Serious question about anti-Semitism.

The Name of Love said:

Look up things like the Finders and Project MKUltra and tell me that it isn't a little bit suspicious.

Going back to anti-Semitism, I think the main reason for it is simple: Jews just so happen to have been doing more bad things per capita than non-Jews have been, and this leads people to blame all Jews for the actions of a few. Simple, open-and-shut case.

Click to expand...

No that is not it.

We do not do more bad things more capita then our gentile neighbors that is bullshit.


A middleman minority is a minority population whose main occupations link producers and consumers: traders, money-lenders, etc. A middleman minority, while possibly suffering discrimination, does not hold an "extreme subordinate" status in society.[1] The "middleman minority" concept was developed by sociologists like Blalock and Bonacich starting in the 1960s but is also used by political scientists and economists.[citation needed]
There are numerous examples of such groups gaining eventual prosperity in their adopted country despite discrimination. Often, they will take on roles between producer and consumer, such as trading and moneylending. Famous examples such as Jews throughout Europe even at times when discrimination against them was high, Chinese throughout Southeast Asia, Muslims and Parsis in India, Igbos in Nigeria, Indians in East Africa, Lebanese in West Africa, and many others.[2]
Middleman minorities usually provide an economic benefit to communities and nations and often start new industries. However, their economic aptitude, financial success and clannishness, combined with social prejudices by other groups against businesses and moneylending, can cause resentment among the native population of a country. Middleman minorities can be victims of violence, genocide, racialist policy, or other forms of repression. Other ethnic groups often accuse them of plotting conspiracies against their nation or of stealing wealth from the native population


---

If you want to understand why we deal with so much shit like other middle man minorities just understand this.

When douchebags see an ethnic group that is doing worse then them they say their lazy, when they see an ethnic group doing better then them they think it must be happening because their cheating.

Prosperity is a matter of hard work, luck, and perserverance. There are always trade offs to every culture and every lifestyle.

Take for example my people the jewish people.

My parents sat me aside from an early age and told me that the world is a shit place and that you have to be prepared for things to go to shit which is why you have to save money, have a budget and always be prepared for the world to fuck you over. As a result of this mindset I have a worse lifestyle then the people I went to highschool with but I also have more saved then they do and am slightly better prepared to deal with things going wrong.

In the back of my mind the idea is always there that its not a matter of if things will go to shit but when, and that's a cultural thing.

Cherico said:

No that is not it.

We do not do more bad things more capita then our gentile neighbors that is bullshit.

Middleman minority - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A middleman minority is a minority population whose main occupations link producers and consumers: traders, money-lenders, etc. A middleman minority, while possibly suffering discrimination, does not hold an "extreme subordinate" status in society.[1] The "middleman minority" concept was developed by sociologists like Blalock and Bonacich starting in the 1960s but is also used by political scientists and economists.[citation needed]
There are numerous examples of such groups gaining eventual prosperity in their adopted country despite discrimination. Often, they will take on roles between producer and consumer, such as trading and moneylending. Famous examples such as Jews throughout Europe even at times when discrimination against them was high, Chinese throughout Southeast Asia, Muslims and Parsis in India, Igbos in Nigeria, Indians in East Africa, Lebanese in West Africa, and many others.[2]
Middleman minorities usually provide an economic benefit to communities and nations and often start new industries. However, their economic aptitude, financial success and clannishness, combined with social prejudices by other groups against businesses and moneylending, can cause resentment among the native population of a country. Middleman minorities can be victims of violence, genocide, racialist policy, or other forms of repression. Other ethnic groups often accuse them of plotting conspiracies against their nation or of stealing wealth from the native population


---

If you want to understand why we deal with so much shit like other middle man minorities just understand this.

When douchebags see an ethnic group that is doing worse then them they say their lazy, when they see an ethnic group doing better then them they think it must be happening because their cheating.

Prosperity is a matter of hard work, luck, and perserverance. There are always trade offs to every culture and every lifestyle.

Take for example my people the jewish people.

My parents sat me aside from an early age and told me that the world is a shit place and that you have to be prepared for things to go to shit which is why you have to save money, have a budget and always be prepared for the world to fuck you over. As a result of this mindset I have a worse lifestyle then the people I went to highschool with but I also have more saved then they do and am slightly better prepared to deal with things going wrong.

In the back of my mind the idea is always there that its not a matter of if things will go to shit but when, and that's a cultural thing.

Click to expand...

That really fits what I feel about the heart of any hateisms for minority newcomers to society and fills the puzzle for half the equation.

The middleman minority. Why Chinese expats aren't viewed in a good light in other Asian countries if they have carved a niche for themselves and why Indians got expelled from Uganda before coming back. I didn't know of a good term so I would by dint of internet exposure think of the hate of say Chinese immigrants in Asian countries to be the "Jews" of Asia for being that hated for the success they made themselves.

Generally it requires the newcomer to lay the groundwork for success that their children's children inherit that fortune and grow it.

The other half is what the inheritors of that wealth or influence they attained do with it.

Lord Invictus said:

1. Firstly there is Kevin Macdonald's belief the Jews are predisposed biologically towards subversive and parasitic behavior. They just can't help but tear down the society in which they live.

Click to expand...

Really doesn't help themselves when they make statements like this:



There is also another video where an apparent Jew basically says that their enemies have it right in that they are subversive and tear things down.

I have said my peace about this before. My mind remains the same on that point.

On my end, I think it's the "why are whites more prosperous than us, we're God's chosen people" concept.

Nitramy said:

On my end, I think it's the "why are whites more prosperous than us, we're God's chosen people" concept.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure a good number of those prosperous whites are jewish descent

Nitramy said:

On my end, I think it's the "why are whites more prosperous than us, we're God's chosen people" concept.

Click to expand...

Lots of people have pointed out that the richest people who are white in the world tend to be Jews. Not all of them but a lot.

Not sure if that is true.

LifeisTiresome said:

There is also another video where an apparent Jew basically says that their enemies have it right in that they are subversive and tear things down.

Click to expand...

George Soros himself has been quoted as claiming the destruction of the USA would the culmination of his life's work.

Nitramy said:

On my end, I think it's the "why are whites more prosperous than us, we're God's chosen people" concept.

Click to expand...

They had a head start building up that wealth through various means?

Random Username said:

They had a head start building up that wealth through various means?

Click to expand...

Head Starts to building wealth are largely mythical.





Now granted that's assuming you start in the same society, somebody born poor in the USA will naturally have a head start over somebody born poor in North Korea. However in general a majority of wealthy families lose that wealth within three generations, this has been established for a very long time.

Bear Ribs said:

Head Starts to building wealth are largely mythical.

Generational Wealth: Why do 70% of Families Lose Their Wealth in the 2nd Generation?

Generational wealth is an aspect of financial planning that is geared toward passing down stable, significant financial resources to future generations.

www.nasdaq.com

Why wealthy families lose their fortunes in three generations

In some cases, the money itself disappears, and in others it’s the family business that’s lost

www.theglobeandmail.com

Now granted that's assuming you start in the same society, somebody born poor in the USA will naturally have a head start over somebody born poor in North Korea. However in general a majority of wealthy families lose that wealth within three generations, this has been established for a very long time.

Click to expand...

It took 3 generations for one example. More than enough to fuck around.

Cherico said:

No that is not it.

We do not do more bad things more capita then our gentile neighbors that is bullshit.

Click to expand...

I mean, do you deny that, historically, Jews have overwhelmingly supported left-wing economic policies, regardless of their economic status? That rich Jews are over-represented among big Democratic Party donors? And that they disproportionately support things like pornography, multiculturalism, and other Left-wing causes even when they were deeply unpopular?

The Name of Love said:

Going back to anti-Semitism, I think the main reason for it is simple: Jews just so happen to have been doing more bad things per capita than non-Jews have been, and this leads people to blame all Jews for the actions of a few. Simple, open-and-shut case.

Click to expand...

No, it's the opposite way around. Anti-semites harp on all the bad things jews do disproportionately vs. bad things others do, giving a skewed representation. In addition, they despise bankers being jewish, regardless of how many there are. Note the shit that the Rothschilds get vs. any other family/group of bankers. Do they deserve some shit? Maybe. But they get all of the shit.

The Name of Love said:

I mean, do you deny that, historically, Jews have overwhelmingly supported left-wing economic policies, regardless of their economic status? That rich Jews are over-represented among big Democratic Party donors? And that they disproportionately support things like pornography, multiculturalism, and other Left-wing causes even when they were deeply unpopular?

Click to expand...

There is a difference between what normal people consider bad things (theft, robbery, rape, murder, corruption, etc.) and what you are trying to redefine it to mean here. If this is what you meant, you should have said that above. It's still wrong, but it's disingenuous to claim you were using your own non-normal definition after the fact.

If the problem is Jews are more left wing that's basically a standard that can be painted on lots of subgroups from Asians to Uhhh Zoroastrians (dont quote me on that).

But despite Jews being slanted left wing by and large theres still a plethora of prominent Jews in the Right wing or other opposition and still in largely the same field. Jews are basically disproportionately represented in those fields but it's still not a uniform grouping (inasmuch they all think or advocate or conspire in the same manner).

Husky_Khan said:

If the problem is Jews are more left wing that's basically a standard that can be painted on lots of subgroups from Asians to Uhhh Zoroastrians (dont quote me on that).

But despite Jews being slanted left wing by and large theres still a plethora of prominent Jews in the Right wing or other opposition and still in largely the same field. Jews are basically disproportionately represented in those fields but it's still not a uniform grouping (inasmuch they all think or advocate or conspire in the same manner).

Click to expand...

There's a great paper that debunks McDonald's thesis here. It provides a good deal of information on the matter.

Abhorsen said:

There is a difference between what normal people consider bad things (theft, robbery, rape, murder, corruption, etc.) and what you are trying to redefine it to mean here. If this is what you meant, you should have said that above. It's still wrong, but it's disingenuous to claim you were using your own non-normal definition after the fact.

Click to expand...

You mean it's disingenuous for me to define things such as communism and widespread wealth redistribution, ethnic conflict, and sexual libertinism as evil when most people back in those days considered it evil? And is it any coincidence that most people don't see these things as evil now, in a time when Jewish people are seen more positively? Maybe there's some causation here - that people see Jews are more positive because the things a very vocal minority of them supported are seen more favorably, or vice versa.

The Name of Love said:

You mean it's disingenuous for me to define things such as communism and widespread wealth redistribution, ethnic conflict, and sexual libertinism as evil when most people back in those days considered it evil? And is it any coincidence that most people don't see these things as evil now, in a time when Jewish people are seen more positively? Maybe there's some causation here - that people see Jews are more positive because the things a very vocal minority of them supported are seen more favorably, or vice versa.

Click to expand...

No. It's disingenuous to say "Jewish people are more likely to do bad things" then define bad things as something entirely different to what bad things is usually meant to mean. You're playing word games, just like people redefining racism.

Also, do you blame Jews as a group for some of society's problems?

I think the problem is while it may only take 3 generations to lose wealth, all it takes is 3 generations to create aristocrats and a condemned peon class and now with the invention of the TV it's easier now more than ever to flex your wealth. If you have person A who is living within or even below his means trying to save for when crap goes wrong and person B keeps rubbing it in person As face about how B has all this stuff that A can't even hope to imagine achieving in two life times, of course there is going to be a kind of resenment. Person A isin't going to see a person who is blowing two generations worth of wealth, they are going to see someone who was handed life and only got where they are because the right sperm happened to hit the right egg.

Abhorsen said:

No. It's disingenuous to say "Jewish people are more likely to do bad things" then define bad things as something entirely different to what bad things is usually meant to mean. You're playing word games, just like people redefining racism.

Click to expand...

What bad things are "usually" meant to mean was different back then than it is now. True or false?

Abhorsen said:

Also, do you blame Jews as a group for some of society's problems?

Click to expand...

I don't know. Let's see...

The Name of Love said:

Going back to anti-Semitism, I think the main reason for it is simple: Jews just so happen to have been doing more bad things per capita than non-Jews have been, and this leads people to blame all Jews for the actions of a few. Simple, open-and-shut case.

Click to expand...

The Name of Love said:

people see Jews are more positive because the things a very vocal minority of them supported are seen more favorably, or vice versa.

Click to expand...

The Name of Love said:

There's a great paper that debunks McDonald's thesis here. It provides a good deal of information on the matter.

Click to expand...

Nathan Cofnas said:

The naive reader of The Culture of Critique would think that 11 of 15 top Jewish intellectuals were using Freudianism to attack the traditions of gentile culture while promoting separatism for Jews in the US and in Israel... But the evidence reviewed above suggests that this is a serious distortion of the facts.

Click to expand...

Gee, I dunno what I think. It's a total mystery.

The Name of Love said:

What bad things are "usually" meant to mean was different back then than it is now. True or false?

Click to expand...

Not true. Bad things conventionally mean about the same thing that they always do. I'm pretty sure my list was pretty clear, and would be agreed upon regardless of time period in America, with the exception of pro-slavery people on parts of theft and rape (and slavery would undoubtedly also be a bad thing, I just didn't list everything).

The Name of Love said:

I don't know. Let's see...

Click to expand...

You say those things, but you also say this:

The Name of Love said:

I mean, do you deny that, historically, Jews have overwhelmingly supported left-wing economic policies, regardless of their economic status? That rich Jews are over-represented among big Democratic Party donors? And that they disproportionately support things like pornography, multiculturalism, and other Left-wing causes even when they were deeply unpopular?

Click to expand...

So I'd like you on record one way or the other rather than playing a fence sitting game. I didn't just accuse, I asked an honest question.

Abhorsen said:

Not true. Bad things conventionally mean about the same thing that they always do. I'm pretty sure my list was pretty clear, and would be agreed upon regardless of time period in America, with the exception of pro-slavery people on parts of theft and rape (and slavery would undoubtedly also be a bad thing, I just didn't list everything).

Click to expand...

So you deny that (for instance) homosexuality didn't use to be considered a good thing, and then it was just recently?

Abhorsen said:

So I'd like you on record one way or the other rather than playing a fence sitting game. I didn't just accuse, I asked an honest question.

Click to expand...

Well, here's the thing: overrepresentation in something doesn't mean the group is responsible. It doesn't even mean the majority of the group is responsible. This is actually what I think accounts for most stereotypes: people mistake statistical overrepresentations for an overall tendency of the group.

To give an example: say that there are a hundred Jewish communists per 100,000 Jews while there are only five non-Jewish communists per 100,000 non-Jews (these are just made-up statistics). That would mean, within this context, that the average Jewish person is twenty times more likely to be a communist than the average non-Jewish person. This discrepancy needs some sort of explanation, sure. However, by these numbers, Jewish communists make up only 0.1% of all Jews. This means that it'd be false to suggest that Jews have a tendency to be communists, even if real life experience might suggest this.

My position is that you find this all the time when you look at racial discrepancies in anything, and this lies at the heart of most racial stereotypes.

LOL, color me surprised that The Name of Love is an anti-Semite