Jump to content


Photo

Continuation. Are jews terrorists.


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#21 Templar

Templar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 06 July 2012 - 10:20 PM

I thought is was obvious to you that the claim of self defense must be based on objective facts.

Of course it's obvious to you and me; but it's not always clear to physchotic powerbrokers like Hitler which fears are based on objective facts and which fears are based on fantasy--- so they tend to act on both.


You can't say I thought he would kill me by the looks he gave me and therefore I killed him first.

My point exactly. The Allies couldn't know with any certainy whether or not the Axis civilians posed a threat, so they 'killed them first'---exactly what I'm criticising.

Also, it's a minor point, but I think you might want to change the title of this thread to something more innocuous; somehow, "are Jews terrorists?" doesn't ring very nicely in a Jewish Forum.

#22 33948

33948

    Shtark

  • Members
  • 356 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 02:09 PM

I'm sorry: Were you trying to get a point across?

All I heard was ...blah blah blah .. Jews are a race (it's not: race is a social construct)...blah blah blah...propaganda...blah blah blah .. UFOS are real and probing you every chance you get blah blah blah..

Posted Image


So you don't know Judaism or you lie. On top of this you insult. According to this forum and every Jewish organization a person is a Jew based on that person's ancestry. This is also supported by Israel's policies.

It is a social construct created by Jews and then through Jewish lobbies reinforced in various local and regional laws, as well as national laws.

Posts like yours is actually one reason I increasingly dislike any kind of online communication and prefer dealing with people in real life. I'm working on obtaining two different college degrees, becoming an investor and building my own community of people based on minimal standards to join. All of this precisely because if I go work at a typical entry level job I deal with irrational people. If I discuss something online its irrational, insults etc. It becomes a waste of time.

Templar's arguments don't really interest me specifically, but the topic is relevant in that I think "Jews" do support genocide. Not that I view Jews as monsters. It's simply that power creates a lack of social pressure. If a person from the ghetto who has no money is even suspected of a crime he will likely be convicted. If a poor nation is doing a crime it receives intense pressure to change its ways. If organized Jewry behaves irrationally, then its vast wealth, power etc. often makes it void of criticism. The same is true with the U.S. which is often hypocritical in its policies. This creates a greater responsibility on the aforementioned party to regulate itself, criticize itself etc. By surrounding one's self with "yes men" and no criticism it actually leads to failure.

One interesting study I read about was that average performing business students would actually do better in the business world compared to top performing students. Why? The top performing students over estimated their ability and did not consider the view point of others. They engaged in more risky behavior, acted alone etc. and in the long run usually under performed (in the real world) in comparison to average students.

Judaism represents a source of conflict and problems not only for Jews, but also non-Jews. It is best to approach possible problems and seek out solutions and to raise awareness of such problems. I also like to see valid counter arguments (based on facts rather than insults). It is best to refine one's views by being able to defend them with fact and logic, rather than to wallow in ignorance due to never challenging assumptions.

A good debate allows me to change my views, adapt and improve upon them. For the other 99% of humanity a debate is simply about arguing one's own beliefs (with an emotional attachment to them) and never adapting or changing those beliefs based on fact or circumstance.

#23 sal

sal

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 843 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:59 PM

Of course it's obvious to you and me; but it's not always clear to physchotic powerbrokers like Hitler which fears are based on objective facts and which fears are based on fantasy--- so they tend to act on both.


My point exactly. The Allies couldn't know with any certainy whether or not the Axis civilians posed a threat, so they 'killed them first'---exactly what I'm criticising.

They did not kill civilians because of the threat they posed. They killed them because that was how they conducted the war. Their intention was to bring down the axis power. Its is very easy for you to criticize the method without giving an alternative solution. Say what they should have done different (Not they should not have killed civilians.) to destroy the enemies.

#24 sal

sal

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 843 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 09:20 PM

So you don't know Judaism or you lie. On top of this you insult. According to this forum and every Jewish organization a person is a Jew based on that person's ancestry. This is also supported by Israel's policies.

I don't know where you got this from. It is simply not true. You are free to join.

#25 mroof

mroof

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 569 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 02:59 AM

So you don't know Judaism or you lie. On top of this you insult.


Do you not see how condescending your original post was? You throw the ball, but call it an insult when someone throws it back to you?
I have absolutely no reason to lie about being Jewish: What purpose would that serve?
I will however point out that I stated nothing of my personal beliefs and thus you are making assumptions on an open forum, where anyone is free to join.

According to this forum and every Jewish organization a person is a Jew based on that person's ancestry. This is also supported by Israel's policies

You claim I know nothing of Judaism, yet make statements that show complete ignorance of the religion. I find it hard to believe that you are as intelligent on the subject as you believe yourself to be given your complete lack of knowledge in history and biology.

A person is a Jewish if:

A) Their mother is Jewish (matrilineal lineage within two to three generations)
B) They convert to Judaism

Your assumption fails to note comparisons in theology in regards to baptism. Parents baptize infants because of the concept of 'original sin' exists which defines one as damned at birth: This is non-existent in Judaism, thus there is no need to convert a child born from a Jewish mother.

Furthermore, giving up beliefs in Judaism does not mean that one is not considered an apostate under the religion. What it does mean however, is that if they do decide to come back to the religion, they would not have to re-convert in order to do so. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is a social construct created by Jews and then through Jewish lobbies reinforced in various local and regional laws, as well as national laws.


This is historically inaccurate: I take it that history, anthropology, and biology are not your favorite subjects?

The term Caucasian was coined in 1776, by Johann Freidrich Bloomenbach who came from a wealthy Protestant family in Gotha. He was a naturalist who was known for the work: On the Natural Variaties of Mankind, which mapped out five specific racial types, while placing Caucasians at the top of the list. He believed that skull shapes were a good determining factor into one's race. The science itself is about as wonky as phrenology is to psychology.

Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson relates to Black "inferiority" in 1781, but we begin to see classifications of "white" coined in 1680. It is not until 1950 that we see "race science" being discredited as racial inferiority takes an extreme with the Nazi parties experimenting on Holocaust victims in order to research "the Jewish race" and the immigration policies which used eugenics and IQ exams as a way of denying immigrants to the country. The principal author of the UN paper is Ashley Montagu, who was born Jewish and who was a student of Franz Boas.

Ancient societies did not classify people by race or physical attributes, but by language, religion, status and class.

Posts like yours is actually one reason I increasingly dislike any kind of online communication and prefer dealing with people in real life. I'm working on obtaining two different college degrees, becoming an investor and building my own community of people based on minimal standards to join. All of this precisely because if I go work at a typical entry level job I deal with irrational people. If I discuss something online its irrational, insults etc. It becomes a waste of time.


....and the point of this is?
Welcome to the Internet: Say something stupid and get something stupid shot right back at ya.

Templar's arguments don't really interest me specifically, but the topic is relevant in that I think "Jews" do support genocide. Not that I view Jews as monsters. It's simply that power creates a lack of social pressure. If a person from the ghetto who has no money is even suspected of a crime he will likely be convicted. If a poor nation is doing a crime it receives intense pressure to change its ways. If organized Jewry behaves irrationally, then its vast wealth, power etc. often makes it void of criticism. The same is true with the U.S. which is often hypocritical in its policies. This creates a greater responsibility on the aforementioned party to regulate itself, criticize itself etc. By surrounding one's self with "yes men" and no criticism it actually leads to failure.


Correction: There are plenty of historical and societal events to show that genocide is a flaw within all men: Why do you not include gendercide and democide in your summation of the World? Are they not worthy of the same attention? Would you not say that Americans exhibit very scary attitudes that could escalate in relations to Muslims? How about the situation in Darfur, the Armenian genocide, or the Sebrenica genocide? Were you over there helping or busy attributing generalizations to one group of people ...?

Judaism represents a source of conflict and problems not only for Jews, but also non-Jews. It is best to approach possible problems and seek out solutions and to raise awareness of such problems. I also like to see valid counter arguments (based on facts rather than insults). It is best to refine one's views by being able to defend them with fact and logic, rather than to wallow in ignorance due to never challenging assumptions.


Displaying stereotypes and expecting someone to teach you about such histories on a forum is not engaging in good academic conversation.

A good debate allows me to change my views, adapt and improve upon them. For the other 99% of humanity a debate is simply about arguing one's own beliefs (with an emotional attachment to them) and never adapting or changing those beliefs based on fact or circumstance.


What makes you think that the views of others are so unchangeable? That is another assumption.
What makes you think that someone wants to engage in such discussions in the first place?
I know I come here to relax and read for the most part, not to vicariously defend my beliefs, which I already have to do on plenty of occasions in real life.

Here is the bigger question though: What makes you think it matters in the grand schema of things?
We are but a tiny spec of existence within a vast Universe much larger than we are.

Since you went ahead and posted a video song for me: I will do the same... I think it sums up the situation quite nicely.

http://youtu.be/AXgM3Dd3qIM
.colorful .dreams
Posted Image
The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances...if there is any reaction, both are transformed.

#26 paganyid

paganyid

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 11:23 AM

Pretty god mroof, Im impressed. I don't think 33948 has brought any evidence for anything he has said. Its a lot of unsupported opinion. That only bothers me because its pretty well impossible to respond to it. I thought about it last night and I consider him a troll. Too much provocative opinion, not enough intelligent discussion.

#27 mroof

mroof

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 569 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 02:17 PM

No. If anything, it makes less sense. A person is not responsible for the wrongdoing of others. This principle is addressed in the U.S. Constitution, albeit in a limited context: “[N]o Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 3, cl. 2.

“We” did not do anything; our country did, but not us. We are not responsible for it (except insofar as we have to deal with the mess, of course). It is not hypocritical for me to say a thing is wrong even if a direct ancestor did it.

Time is indeed relevant, because while the events did occur, this does not thereby transmit responsibility for it from some persons to other persons. Strictly speaking, of course, it’s not “time” that is relevant, but rather the fact that someone else did it. Were the same people alive today, they would continue to hold that responsibility, but they don’t transmit it to someone else. The general constitutional principle expounded above – if expanded to other contexts – is that we do not punish children for the crimes of their ancestors.

Finally, it is not only not hypocritical, but whether or not responsibility is transmitted, it puts us in the position of knowing something is wrong from personal experience. Just because I hypothetically speaking did something wrong does not make it right for you to do it, nor am I a hypocrite for telling you it’s wrong, because if it’s wrong it’s wrong, irrespective of who says it. Your argument utilizes the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, or argument against the person, because you disavow a position based on a characteristic of a proponent of that position. The characteristic of the person is irrelevant as to whether the thing is true. It may or may not be, but the proponent’s personal characteristics are irrelevant.

This principle is even more so if an ancestor of mine did it. You have no just cause (and remember, I’m speaking in the hypothetical) to punish me because of something my grandfather may have done to you, and I am not being hypocritical for saying so. That makes no sense whatsoever


I am going to point out that you are dissecting a personal opinion, rather than stated fact. I am as much entitled to it as you are to defending your right to shirk the responsibility from humanities transgressions of the past because you did not 'perpetuate' said crimes.

Yes, we can use history as a learning tool to prevent such issues from reoccurring and draw conclusions in other situations, but that does not mean we should disengage from drawing such parallels as a result when doing so. By the same hand, your statement infers that those who have not been through the Holocaust should harbor no ill will towards anyone, and that those who have great grandparents who were slaves should not find any issue with current freedoms.

We see that psychologically, this is not necessarily true. Such tempers are cooled simply by admittance and recognition of past transgressions. We may not be responsible for them, but that does not mean we should not ignore those who are still emotionally affected by such situations.

Reparations provide a great example of responsibility being transmitted from generation to generation. Successorship of assets is another. I am simply drawing a parallel on the actions of humanity itself and calling no one free of making such recognitions.

Regardless of how I feel however: Your statements are fine, but contradict for one reason. The Native American problems are a direct result of policies still in use today: So the situation is still open and current, albeit one no one pays attention to it. Our lack of attention to such subjects does not mean they do not currently exist.

Quote:

Between the years of 1887 and 1934, the US government took more than 90 million acres, nearly two-thirds of all reservation lands, from the tribes without compensation and sold it to settlers. As noted by one of the IRA’s principal authors, Congressman Howard of Nebraska, “the land was theirs under titles guaranteed by treaties and law; and when the government of the United States set up a land policy which, in effect, became a forum of legalized misappropriation of the Indian estate, the government became morally responsible for the damage that has resulted to the Indians from its faithless guardianship” (78 Cong. Rec. 11727-11728, 1934).

Of the 90 million acres of tribal land lost through the allotment process, only about eight percent has been reacquired in trust status since the IRA was passed in 1934. Still today, many tribes have no land base, and many tribes have insufficient lands to support housing and self-government. And the legacy of the allotment policy, which has deeply fractionated heirship of trust lands, means that, for most tribes, far more Indian land passes out of trust than into trust each year.


Most tribal lands will not readily support economic development. Many reservations are located far away from the tribe’s historical, cultural, and sacred areas, as well as from traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering areas. NCAI will continue to advocate strongly for the restoration of tribal lands.

Currently, the ability of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for use by Indian tribes is being threatened. The Supreme Court decision in Carcieri v. Salazar was a broad stroke challenging the Department of the Interior’s land-into-trust authority by reinterpreting the language of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. NCAI will continue to push for legislation that recognizes the rights of all tribes to restore tribal lands.


I fail to see how this is invalid given that it is current.
.colorful .dreams
Posted Image
The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances...if there is any reaction, both are transformed.

#28 mroof

mroof

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 569 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 04:19 PM

Pretty god mroof, Im impressed. I don't think 33948 has brought any evidence for anything he has said. Its a lot of unsupported opinion. That only bothers me because its pretty well impossible to respond to it. I thought about it last night and I consider him a troll. Too much provocative opinion, not enough intelligent discussion.

Thanks. I guess I have my moments when I'm not being lazy >.<
.colorful .dreams
Posted Image
The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances...if there is any reaction, both are transformed.

#29 ijs

ijs

    Hocker

  • Members
  • 151 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 02:31 AM

[A] person is a Jew based on that person's ancestry. This is also supported by Israel's policies.


Partially true. Note that a person can also convert. And if that person is female, any children she has after converting are Jews as well. It's not entirely about ancestry because people that would otherwise be non-Jews become Jews as well (whether due to their own conversion, or their mother's). Someone in my shul recently converted; another couple are recent converts (and recently married); and yet another couple were both raised Xian but converted about 5 years ago or so. Their children are Jewish irrespective of race, as is true for anyone else. (Note, too, that all Jews are descended from converts, given that the Hebrews were all “converted” at Sinai.

It is a social construct created by Jews.


Not quite. My understanding is that it is based on the Mishnah, which is Jewish law (i.e., the oral Torah) given by G-d at Sinai.

I think "Jews" do support genocide.


Which Jews? I've never met one that supported genocide. What's the source(s for your position on this?

--------------------------------------------------

I have absolutely no reason to lie about being Jewish.


Indeed, he seems to think all the Jews are lying about Judaism. Or something....

A) Their mother is Jewish (matrilineal lineage within two to three generations)


I've heard this, but I think there's a tad more to it than that. The argument, that is. If the mother is Jewish, it's because her mother was Jewish, &c., &c., back to either a convert or to Sinai. I think the 2-3 generations thing is to ensure accurage knowledge of one's Jewishness; I don't think that it's a halakhic requirement.

The term Caucasian was coined in 1776 … Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson relates to Black "inferiority" in 1781, but we begin to see classifications of "white" coined in 1680. It is not until 1950 that we see "race science" being discredited as racial inferiority takes an extreme with the Nazi parties experimenting on Holocaust victims in order to research "the Jewish race" and the immigration policies which used eugenics and IQ exams as a way of denying immigrants to the country.


Very illuminating. Thanks.

--------------------------------------------------

I am going to point out that you are dissecting a personal opinion, rather than stated fact.


That is a tad more difficult. I was under the impression your statement was intended to be taken as fact.

I am as much entitled to it as you are to defending your right to shirk the responsibility from humanities transgressions of the past because you did not 'perpetuate' said crimes.


Now you're just making a personal attack. A person cannot be responsible for the actions of others, unless he (or she) knew it was coming and could have stopped it. Since neither of us was there when the acts in question, there is nothing either of us could have done about it. And since the act was no longer there by the time we were born (much less capable of making our own decisions at that point), it was too late. We are timebound as we were created; only HaShem is not timebound.

Yes, we can use history as a learning tool to prevent such issues from reoccurring and draw conclusions in other situations, but that does not mean we should disengage from drawing such parallels as a result when doing so.


That's the point of drawing the parallels, though – to use an ignominous past as a reference point for not making the same mistakes again.

By the same hand, your statement infers that those who have not been through the Holocaust should harbor no ill will towards anyone, and that those who have great grandparents who were slaves should not find any issue with current freedoms.


Neither of those makes any sense at all. A person who has not been through the Holocaust can harbor ill will toward someone for any number of reasons; and the thing about slaves' descendants vs. personal freedoms doesn't make any kind of sense at all. I don't even know what you're talking about.

We see that psychologically, this is not necessarily true. Such tempers are cooled simply by admittance and recognition of past transgressions. We may not be responsible for them, but that does not mean we should not ignore those who are still emotionally affected by such situations.


I'm confused. (Yes, really.) Are you saying I should apologize for something I had nothing to do with, so someone else can feel better? And why would the person feel better – except by the receipt of some sort of genuflection acknowledging one's (unearned) moral superiority?

Reparations provide a great example of responsibility being transmitted from generation to generation. Successorship of assets is another.


Actually, they're related concepts that illuminate the nature of the problem. Yes, reparations for slavery have the intention of compensating descendents for the wrongs done their ancestors, which had a reparable effect on the descendents. Trouble is, the descendents of the transgressors didn't do anything wrong themselves and thus cannot be punished for it without creating a whole new wrong – i.e., creating a new wrong in the belief that this makes it right. Add to this, though, that some of the people you'd be punishing are not descended from the transgressors, and/or did not profit from it; and in fact the ancestors of some might not have even been here. Assume for a moment that I had no ancestors in the U.S. at the time of slavery, or that they were all non-slaveholders from the North (true as far as I know). Why should I pay reparations for something that not only I didn't do wrong, but didn't even profit from in any way? What's really going on here is a resentment – valid though it arguably is – in search of a punishment, but which transgressors are already dead and thus beyond punishment.

If you think there is any easy resolution to this moral problem – or any moral resolution at all – then you probably haven't thought it through enough.

The Native American problems are a direct result of policies still in use today.


Which none of us started, and most of us have nothing to do with.

So the situation is still open and current, albeit one no one pays attention to it. Our lack of attention to such subjects does not mean they do not currently exist.


Indeed. But here, what requires attention is what's happening now, not in assigning blame to someone today for something that happened decades before any of us was born. This would be analogous to the Jewish people being angry at today's Iraqis because of the Babylonian-imposed exile from 2,500 years ago, and demanding reparations from them. Certainly, the Native Americans' problems persist, but we didn't create the situation; it already existed when we were born. The wrong done here – by those who did it – is in not changing it, for those who had the power & failed to (and assuming that was the only consideration).
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Chaim Yosef ben Yaakov Avraham

חיים יוסף בך יעקב אברהם

#30 sal

sal

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 843 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 07:22 AM

Now you're just making a personal attack. A person cannot be responsible for the actions of others, unless he (or she) knew it was coming and could have stopped it. Since neither of us was there when the acts in question, there is nothing either of us could have done about it. And since the act was no longer there by the time we were born (much less capable of making our own decisions at that point), it was too late. We are timebound as we were created; only HaShem is not timebound.


That's the point of drawing the parallels, though – to use an ignominous past as a reference point for not making the same mistakes again.


Neither of those makes any sense at all. A person who has not been through the Holocaust can harbor ill will toward someone for any number of reasons; and the thing about slaves' descendants vs. personal freedoms doesn't make any kind of sense at all. I don't even know what you're talking about.


I'm confused. (Yes, really.) Are you saying I should apologize for something I had nothing to do with, so someone else can feel better? And why would the person feel better – except by the receipt of some sort of genuflection acknowledging one's (unearned) moral superiority?


Actually, they're related concepts that illuminate the nature of the problem. Yes, reparations for slavery have the intention of compensating descendents for the wrongs done their ancestors, which had a reparable effect on the descendents. Trouble is, the descendents of the transgressors didn't do anything wrong themselves and thus cannot be punished for it without creating a whole new wrong – i.e., creating a new wrong in the belief that this makes it right. Add to this, though, that some of the people you'd be punishing are not descended from the transgressors, and/or did not profit from it; and in fact the ancestors of some might not have even been here. Assume for a moment that I had no ancestors in the U.S. at the time of slavery, or that they were all non-slaveholders from the North (true as far as I know). Why should I pay reparations for something that not only I didn't do wrong, but didn't even profit from in any way? What's really going on here is a resentment – valid though it arguably is – in search of a punishment, but which transgressors are already dead and thus beyond punishment.

If you think there is any easy resolution to this moral problem – or any moral resolution at all – then you probably haven't thought it through enough.


Which none of us started, and most of us have nothing to do with.


Indeed. But here, what requires attention is what's happening now, not in assigning blame to someone today for something that happened decades before any of us was born. This would be analogous to the Jewish people being angry at today's Iraqis because of the Babylonian-imposed exile from 2,500 years ago, and demanding reparations from them. Certainly, the Native Americans' problems persist, but we didn't create the situation; it already existed when we were born. The wrong done here – by those who did it – is in not changing it, for those who had the power & failed to (and assuming that was the only consideration).

I would like to add my 2 cents.

ijs seems to be saying that no one can be responsible for something that they did not do. I agree with the concept, I just want to bring up a thought.

What happens if A steals B's property and builds a huge factory now A is a billionaire.
After A and B die. Do B's children have a right to all of A's childrens money that comes from the profit of the factory which is on B's stolen land? I think the descendents of B have right of some sort of compensation from A's although they did not do any crime.
The question is how far does it go. If A built a large city on the land. Till when do B of his descendants have a right to claim it back? can they tell all the current residents you have no right to live here now? I can certainly hear the argument that yes and all the wealth that was taken at the expense of B should be rightfully returned. I'm not saying A's descendants are to blame, but they can be responsible to correct the wrong that was done.

#31 33948

33948

    Shtark

  • Members
  • 356 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 08:06 AM

According to this website (hashkafah) a person is Jewish by birth, not by religion and a person can't truly convert. A "convert" is not a real Jew. That's according to posts on hashkafah and most orthodox Jews. It does seem common to lie about this and contradict oneself depending on the situation. This seems to be why there is so much hatred and aggression against Jews. If someone lies without any regard for others, does things to hurt others etc. of course that causes hate and conflict. I don't see what the point is. According to this website and many Jews a way to determine Jewishness is a genetic test. I don't feel like sorting through posts in order to post a link to it. It takes too much time.

The problem with all the people who say that race doesn't exist is that these are the same people who say that affirmative action is necessary. In other words if you (white man) have pride in your race then you are an ignorant racist, backwards homophobe. However, if you are ashamed of your race and take second class citizen status then you are enlightened. If race doesn't exist then stop discriminating against people that are "white". End affirmative action. In the same way race doesn't exist to a white person, but a concept of "Jewish" race is real when convenient to the Jew and not real when its not convenient. It can be turned on and off like a light switch.

I don't feel any kinship or identity with "white". Yet it's other people who put me in this category when they want to discriminate against me.

It is the same with culture. If we want to defend certain aspects of European culture, original American ideas etc. it's "racist" and "backwards". To celebrate African culture is enlightened and caring. Jewish culture.. by far supreme contributed more to the world than any other. European culture *laughs* it never existed.

If every race has committed genocide then why is it usually argued that European culture is evil. That is an inherently racist argument. How are Europeans inferior to other races? I thought we were all equal. The entire argument(s) and behavior is contradictory and amounts to little more than "a constant attack against the white race" as written by some Marxists.

It's one thing if you really believe what you write. But none of these people do. Obviously their beliefs are contradictory and not applied equally to all people. It all goes hand in hand with Jewish supremacism and racism against whites. If white people don't exist, then how did they take away the Indians land for example? whites don't exist when it comes to anything positive attributed to them (superiority, good deeds etc.) when it comes to something negative (genocide, taking people's lands, being inferior etc.) they do exist. White man can't jump? So true. White man has a bigger brain? Racist and backwards. Blacks are better lovers. True. Whites are better at chess? Racist. Jews are victims. Mmm hmmm. whites are victims? How can they be, they don't exist.

Psychological warfare. It's a wrong being done NOW. It's not hypothetical. I think this will explode into much larger problems. These very same things caused WWII. It isn't new and it isn't a reaction to Hitler, but rather a continuation of the very same behaviors that caused the Nazis to begin with. Although what I find interesting is that the Nazis were financed by Jewish bankers.

One must understand the problem is not with Jews, but with the RACISM, Jewish Supremacism etc. You should be able to understand there is a difference. There are Jews who argue the same things that I do. Being a Jew doesn't mean you have to support the concept that non-Jewish whites are "inferior" "don't exist" etc. It also doesn't mean you have to support the notion that Jews have some supreme right to mistreat non-Jews and delegate them to second class status wherever possible. Although it is true that Judaism is inherently racist and Jewish law creates a clear distinction and double standard between Jew and non-Jew. How one interprets this is a bit open to interpretation though.

#32 33948

33948

    Shtark

  • Members
  • 356 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 08:33 AM

I have actually had teachers in college classrooms tell me that women are superior to men. And then said that any argument that men are superior will not be tolerated because it's "sexist". I have heard countless jokes about how stupid blondes are, but any joke about how dark complected people are stupid is racist and will be dealt harshly with punishment. You can walk into many stores and get cards on it that tell us how stupid blondes are.

Of course it's not racist to physically assault, discriminate against, make fun of, talk badly etc. about white people. It is racist to do so to non-whites. And this is the modern concept of Justice. Where do these ideas come from? Primarily from Jewish intellectuals who do not honestly argue such things but disseminate it through schools, media and other sources. The hidden hand that guides our culture.

Of course not all people are sheep. Some people get tired of being denied jobs, insulted on a daily basis, being demoralized, told that they are scum and shouldn't exist etc. That's where your evil "white supremacist" usually creeps up into the picture. The only problem is now we are starting to get doctors and lawyers and so on who are "white nationalists". And where does it end? A Jewish holocaust? Honestly, isn't it easier to just support treating all people equally? Wouldn't it be better to love your neighbor?

How do things get done in human society? By cooperating, working together, showing active concern for the community. It doesn't get done by lying and cheating your way to the top. It really isn't a sound strategy. Yet for many Jews that seems to be the cultural belief system put in place. Put others down to get yourself on top.

I think most average Jews aren't even aware of this. But it's sort of the compelling cultural force of more extreme hardcore Jewish groups (ultra orthodox) as well as certain wealthy circles. These people disseminate cultural marxism, along with self hating whites. Most of these self hating whites are females or losers who feel weak. Thus they feel it is in their interest to attack what is "dominant". Along with this other "minorities" such as blacks may join in "attacking the dominant culture" via cultural Marxism. The attacks are done primarily through psychological methods rather than overt argument.

The multiculturalism/marxism doesn't stand up to reason that's why it isn't argued for with reason,, but rather with personal insults, threats, disseminated through a trusted authority, repeated and reiterated multiple times via media conduits such as television etc.

Mroof don't worry when they see your blond hair being Jewish might not save you. You will be made fun of, insulted, denied opportunity, possible attacked based solely on your complexion. Is this a good thing that we really want in society?

I'm 100% for treating all people equally. Unfortunately that is not what we have today. Today "equality" = "a constant attack against whites" and
"racist" = "anyone that defends white people"

#33 warren

warren

    Rebbe

  • Members
  • 2,208 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 10:48 AM

According to this website (hashkafah) a person is Jewish by birth, not by religion and a person can't truly convert. A "convert" is not a real Jew. That's according to posts on hashkafah and most orthodox Jews.

Please post some links to this site that say so.
Poe's law: without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between sincere extremism and an exaggerated parody of extremism

If not now, when? Because I have lunch plans.

Purple is indeed very important

The Uncertainty Principle. It proves we can't ever really know... what's going on. So it shouldn't bother you. Not being able to figure anything out. Although you will be responsible for this on the mid-term. - "A Serious Man"

#34 ijs

ijs

    Hocker

  • Members
  • 151 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 07:24 PM

[A] person is a Jew based on that person's ancestry. This is also supported by Israel's policies.


Partially true. Note that a person can also convert. And if that person is female, any children she has after converting are Jews as well. It's not entirely about ancestry because people that would otherwise be non-Jews become Jews as well (whether due to their own conversion, or their mother's). Someone in my shul recently converted; another couple are recent converts (and recently married); and yet another couple were both raised Xian but converted about 5 years ago or so. Their children are Jewish irrespective of race, as is true for anyone else. (Note, too, that all Jews are descended from converts, given that the Hebrews were all “converted” at Sinai.

It is a social construct created by Jews.


Not quite. My understanding is that it is based on the Mishnah, which is Jewish law (i.e., the oral Torah) given by G-d at Sinai.

I think "Jews" do support genocide.


Which Jews? I've never met one that supported genocide. What's the source(s for your position on this?

--------------------------------------------------

I have absolutely no reason to lie about being Jewish.


Indeed, he seems to think all the Jews are lying about Judaism. Or something....

A) Their mother is Jewish (matrilineal lineage within two to three generations)


I've heard this, but I think there's a tad more to it than that. The argument, that is. If the mother is Jewish, it's because her mother was Jewish, &c., &c., back to either a convert or to Sinai. I think the 2-3 generations thing is to ensure accurage knowledge of one's Jewishness; I don't think that it's a halakhic requirement.

The term Caucasian was coined in 1776 … Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson relates to Black "inferiority" in 1781, but we begin to see classifications of "white" coined in 1680. It is not until 1950 that we see "race science" being discredited as racial inferiority takes an extreme with the Nazi parties experimenting on Holocaust victims in order to research "the Jewish race" and the immigration policies which used eugenics and IQ exams as a way of denying immigrants to the country.


Very illuminating. Thanks.

--------------------------------------------------

I am going to point out that you are dissecting a personal opinion, rather than stated fact.


That is a tad more difficult. I was under the impression your statement was intended to be taken as fact.

I am as much entitled to it as you are to defending your right to shirk the responsibility from humanities transgressions of the past because you did not 'perpetuate' said crimes.


Now you're just making a personal attack. A person cannot be responsible for the actions of others, unless he (or she) knew it was coming and could have stopped it. Since neither of us was there when the acts in question, there is nothing either of us could have done about it. And since the act was no longer there by the time we were born (much less capable of making our own decisions at that point), it was too late. We are timebound as we were created; only HaShem is not timebound.

Yes, we can use history as a learning tool to prevent such issues from reoccurring and draw conclusions in other situations, but that does not mean we should disengage from drawing such parallels as a result when doing so.


That's the point of drawing the parallels, though – to use an ignominous past as a reference point for not making the same mistakes again.

By the same hand, your statement infers that those who have not been through the Holocaust should harbor no ill will towards anyone, and that those who have great grandparents who were slaves should not find any issue with current freedoms.


Neither of those makes any sense at all. A person who has not been through the Holocaust can harbor ill will toward someone for any number of reasons; and the thing about slaves' descendants vs. personal freedoms doesn't make any kind of sense at all. I don't even know what you're talking about.

We see that psychologically, this is not necessarily true. Such tempers are cooled simply by admittance and recognition of past transgressions. We may not be responsible for them, but that does not mean we should not ignore those who are still emotionally affected by such situations.


I'm confused. (Yes, really.) Are you saying I should apologize for something I had nothing to do with, so someone else can feel better? And why would the person feel better – except by the receipt of some sort of genuflection acknowledging one's (unearned) moral superiority?

Reparations provide a great example of responsibility being transmitted from generation to generation. Successorship of assets is another.


Actually, they're related concepts that illuminate the nature of the problem. Yes, reparations for slavery have the intention of compensating descendents for the wrongs done their ancestors, which had a reparable effect on the descendents. Trouble is, the descendents of the transgressors didn't do anything wrong themselves and thus cannot be punished for it without creating a whole new wrong – i.e., creating a new wrong in the belief that this makes it right. Add to this, though, that some of the people you'd be punishing are not descended from the transgressors, and/or did not profit from it; and in fact the ancestors of some might not have even been here. Assume for a moment that I had no ancestors in the U.S. at the time of slavery, or that they were all non-slaveholders from the North (true as far as I know). Why should I pay reparations for something that not only I didn't do wrong, but didn't even profit from in any way? What's really going on here is a resentment – valid though it arguably is – in search of a punishment, but which transgressors are already dead and thus beyond punishment.

If you think there is any easy resolution to this moral problem – or any moral resolution at all – then you probably haven't thought it through enough.

The Native American problems are a direct result of policies still in use today.


Which none of us started, and most of us have nothing to do with.

So the situation is still open and current, albeit one no one pays attention to it. Our lack of attention to such subjects does not mean they do not currently exist.


Indeed. But here, what requires attention is what's happening now, not in assigning blame to someone today for something that happened decades before any of us was born. This would be analogous to the Jewish people being angry at today's Iraqis because of the Babylonian-imposed exile from 2,500 years ago, and demanding reparations from them. Certainly, the Native Americans' problems persist, but we didn't create the situation; it already existed when we were born. The wrong done here – by those who did it – is in not changing it, for those who had the power & failed to (and assuming that was the only consideration).

--------------------------------------------------

I think the descendents of B have right of some sort of compensation from A's although they did not do any crime.


This is the crux of the problem, though. Either you allow innocents' descendants to continue suffering a wrong, or to punish the innocent descendants of wrongdoers though they themselves did nothing wrong. Either way, someone innocent is being hurt. No matter which way you go, either an old wrong is allowed to stand, or a new one is created. The argument, then, becomes which wrong is the lesser of them, which in either case is rightly perceived as harming someone.

I'm not saying A's descendants are to blame, but they can be responsible to correct the wrong that was done.


This can certainly be the case, if only because the problem persists. For example, we today (in the U.S., that is) have a responsibility to rectify the manner in which native American tribes are being treated by the U.S. government; but that does not mean we are responsible for it happening in the first place, or need to apologize for something we (today) didn't do. These are two different meanings of the word “responsible,” and we must take care not to equivocate.

--------------------------------------------------

According to this website (hashkafah) a person is Jewish by birth, not by religion and a person can't truly convert.


A person may most certainly truly convert. A friend of mine was just recently converted, and another (and his future wife, just prior to their marriage) a few months ago. And I just discovered that another friend and his wife were raised Xian and converted a few years ago. It is possible and does happen, so I don't know where you're getting this notion from. Are you telling me these five people didn't actually convert and are not Jews? What is the basis for this absurd claim?

The problem with all the people who say that race doesn't exist is that these are the same people who say that affirmative action is necessary.


As a lawyer, I can tell you with a great deal of authority that this is not true at all. In fact, the whole concept of affirmative action is based on the attempt to right previous wrongs committed on account of race. Jurisprudence on U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, is based on an analysis of whether a given class of persons is a suspect classification, and race is one of the three classic examples of a suspect class. U.S. law inherently, from the Constitution itself, recognizes the existence of race, so I don't know where you're getting this from.

I think most average Jews aren't even aware of this.


Well, I'm glad we have a telepath among us to tell us what we don't know. : :)

[The] more extreme hardcore Jewish groups (ultra orthodox) as well as certain wealthy circles ... disseminate cultural marxism.


Um, what? What is “cultural Marxism”? When combined with your recent comments about conversion, are you still upset that Jews prefer to help other Jews, and that you can't become one for illegitimate reasons?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Chaim Yosef ben Yaakov Avraham

חיים יוסף בך יעקב אברהם

#35 Templar

Templar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 10:02 PM

I'm confused. (Yes, really.) Are you saying I should apologize for something I had nothing to do with, so someone else can feel better? And why would the person feel better – except by the receipt of some sort of genuflection acknowledging one's (unearned) moral superiority?

I agree. What a stupid idea this whole 'reparations' con is--- making amends to modern people who have never been wronged for crimes you have never committed.






Actually, they're related concepts that illuminate the nature of the problem. Yes, reparations for slavery have the intention of compensating descendents for the wrongs done their ancestors, which had a reparable effect on the descendents. Trouble is, the descendents of the transgressors didn't do anything wrong themselves and thus cannot be punished for it without creating a whole new wrong.

And it gets even more absurd then that, as there are many white people(myself included) whose ancestors never had the slightest involvment in the Slave Trade or Indian Wars--- and still we're affected by the Reparations Policies simply because we're white. In a word, we're punished for crimes committed by other people's ancestors.








Templar's arguments don't really interest me







Posted Image

#36 ijs

ijs

    Hocker

  • Members
  • 151 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 12:31 AM

I agree. What a stupid idea this whole 'reparations' con is--- making amends to modern people who have never been wronged for crimes you have never committed.


Whoa, there … I never went that far, because part of what you say above isn't entirely true. The person hasn't been wronged directly, but the wrongs done his ancestor harmed him indirectly, which wrong was performed by the ancestor of the contemporary person who benefitted from the wrongdoing. I'm not saying there aren't problems, but there are problems with both positions, and anyone thinking otherwise hasn't really thought it through. (For my part, I go back & forth as to which position is the better one.)

In a word, we're punished for crimes committed by other people's ancestors.


Well, that's multiple words. ;) Seriously, though … that's merely one more permutation.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Chaim Yosef ben Yaakov Avraham

חיים יוסף בך יעקב אברהם

#37 Templar

Templar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:47 AM

Whoa, there … I never went that far, because part of what you say above isn't entirely true. The person hasn't been wronged directly, but the wrongs done his ancestor harmed him indirectly, which wrong was performed by the ancestor of the contemporary person who benefitted from the wrongdoing.

You're mistaken, actually. Contrary to the twaddle mouthed by people like Jesse Jackson and Rev.Wright, the descendants of the slaveowners do not benefit from the wealth generated by slave labour. Why? Because the wealth no longer exists.

Most people don't realize the sheer devastation visited upon the South in the years following the Civil War. Period accounts written by travelers passing through the post-war slave states paint an apocalyptic scenario where most of the major cities in the area were lying in ruins, churches, hospitals, schools, and other public buildings had been burned to the ground, and most railroads, telegraph lines, and other means of public transportation and communication had been cut off; the chaos was further compounded by by a food shortage, as the majority of the grain supply and crops had been commandeered or destroyed by the warring armies for three years in a row. Likewise, much of the cotton and other Southern cash crops had been destroyed or stolen over the course of the fighting. Indeed, many parts of the South had to be rebuilt from the ground up.

My point: There was literally nothing left of the fruits of the wrongdoing for the wrongdoer's descendants to benefit by. It had all been looted or destroyed.
The modern black man is not harmed either directly or indirectly by a slave trade that ended 147 years ago; everyone involved with the slave trade is long dead, and the profits generated by the slave trade were destroyed long ago. It's high time to relegate the American slave trade to the history books and stop treating it as though it were a current issue.

#38 mroof

mroof

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 569 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:51 PM

Well, I apologize ijs: I do realize it was a backhanded comment (not particularly a direct insult though).

Well here is the thing -- because such examples like reparations DO exist, should we not draw such parallels? We do it all the time in history. We compare our pasts to the present. My issue as you stated, is the fact that we ignore current* situations like the current Native American land and policy related issues and focus on other countries (and these land related disputes can be seen as recently as 2009).

I understand your point of view well, but I also feel that the US is in the hot seat for a lot of things right now and I do think we should be fixing our own garden before planting trees elsewhere. That is essentially the gist of it.

I should have figured you were a lawyer by some of your responses ijs lol!
.colorful .dreams
Posted Image
The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances...if there is any reaction, both are transformed.

#39 Templar

Templar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 11:51 AM

They did not kill civilians because of the threat they posed. They killed them because that was how they conducted the war. Their intention was to bring down the axis power. Its is very easy for you to criticize the method without giving an alternative solution. Say what they should have done different (Not they should not have killed civilians.) to destroy the enemies.

We've been over this.
Engage the hostile military, and people who actively oppose you on the battlefield.

For instance, does the state of Israel survive by engaging armed Arab insurgents, or does it hold together by slaughtering Arab non-combatants?
Jews usually say that it's the former. If that's true, then it would seem that killing civilians is not neccessary to defeat a military opponent.

#40 sal

sal

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 843 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 08:27 PM

We've been over this.
Engage the hostile military, and people who actively oppose you on the battlefield.

For instance, does the state of Israel survive by engaging armed Arab insurgents, or does it hold together by slaughtering Arab non-combatants?
Jews usually say that it's the former. If that's true, then it would seem that killing civilians is not neccessary to defeat a military opponent.

Its not necessarily necessary, but I'm sure you heard of human shields.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users