Antisemitism Test
(www.idrlabs.com)
Comments (58)
sorted by:
"There are too many Jews in highly-paid professions."
"Jews monopolize everything to the detriment of others."
"Jews have too much power and influence."
If you just replaced the word "Jews" with "Whites" then you would magically change from being anti-semitic to anti-racist.
Remember, there are no bad tactics, just bad targets bigot!
Correct. The sooner the right realizes this the sooner they will start winning.
That's a slippery slope. Sometimes it's nice having an asshole on your side, but only as long as they're on your side and aren't making you look bad.
Is that not just rephrasing what he said? “As long as they’re on your side and don’t make you look bad” is just another way of saying “as long as they’ve an asshole to the right people.” Even “looking bad” is just a function of attacking the wrong people.
Not at all, I'm disagreeing with Cato. I'm saying that advocating that we should do the same as the left and use a "no bad tactics, only bad targets" strategy is bound to backfire, and you don't want to associate yourself with people who unironically say things like that.
"Looking bad" doesn't just happen when you attack the wrong people, it also happens when you attack in the wrong way. And if they attack the right people today, then they're bound to attack you tomorrow. As an example, see the woke eating themselves, the golem turning on its master, etc.
Right, but that's encoded in the rule. What do you think a "bad target" is? The rule could be rephrased as "the morality and methods of a tactic must be proper and proportional to the target," and it basically means the same thing. Unless you're intentionally setting your ceiling for morality much lower than most people (for example, if the line you draw for "unforgivable" is "I'm not allowed to kill anyone, ever, for any reason," or "there is no case where spying/doxxing/getting someone fired is ever okay"), then you have to admit that there is a certain amount of moral standing that affects what you can do to someone and why.
Now, if you're dreaming up exceptions like "well, I can't see any case where you should be allowed to imprison someone for a decade, repeatedly torturing them and nursing them back to health to start over again..." fine, I agree, that's a tactic that doesn't really have a good target and you have found an exception to the rule. But extreme hypothetical edge cases can break every moral or tactical truism. That doesn't make all of them bad for general use.
I was never referring to absolutisms like "killing is always wrong, even in self defense", or "the death penalty is always wrong, even for heinous criminals". Right-wingers in general already understand exceptions like that. What I was referring to was the idea that indiscriminate deception and violence are acceptable, even encouraged, when used to further your own political cause, because it's supposedly necessary to allow the right-wing to gain power or for White people to stop their extinction.
A great example of this would be this thread right here:
Parents of teen who shot up school
Here, the fedposter u/IHateWhores (now banned) was defending a school shooter and saying that he was justified in shooting half a dozen other kids because he was White and was "probably" bullied (no evidence provided to back up that claim). I tried calling him out on his bullshit, but oddly enough, other regular users, including Cato, decided to back up the fedposter. If you've paid attention to Cato's post history, you can see he frequently endorses these types of calls to violence and "fighting back".
They call you antisemite but not liar
That is such a good point. I gotta remember that.
Correct. Anti-semitism is just social justice for the ultra-right.
If trannies, blacks, and women all gained a disproportionate amount of power and influence, would it be social justice to point that out and say something fishy is going on?
Logically, yes. But logic has no place in that world of hatred and bigotry. When you normalize for hours worked and exact job classification, women are paid more hourly than men by a fairly notable amount. They also boast three times the favorable bias in courts compared to even the strongest racial bias gap. And there's several major, successful, and government-integrated movements that boil down to "believe, follow, and obey all women". Logically, this means they are disproportionately favored in money, power, and influence. But bring this up in a major way that threatens such an embedded institution and they will use said money, power, and influence to make your life a living hell, if you can live at all.
They'll clock in the same hours as you, but they aren't doing a whole lot of working.
That begs the question of what is a 'disproportionate' amount of power and influence.
If blacks, troons, etc. get power on account of being black or troons, then that is wrong for that reason. (Also because troons should not be allowed to be lunatics in public, but that is a different matter.)
But imagine say blacks completely turning themselves around, working very hard, avoiding crime, etc. and as a result becoming so successful that they are overrepresented in powerful and influential positions. That may be disproportionate, but it is not unwarranted.
On the other hand, if incompetent blacks are given pilot jobs, or powerful/influential positions because of the color of their skin, then that is unwarranted, and therefore wrong.
Yeah, I agree with that. The influence some jews have may not always be warranted either, but it's harder to prove that, especially when you're not allowed to talk about it.
hah that guy checked himself, he wanted to say Jewish, but added huwite Jewish
George Lincoln Rockwell said exactly that in his 21 (or 25?) Point decree. That Adolf Hitler was the single greatest advocate for Social Justice in world history.
back to ye olde 'you are all leftists if you don't suck jew cock' spiel huh.
Go read Rockwell if you're honestly that fucking stupid.
If that's the case (being anti-anti-white people is merely another form social justice), then I'm pro-white-social-justice.
If we can ever eliminate all other forms of racial/grievance group social justice, then I'll be happy to eliminate the pro-white forms as well.
Anti-anti-white is just common sense, and your position is just plain consistency. I mean anti-Jewish.
There is a reason why there are so many Black National Socialists that just make the zero-effort leap and declare jews to be a worse form of white.
They rhetoric is identical, although sometimes actually worse.
easiest 100% of my life
I got 45% neutral.
Dammit I'm gonna be held back a grade again.
I'm probably not going to take it, but it cracks me up the examples they use in the results.
Hahahaha.
Also, kind of a funny conclusion. "You hate the Jews...this could hurt the Jews." Uh, if the test taker is as antisemitic as the results claim, that's a positive outcome. "Oh, my hatred of Jews will make the people I hate uncomfortable? Dang, oh no."
Not sure if it's randomized but I didn't even get any questions about the holocaust. :(
There wasn't, they just inferred your attitude toward holohoax based on your rating
The funniest results page is the one you get if you say Jews are stronger, smarter, more moral, more honest, more patriotic and have never done anything wrong
Hmm, I wonder what they'd say if you gave similar responses to a test about how you feel about white people?
Damn, only 68% This test is bullshit because any collection of "moderate" opinions on Jews would get you labeled anti-Semitic in the public sphere. For example, the question on Jewish influence in media: a "somewhat agree" will get you listed by the ADL even if a brief study of C-level executives in media would yield a "strongly agree" position.
Lol
But my dear tester, why should I attribute positive qualities to a group when I refuse to do the same for the negative ones 🤔
I think the test is inaccurate because I only got an 89%.
Also I like how if you get the "you're antisemitic" response, it tries to browbeat you about how you believe in conspiracy theories and how you "deny the historical suffering of Jews".
i accept that they suffered, but i don't accept that it gives them moral license over me.
They suffered for a reason.
95% because trick question:
Jews are isolated as a group because of their inflexible religion
disagree gives you pro stance, even though the reason you disagreed is actually because you think there's something else that isolated them, namely their greedy and subversive behaviors, religious or not.
same for me :)
I got 53% - quite surprised it didn’t label me as antisemitic.
You know you linked the page with your results right?
You can change the shown result just by changing the number in the URL.
I think that this is just the same address that OP initially got when this quiz was linked to him.
Sorry, I let my humour get a little too dry there. I was just fucking with OP and this board's reputation.
I think he just gave the 'wrong' answer from the POV of the test just to see what it would say. 95% surprised me for NatalieBiden.
What is "his country" in this context...
Reality is anti-semitic.
The funny thing is that Leftists called Eysenck a 'Nazi' and other such things back in the day.
Result: 90%
Obviously a stupid test, since it presupposes a Left-liberal, individualistic worldview to be indubitably correct and that any answers to the contrary are necessarily false.
In reality, there is no reason why every person should be looked at on a case by case basis, since that blinds one to patterns. Worse still, it positivizes that blindness to the extent that it becomes a false virtue for those who lack true virtues to take up in their stead. 'Sure, I'm this and I'm that, but, hey, at least I'm not racist!' When you're making the same defensive argument that Jeffrey Dahmer made—that he didn't choose his targets based on race, therefore, he wasn't really that bad—you're clearly in the wrong. (Yes, Dahmer did disproportionately target black males, but that was because he found them attractive, not because he hated blacks, ergo, he can reasonably argue that he was not racist.)
Instead, you simply look at enough cases until you see sure patterns, and willingly blinding oneself to them, viz. refusing to 'generalize', 'paint with a broad brush', 'stereotype', is just plain irrational. If you lived in a city in which a gang whose colours were red mugged you several times, only a total moron would continue to relax around those clothed in red. But such irrationality is now a marker of a virtuous person.
Unfortunately, we live in a world in which people's heads are full of beliefs in false patterns—'I have found plenty of evidence for the existence of cisheteronormative patriarchy... but no amount of evidence would ever justify anti-semitism!'—and, in part because many of these beliefs in false patterns mutually excludes belief in true ones, they can see none of the true ones.
Firstly, belief in White privilege (viz. majority privilege strangely problematized when Whites have it) automatically blinds one to Jewish privilege because the latter seems prima facie improbable if the former is true. 'If Jewish privilege exists, wouldn't that mean that Whites do not have privilege? But Whites do have privilege; therefore, Jewish privilege cannot be true.'
Secondly, belief in Jews as the world's greatest victims also blinds one to it because it seems prima facie improbable that Jews can also have privilege if this belief is true. 'If Jews have privilege, wouldn't they use that to prevent the Holocaust? But the Holocaust happened; therefore, Jewish privilege cannot be true.'
Finally, peddling the idea of Jews as White also blinds one to it, since all evidence of Jewish privilege is simply reinterpreted as evidence of White privilege. Furthermore, it unfairly means that Whites cop the blame for all Jewish wrongdoings. 'Israelis are White; therefore, Whites are bombing Palestinian children! I hate Whitey!' It also justifies White under-representation: 'Blinken, Cohen, Garland, Haines, Mayorkas, Klain, Yellen, etc. are Jews, but Jews are White! What do you mean "Whites are under-represented"? Biden has plenty of Whites around him!'
All of this conceptual junk simply obfuscates real problems. And it benefits them immensely to spread this junk, since it clarifies nothing and complicates everything. It blinds, confuses, and stupefies the world. And nothing can happen to them when that is so: everything becomes endless argumentation, confusing problems for solutions, solutions for problems, symptoms for causes (like TheImpossible1 ranting obsessively about feminism), and the like.
'Everyone else oppresses us, we are the greatest victims of all time, somehow we have never oppressed anyone, somehow no one else has been greater oppressed than we, and we are somehow also White and people of colour at the same time, and when you do this and that you are Nazis and enemies of humanity but when we do those same things we are liberal democrats and your greatest allies, oh, and only people who want to oppress others question any of this.'
86%.
Dammit, was hoping for 88%.
Why does the scale only go up to 100? Shouldn't it go up to 6000000?
My first reaction was to do an early life check on the doctor, so does that mean I passed the test?
I got 17%, which labeled me as 'strongly philosemitic'. Which is wrong. I'm neither pro nor anti Jew. I'm Jew-neutral.
Most questions were legit, but some are stupid.
The religion was intentionally designed to isolate Jews and prevent them from assimilating into the broader society. So unless rabbis are anti-Semitic, this is just a simple truth.
There are many reasons people have for disliking Jews, none of them legitimate, but it sure as hell doesn't come from 'misunderstandings'.
A lot of people argue that Ashkenazi Jews tend to have a higher average IQ. If you believe that, this test will label you as 'anti-Semitic'.
Should be 110%