourself Jews, but are not” comes from? I don’t know, but seems to fit.

Anyhow, hybrids. Amelikites were hybrids. Therefore, satanic creatures.

So you can consider me an anti-Amelikite 😘

[–] 0 pt (edited )

Interesting. I'm not Christian but I've heard that the Book of Enoch is about this, though it's not recognized as cannon because of when it was written. Some think gods described by the Sumerian religion were actually aliens or fallen angels who created the Nephilim. There are also some schizo esoteric Aryan theories about good aliens creating the Aryan race and evil reptillians creating the jews haha

edit: btw Robert Sephehr has some good videos about giants, small people etc. that you might be interested in. He also gets into some really bizarre theories and is a jew who lies about not being a jew though.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

Another apparent misnomer… “Nephilim” are not the hybrids. They are fallen angels..the fallen angels are the ones who, according to the Bible, taught men to sin (or at least accelerated their abilities and efficiency at sinning). The nephilim created the hybrids.

Nephal means “to fall”….

The suffix “im” is consistent throughout scripture to describe different classes of ANGELS, specifically…

Seraphim…Teraphim…NEPHALIM.

You see?

There are also naming conventions for tribes or beings created by God.

Michael, Gabriel. Both angels. ISRAEL.

Satan’s actual name is Halel. Not Lucifer.

Notice the similarity in all of them? They carry God’s name: “El”…

It’s so simple, yet so complicated.. I think it complicated because we, with the help of the evil one, have complicated it.

But, it’s all right there in scripture if anyone would care to look.

[–] 0 pt

Just saw the other stuff you added. I've heard about the disagreement about what god's name is but I hadn't heard that about Halel. What do you think about Lucifer? I ask because some people think the satanic religion that will be introduced in the end times is Theosophy because of Lucis Trust, which has consultative status with the UN. Lucis Trust says Lucifer was a good solar angel on their website.

[–] 0 pt

Ah ok. Got it. Yeah, I actually just learned about these theories recently so I'm not up to date on the terminology. But like you, I also really questioned the parts about genocide and left Christianity at a young age for that reason and a lot of other reasons, but I will keep that interpretation in mind in the future.

[–] 1 pt

loxists

[–] 1 pt (edited )

This might be better. Like others have said, "anti-amalekite" as an insult could confuse people. A lot of whites are Christian and may themselves consider "anti-amalekite" as a good thing. Edit for clarity: because Amalek is referenced in the old testament as an enemy of the Israelites.

I do think this should be thrown in their face though. Like, if a jew is calling you an Nazi, maybe question whether they think the Nazis were descendants of the Amalekites. If they say yes, that means they think many German people are descendants of Amalekites too.

[–] 0 pt

why give credit to their absolute nonsense by using such a disgusting word that only a low iq gobbledegook desert tongue would come up with? they're anti-white. using amalekite will just confuse people, and jews use that word for anyone they hate, not just whites.

I just simplify it to calling them anti-white racists.