Tommy Robinson wants to bring more indians in to UK.
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (43)
sorted by:
Because you know you are wrong, which is why you're constantly trying to look out for "jewish subversion", and why you accuse everyone you don't like of being a jew, like Tommy.
Look, I know it’s probably not worth trying to engage with you in good faith on this at all, but setting aside any question of whether Jews are particularly good or bad or anything for a society, they do see themselves as a separate ethnic group. Israel is predicated on this. Famous Jewish neighborhoods and enclaves like in Brooklyn are predicated on this. Be it Jews themselves, people who dislike Jews, or people who don’t really care but at least acknowledge obvious reality, the idea that an ethnic identity that is “a Jew” exists has never really been in dispute (except among those who are deliberately prevaricating). And without necessarily saying “whites shouldn’t get along with Jews,” I see absolutely no issue with saying “whites should be aware that ‘Jew’ is a distinct ethnic identity that has members that see themselves as distinct from the identity of ‘white’ and, in questions of group interests and group identity, whites should take that into account.” Because that’s simply true.
If you engage with me in good faith, you'll find my responses much different than, "shut up stormfag". That's my response because no National Socialist has ever yet interacted with me in good faith. Even the smart ones like Arch. It's actually infuriating.
So, here's my good faith response. Neither white nor jew is an ethnic identity. This is the problem of intentionally stuffing them into the wrong category.
Race is not an ethnicity, nor a religion. A race contains multiple ethnicities, and it may contain at least one religion. A religion is neither a race nor an ethnicity. A religion may contain one race, or it may contain multiple races given it's size. However, a religious sect typically only contains one race. Any religion of significance is typically multi-ethnic. An ethnicity may contain typically contains only religion. Races contain ethnicities, and not the other way around.
The hierarchy of familial categories that make nations from narrowest to broadest go as follows:
As such, jew is not an ethnos. It is a religious sect. Ashkenazi Jew is an ethnic group. Judaism is a multi-ethnic religion. White is race. It is a multi-ethnic race. White is sufficiently broad that it actually contains multiple religions, one of which is Judaism. This is why it "white jews" are not contradictory terms, it's race, then religion, with no ethnic group specified.
They sometimes see themselves as separate. Many jews integrated into the US to such a degree that it is used against them in Israel for being secular. German jews identified themselves as "Germans of a mosaic faith". If you are operating in bad faith, you assert an unfalsifiable position that every jew that integrates is a subversive, and every jew that doesn't is a separatist.
In many cases, particularly among Americans, they are simply wrong and are trying to avoid the category of being "white", while trying to benefit from being "jew", while pretending they are not white, and pretending they are jew, while not practicing Judaism.
At that point, they can be safely dismissed as a Rachel Dolezal level Leftist.
But you can make this same argument for a lot of groups. Not along exactly the same lines, sure, but it's totally reasonable to say that, for example, a person that is born and raised in the US but ethnically Japanese, or Indian, or Afghanistan may not fit well into the nation of their ethnic ancestors... but it also doesn't stop me from noticing that they do have this part of their identity that is different from mine. It doesn't mean they have to be my enemy or my ally, but it is healthy and appropriate to acknowledge it, especially if I am explicitly considering how different identity groups interact and what their incentives might be.
I also reject the idea that "white" should contain "Jewish." "White" is loosely "European," or at the very least it is in most of the contexts in which you will see it on this board, something you should very well be aware of. As such, it would not contain a Middle Eastern group like the Jews. If you argue "actually, 'white' is X category for Y reasons and therefore I can fit Jews into it," sure maybe you can make a coherent category that does that, but you're still not addressing the actual point being made when most of the posters here use "white."
That depends. They may be ethnically American. American is both a Nation, by virtue of civic assimilation, but may also be (or becoming) an ethnos. If they are ethnically Japanese, they will have to join America civic-ly, and integrate into the US. Over a few generations, their decedents may become ethnically American.
I'm not saying White contains Jewish by definition. That's the point of European Jews. They are White Jews. There are also White Muslims. Judaism is a religion that contains multiple ethnic groups. Some Jews are European, but some are also Middle-Eastern and African. It's not that White is a full container for all Jews. It's that there are Jews that are White.
Unfortunately, many of the idiot users here are asserting a "White" that simply doesn't exist at all. A biologically homogenous European racial solidarity movement. There is no such thing as that. There is no racial solidarity between Albanians, Portuguese, Celts, Swiss, Boer, and Finns. The American definition of White is simply a container of "European", where as the British concept of "White" is basically just British, or Anglo-Saxon. What stupid people here like to do is desperately smash them all together where all "Europeanoids" are just culturally Saxon-Anglos that can only be saved by Socialism, if it just wasn't for those pesky jews.
My issue is that the Socialists here don't have points at all, and aren't engaging in an honest discussion about ethnicity in the first place when they aren't willing to accept distinctions between race, religion, ethnos, culture, and genetics. It's a completely upside-down idea that it starts with genetics, and then genetics informs race, and then race informs culture, religion, ethos, kin, clan, tribe, individual people, and nations equally, at the same time, to the same degree.
It is an intentional reduction of nuance to fit it into a historical dialectic. I can't accept the point, because the point is based on a false premise.
This argument is why I unironically prefer Aryan, it’s where we descended from and also doesn’t include yids.
You're doing that lying thing again. It makes you a bad person.
"racial consciousness" is not the sole possession of the National Socialists.
Sorry, Jews are a religion, and Whites are a race. White Jews, Black Muslims, same difference.
Jews are not solely a religion. You are being dishonest and therefore a bad person.
I don't understand why you struggle with this so much.
I'm not being dishonest at all. Jews are a religious group that contains multi-ethnic components.
Put it like this, what would happen if there was no Judaism. Would the jews remain an "ethnic group"?
Well, considering their culture, language, economic ties, traditions, values, and even breeding/marriage rites are determined solely by their religion, they couldn't continue to have any ethnos. The Persians have ethnos exist regardless of whether or not they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or Zoroastrian. This can not be the case with Jews. Without Judaism, they are simply not Jews and there would be nothing to bind them. Jews in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia, Africa, and the Middle East would simply meld into the rest of the populations in those areas, and be at best fully segregated ethnic groups unrelated to other formerly "jewish" ethnos.
So, no. Jews can't remain an "ethnic group" without Judaism, because they aren't an ethnic group to begin with. They are tied by religion.