Honestly, don't see any problem with pointing out (((who))) is running some of the groups pushing this idpol. Personally, I wouldn't say it's all their fault or that its just them doing it. There are a lot of groups I'd lay blame on for the situation our modern era had brought about. All simply because they stand to benefit from it.
I guess people here might take a little issue with it, like they take issue with a certain user and his oft-posts with woman. Quite funny to me, since a lot are quick to point it out when someone is white.
"Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing."
I would heavily suggest people watch this video which features that news article as well.
As I've pointed out on this forum multiple times: everyone here is more than happy to acknowledge the drastic overrepresentation of LGBTQ in media and policy relative to LGBTQ population, but try to acknowledge that an even smaller population is far more overrepresented in media, academia, business, government, entertainment...
I think Cohens and Greenfields are subverting our societies because they want us broke, dead, our kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it's funny.
Of course, only the top 0.001% are subverting our societies, there are none like that in lesser positions working towards the same ends. That would be crazy!
The interesting part to me is two-fold. First, that they had wealth to lend in such hostile territory. Second, that repayment to a Jew could be compelled.
"Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing."
Could there be a good reason for why the Jews in the tsarist Empire turned to deranged politics? Perhaps that supporters of the tsar were carrying out pogroms, that the Jews did not have equal citizenship (which is logical enough, because it was a Christian Empire), or that they were forbidden from living outside the 'Pale of Settlement'?
It's not strange to me at all that Jews would be more likely to support the communists, who defended them, and not the tsarist regime, which hated them.
Yes, the Bolsheviks declared themselves the majority of the Russian Social Democratic Party, even though they were the minority, and labeled the majority Martov/Plekhanov faction as the Mensheviks - which later on stuck.
That's an ironic description, given that the people who point out everyone who's Jewish are usually heavily tradcucked and think women will all love us and be nice to us once "the enemy" is out of power.
I think women and men were both generally happier under the nurturer/provider paradigm. The real damage to family/society didn't occur until second wave feminism. Third wave feminism went from destructive to actively hostile. The thought leaders of these most destructive waves were Jewish (as are most critical theory ideologies that permeate modern academia).
I think women and men were both generally happier under the nurturer/provider paradigm.
People always flourish best when their actions conform to their nature. But some folks will call you a 'tradcuck' for... advocating what was practiced for 250,000 years of human history before 40 years ago.
The thought leaders of these most destructive waves were Jewish (as are most critical theory ideologies that permeate modern academia).
Even if true, so what? I know it might seem obvious to some that "therefore, we should hate the Jews", but if you hated and vilifying people for what people of their ethnic group did, who'd be spared a whipping?
People always flourish best when their actions conform to their nature. But some folks will call you a 'tradcuck' for... advocating what was practiced for 250,000 years of human history before 40 years ago.
Usually because such a stance lacks the balls to acknowledge what is necessary to restore those traditions, namely taking women's rights away.
These 'rights' should be taken insofar as they are not actual rights, but invented ones. But by acknowledging them as rights, you assert that by taking them away you are doing something wrong.
No, I fully acknowledge that people would consider that necessary, but I have a counter point.
If you have to take everything from them and basically put them in chains to make them treat others like human beings - why on earth would you bother?
Just stop them fucking up society and leave them to their own devices other than that, writing their genocidal screeds on Twitter.
We should have the technology to not be bound to them by now. I'm not talking about sex bots, I'm talking about artificial wombs. Then all the tradcucks can have their kid and we don't have to hear about how women are important ever again.
Nothing strikes more fear in the hearts of female supremacists than men co-operating across divisions to make their purpose obsolete.
The tradcuck's good women argument is the greatest weapon of the female supremacist.
Even if true, so what? I know it might seem obvious to some that "therefore, we should hate the Jews"
Has nothing to do with hate. It has to do with incompatibility. Not all Jews subvert, but they subvert disproportionately, and its corrosive to western society. Every bit as destabilizing as disproportionate criminality.
Not all Jews subvert, but they subvert disproportionately, and its corrosive to western society.
If 'subversion' (what you call these dumb opinions of the SJWs) is the problem, why are you only interested in it when you can pin it on a certain ethnic group? I don't understand.
Every bit as destabilizing as disproportionate criminality.
Whites are disproportionately criminal compared to East Asians. So would you say that whites are a "destabilizing" element, and what exactly is it destabilizing?
Both, frankly. This epithet is pretty fucking terrible, tbh. You're basically associating Jews with a negative set of stereotypes, then attacking women you oppose that act in the stereotypes you don't like, and are then calling them Jews.
Kinda the way of it. You'll get a few quick downvotes from the anti-noticers and jannies, then over time you'll develop a positive score as more of the regulars see it. Diversity of thought's okay, though.
Personally, I wouldn't say it's all their fault or that its just them doing it. There are a lot of groups I'd lay blame on for the situation our modern era had brought about. All simply because they stand to benefit from it.
see, this is exactly where at least some of the downvotes are coming from. the people posting echoes and reminding me that Jews are involved? somehow you never see them in threads where the name sounds Jewish but the person involved is a good guy. never ever.
don't take my word for it. people talk about "noticing things"? well start "noticing" in every thread you read here. you'll see cases where the academic risking his career to push back against cancel culture, says "Jew" on his early life section on Wikipedia. or maybe the random on twitter protesting big tech censorship of conservatives, has an obviously Jewish-sounding name. or how about that one-in-a-thousand journalist doing actual investigations against globalism, who is the source of some new bombshell leak, but also happens to be a member of the tribe?
it's way more common for people to point out that this is a "based black person" we're dealing with here. or that hey, a large percentage of hispanics are red-pilled despite what the left keeps telling me.
If you're referring to Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein, they really seem to be exceptions to the rule. I'll gladly call them honorary Anglos, though.
Feel free to point out proportionate Jewish representation on both sides of the culture war arguments. It would be a public service.
Exactly by what method have you determined that your position is the 'rule'? I'm sure not any kind of rigorous analysis, but the common confirmation bias. I am glad that you are open-minded enough to recognize Weinstein and Heying as good guys, despite the fact that they're not exactly right-wingers.
But there's more. Way more. It is likely that Jews are over-represented among right-wing/anti-identitarian advocates, though since most Jews are leftists, more on the leftist side. Just to give you some examples I can easily cite from the top of my head.
Economics: Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises.
Soviet dissidents: Nathan Sharansky and others (a grossly disproportionate share of Soviet dissidents were Jews, in some estimates 40%)
Rather than vilifying all Jews for the opinions of a faction, how about we support the good Jews and oppose the bad ones. Or rather, support good people and oppose bad ones regardless of ethnicity. Exactly what do you hope to accomplish by making it about one group vs another?
You always misunderstand. I can simultaneously appreciate what Einstein did for humanity, while also disagreeing with his advocacy for Socialism. The sticking point here is that I don't believe that the benefit is worth the cost. Short term gains in scientific understanding for long term social problems aren't an equitable exchange, to me.
For me, I just advocate for ethnonationalism. It should be an idea on the table.
There are large swathes of the US that just don't have a Jewish population to speak of. Or black. I don't think the US has a lot longer. In those places, ethnonationalism in an already ethnically homogeneous area should be a valid path. It shouldn't be wrongthink to at least consider it when the time comes to reconstitute.
I'm not trying to round up Jews and stick them in ovens, believe it or not.
For me, I just advocate for ethnonationalism. It should be an idea on the table.
I agree. But ethnonationalism should be without hatred for or vilification of other groups. I think it's beyond dispute that the most homogeneous societies are also the most pleasant, crime-free and have the highest level of social trust.
I'm not trying to round up Jews and stick them in ovens, believe it or not.
The issue with a lot of these 'noticers' is that they are very vague about what they want. Apparently, just to complain that Jeeeeews are our misfortune. But that does not seem to be very productive, even from their perspective. Because if Jews are one's misfortune, then surely one would want to do something about it beyond just whining about it and annoying the hell out of everyone on KiA2.
So it can be summarily dismissed in the exact same way that you did, while also claiming that the poster is a member of the JIDF? Or perhaps the point will be to list out all of the Jews you will then declare to be controlled opposition?
There is no point in trying to build a massive fact based counter-narrative to an anti-Jewish narrative that is built purely off of assertion and conditioning. It's literally not any different than arguing with a socialist over Marxist economic theory. Marxist economic theory is rationalized psuedo-scientific nonsense that has no basis in reality. It exists to propagate Marxist narratives as a form of rhetorical warfare. The point of arguing about Marxist economic philosophy, is for the Marxist to have a platform on which to spill his drivel and affirm/re-enforce his narrative to sychophants, while luring more people into being sychophants. There is no "conversation" when the purpose is entirely dishonest.
The exact same thing can be said about the racialists and antisemites. As long as people are drawn into the argument over Marx's Jewish Question, that's all that matters. The racialists and antisemites will make any argument necessary in the same way that Marx did, because he was an antisemite. When one side is trying to engage in rational discourse, and the other is engaging in rhetorical warfare, then it's a lopsided battle.
We've seen this a million times now, it should be obvious. We saw it at the Munk debate with Jordan Peterson being called an "Angry white man". We see this in any initial defense against a struggle session (like with Bret Weinstien). We saw this at Harvard where the activists were screaming at a professor because his wife thought the Halloween regulations were ridiculous. Hell, we saw this Evangelicals against Atheists over evolution. When the opposing side thinks they scored a win because "crockoduck" and "banana" against genuine scientists trying to explain how evolution works... you're not having rational discourse.
This is why the Left thinks that censorship is the only answer. They see all debate as only a form of rhetorical warfare. You stop the idea from being engaged with entirely and you deny the enemy the ability to even form up. It's a perfectly sensible position to have.
From the anti-authoriatarian & free speech perspective, the racialist hypothesis needs to be visible in order for holes to be poked in it, but that requires an enemy arrogant enough to actually try an honest conversation, which none of the racialists ever do. The Evangelicals & YEC's were arrogant enough to think they understood the universe and the laws of God's will. Easy win. Racialists always hide their power-level because they already know their narrative isn't popular. Richard Spencer always tries to be a smug, progressive, intellectual, racialist whenever he's being engaged with in the open, he devolves into a racist Captain America villain in private. It's the essence of the "I'm just asking questions!" claim: a rhetorical warfare raid, make a point without ever defending your position.
The purpose of building a counter-narrative in order to counter a racialist narrative is to make the person arguing against the racialist waste vast amounts of time and energy, all so that the racialist use the opportunity to make whatever assertions they feel are profitable at a given moment, while solidifying their own support. Again, this is why the Left chooses the authoritarian response to speech: they see all speech as rhetorical warfare. So when they see rhetorical warfare, they attack it as such.
Of course not! Russians survived communism, too, after all. It's just that everything would be so much better if we got rid of the intensively subversive and damaging elements of our societies. There's more to life than survival.
Yes, we can start with Leftists, like Communists, Bolsheviks, Fascists, National Socialists, State Socialists, Revolutionary Socialists, Marxists, etc.
Considering Racialism is nothing more than Marxist antisemitism expanded upon, we can get rid of the worthless pseudo-intellectual racialists too who are intentionally balkanizing our society into more easily controllable segments for their own personal power.
see, this is exactly where at least some of the downvotes are coming from. the people posting echoes and reminding me that Jews are involved? somehow you never see them in threads where the name sounds Jewish but the person involved is a good guy. never ever.
The 'noticers' only 'notice' when it's convenient for them and their agenda of trying to spread racial hatred. These people are just the mirror image of SJWs. Literally replace 'Jew' with 'white male' in their unhinged screeds and it's a post on Tumblr.
it's way more common for people to point out that this is a "based black person" we're dealing with here. or that hey, a large percentage of hispanics are red-pilled despite what the left keeps telling me.
I find that quite cringe actually as well, especially if it has nothing to do with race.
The other interesting thing about the SJW / antisemite relationship is that they are both based on conspiracy theories that imply actual racial superiority.
SJWs think that white people are so much more advanced than other races that they created a system of white supremacy that spans the globe, permeates every interaction, and the only way for non-whites to achieve equity is for whites to willingly abdicate their power and wealth.
Antisemites think that Jews are so cunning and crafty that, despite being a very tiny minority, they have managed to globally seize all the major levers of power in finance, media, and commerce, and are enacting their revenge on the feckless goyim, and the only way to stop them is... well, we know how the previous efforts went.
It's about 7.5/10 for Jews, as opposed to 4/10 for the whole US population.
7.5/10 is also about the average lean to the right for christian denominations considered 'evangelical', so if we want to call evangelicals 'religious fundamentalists', which I personally would, we can consider Jews to be as strong in their bias as religious fundamentalists are - but you will almost never hear of any Jewish group referred to as 'fundamentalist', 'radical' or 'extremist' and 'Jewish' at the same time.
Jewish fundamentalism is sanctioned and normalized.
Re: That "chosen people" thing. Now, here's something I came across years ago in all my readings, and since it's time to sit back and synthesize all that junk, I'll throw these thoughts out here:
It seems that back in the days when the ancient Hebrews were still following goats around, each and every tribe or band had its own primary god (no matter how many gods you generally believed in, which for most people, would have been any they heard of.) This god would be tended to first in prayers and offerings, before the other ones, and was thought to have a special relationship with that "chosen" group (either it adopted them, or chose to create/give birth to them or whatever.)
In this context, the idea of a "universal god" is kind of nonsense. It's also why the Ark of the Covenant has a seat for YHWH to sit upon, and why one might sing about not being able to sing their god's song in a strange land ... the people, the territory they claimed, and their god were all intertwined. To be run off your land was to be possibly cut off from your god, and I think this just reflects how people might be forced to convert if captured, or have to find refuge in another tribe's territory (they might require you to convert - remember, gods are part of the land at this point.)
Anyway, so of course the Hebrews were the "chosen ones" of their god, but so was everyone else a "chosen one" of their god, and these super-ancient people would have understood that.
So then the Hebrews claim territory, change their name to Jews (I'm realizing I'm not clear on when or why this happened), and some Romans invade their land; resistance happens, a resistance leader dies, and up comes Saul of Tarsis to make YHWH into a universal god by selling Jesus as a demi-god to the Greco-Romans (to whom no one was anyone unless they had a god for a parent.) So now that "chosen one" thing becomes a supremacist thing, but we're not supposed to look at it that way. But if we do, we see that we are being asked to worship a god that is not ours, if we're not Hebrew/Jewish, unless one wants to think that a tribal god just up and decided to Team Rocket every other god's human pokemon ...)
I'd pour a lot of stink-eye on that "St Paul" character. Along with pushy sun-worshipers, who seem to have been the worst jackbooty monotheists of the whole pagan bunch ...
Yes, I'm partially being facetious, BUT, I do like to dig at the roots of things, and the deeper they go, the more fun it is.
It's about 7.5/10 for Jews, as opposed to 4/10 for the whole US population.
I guess that's a pretty silent minority. I never hear a Jew say "My Jewish faith informs me that marriage is between a man and a woman" or "As a Jew, I support your right to say what you want, even though I may disagree". Whereas the other side, you know
I never hear a Jew say "My Jewish faith informs me that marriage is between a man and a woman"
I don't hear Muslims saying that either in the West. That is probably because they don't think that in a country where they are small minorities, their particularist religious views will carry the day.
I never hear a Jew say "My Jewish faith informs me that marriage is between a man and a woman"
Devout Jews are pretty quiet in general. How often do you see a Jew preaching on a street? How often do you encounter a Jew asking you to join their religion? Unless you're fucking his daughter, it's never gonna happen.
...But if you try to ban circumcision, then you will hear from them.
Right so they don't convert. My point was, I do hear the opposite. We have to let in 3rd world immigrants. We have to ban "hate" speech. Gay marriage, too. All because supposedly their Jewish faith informs them. I guess I can go searching for examples, but I thought this was pretty common knowledge. And yeah, I know about the Orthodox. I'm not trying to deny their existence. I'm pointing out where the mainstream of the political orthodoxy lies.
7.5/10 is also about the average lean to the right for christian denominations considered 'evangelical', so if we want to call evangelicals 'religious fundamentalists', which I personally would, we can consider Jews to be as strong in their bias as religious fundamentalists are - but you will almost never hear of any Jewish group referred to as 'fundamentalist', 'radical' or 'extremist' and 'Jewish' at the same time.
That is cause their views have nothing to do with Judaism. Those ethnic Jews who have Judaism as their religion instead of Social Justice are overwhelmingly right-wing.
You can compare Reform Jews to Unitarians or the United Church of FloydChrist. It's run by cultists who are wearing the skin of Judaism and Christianity respectively.
That is cause their views have nothing to do with Judaism.
I suppose this accurate in terms of the 'fundamentalism' argument, but their views to have 'nothing' to with radical leftism is impossible. We wouldn't see Jews massively over-represented among SJW's if there weren't something about the religion/culture - even in its secularized, largely non-practicing form - that pushed them toward it.
Something about being a non-practicing Jew drives people toward radical leftism.
I suppose this accurate in terms of the 'fundamentalism' argument, but their views to have 'nothing' to with radical leftism is impossible.
I specifically said that their views have nothing to do with Judaism, because they're as orthodox in their religiosity as the average Unitarian or UCC-member. Basically, Social Justice with Jewish trappings is their religion. Which is why my argument is that this has nothing to do with Judaism, just like UCC and Unitarianism today has nothing to do with Christianity.
If Social Justice was caused by Judaism, then you would expect the people who are most committed to the Jewish religion to be the most SJW. The opposite is the case. Orthodox Jews are generally very anti-SJW, and they are faithful Jews, while Reform Jews who are about as Jewish as I am but with fondness to mutilate little kids, are the most SJW. So there is an inverse correlation, which to me suggests that Social Justice and Judaism are actually incompatible.
We wouldn't see Jews massively over-represented among SJW's if there weren't something about the religion/culture - even in its secularized, largely non-practicing form
I think there is something in their culture. Namely because of what happened to them, an oversensitivity to 'racism' - which is why they side with black identitarian movements as supposedly fighting for justice, when black activists actually hate the Jews.
Something about being a non-practicing Jew drives people toward radical leftism.
I think so as well, though there are also many differences between Jews and non-Jews that account for part of the difference.
This is one of the reasons it should of stayed shut. I'd rather have more liberty with a smaller user base, than less with a big user base. I guess the mods must of missed the attention that comes with bigger numbers.
Except even when we were closed we didn't have liberty. Reddit simply isn't conducive to liberty anymore, unless you're a raging leftist, and even then you'd have to be careful.
It would be a terrible thing to hate on innocent people just because they belong to an ethnic group. And it would be terrible to blame a whole ethnic group, for a small group of bad people in that ethnic group. However it is perfectly fine to notice the ethnic background of the elites that are using power & money to push an anti-white & anti-male agenda on society. Alot of them are Jews.
GamerGate began as a consumer revolt against unethical journalism. For some that was about positive coverage of journalists having a close relationship with the subject of their articles without any bit of disclosure of their bias. For others like myself and I think like most of you here, there was a bigger concern of journalistic ethics involving journalists pushing the unethical hateful ideology of Political Correctness. It is Jew ran corporate news media that are pushing the Politically Correct ideology with their defamatory attacks on whites & men, gamers & nerds.
GamerGate also has concerns about Politically Correct ideology being pushed on college campuses. The Politically Correct ideology in colleges is being pushed by Jew ran academia.
GamerGate also has concerns about free speech and Big Tech censorship. It is Jew ran Big Tech companies that censor rightwing people and sometimes leftwing people that do not conform to Politically Correct group think. It is Jew ran banks, credit card companies and payment processors that try & do defund Alternative Tech platforms that allow for free speech and don't censor people for politically incorrect opinions. I don't see how anyone who follows the issues of Big Tech censorship, can't notice who it is that does the censoring. This is how I personally got J-Woke.
It is a tough red pill to swallow because to alot of people it feels like hating on all Jews to notice this stuff. You don't have to be an anti-Semite to notice this stuff. You can notice this stuff while also knowing that most Jews are good decent people.
Three downvotes in three minutes. That was quick.
Honestly, don't see any problem with pointing out (((who))) is running some of the groups pushing this idpol. Personally, I wouldn't say it's all their fault or that its just them doing it. There are a lot of groups I'd lay blame on for the situation our modern era had brought about. All simply because they stand to benefit from it.
I guess people here might take a little issue with it, like they take issue with a certain user and his oft-posts with woman. Quite funny to me, since a lot are quick to point it out when someone is white.
Like Winston Churchill said in a news article he made in 1920 called Zionism versus Bolshevism:
"Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing."
I would heavily suggest people watch this video which features that news article as well.
As I've pointed out on this forum multiple times: everyone here is more than happy to acknowledge the drastic overrepresentation of LGBTQ in media and policy relative to LGBTQ population, but try to acknowledge that an even smaller population is far more overrepresented in media, academia, business, government, entertainment...
I think Cohens and Greenfields are subverting our societies because they want us broke, dead, our kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it's funny.
Of course, only the top 0.001% are subverting our societies, there are none like that in lesser positions working towards the same ends. That would be crazy!
I mean, yeah, Ashkenazi jews are overrepresented in all that for sure.
Being the most intelligent ethnic group does that for you, would be weirder if they weren't.
What protection from scrutiny does it need? It explains it, no more, no less.
As for misdeeds, intelligence is not correlated with moral behavior, i don't have to explain that much.
So oppressed, the only profession they were allowed was lending white people their wealth.
Things that make you go "hmmm".
The interesting part to me is two-fold. First, that they had wealth to lend in such hostile territory. Second, that repayment to a Jew could be compelled.
Just as gentiles were not obligated to view the pornography they created to enslave everyone. Got it.
Comment Removed: Rule 16
We're not on reddit anymore faggot.
How rude.
Is it rude if you deserve it?
Even the best treatment system can become inundated with shit, and some are more prolific at producing it than others.
Could there be a good reason for why the Jews in the tsarist Empire turned to deranged politics? Perhaps that supporters of the tsar were carrying out pogroms, that the Jews did not have equal citizenship (which is logical enough, because it was a Christian Empire), or that they were forbidden from living outside the 'Pale of Settlement'?
It's not strange to me at all that Jews would be more likely to support the communists, who defended them, and not the tsarist regime, which hated them.
It's not just Russia, not nearly. You'd need to look up people like Emma Goldman and Bela Kun as well as many others.
...Bolshevik means majority.
Yes, the Bolsheviks declared themselves the majority of the Russian Social Democratic Party, even though they were the minority, and labeled the majority Martov/Plekhanov faction as the Mensheviks - which later on stuck.
Hmm, I wonder who that could be?
That's an ironic description, given that the people who point out everyone who's Jewish are usually heavily tradcucked and think women will all love us and be nice to us once "the enemy" is out of power.
I think women and men were both generally happier under the nurturer/provider paradigm. The real damage to family/society didn't occur until second wave feminism. Third wave feminism went from destructive to actively hostile. The thought leaders of these most destructive waves were Jewish (as are most critical theory ideologies that permeate modern academia).
People always flourish best when their actions conform to their nature. But some folks will call you a 'tradcuck' for... advocating what was practiced for 250,000 years of human history before 40 years ago.
Even if true, so what? I know it might seem obvious to some that "therefore, we should hate the Jews", but if you hated and vilifying people for what people of their ethnic group did, who'd be spared a whipping?
Usually because such a stance lacks the balls to acknowledge what is necessary to restore those traditions, namely taking women's rights away.
These 'rights' should be taken insofar as they are not actual rights, but invented ones. But by acknowledging them as rights, you assert that by taking them away you are doing something wrong.
No, I fully acknowledge that people would consider that necessary, but I have a counter point.
If you have to take everything from them and basically put them in chains to make them treat others like human beings - why on earth would you bother?
Just stop them fucking up society and leave them to their own devices other than that, writing their genocidal screeds on Twitter.
We should have the technology to not be bound to them by now. I'm not talking about sex bots, I'm talking about artificial wombs. Then all the tradcucks can have their kid and we don't have to hear about how women are important ever again.
Nothing strikes more fear in the hearts of female supremacists than men co-operating across divisions to make their purpose obsolete.
The tradcuck's good women argument is the greatest weapon of the female supremacist.
Has nothing to do with hate. It has to do with incompatibility. Not all Jews subvert, but they subvert disproportionately, and its corrosive to western society. Every bit as destabilizing as disproportionate criminality.
Incompatibility of what?
If 'subversion' (what you call these dumb opinions of the SJWs) is the problem, why are you only interested in it when you can pin it on a certain ethnic group? I don't understand.
Whites are disproportionately criminal compared to East Asians. So would you say that whites are a "destabilizing" element, and what exactly is it destabilizing?
Comment Removed - Rule 16
Which did your mind associate with morally deficient or subhuman? The vaginal part, or the jew part?
Both, frankly. This epithet is pretty fucking terrible, tbh. You're basically associating Jews with a negative set of stereotypes, then attacking women you oppose that act in the stereotypes you don't like, and are then calling them Jews.
The comment attacked no one and referenced no stereotypes. Unless, of course, Jew is now a slur.
I don't think so. If you were to call someone "Jewish" as a stand in for "cheap", that would certainly still be an attack on Jews as being cheap.
Kinda the way of it. You'll get a few quick downvotes from the anti-noticers and jannies, then over time you'll develop a positive score as more of the regulars see it. Diversity of thought's okay, though.
see, this is exactly where at least some of the downvotes are coming from. the people posting echoes and reminding me that Jews are involved? somehow you never see them in threads where the name sounds Jewish but the person involved is a good guy. never ever.
don't take my word for it. people talk about "noticing things"? well start "noticing" in every thread you read here. you'll see cases where the academic risking his career to push back against cancel culture, says "Jew" on his early life section on Wikipedia. or maybe the random on twitter protesting big tech censorship of conservatives, has an obviously Jewish-sounding name. or how about that one-in-a-thousand journalist doing actual investigations against globalism, who is the source of some new bombshell leak, but also happens to be a member of the tribe?
it's way more common for people to point out that this is a "based black person" we're dealing with here. or that hey, a large percentage of hispanics are red-pilled despite what the left keeps telling me.
If you're referring to Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein, they really seem to be exceptions to the rule. I'll gladly call them honorary Anglos, though.
Feel free to point out proportionate Jewish representation on both sides of the culture war arguments. It would be a public service.
Exactly by what method have you determined that your position is the 'rule'? I'm sure not any kind of rigorous analysis, but the common confirmation bias. I am glad that you are open-minded enough to recognize Weinstein and Heying as good guys, despite the fact that they're not exactly right-wingers.
But there's more. Way more. It is likely that Jews are over-represented among right-wing/anti-identitarian advocates, though since most Jews are leftists, more on the leftist side. Just to give you some examples I can easily cite from the top of my head.
Economics: Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises. Soviet dissidents: Nathan Sharansky and others (a grossly disproportionate share of Soviet dissidents were Jews, in some estimates 40%)
Rather than vilifying all Jews for the opinions of a faction, how about we support the good Jews and oppose the bad ones. Or rather, support good people and oppose bad ones regardless of ethnicity. Exactly what do you hope to accomplish by making it about one group vs another?
You always misunderstand. I can simultaneously appreciate what Einstein did for humanity, while also disagreeing with his advocacy for Socialism. The sticking point here is that I don't believe that the benefit is worth the cost. Short term gains in scientific understanding for long term social problems aren't an equitable exchange, to me.
I actually agree with that last part. But I am not sure how you hope to avoid it.
For me, I just advocate for ethnonationalism. It should be an idea on the table.
There are large swathes of the US that just don't have a Jewish population to speak of. Or black. I don't think the US has a lot longer. In those places, ethnonationalism in an already ethnically homogeneous area should be a valid path. It shouldn't be wrongthink to at least consider it when the time comes to reconstitute.
I'm not trying to round up Jews and stick them in ovens, believe it or not.
I agree. But ethnonationalism should be without hatred for or vilification of other groups. I think it's beyond dispute that the most homogeneous societies are also the most pleasant, crime-free and have the highest level of social trust.
The issue with a lot of these 'noticers' is that they are very vague about what they want. Apparently, just to complain that Jeeeeews are our misfortune. But that does not seem to be very productive, even from their perspective. Because if Jews are one's misfortune, then surely one would want to do something about it beyond just whining about it and annoying the hell out of everyone on KiA2.
So it can be summarily dismissed in the exact same way that you did, while also claiming that the poster is a member of the JIDF? Or perhaps the point will be to list out all of the Jews you will then declare to be controlled opposition?
There is no point in trying to build a massive fact based counter-narrative to an anti-Jewish narrative that is built purely off of assertion and conditioning. It's literally not any different than arguing with a socialist over Marxist economic theory. Marxist economic theory is rationalized psuedo-scientific nonsense that has no basis in reality. It exists to propagate Marxist narratives as a form of rhetorical warfare. The point of arguing about Marxist economic philosophy, is for the Marxist to have a platform on which to spill his drivel and affirm/re-enforce his narrative to sychophants, while luring more people into being sychophants. There is no "conversation" when the purpose is entirely dishonest.
The exact same thing can be said about the racialists and antisemites. As long as people are drawn into the argument over Marx's Jewish Question, that's all that matters. The racialists and antisemites will make any argument necessary in the same way that Marx did, because he was an antisemite. When one side is trying to engage in rational discourse, and the other is engaging in rhetorical warfare, then it's a lopsided battle.
We've seen this a million times now, it should be obvious. We saw it at the Munk debate with Jordan Peterson being called an "Angry white man". We see this in any initial defense against a struggle session (like with Bret Weinstien). We saw this at Harvard where the activists were screaming at a professor because his wife thought the Halloween regulations were ridiculous. Hell, we saw this Evangelicals against Atheists over evolution. When the opposing side thinks they scored a win because "crockoduck" and "banana" against genuine scientists trying to explain how evolution works... you're not having rational discourse.
This is why the Left thinks that censorship is the only answer. They see all debate as only a form of rhetorical warfare. You stop the idea from being engaged with entirely and you deny the enemy the ability to even form up. It's a perfectly sensible position to have.
From the anti-authoriatarian & free speech perspective, the racialist hypothesis needs to be visible in order for holes to be poked in it, but that requires an enemy arrogant enough to actually try an honest conversation, which none of the racialists ever do. The Evangelicals & YEC's were arrogant enough to think they understood the universe and the laws of God's will. Easy win. Racialists always hide their power-level because they already know their narrative isn't popular. Richard Spencer always tries to be a smug, progressive, intellectual, racialist whenever he's being engaged with in the open, he devolves into a racist Captain America villain in private. It's the essence of the "I'm just asking questions!" claim: a rhetorical warfare raid, make a point without ever defending your position.
The purpose of building a counter-narrative in order to counter a racialist narrative is to make the person arguing against the racialist waste vast amounts of time and energy, all so that the racialist use the opportunity to make whatever assertions they feel are profitable at a given moment, while solidifying their own support. Again, this is why the Left chooses the authoritarian response to speech: they see all speech as rhetorical warfare. So when they see rhetorical warfare, they attack it as such.
White people don't need racialism to survive. Believe it or not, they're plenty capable on their own.
Of course not! Russians survived communism, too, after all. It's just that everything would be so much better if we got rid of the intensively subversive and damaging elements of our societies. There's more to life than survival.
Yes, we can start with Leftists, like Communists, Bolsheviks, Fascists, National Socialists, State Socialists, Revolutionary Socialists, Marxists, etc.
Considering Racialism is nothing more than Marxist antisemitism expanded upon, we can get rid of the worthless pseudo-intellectual racialists too who are intentionally balkanizing our society into more easily controllable segments for their own personal power.
Where do we ship them all to?
The 'noticers' only 'notice' when it's convenient for them and their agenda of trying to spread racial hatred. These people are just the mirror image of SJWs. Literally replace 'Jew' with 'white male' in their unhinged screeds and it's a post on Tumblr.
I find that quite cringe actually as well, especially if it has nothing to do with race.
The other interesting thing about the SJW / antisemite relationship is that they are both based on conspiracy theories that imply actual racial superiority.
SJWs think that white people are so much more advanced than other races that they created a system of white supremacy that spans the globe, permeates every interaction, and the only way for non-whites to achieve equity is for whites to willingly abdicate their power and wealth.
Antisemites think that Jews are so cunning and crafty that, despite being a very tiny minority, they have managed to globally seize all the major levers of power in finance, media, and commerce, and are enacting their revenge on the feckless goyim, and the only way to stop them is... well, we know how the previous efforts went.
Red meat to the Evangelicals who see the formation of the State of Israel and its continued existence as a precondition for the return of Jesus
Jews are 9/10 leftists, and extreme ones at that, but Conservatives agree they are the chosen people anyways.
It's about 7.5/10 for Jews, as opposed to 4/10 for the whole US population.
7.5/10 is also about the average lean to the right for christian denominations considered 'evangelical', so if we want to call evangelicals 'religious fundamentalists', which I personally would, we can consider Jews to be as strong in their bias as religious fundamentalists are - but you will almost never hear of any Jewish group referred to as 'fundamentalist', 'radical' or 'extremist' and 'Jewish' at the same time.
Jewish fundamentalism is sanctioned and normalized.
Re: That "chosen people" thing. Now, here's something I came across years ago in all my readings, and since it's time to sit back and synthesize all that junk, I'll throw these thoughts out here:
It seems that back in the days when the ancient Hebrews were still following goats around, each and every tribe or band had its own primary god (no matter how many gods you generally believed in, which for most people, would have been any they heard of.) This god would be tended to first in prayers and offerings, before the other ones, and was thought to have a special relationship with that "chosen" group (either it adopted them, or chose to create/give birth to them or whatever.)
In this context, the idea of a "universal god" is kind of nonsense. It's also why the Ark of the Covenant has a seat for YHWH to sit upon, and why one might sing about not being able to sing their god's song in a strange land ... the people, the territory they claimed, and their god were all intertwined. To be run off your land was to be possibly cut off from your god, and I think this just reflects how people might be forced to convert if captured, or have to find refuge in another tribe's territory (they might require you to convert - remember, gods are part of the land at this point.)
Anyway, so of course the Hebrews were the "chosen ones" of their god, but so was everyone else a "chosen one" of their god, and these super-ancient people would have understood that.
So then the Hebrews claim territory, change their name to Jews (I'm realizing I'm not clear on when or why this happened), and some Romans invade their land; resistance happens, a resistance leader dies, and up comes Saul of Tarsis to make YHWH into a universal god by selling Jesus as a demi-god to the Greco-Romans (to whom no one was anyone unless they had a god for a parent.) So now that "chosen one" thing becomes a supremacist thing, but we're not supposed to look at it that way. But if we do, we see that we are being asked to worship a god that is not ours, if we're not Hebrew/Jewish, unless one wants to think that a tribal god just up and decided to Team Rocket every other god's human pokemon ...)
I'd pour a lot of stink-eye on that "St Paul" character. Along with pushy sun-worshipers, who seem to have been the worst jackbooty monotheists of the whole pagan bunch ...
Yes, I'm partially being facetious, BUT, I do like to dig at the roots of things, and the deeper they go, the more fun it is.
And SJWism looks like a glorification of the Human on a scale not seen since the Renaissance, and reeks of species-level Hubris.
I guess that's a pretty silent minority. I never hear a Jew say "My Jewish faith informs me that marriage is between a man and a woman" or "As a Jew, I support your right to say what you want, even though I may disagree". Whereas the other side, you know
I don't hear Muslims saying that either in the West. That is probably because they don't think that in a country where they are small minorities, their particularist religious views will carry the day.
Devout Jews are pretty quiet in general. How often do you see a Jew preaching on a street? How often do you encounter a Jew asking you to join their religion? Unless you're fucking his daughter, it's never gonna happen.
...But if you try to ban circumcision, then you will hear from them.
Right so they don't convert. My point was, I do hear the opposite. We have to let in 3rd world immigrants. We have to ban "hate" speech. Gay marriage, too. All because supposedly their Jewish faith informs them. I guess I can go searching for examples, but I thought this was pretty common knowledge. And yeah, I know about the Orthodox. I'm not trying to deny their existence. I'm pointing out where the mainstream of the political orthodoxy lies.
That is cause their views have nothing to do with Judaism. Those ethnic Jews who have Judaism as their religion instead of Social Justice are overwhelmingly right-wing.
You can compare Reform Jews to Unitarians or the United Church of
FloydChrist. It's run by cultists who are wearing the skin of Judaism and Christianity respectively.I suppose this accurate in terms of the 'fundamentalism' argument, but their views to have 'nothing' to with radical leftism is impossible. We wouldn't see Jews massively over-represented among SJW's if there weren't something about the religion/culture - even in its secularized, largely non-practicing form - that pushed them toward it.
Something about being a non-practicing Jew drives people toward radical leftism.
I specifically said that their views have nothing to do with Judaism, because they're as orthodox in their religiosity as the average Unitarian or UCC-member. Basically, Social Justice with Jewish trappings is their religion. Which is why my argument is that this has nothing to do with Judaism, just like UCC and Unitarianism today has nothing to do with Christianity.
If Social Justice was caused by Judaism, then you would expect the people who are most committed to the Jewish religion to be the most SJW. The opposite is the case. Orthodox Jews are generally very anti-SJW, and they are faithful Jews, while Reform Jews who are about as Jewish as I am but with fondness to mutilate little kids, are the most SJW. So there is an inverse correlation, which to me suggests that Social Justice and Judaism are actually incompatible.
I think there is something in their culture. Namely because of what happened to them, an oversensitivity to 'racism' - which is why they side with black identitarian movements as supposedly fighting for justice, when black activists actually hate the Jews.
I think so as well, though there are also many differences between Jews and non-Jews that account for part of the difference.
I know these kind of people because they are my parents. I've tried to redpill them to no avail.
I'm not pro-Israel because I care about American Jews, I'm pro-Israel because Israel is the frontier against radical Islamist throat-slitters.
I got a 24 hour ban back on Reddit KIA for simply saying "oy vey" in a thread.
oy vey.
So if you don't mind, I actually looked up your claim, and turns out that you're not telling the truth. Shocker there. Here's your comment:
Apparently, you did not realize that 'Gerson' is a French name, or you did not let this get in your way of your Jew-baiting.
How was I not telling the truth?
There are many Jews with Gerson as a surname. Do some research and don't be so lazy. Perhaps it was you that suspended me back on KIA?
Here's an Alan Gerson obituary from the New York Times:
"A lawyer and the son of Jewish refugees from Poland, he helped families of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing hold Libya accountable."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/allan-gerson-dead.html
Turns out you are the one spreading falsehoods.
Jew baiting? What the hell are you even talking about? Jews are not sacred cows. They should open to scrutiny and critique just like anyone else.
This is one of the reasons it should of stayed shut. I'd rather have more liberty with a smaller user base, than less with a big user base. I guess the mods must of missed the attention that comes with bigger numbers.
Except even when we were closed we didn't have liberty. Reddit simply isn't conducive to liberty anymore, unless you're a raging leftist, and even then you'd have to be careful.
Your comment had me check the sub reddit and I had no idea it was back
Ben & Jerry's was sold to global megacorp Unilever twenty years ago, and Ben and Jerry have had no power in the company since then.
It has been run by a Norwegian guy for the last ten years, when all the woke shit started happening. It is the epitome of Woke Capital.
But don't let facts get in the way of your (((noticing things))).
Unilever is one of the worst cancers among these woke megacorporations. It was one of the first to pressure Youtube to censor speech.
Cool, I didnt know that. This discussion did more to fix my ignorance then outright censorship, wouldnt you agree?
Absolutely. I will never advocate for censorship.
But it looks like a lot of "noticers" would rather my post not be noticed.
Holy shit, you're right.
Also, fuck Unilever.
It would be a terrible thing to hate on innocent people just because they belong to an ethnic group. And it would be terrible to blame a whole ethnic group, for a small group of bad people in that ethnic group. However it is perfectly fine to notice the ethnic background of the elites that are using power & money to push an anti-white & anti-male agenda on society. Alot of them are Jews.
GamerGate began as a consumer revolt against unethical journalism. For some that was about positive coverage of journalists having a close relationship with the subject of their articles without any bit of disclosure of their bias. For others like myself and I think like most of you here, there was a bigger concern of journalistic ethics involving journalists pushing the unethical hateful ideology of Political Correctness. It is Jew ran corporate news media that are pushing the Politically Correct ideology with their defamatory attacks on whites & men, gamers & nerds.
GamerGate also has concerns about Politically Correct ideology being pushed on college campuses. The Politically Correct ideology in colleges is being pushed by Jew ran academia.
GamerGate also has concerns about free speech and Big Tech censorship. It is Jew ran Big Tech companies that censor rightwing people and sometimes leftwing people that do not conform to Politically Correct group think. It is Jew ran banks, credit card companies and payment processors that try & do defund Alternative Tech platforms that allow for free speech and don't censor people for politically incorrect opinions. I don't see how anyone who follows the issues of Big Tech censorship, can't notice who it is that does the censoring. This is how I personally got J-Woke.
It is a tough red pill to swallow because to alot of people it feels like hating on all Jews to notice this stuff. You don't have to be an anti-Semite to notice this stuff. You can notice this stuff while also knowing that most Jews are good decent people.
Post Reported for:
This post itself does not violate the rules.
Antisemitism at it's finest again...