I think it has more to do with the judeophile conditioning we're taught from womb to grave.
I don't think that exists. I see far more attacks on Jews than any other ethnic group, even ethnic groups who deserve it more.
When people start looking at it objectively, it creates a bit of a "They Live" hysteria. You want to give everyone glasses, but you just come off as crazy.
Tell me about it. I know that Jews are more likely to be regressives, but I deny that this is because of some essence of pure evil in their blood. It's because they are more likely to be professionals and so called 'intellectuals'. What is the truth to which you think I am blind?
But, that's not the same thing as pointing out that some individual degenerate journalist or academic is Jewish, as they often are. That's just to trigger others pattern recognition.
It's more like confirmation bias. I never see those people on threads where there's a Jew opposing regressivism, of whom there are none too few.
I don't think that exists. I see far more attacks on Jews than any other ethnic group, even ethnic groups who deserve it more.
That may be true in Europe. Not really sure. In the US, evangelicism has severe judeophilia due to Armageddon prophesy. There's also no critical examination of Jews throughout history on what brings about their persecution. If it's spoken of at all, it's attributed to "jealousy" or "scapegoating". Intellectually dishonest. edit: In our education setting we also generally spend more time on the Holocaust and individual stories than we do on WW2.
Their biggest issue has always been lack of assimilation. Just the persistence of distinctly Jewish identities across Europe for centuries is testament to this fact, though we can even see this lack of assimilation between Jewish communities when forced together into ghettos. They moved up the Rhine for trade opportunities, but they never really emigrated. They just moved. Usury certainly didn't help perceptions.
But the main driver of judeophilia is, of course, the Holocaust. Judeophilia may not be as apt a word, here, but it's certainly a shield. Any criticism as a people is strictly taboo because of the big H's big H.
Tell me about it. I know that Jews are more likely to be regressives, but I deny that this is because of some essence of pure evil in their blood. It's because they are more likely to be professionals and so called 'intellectuals'. What is the truth to which you think I am blind?
Why boil it down to evil? They have a high verbal acumen in their blood (if you buy into IQ). They make a lot of arguments. Hell, half their religion seems to be arguing the nuance of just how much they can get away with without violating their holy scrolls. Natural lawyers.
I think the greater question is, just how many lawyers do we need? Does a plethora of lawyers create its own issues? Does an overabundance of the professional class create societal imbalance? Just how much of an economy should deal with and reward financing production of goods, versus the actual creation of goods (and therefore value)? Can an oversized intellectual class be unhealthy for a nation?
I think so.
I never see those people on threads where there's a Jew opposing regressivism, of whom there are none too few.
They exist, but I disagree with the last part. There are too few. Regardless, to praise them would just be the "based black man" meme. The problem isn't one of individuals, but of demographic tendency.
It's also true in the US. If we were going to hate groups based on their ethnicity, which I of course oppose, surely the group commtting 53% of the homicides despite making up 13% would be a far more worthy candidate.
There's also no critical examination of Jews throughout history on what brings about their persecution. If it's spoken of at all, it's attributed to "jealousy" or "scapegoating". Intellectually dishonest.
But that is the reason, and that is also the reason why other middlemen like the Chinese in Southeast Asia and the Greeks and Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were treated.
Their biggest issue has always been lack of assimilation.
Yet the greatest threat to their existence came from Germany, where they were most highly assimilated and where 50% of Jews were marrying non-Jews in the 1920s, and a greater proportion of Jews had dangerous combat duties in the war than non-Jews.
They moved up the Rhine for trade opportunities, but they never really emigrated. They just moved. Usury certainly didn't help perceptions.
Correct, but the idea that you can be expelled/butchered at any moment also doesn't really help.
Any criticism as a people is strictly taboo because of the big H's big H.
Precisely what criticism can you not utter because of the Holocaust?
Does a plethora of lawyers create its own issues?
Yes. Any more than zero is a very bad thing.
I think so.
I agree. But what of it then?
They exist, but I disagree with the last part. There are too few. Regardless, to praise them would just be the "based black man" meme.
How is it then that you only 'notice' when something is in accordance of your ideology, and you don't happen to 'notice' when it's not? Surely, if impressive skills of perception and 'pattern recognition' were involved, you'd see: "wow, there sure are a lot of Jews being regressives, and also a whole lot of Jews being against them".
It's also true in the US. If we were going to hate groups based on their ethnicity, which I of course oppose, surely the group commtting 53% of the homicides despite making up 13% would be a far more worthy candidate.
Yeah, the hate bit is stupid. Finding the line that ethnonationalism has valid and practical application can be a tough one. Too many fall off the argument, and into ideology traps. I do it myself sometimes.
As to 13/53, it's old hat. I think it's mostly convinced those who will be convinced. Every once in awhile, the arguments are worth reiterating, but the facts are known, with a wealth of supporting data.
But, in the end, it shouldn't be about hatred. Ethnonationalism has dirty connotation, but there is a solid rationale to it. It's just not well placed to replace in most parts.
Precisely what criticism can you not utter because of the Holocaust?
It seems to work like this:
"If you criticize, Israel, Jews as a people, point out that someone is Jewish, or that Jews are disproportionately represented in a field (especially the lawyer/banker/journalist class), it's anti-semtiism. Anti-semitism is what created the Holocaust. If you continue to follow this line of reasoning, you're a Nazi. You don't want to be a Nazi, do you?"
Firings may follow.
How is it then that you only 'notice' when something is in accordance of your ideology, and you don't happen to 'notice' when it's not? Surely, if impressive skills of perception and 'pattern recognition' were involved, you'd see: "wow, there sure are a lot of Jews being regressives, and also a whole lot of Jews being against them".
Who said I don't notice? There's just no major purpose in stating it. Though, I guess there kind of is, if it's part of how you're informing your opinions.
It seems the more influential are on the regressive side. Those who push back tend to be pretty Zionist or neoconservative. I don't see it as a black and white choice. None of these ideologies are really in my interest.
I don't think that exists. I see far more attacks on Jews than any other ethnic group, even ethnic groups who deserve it more.
Tell me about it. I know that Jews are more likely to be regressives, but I deny that this is because of some essence of pure evil in their blood. It's because they are more likely to be professionals and so called 'intellectuals'. What is the truth to which you think I am blind?
It's more like confirmation bias. I never see those people on threads where there's a Jew opposing regressivism, of whom there are none too few.
That may be true in Europe. Not really sure. In the US, evangelicism has severe judeophilia due to Armageddon prophesy. There's also no critical examination of Jews throughout history on what brings about their persecution. If it's spoken of at all, it's attributed to "jealousy" or "scapegoating". Intellectually dishonest. edit: In our education setting we also generally spend more time on the Holocaust and individual stories than we do on WW2.
Their biggest issue has always been lack of assimilation. Just the persistence of distinctly Jewish identities across Europe for centuries is testament to this fact, though we can even see this lack of assimilation between Jewish communities when forced together into ghettos. They moved up the Rhine for trade opportunities, but they never really emigrated. They just moved. Usury certainly didn't help perceptions.
But the main driver of judeophilia is, of course, the Holocaust. Judeophilia may not be as apt a word, here, but it's certainly a shield. Any criticism as a people is strictly taboo because of the big H's big H.
Why boil it down to evil? They have a high verbal acumen in their blood (if you buy into IQ). They make a lot of arguments. Hell, half their religion seems to be arguing the nuance of just how much they can get away with without violating their holy scrolls. Natural lawyers.
I think the greater question is, just how many lawyers do we need? Does a plethora of lawyers create its own issues? Does an overabundance of the professional class create societal imbalance? Just how much of an economy should deal with and reward financing production of goods, versus the actual creation of goods (and therefore value)? Can an oversized intellectual class be unhealthy for a nation?
I think so.
They exist, but I disagree with the last part. There are too few. Regardless, to praise them would just be the "based black man" meme. The problem isn't one of individuals, but of demographic tendency.
It's also true in the US. If we were going to hate groups based on their ethnicity, which I of course oppose, surely the group commtting 53% of the homicides despite making up 13% would be a far more worthy candidate.
But that is the reason, and that is also the reason why other middlemen like the Chinese in Southeast Asia and the Greeks and Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were treated.
Yet the greatest threat to their existence came from Germany, where they were most highly assimilated and where 50% of Jews were marrying non-Jews in the 1920s, and a greater proportion of Jews had dangerous combat duties in the war than non-Jews.
Correct, but the idea that you can be expelled/butchered at any moment also doesn't really help.
Precisely what criticism can you not utter because of the Holocaust?
Yes. Any more than zero is a very bad thing.
I agree. But what of it then?
How is it then that you only 'notice' when something is in accordance of your ideology, and you don't happen to 'notice' when it's not? Surely, if impressive skills of perception and 'pattern recognition' were involved, you'd see: "wow, there sure are a lot of Jews being regressives, and also a whole lot of Jews being against them".
Yeah, the hate bit is stupid. Finding the line that ethnonationalism has valid and practical application can be a tough one. Too many fall off the argument, and into ideology traps. I do it myself sometimes.
As to 13/53, it's old hat. I think it's mostly convinced those who will be convinced. Every once in awhile, the arguments are worth reiterating, but the facts are known, with a wealth of supporting data.
But, in the end, it shouldn't be about hatred. Ethnonationalism has dirty connotation, but there is a solid rationale to it. It's just not well placed to replace in most parts.
It seems to work like this: "If you criticize, Israel, Jews as a people, point out that someone is Jewish, or that Jews are disproportionately represented in a field (especially the lawyer/banker/journalist class), it's anti-semtiism. Anti-semitism is what created the Holocaust. If you continue to follow this line of reasoning, you're a Nazi. You don't want to be a Nazi, do you?"
Firings may follow.
Who said I don't notice? There's just no major purpose in stating it. Though, I guess there kind of is, if it's part of how you're informing your opinions.
It seems the more influential are on the regressive side. Those who push back tend to be pretty Zionist or neoconservative. I don't see it as a black and white choice. None of these ideologies are really in my interest.
Displaying ignorance on a topic is not an argument.