Serious question about anti-Semitism.

LordsFire said:

No 'I assert this' is not 'proof enough.'

If we're going to argue at the level of 'I say so, therefore it is,' then I have a simple counter-argument:

You're wrong.

There. I win the argument. Now either get some real evidence and argumentation, or admit you're just pushing a line of propaganda you swallowed at some point. You haven't even bothered to try to come up with responses to any points others made.

Click to expand...

Arguments?
1.King Philipp war.Those who do not get murdered must leave their lands.

2.Mexico was conqered in 1520 and most of population is still metises.USA after 1650 and all indians on East are white people cosplaing as indians.Since both communities was settled,and both suffered 90% death from plagues,then,if anglos do not genocide locals,there still would be local metise population there.

Now,back to topic - we are taking about antisemitism,not anglos genocide.So :

1.Daniel Rufeisen,polish jew was saved by polish nuns which would all die if german discovered him.He later become catholic monk as result,and go to Israel,when authorities refused to gave him citizenship - becouse for them jew who baptize is no longer jew.
Antisemites.

2.Rosalind Moss - she was succesfull jew,but decided to become catholic nun.Result? those jews who still belived stop cintacting her ,becouse she was traitor for them.
Antisemites,again.

ATP said:

Arguments?
1.King Philipp war.Those who do not get murdered must leave their lands.

2.Mexico was conqered in 1520 and most of population is still metises.USA after 1650 and all indians on East are white people cosplaing as indians.Since both communities was settled,and both suffered 90% death from plagues,then,if anglos do not genocide locals,there still would be local metise population there.

Now,back to topic - we are taking about antisemitism,not anglos genocide.So :

1.Daniel Rufeisen,polish jew was saved by polish nuns which would all die if german discovered him.He later become catholic monk as result,and go to Israel,when authorities refused to gave him citizenship - becouse for them jew who baptize is no longer jew.
Antisemites.

2.Rosalind Moss - she was succesfull jew,but decided to become catholic nun.Result? those jews who still belived stop cintacting her ,becouse she was traitor for them.
Antisemites,again.

Click to expand...

Your examples there both rely on confusing Jewish (Race) with Jewish (Religion).

Bear Ribs said:

Your examples there both rely on confusing Jewish (Race) with Jewish (Religion).

Click to expand...

The Israelis will happily jump from one definition to the other, as it suits them.

Scottty said:

The Israelis will happily jump from one definition to the other, as it suits them.

Click to expand...

No, it's that there's a difference between being a barely practicing jew, and outright rejecting Judaism and converting.

ATP said:

Now,back to topic - we are taking about antisemitism,not anglos genocide.So :

1.Daniel Rufeisen,polish jew was saved by polish nuns which would all die if german discovered him.He later become catholic monk as result,and go to Israel,when authorities refused to gave him citizenship - becouse for them jew who baptize is no longer jew.
Antisemites.

2.Rosalind Moss - she was succesfull jew,but decided to become catholic nun.Result? those jews who still belived stop cintacting her ,becouse she was traitor for them.
Antisemites,again.

Click to expand...

Also, not liking particular Jews isn't antisemitism anymore than disdaining particular black people is racism.

ATP said:

Arguments?
1.King Philipp war.Those who do not get murdered must leave their lands.

2.Mexico was conqered in 1520 and most of population is still metises.USA after 1650 and all indians on East are white people cosplaing as indians.Since both communities was settled,and both suffered 90% death from plagues,then,if anglos do not genocide locals,there still would be local metise population there.

Click to expand...

So again, you quote a conflict in which colonists allied with some natives against others.

Then you just assert 'The only possible reason that there are not so many Mestizos is because of X.'

It's the exact same shoddy argument you made before, just out for another round of BS. You've proven exactly nothing, and your 'evidence' yet again actually supports the opposite position.


I don't know what point the rest of your post is trying to make about anti-semitism, but when literally every argument you make on the one matter actually undermines your position rather than supports it, I'm not seeing much point in trying to untangle whatever it is you're trying to say.

Abhorsen said:

No, it's that there's a difference between being a barely practicing jew, and outright rejecting Judaism and converting.


Also, not liking particular Jews isn't antisemitism anymore than disdaining particular black people is racism.

Click to expand...

They do not disliked Daniel Ruffensein,they stated that he could not become Israel citizen becouse he become christian.
And another proof - Norman Finkelstein proved in his "Holocaust Industry" that jewish elites use Holocaust as pretext to get money and support Israel 2.0.
Result? he become antisemite,too.

ATP said:

They do not disliked Daniel Ruffensein,they stated that he could not become Israel citizen becouse he become christian.

Click to expand...

In my response for saying "stop using anecdotal evidence" you offer anecdotal evidence. I think everyone other than you sees the problem here.

ATP said:

And another proof - Norman Finkelstein proved in his "Holocaust Industry" that jewish elites use Holocaust as pretext to get money and support Israel 2.0.
Result? he become antisemite,too.

Click to expand...

Finkelstein is known to be hilariously wrong as well about practically everything. Finkelstein is pro Hamas attacking innocents.

His quote about Charlie Hebdo?

So two despairing and desperate young men act out their despair and desperation against this political pornography no different than Der Stürmer, who in the midst of all of this death and destruction decide it's somehow noble to degrade, demean, humiliate and insult the people. I'm sorry, maybe it is very politically incorrect. I have no sympathy for [the staff of Charlie Hebdo]. Should they have been killed? Of course not. But of course, Streicher shouldn't have been hung [sic]. I don't hear that from many people."[120]

Click to expand...

Then on top of this, the book you talk about has been heavily criticized for historical inaccuracy, though this is a surprise to absolutely no one given you also cite the Pink Swastika, which is so full of bullshit one could use it as a manure factory.

ATP said:

And another proof - Norman Finkelstein proved in his "Holocaust Industry" that jewish elites use Holocaust as pretext to get money and support Israel 2.0.
Result? he become antisemite,too.

Click to expand...

Finklestein's positions include support of hardcore USSR-style communism, that the Jews are illegally occupying Palestine and it's an apartheid state, that all Palestinians are martyrs, and that Gaza is a concentration camp and concentration camp guards do not have a right to self-defense, ergo any Israeli defense against Palestinian rockets is wrong and illegal. There's a touch more to his antisemitism than that he "proved" there's a holocaust industry.


Notable quotes:

“A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution,” was a very valuable weapon in delegitimizing aspects of Israeli policy.

Gaza has been called a concentration camp, by many reputable scholars and journalists, people like Baruch Kimmerling, the late Baruch Kimmerling from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Amira Haas, the journalist with Ha’aretz. Now, during the Great March of Return, which began March 30th, 2018, the Palestinians attempted nonviolently to breach the immoral, illegal, criminal blockade of Gaza.

And I say, is there any moral system, any ethic of justice that can possibly conclude that concentration camp guards, who have been confining more than 1 million children in that concentration camp since 2006, have the right to self-defense?

Bear Ribs said:

And I say, is there any moral system, any ethic of justice that can possibly conclude that concentration camp guards, who have been confining more than 1 million children in that concentration camp since 2006, have the right to self-defense?

Click to expand...

Easy! One that regards Self-Defense as an Unalienable Right. Doesn't matter what you accuse them of doing, if you're trying to kill them they have the right to defend themselves. Simple as that.

Scottty said:

Easy! One that regards Self-Defense as an Unalienable Right. Doesn't matter what you accuse them of doing, if you're trying to kill them they have the right to defend themselves. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

Well, he may not always choose the exact right words of course. F'rex, his statement that the 2018-19 Gaza Riots, which he refers to as the "Great March of Return," were nonviolent. He should have used the accepted phrase "Mostly Peaceful."

Pictured: Nonviolent Mostly Peaceful Swastika Firebomb Kites setting Violent Israeli crops on fire.

Abhorsen said:

In my response for saying "stop using anecdotal evidence" you offer anecdotal evidence. I think everyone other than you sees the problem here.


Finkelstein is known to be hilariously wrong as well about practically everything. Finkelstein is pro Hamas attacking innocents.

His quote about Charlie Hebdo?


Then on top of this, the book you talk about has been heavily criticized for historical inaccuracy, though this is a surprise to absolutely no one given you also cite the Pink Swastika, which is so full of bullshit one could use it as a manure factory.

Click to expand...

1.Facts are facts,they really do nor wanted gave Daniel Ruffensein citizenchip becouse he become christian.It is abnormal.
They have fucked brains.

2.did you see Charle Hebdo pictures with Jesus,God and Holy Spirit? no? so, german during WW2 show jews as nicely, way,but even they do not use porn in their attacks.

And some jews organisation now want 300 millions from Poland,becouse polish jews who were polish citizen killed by GERMANS leaves no survivors and their property become property of polish state.

If american citizen born in Poland die without heirs,then his property is owned by USA,noy Poland,becouse he was citizen of USA,not Poland
In every cyvilised state,if somebody die without heirs his property belong to his state./unless such state killed him/
But jews want change that into racist method where property of every jews who die without heirs belong to some shady organisations.

3.Facts are facts.You could not like authors of Pink Swastica,but what they wrote about pederasts in NSDAP was true,just like what Finkenstein wrote about Holocaust industry.

P.S What is wrong with aparthaid? it served South Africa nicely,and they should keep it.I do not blame Israel for keeping it,in that regard they are right.
And they accupy Palestine - but i do not care about it.

Bear Ribs said:

Finklestein's positions include support of hardcore USSR-style communism, that the Jews are illegally occupying Palestine and it's an apartheid state, that all Palestinians are martyrs, and that Gaza is a concentration camp and concentration camp guards do not have a right to self-defense, ergo any Israeli defense against Palestinian rockets is wrong and illegal. There's a touch more to his antisemitism than that he "proved" there's a holocaust industry.

Norman Finkelstein: Truth and justice are the ultimate test, not international NGOs | MR Online

Even Human Rights Watch says Israel is committing crimes against humanity in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and in Gaza, and the idea of a Jewish state in the context of Palestine is not legitimate.

mronline.org

Notable quotes:

“A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution,” was a very valuable weapon in delegitimizing aspects of Israeli policy.

Gaza has been called a concentration camp, by many reputable scholars and journalists, people like Baruch Kimmerling, the late Baruch Kimmerling from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Amira Haas, the journalist with Ha’aretz. Now, during the Great March of Return, which began March 30th, 2018, the Palestinians attempted nonviolently to breach the immoral, illegal, criminal blockade of Gaza.

And I say, is there any moral system, any ethic of justice that can possibly conclude that concentration camp guards, who have been confining more than 1 million children in that concentration camp since 2006, have the right to self-defense?

Click to expand...

Two things isn’t what he said about Charlie Hebdo and Julius Streicher true though?
Second isn’t this guy also a new? It’s a pretty big stretch to call a jew an antisemite just because they hate Israel. People are allowed to hate the state of Israel for whatever dumb reason they have without being racist against Jews.

King Arts said:

Two things isn’t what he said about Charlie Hebdo and Julius Streicher true though?
Second isn’t this guy also a new? It’s a pretty big stretch to call a jew an antisemite just because they hate Israel. People are allowed to hate the state of Israel for whatever dumb reason they have without being racist against Jews.

Click to expand...

Kay, I'm not one to complain too much about grammar but I'm genuinely having trouble parsing your post here, if I'm misrepresenting your position I apologize.

I'm presuming by he you mean Finklestein's statements on Charlie Hebdo and Julius Streicher.

Let's start with Streicher. He was a Nazi. Not a person to the right of Ronald Reagan 'Nazi' and not a person in Germany during the war forced to join up 'Nazi,' but a literal card-carrying central member of the Nazi Party's propaganda arm and virulently anti-semitic. His newspaper drummed up a lot of the anti-semitic spirit in the Nazi party and he was among the first people convicted and executed at Nuremberg for the things he did because the Holocaust might well not have happened without Streicher's input. This is a person Finklestein has defended.

Finklestein compared Streicher's Nazi-supporting newspaper with Charlie Hebdo, the newspaper that published pictures of the Prophet resulting in 12 of their staff being killed by violent Islamists for heresy. In Finklestein's opinion, it was sadism to publish those pictures, not satire, and it was akin to "fighting words," so Muslims were justified in killing the people involved in publishing them and Charlie Hebdo was comparable to Streicher, who shouldn't have been executed for "merely" being a major cause and supporter of the Holocaust and Nazi Party in WW2.

This is the kind of thing that makes him legitimately an anti-semite, he goes way past criticizing Israel and into actively praising Nazis and murderers as long as they are supporting Islam and hurting Jews. I can't really say whether or not what he said is "true" because they were expressions of his opinion rather than facts, in his opinion Islamists shooting the staff of Charlie Hebdo was justified, and hanging Streicher for supporting and partially causing the holocaust was not. I do not share those opinions, but I can't actually say it's "untrue" because they aren't factual statements.

Bear Ribs said:

This is the kind of thing that makes him legitimately an anti-semite, he goes way past criticizing Israel and into actively praising Nazis and murderers as long as they are supporting Islam and hurting Jews.

Click to expand...

Hmmm
I've heard of people pretended to be Muslims but were secretly Jews, but this is the first time I've seen talk of the reverse.

Or does Finkstone just have a leftist compulsion to side against his own people?

Bear Ribs said:

Kay, I'm not one to complain too much about grammar but I'm genuinely having trouble parsing your post here, if I'm misrepresenting your position I apologize.

I'm presuming by he you mean Finklestein's statements on Charlie Hebdo and Julius Streicher.

Let's start with Streicher. He was a Nazi. Not a person to the right of Ronald Reagan 'Nazi' and not a person in Germany during the war forced to join up 'Nazi,' but a literal card-carrying central member of the Nazi Party's propaganda arm and virulently anti-semitic. His newspaper drummed up a lot of the anti-semitic spirit in the Nazi party and he was among the first people convicted and executed at Nuremberg for the things he did because the Holocaust might well not have happened without Streicher's input. This is a person Finklestein has defended.

Finklestein compared Streicher's Nazi-supporting newspaper with Charlie Hebdo, the newspaper that published pictures of the Prophet resulting in 12 of their staff being killed by violent Islamists for heresy. In Finklestein's opinion, it was sadism to publish those pictures, not satire, and it was akin to "fighting words," so Muslims were justified in killing the people involved in publishing them and Charlie Hebdo was comparable to Streicher, who shouldn't have been executed for "merely" being a major cause and supporter of the Holocaust and Nazi Party in WW2.

This is the kind of thing that makes him legitimately an anti-semite, he goes way past criticizing Israel and into actively praising Nazis and murderers as long as they are supporting Islam and hurting Jews. I can't really say whether or not what he said is "true" because they were expressions of his opinion rather than facts, in his opinion Islamists shooting the staff of Charlie Hebdo was justified, and hanging Streicher for supporting and partially causing the holocaust was not. I do not share those opinions, but I can't actually say it's "untrue" because they aren't factual statements.

Click to expand...

I apologize for the bad grammar and misspelled words I’m phone posting and when I asked if this guy was a jew my phone autocorrect to new. Anyway I was reading up on def strummer and Julius Streicher and according to Wikipedia he lost all power in 1939 before the Wannsee conference and the holocaust actually started. Also set strummer was a tabloid and the top Nazis were embarrassed by it and tried to seperate it from their ideas. Streicher while he was a Nazi and fully agreed with them did not actually shape Nazi policy or was an official part of their propaganda arm. I haven’t read anything published by Streicher or der strummer myself because I have better things to do then read the words of a rambling autist. Like the guy was literally screaming purimfest 1945 while being hanged. Hitler was also actually mentally ill but at least him and Himmler were actually part of the government and ordered the genocides. I fail to see a difference between this Streicher and 4chan they would also egg on a genocide if it was going on but that has no affect on whether it continues or stops or is worse or lessened.

And I quickly skimmed the article about Finklestein he isn’t saying killing Streicher is wrong but Charlie Hebdo is right. He said they were both wrong.Neither Hebdos people should have been killed but Streicher should not be killed. That’s logically consistent it would also be consistent to believe both Hebdo and Charlie should be killed, because they were spreading hate. And then he brought up the concept of fighting words if you call a black man the N word then he shoots you and he said that would be similar to those examples above with Hebdo and Streicher. Those people shouldn’t have been killed but they are hardly innocent since they provoked the other person. Though with Streicher it was the government fucking with the law and free speech as opposed to the other example where it was a private person who takes things to far.

Scottty said:

Hmmm
I've heard of people pretended to be Muslims but were secretly Jews, but this is the first time I've seen talk of the reverse.

Or does Finkstone just have a leftist compulsion to side against his own people?

Click to expand...

Muslims would never pretend to be anything else.Real ones,that it is.And Finkenstein simply wrote rtuth - he even farsee fact that jews organisations would try robb Poland,which they are doing now.

Scottty said:

Hmmm
I've heard of people pretended to be Muslims but were secretly Jews, but this is the first time I've seen talk of the reverse.

Or does Finkstone just have a leftist compulsion to side against his own people?

Click to expand...

I can't pretend to read the guy's mind of course. But in the modern left today, it's not hard to find white people who find the very concept of whiteness despicable and hate all white people. It's possible it's similar.

King Arts said:

I apologize for the bad grammar and misspelled words I’m phone posting and when I asked if this guy was a jew my phone autocorrect to new. Anyway I was reading up on def strummer and Julius Streicher and according to Wikipedia he lost all power in 1939 before the Wannsee conference and the holocaust actually started. Also set strummer was a tabloid and the top Nazis were embarrassed by it and tried to seperate it from their ideas. Streicher while he was a Nazi and fully agreed with them did not actually shape Nazi policy or was an official part of their propaganda arm. I haven’t read anything published by Streicher or der strummer myself because I have better things to do then read the words of a rambling autist. Like the guy was literally screaming purimfest 1945 while being hanged. Hitler was also actually mentally ill but at least him and Himmler were actually part of the government and ordered the genocides. I fail to see a difference between this Streicher and 4chan they would also egg on a genocide if it was going on but that has no affect on whether it continues or stops or is worse or lessened.

Click to expand...

Those who conducted the Nuremburg trials, who did significantly more than skim a Wikipedia article, disagreed with your optimistic view of his influence and hanged him for it.

Also:
"One must never forget the services rendered by the Stürmer. Now that the Jews are known for what they are, nobody any longer thinks that Streicher libeled them." -Adolf Hitler, 1942

King Arts said:

And I quickly skimmed the article about Finklestein he isn’t saying killing Streicher is wrong but Charlie Hebdo is right. He said they were both wrong.Neither Hebdos people should have been killed but Streicher should not be killed. That’s logically consistent it would also be consistent to believe both Hebdo and Charlie should be killed, because they were spreading hate. And then he brought up the concept of fighting words if you call a black man the N word then he shoots you and he said that would be similar to those examples above with Hebdo and Streicher. Those people shouldn’t have been killed but they are hardly innocent since they provoked the other person. Though with Streicher it was the government fucking with the law and free speech as opposed to the other example where it was a private person who takes things to far.

Click to expand...

Let me point out the problem with this reasoning, Finklestein felt that directly inciting the worst war crimes in the history of mankind and publishing a cartoon of Muhammad were comparable. There's such a thing as degree, and nuance.

King Arts said:

And then he brought up the concept of fighting words if you call a black man the N word then he shoots you and he said that would be similar to those examples above with Hebdo and Streicher. Those people shouldn’t have been killed but they are hardly innocent since they provoked the other person.

Click to expand...

That's not how the fighting words doctrine works. Largely because subsequent case law has narrowed the category of fighting word to the point it effectively doesn't exist, but when it did exist, it applied to speech that when uttered was so vile, so hostile, so ugly as to be sufficiently provocative that it is understandable that someone would snap in the heat of the moment and beat the speaker senseless.

Keyword "in the moment". Fighting words doctrine was intended to cover personal confrontations that escalated because of one parties behavior and comments. It was never intended or accepted as a defense for carefully planned premeditated murder, no matter how vile the provoking offense.

Battlegrinder said:

That's not how the fighting words doctrine works. Largely because subsequent case law has narrowed the category of fighting word to the point it effectively doesn't exist, but when it did exist, it applied to speech that when uttered was so vile, so hostile, so ugly as to be sufficiently provocative that it is understandable that someone would snap in the heat of the moment and beat the speaker senseless.

Keyword "in the moment". Fighting words doctrine was intended to cover personal confrontations that escalated because of one parties behavior and comments. It was never intended or accepted as a defense for carefully planned premeditated murder, no matter how vile the provoking offense.

Click to expand...

You quoted the part where I gave the N word as an example did you mean to quote the Charlie Hebdo example since the killers there actually had to get a gun drive all the way there and your argument would be more applicable since there is a “cooling off period” but with the n word that’s less than a second so fighting words would apply.

By the same logic I'd be allowed to beat a black man senseless for calling me a "bitch-ass cracka!", right?