>>21105051Good posts (this one in particular).
>>21105016The chutzpah of christians to get offended over "abrahamic" when they themselves lump all non-abrahamics together as "pagans", and expect us to stand trial for the excesses of this or that random cult, really is quite something.
Just as with the abrahamic term, I think it might be both true and useful to use "semite" instead of "jew" when discussing the characters of the (semitic) bible. Most of them are definitely and explicitly jews, but some of them are definitely non-jewish semites, and many of them could really go either way. The identitarian pilpul is complete nonsense, but most of their strawmen are completely defeated by just lumping all semites together.
Also, to defeat the associations with this or that bizarro "pagan" cult of Antiquity or liberal "neo-pagan" larpers, I suggest that we use the term "nationalist" rather than "pagan". This correctly implies that abrahamics are globalists and cannot be nationalists.
This way, we have "abrahamic" and/or "yahwist" to describe the religion(s) and "semitic" to describe the race(s), opposed by we "nationalists". "Goy" can also be used for the racial component, since it essentially means "non-semite". To bypass censorship, we could also refer to abrahamics simply as "globalists", although this has limited hangout vibes if you don't name them.
After all, Adolf Hitler reminded us that an important skill in a leader is to make all of your enemies appear as a single entity.
PS. I suggest we never use the word "bible" without the adjective "semitic" for example. "Bible" just means "book" (monotheists plotting to allow only the existence a single book? imagine my surprise...), and what's sets it apart from others is how semitic it is.
PPS. Don't call yahweh "God". That's an insult to God and helps further the semitic masquerade. Call yahweh "yahweh", "seth", "typhon", "the devil", "the lord of zion", "the semitic deity" etc.
