If someone other than a jewish organization were to make these claims, wouldn't that count as demarking jews as 'conspiring,' per rule 16?
If a Rabbi came on and said that jews, as a racial cabal went out to destroy other nations outlined in Judeo-Bolshevist rhetoric, I would absolutely remove that post. I have removed posts like that where some fringe rabbi was saying that the jews deserved the holocaust.
Anyone other than a jewish group themselves pointing out that jews are counting coup over the successes of civil rights movements would be considered an attack on jewish identity, correct?
No.
The issue is not if there are jews present in some movement, the issue is why.
For example blacks have also been present in every civil rights movement. This is not because there is a black racial conspiracy to undermine all nations and bring about black-bolshevism which will destroy civilization. The New English Protestants have also been involved in all civil rights movements. Again, this is not a protestant religious cabal to destroy civilization and kill nations.
Disparity is not evidence of discrimination. The issue is the discrimination. The presence of jews means nothing. It's when you are asserting that the presence of jews is the evidence of a racial cabal. That is the line.
Hence why, despite claims to the opposite by local stormfags, calling someone a jew, or identifying someone as a jew is not an issue. Saying that they are jewish to indicate that they are part of a racial cabal is the issue.
OP didn't violate any rules here because all he did was re-iterate what a bunch of jewish racialists want to emphasize for their Leftist credentials, as they use jewish people as a shield for criticism against their Leftism. The racialists themselves are not admitting to a racial cabal.
And yes, all the same things go for non-jews. White racial cabals still violate Rule 16, and a bunch of white people admitting that they are part of the White Supremacist Cisheteronormative Patriarchy cabal would violate that. But since nobody on here believes that, I don't get to remove those posts. Instead we get videos of crazy white Leftists explicitly saying that, and then making fun of them. Accusations of world-wide racial cabals deserve to be mocked, and that is our fundamental basis, because Kotaku was absolutely doing that.
All in all, I also don't see any jews claiming that they have coup'd any races in this video either.
All in all, I also don't see any jews claiming that they have coup'd any races in this video either.
They aren't counting coup against a race explicitly. They are claiming participation as jews on behalf of each intersectional element's victory against western society, which is (per intersectionalist ideology) implicitly understood as cis-hetrosexual white male Christian patriarchy, or are you claiming not to understand that?
I'm explicitly stating that "civil rights" is not an explicitly intersectional ideology, that the participation of jews in movements is not evidence of a racial cabal, and that being wrong-headed is not the same as conspiring to destroy western subversion.
For example, I find zero evidence that Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater wanted the the utter annihilation of western civilization. I will not cite this as evidence that the white race is operating a white racial cabal to destroy western civilization, nor will I claim that they were seeking the annihilation of western civilization as supporters of the Civil Rights movement, even when both had that very movement turn against them.
Intersectionality was also invented far later than any part of the Civil Rights movement.
The civil rights movement was certainly supported by more than bolsheviks and jews, but that doesn't keep members of the aforementioned parties from using it as a foundation to pursue further revolution.
We don't get to 'Trans Rights are human rights' and Queering without Civil Rights first. I keep that in mind when I see a tribal revisionist history of Civil Rights, like the one in the video.
I don't think there's a Jewish Cabal or Conspiracy, either. I just notice the tribalism and the alignment with the minority against the host country's status quo, for better (as in the case of Civil Rights, broadly speaking) and for worse (as in the case of the Intersectionalism which has followed.)
We don't get to 'Trans Rights are human rights' and Queering without Civil Rights first.
Anti-Socialism was used by Bolshevics to further revolution. Meanwhile, Democratic Socialists used anti-Communism to further their revolution (this is what the 3rd arrow represents in 3 arrows). The use of a philosophical concept is irrelevant, as the concept itself is irrelevant. It is merely a tool. Claims about basic human liberty and freedom of speech are also wielded against us by Leftists.
There is no concept that will not be used by a Leftist as a means to power, hence there is no point citing one idea, and claiming that that is inherently Leftist.
If you've read Queer Theory, you would see it's not based in Civil Rights, it's based in Marxism. Queer Theory never needed Civil Rights, but it was an easy avenue of attack. Same with Freedom of Speech. Queer Theory doesn't even rely of Civil Rights to propagate itself, but a form of Cultural Marxism by doing everything in it's power to subvert and destroy familial and romantic relationship. Civil Rights is simply a single avenue of approach, whereas the real damage is entirely done outside of the bounds of Civil Rights: outside any legal framework. The destruction and poisoning of interpersonal relationships with family and lovers is the primary act of revolutionary terror.
I just notice the tribalism and the alignment with the minority against the host country's status quo, for better (as in the case of Civil Rights, broadly speaking) and for worse (as in the case of the Intersectionalism which has followed.)
Again, if you read the actual work of Intersectionalists, they specifically cite the Civil Rights constructs as a major impediment. Because the concept of Civil Rights along a Liberal framework promotes a rejection of both positive and negative incentive; meaning that no revolutionary class can form because there is no system of oppression to address. Worse, the Civil Rights laws also required the specific identification of what discrimination was being done. Intersectionality was invented to get around Civil Rights law by creating infinite classes and groups, being able to demand infinite rights, and turning each "intersection" as another revolutionary class, and then demanding that the revolutionary coalition be formed from there. Intersectionality rose as blow back to Civil Rights, not out of them.
And that's even assuming your presupposition of "minority against the host" is true, which it's not. The host is simply not damaged by removing legislation that is racially targeting that group for sanction, and separating them out (rather than allowing them to integrate) from the host community. I do not recognize the moral value of Zimbabwe's racial laws.
If a Rabbi came on and said that jews, as a racial cabal went out to destroy other nations outlined in Judeo-Bolshevist rhetoric, I would absolutely remove that post. I have removed posts like that where some fringe rabbi was saying that the jews deserved the holocaust.
No.
The issue is not if there are jews present in some movement, the issue is why.
For example blacks have also been present in every civil rights movement. This is not because there is a black racial conspiracy to undermine all nations and bring about black-bolshevism which will destroy civilization. The New English Protestants have also been involved in all civil rights movements. Again, this is not a protestant religious cabal to destroy civilization and kill nations.
Disparity is not evidence of discrimination. The issue is the discrimination. The presence of jews means nothing. It's when you are asserting that the presence of jews is the evidence of a racial cabal. That is the line.
Hence why, despite claims to the opposite by local stormfags, calling someone a jew, or identifying someone as a jew is not an issue. Saying that they are jewish to indicate that they are part of a racial cabal is the issue.
OP didn't violate any rules here because all he did was re-iterate what a bunch of jewish racialists want to emphasize for their Leftist credentials, as they use jewish people as a shield for criticism against their Leftism. The racialists themselves are not admitting to a racial cabal.
And yes, all the same things go for non-jews. White racial cabals still violate Rule 16, and a bunch of white people admitting that they are part of the White Supremacist Cisheteronormative Patriarchy cabal would violate that. But since nobody on here believes that, I don't get to remove those posts. Instead we get videos of crazy white Leftists explicitly saying that, and then making fun of them. Accusations of world-wide racial cabals deserve to be mocked, and that is our fundamental basis, because Kotaku was absolutely doing that.
All in all, I also don't see any jews claiming that they have coup'd any races in this video either.
They aren't counting coup against a race explicitly. They are claiming participation as jews on behalf of each intersectional element's victory against western society, which is (per intersectionalist ideology) implicitly understood as cis-hetrosexual white male Christian patriarchy, or are you claiming not to understand that?
I'm explicitly stating that "civil rights" is not an explicitly intersectional ideology, that the participation of jews in movements is not evidence of a racial cabal, and that being wrong-headed is not the same as conspiring to destroy western subversion.
For example, I find zero evidence that Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater wanted the the utter annihilation of western civilization. I will not cite this as evidence that the white race is operating a white racial cabal to destroy western civilization, nor will I claim that they were seeking the annihilation of western civilization as supporters of the Civil Rights movement, even when both had that very movement turn against them.
Intersectionality was also invented far later than any part of the Civil Rights movement.
The civil rights movement was certainly supported by more than bolsheviks and jews, but that doesn't keep members of the aforementioned parties from using it as a foundation to pursue further revolution.
We don't get to 'Trans Rights are human rights' and Queering without Civil Rights first. I keep that in mind when I see a tribal revisionist history of Civil Rights, like the one in the video.
I don't think there's a Jewish Cabal or Conspiracy, either. I just notice the tribalism and the alignment with the minority against the host country's status quo, for better (as in the case of Civil Rights, broadly speaking) and for worse (as in the case of the Intersectionalism which has followed.)
Anti-Socialism was used by Bolshevics to further revolution. Meanwhile, Democratic Socialists used anti-Communism to further their revolution (this is what the 3rd arrow represents in 3 arrows). The use of a philosophical concept is irrelevant, as the concept itself is irrelevant. It is merely a tool. Claims about basic human liberty and freedom of speech are also wielded against us by Leftists.
There is no concept that will not be used by a Leftist as a means to power, hence there is no point citing one idea, and claiming that that is inherently Leftist.
If you've read Queer Theory, you would see it's not based in Civil Rights, it's based in Marxism. Queer Theory never needed Civil Rights, but it was an easy avenue of attack. Same with Freedom of Speech. Queer Theory doesn't even rely of Civil Rights to propagate itself, but a form of Cultural Marxism by doing everything in it's power to subvert and destroy familial and romantic relationship. Civil Rights is simply a single avenue of approach, whereas the real damage is entirely done outside of the bounds of Civil Rights: outside any legal framework. The destruction and poisoning of interpersonal relationships with family and lovers is the primary act of revolutionary terror.
Again, if you read the actual work of Intersectionalists, they specifically cite the Civil Rights constructs as a major impediment. Because the concept of Civil Rights along a Liberal framework promotes a rejection of both positive and negative incentive; meaning that no revolutionary class can form because there is no system of oppression to address. Worse, the Civil Rights laws also required the specific identification of what discrimination was being done. Intersectionality was invented to get around Civil Rights law by creating infinite classes and groups, being able to demand infinite rights, and turning each "intersection" as another revolutionary class, and then demanding that the revolutionary coalition be formed from there. Intersectionality rose as blow back to Civil Rights, not out of them.
And that's even assuming your presupposition of "minority against the host" is true, which it's not. The host is simply not damaged by removing legislation that is racially targeting that group for sanction, and separating them out (rather than allowing them to integrate) from the host community. I do not recognize the moral value of Zimbabwe's racial laws.
Blah blah blah you are so fucking annoying.