The Benefits of Genocide

Thank you for lifting this odious piece from this human sewage called “Jews”.
When you think it is not possible to see worse, be sure that with Jews worse is the only thing they are capable of, and are even bragging about it. Sharon the mass murderer called it “escalation”. What an oxymoron, since it is just deepening the depth of their bottomless depravity.
What is notable is the total absence of creativity in their methods: as illustrated in the odious piece presented here, the Jews always accuse others of committing the crimes they commit themselves, and generally it is the victims of their crimes that they accuse. It is so systematic and ubiquitous, that to discover what crimes Jews are committing, it often suffices to listen to what they accuse others of doing.
Once you are aware of this trick, you will discover how often it is the case. In fact it is almost always the case.
But when a collective who is committing terrorism and genocide, abominable cruelty and extermination of children etc since over 7 or 8 decades, is then accusing their victims of “benefitting” from it, it reaches indeed an area of depravity that should alarm the rest of humanity to an acute degree. This is especially the case since this perpetrator collective who identifies itself as “Jews” has infiltrated power apparatuses all across the western countries and their satellites, and is shaping our nations, our children, to the Jewish model.
If we as Nations and Civilizations, do not realize the ominous jewish threat against us, and if we do not find the resolve to engage this nefarious, degenerated segment of humanity to neutralize it by all means necessary, and with utter ferocity, the consequences will be staggering.
If we fail to neutralize that ominous threat, Jews will do as they have started again, foment world wars that will rapidly become nuclear wars, where our countries will be the battlefield, and given the destructive force and toxicity of these weapons, this means at least half of the planet will become uninhabitable. This is no joke. Never mind being called an anti-Semite or some other ridiculous little quolibet: the risk of letting these scumbags off the hook is far too high to be stopped by anything.
Listen to Gandhi who said that in situations wbere you must protect innocents from an oppressor, or defend your family, if you have the choice between cowardice and violence, choose violence.
I loathe violence, have refused any military engagement in my country of origin and was risking prison for refusing, have spent a lifetime spreading tolerance and respect for other cultures, religions, nationalities… in fact my own family was victim of totalitarian politics during WW2, and yet I reckon there is no other alternative left but to call for standing up against the aggressor and traitor in our midst.
They want war, they always want wars.
Alas, let us give them war. We already have mighty allies at the horizon, with the Russia, China, Iran axis, and the rapidly growing coalition of countries around them.

@ Alan Kerns
Aside the fact that I do not have great sympathy for sarcasm in debate, as frank and direct exchange are far more constructive, you raise an interesting point, and I would like to address that point.
Firstly, you are prompt in making assumptions. I would greatly doubt that the Russia-China-Iran axis and their allies, would engage in this battle blindly, without very clearly defined strategic aims. As of now they have already make the magisterial demonstration of their superiority both military and diplomatic.
Secondly, contrary to what you seem to assume, i am someone who vehemently recommends to have plans in advance, because indeed as you suggest, “revolutions” absent of any clear architecture of government ready to conduct state affairs immediately in the case of victory, are generally followed first by a bloody chaos, and second by the establishment of a tyranny generally worse than the one it replaces.
But this is where our views begin to differ, as I wonder if, perhaps, you may see the situation with a bit of myopia. Again, in the case of for example the Liberation of a country from an occupation, or from a tyrannical regime, i go as far as to say that if there is no plan, no government in exile ready to take over as soon as the occupier is defeated, then it could be argued it would be safer to leave the status quo for the time being, because otherwise otherwise the social fabric would be torn, sometimes irreversibly.
But when i say myopia, it is because what we deal with in this situation is not one country to Liberate, it is many countries, on many continents, with different cultures, religions, climate, you name it. The only thing that binds these different parts together, is the common necessity for peace between us, and the common enemy who wants war against us all.
I believe that in this very circumstance, all what we need is a strategy for combat, which Russians so far seem to be following with great precision, and in this very circumstance i think what we certainly do not need any more, is a monolithic solution that would fit us all, which is what you suggest.
From my perspective it looks like this: Let each country decide for themselves! Give diversity a chance! Some will see fit to choose what we would call socialist system of government, others would see what we would call capitalist, others social-democrats, others would see fit for themselves to decide for a secular, others for a religious form of government, some might adopt central systems, others federalistic systems, tribal councils, you name it…. and may be even some would try their hands at anarchy… The only condition that can be regulated by International Laws, is that each and every country can only decide for istelf, and only engage in policies that do not harm other countries. These are general guidelines which as it is are fundamentally different to what we had so far, where one system, one “civilization” always tries to trump others, and force their ways on others.
Again: if one country seeks Liberation, yes you imperatively need to have a structure in place in advance, before even starting the battle, mainly because you will have to situate and define your country in relation to the external pressure of an established system, whether functional or bankrupt. To the contrary, when many formerly subjugated populations do regain independence, let them find their own way, own judicial, economic or philosophic system. If differences occur inside every country or culture, let them find indivudual ways to resolve it.
The diversity that will ensure, providing again that policies are strictly domestic and can not have any adverse effect on neighbors all of it under the umbrella of an International body of Law (one with teeth) will benefit mankind. Diversity allows more empirical approach to socio-economic models, and allows to better address the will of we the people, which is something that you seem to be honorably concerned of, but you see better fit to be uniform, and to which i firmly object. I envision that concept, where the common and deadly enemy is neutralized, and where individual Nations are making their own choices within an International framework of Law regulating in particular environmental questions, as having a far better chance to sustain peace and the perpetuation of life, – a life enjoyable through diversity of identities who are let free to remain different from others (but equal)
We need to adapt to new circumstances and new situations Alan, and i think the time of dominant ideologies defined by a segment of humanity who considers itself “superior” to be obsolete, over, dead, finished. We need to move on.
As to your your last word, “Nothing” … i hope you are not one of those agents whose business it is to discourage masses, and so I assume you meant no harm. The fact is, i do propose something. I called for the first step, the letter A of the alphabet of Liberation, something that looks like defining the beast, deciding to fight it, raise energies that down the road will have such momentum, that no jewish submarine guided by US satellite can do anything to stop it.
If you can contribute to that energy, please do so, we all must do so.
If you have nothing else to contribute but the discouraging word “nothing”, then abstain, if you are honest in your discourse, which I assume you are.
No offense meant. Kindly,
M.Forza

My concern about our ‘pestilence’ problem is that it is so powerful and ingrained into the fabric of our society, like a cancer, that to remove it will be nigh on impossible
The majority of healthy cells in this situation do not even realize that the cancer exists