Recently got a temp ban from KiA2 for very mildly acknowledging this fact. Just testing the waters here.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (142)
sorted by:
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.
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.
So oppressed, the only profession they were allowed was lending white people their wealth.
Things that make you go "hmmm".
Comment Removed: Rule 16
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.
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).
Comment Removed - Rule 16
Which did your mind associate with morally deficient or subhuman? The vaginal part, or the jew part?
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.
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.
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.