"Think of Auntie Semitism!" and "This high profile example of the thing that is obviously happening will make people believe that thing that is obviously happening, so it must be stopped." are not courageous.
“Jewish people are contributing to antisemitism by doing things that generate antisemitism.”
How else would antisemitism exist? As if it is some sort of unique arbitrary baseless metaphysical phenomenon and not a direct and rational reaction to observable stimuli. Antisemitism exists for the same reason you cross the street to avoid a pack of black teenagers.
I gotta track down that old study showing that stereotypes have a higher degree of accuracy than virtually all of social science.
Come to think of it, most of social science is really just stolen valor. “Your ancestors didn’t know that the earth revolved around the sun, or that harmful microscopic organisms exist, therefore all of your ancestors’ observations regarding human nature are completely invalid.” The historical limitations of legitimate hard science do not automatically invalidate the learned wisdom resulting from generations of human interaction.
I have a whole rant about how physics essentially stumbling into profound explanatory power throughout the 18th and 19th C, through nothing but dogged following of evidence and first principles, mind-broke the humanities and soft sciences. They then rebuilt themselves as cargo-cult physics and have never recovered.
No, no, no. People have hated the Jews for thousands of years, for no reason. They're just jealous and antisemitic!
It's just such a weird argument. No matter how anyone feels about Da Jews, that's clearly not all there is to it. If it was only modern day, you could at least make the argument it was just resentment or jealousy at Jewish success. But that argument loses a lot of weight when it's pretty consistent for thousands of years, and globally.
Note, I'm not even making the argument it's warranted, or unwarranted, or whatever. Just that the argument doesn't make a lot of sense, and there must be something more to it.
People don't just randomly hate the Jews specifically "because fuck those guys in particular" consistently, for millennia.
There are plenty of examples of jews that are legitimately detestable. Soros is a comic book villain grade of evil, and i would argue that the way the modern Israel was formed was unethical. The banking institutions are frequently anti-american. The problem with "it's the JOOOS" retards isn't that there aren't evil jews, it's that they are part of the ape mindset that refuses to see the forest for the trees.
You can more accurately identify enemies by ideology than by race. Soros et al aren't motivated by religion or ethnic background. Plenty of the globalist elite are not jewish. Going "reeeee skin color / ethnic background" is ignoring the better identifiers of enemy action, discarding potential allies and ignoring enemies based on a retarded set of standards.
Buying into "it's all (ethnic group)" is literally what the globalists want. It served to create conflict between people that could work against their interests, and lets them manipulate all the conflicting parties to their own ends.
If we got gay communism, the globalists win. If we got literal american national socialism, the elites still win in the end because subverting leftist power structures is their bread and butter - even if the original leader wasn't a deranged faggot (unlikely). The enemy is the sociopathic power grubbing goblin, not all jews or just jews, etc.
All attempts at infringing on human rights and creating leftist government must be destroyed - like this one.
"Stop noticing that evil people have recognizable patterns, you can only tell them apart by skin color, ignore all the evil leftists that are white"
stop noticing that all the "reeee jooos" faggots mysteriously support the same government structures that the gay commies do, and use the same arguments with reversed targets
don't mention the fact that nearly every neonazi group is found to be a front for feds and globalist orgs trying to stir the pot, to create the enemy they need to justify their own bullshit
Ok and? I'm not one. I'm an American constitutional nationalist, the purist libertarian perspective does not reflect the real world. Libertarian policy cannot be done piecemeal like the fake "libertarian party" does either. You can't pick and choose parts of it, it only works as a whole - you can't have open borders without eliminating the welfare state. And open borders is a retarded policy outside of a vacuum in the first place.
And besides that fact, an actual libertarian position on marriage, not the "libertarian party", would be that government should not be involved in marriage at all. Which I would agree with. It is a religious institution. The issuance of marriage licenses is the government interfering with religion.
You are a deranged faggot, take your simping for gay race communism somewhere else. You didn't address anything I actually said, just tried to shift the argument to a different topic entirely. You're an illiterate goblin, not a human.
Not sure why you're lecturing me. I didn't say Jews are responsibly for everything. I even was very clear that I wasn't saying antisemitism was right.
I said antisemitism doesn't just spring up out of thin air. People don't hate the Jews because they just want to hate the Jews, because hating the Jews is so dang cool. There's more to it. Just like with anti-black racism, for some people it is just poorly directed hate...and for others it's pattern recognition.
This whole 'people are antisemitic because they hate Jews' is a ridiculously circular argument.
Also, by your logic of 'you can't complain about Jews because there are bad nonjews as well' we also can't complain about any group. Can't complain about blacks, because whites can be violent too. Can't complain about gays, straight people rape kids too.
I agree that anyone who says all Jews are evil is silly. Or someone who says everything is the fault of the Jews is silly. But completely denying trends, distribution, and per capita behavior is also silly.
My core point was simple, though. Racism and prejudice aren't something that just pops out of the void and grabs ahold of people. For better or worse, for good or bad, people have reasons for their prejudices. This idea a lot of people float that antisemitism is some near-magical evil force is ludicrous.
It's a tribal tactic for subhumans, and it's a favored tool of the globalist to sow discord. Actual humans are capable of higher pattern recognition and more accurate distinction beyond color associations.
I don't give a particular fuck about jews and I'm also tired of the leftist bullshit wielding "anti-semitism" as a bullshit political cudgel. I'm equally tired of the mongoloids and sliders shitting up the place with their low IQ bullshit pretending that "reee jews hitler did nothing wrong" is actually an ideology, instead of monkey screeching and derailment of actual discussion.
People going "reeee niggers" when Clarence Thomas proves that skin color doesn't make you a feral are also retarded. Every thing that donated to Karmelo Anthony is a monkey. Plenty of those monkeys had white skin.
Being a pedo fag isn't an immutable characteristic, being a pedo fag is a choice. Gays need to go back in the closet and stay away from kids. The ones that act like people instead of like goblins, you don't even know they're gay most of the time. They are tolerable. The rest need an object lesson via committing the ones that do try to get access to children into mental institutions.
He is correct, though. Most of the anti-antisemitism laws only fuel more antisemitism. And, if that's something you care about, it is worth calling out. And, if you're coming at it from a freedom angle, it's still worth calling out, because it's a good logical argument to point out these acts won't even accomplish the stated goals.
As to "courage," which is the main point...while not the most courageous stance he could have taken, I still thinking opening your mouth at all on this issue, especially coming out against it (for whatever reason), is more courageous than keeping your mouth shut. This is a very loaded topic, and he could still get in major trouble for even a stance as relatively milquetoast as this.
I'm willing to give him partial points for this, for sure.
I give him all the credit in the world. Same to Matt Walsh. These two are advocating for a principled equality in the face of brazen philosemitism. Attacking obvious double standards is probably the only safe play for men in their positions. It’s an important starting point for necessary future conversations.
One interesting part of this, according to the summary, is...
Prohibited actions include...furnishing information about whether someone is associated with charitable or fraternal organizations that support the boycotted country.
Does this mean, for example, that this blocks and penalizes some people from pointing out if someone took money from AIPAC?
Current law prohibits various actions by U.S. persons (individuals or entities) in relation to boycotts imposed by foreign governments on a country which is friendly to the United States and that is not itself the object of a U.S. boycott. This bill applies those prohibitions to similar boycotts imposed by IGOs.
It's not penalizing the IGOs. It has no authority over IGOs. This is about prohibiting (some) Americans from boycotting, the IGOs is just another method to determine prohibited boycotts.
AIPAC isn't an IGO, but it is an "organization that supports the boycotted country."
As far as I can tell, IGOs themselves aren't impacted or targeted in any way, anyway.
I'm no lawyer but the fact that AIPAC was found and funded domestically means you can BDS them all you want without this law affecting you. Unless I'm wrong.
No, you're missing the point. The IGO Boycott amendment adds in as a prohibited action, right there along with boycotting, that you can't draw attention to that someone is connected to an organization on the side that supports the country. Apparently under discrimination reasoning.
So it's not that you can't boycott AIPAC (they're not a country and, yes, they're technically domestic.) It's that, potentially, you could be violating the bill if you discriminate against someone by pointing out that they have a relationship with AIPAC.
It's also all those usual fuckers on Foreign Affairs.
Which, almost makes sense, except it does target Americans primarily, and the whole 'you can't boycott if a foreign entity is also boycotting' is a huge reach, in my opinion.
I oppose this bill on principle but this isn't about American citizens boycotting Isreal.
I agree the bill has been misconstrued somewhat. I wasn't sure what it was at first either.
But it is about Americans boycotting "US allies," this is just adding another way to identify foreign boycotts...which certain Americans (I'm guessing this is still about federal contractors and the like) then can't boycott.
So it's not as broad as some people are making it out but, no, it's not targeting foreigners, it's targeting Americans. It just means if, say, the UN, boycotts Israel, Israel goes on the list of things certain Americans are prohibited from boycotting.
At least that's my understanding.
It's also interesting, although it's never quite clear how laws will be applied, but this could stop some people from pointing out, for example, that someone else took money from AIPAC. I'll make a top level comment about that.
Current law prohibits various actions by U.S. persons (individuals or entities) in relation to boycotts imposed by foreign governments on a country which is friendly to the United States and that is not itself the object of a U.S. boycott. This bill applies those prohibitions to similar boycotts imposed by IGOs.
IF Charlie Kirk was in congress, there is a 100% chance he’d favor that bill. He and his jewish handlers know that he’s losing credibility, so they’re giving him and turning point an opportunity to rebuild trust in order to keep his audience on the jewish reservation. They don’t want Turning Point to follow Ben Schapiro’s path, if the audience is gone they have no ability to influence them anymore, which is way worse than losing goyim hearts and minds over a bill the goyim can’t vote for anyway.
"Think of Auntie Semitism!" and "This high profile example of the thing that is obviously happening will make people believe that thing that is obviously happening, so it must be stopped." are not courageous.
It’s such an aggressive form of gaslighting.
“Jewish people are contributing to antisemitism by doing things that generate antisemitism.”
How else would antisemitism exist? As if it is some sort of unique arbitrary baseless metaphysical phenomenon and not a direct and rational reaction to observable stimuli. Antisemitism exists for the same reason you cross the street to avoid a pack of black teenagers.
Oh, what's that? Harmful STEREOTYPES?!
I gotta track down that old study showing that stereotypes have a higher degree of accuracy than virtually all of social science.
Come to think of it, most of social science is really just stolen valor. “Your ancestors didn’t know that the earth revolved around the sun, or that harmful microscopic organisms exist, therefore all of your ancestors’ observations regarding human nature are completely invalid.” The historical limitations of legitimate hard science do not automatically invalidate the learned wisdom resulting from generations of human interaction.
I have a whole rant about how physics essentially stumbling into profound explanatory power throughout the 18th and 19th C, through nothing but dogged following of evidence and first principles, mind-broke the humanities and soft sciences. They then rebuilt themselves as cargo-cult physics and have never recovered.
No, no, no. People have hated the Jews for thousands of years, for no reason. They're just jealous and antisemitic!
It's just such a weird argument. No matter how anyone feels about Da Jews, that's clearly not all there is to it. If it was only modern day, you could at least make the argument it was just resentment or jealousy at Jewish success. But that argument loses a lot of weight when it's pretty consistent for thousands of years, and globally.
Note, I'm not even making the argument it's warranted, or unwarranted, or whatever. Just that the argument doesn't make a lot of sense, and there must be something more to it.
People don't just randomly hate the Jews specifically "because fuck those guys in particular" consistently, for millennia.
There are plenty of examples of jews that are legitimately detestable. Soros is a comic book villain grade of evil, and i would argue that the way the modern Israel was formed was unethical. The banking institutions are frequently anti-american. The problem with "it's the JOOOS" retards isn't that there aren't evil jews, it's that they are part of the ape mindset that refuses to see the forest for the trees.
You can more accurately identify enemies by ideology than by race. Soros et al aren't motivated by religion or ethnic background. Plenty of the globalist elite are not jewish. Going "reeeee skin color / ethnic background" is ignoring the better identifiers of enemy action, discarding potential allies and ignoring enemies based on a retarded set of standards.
Buying into "it's all (ethnic group)" is literally what the globalists want. It served to create conflict between people that could work against their interests, and lets them manipulate all the conflicting parties to their own ends.
If we got gay communism, the globalists win. If we got literal american national socialism, the elites still win in the end because subverting leftist power structures is their bread and butter - even if the original leader wasn't a deranged faggot (unlikely). The enemy is the sociopathic power grubbing goblin, not all jews or just jews, etc.
All attempts at infringing on human rights and creating leftist government must be destroyed - like this one.
Your "stop noticing things" routine is so tedious.
No u, vermin. Stop stealing oxygen from humans.
Libertarians supported gay marriage even before Democrats, but yes, carry on with how you are the anti-thesis of some vague, ephemeral """elites"""
Ok and? I'm not one. I'm an American constitutional nationalist, the purist libertarian perspective does not reflect the real world. Libertarian policy cannot be done piecemeal like the fake "libertarian party" does either. You can't pick and choose parts of it, it only works as a whole - you can't have open borders without eliminating the welfare state. And open borders is a retarded policy outside of a vacuum in the first place.
And besides that fact, an actual libertarian position on marriage, not the "libertarian party", would be that government should not be involved in marriage at all. Which I would agree with. It is a religious institution. The issuance of marriage licenses is the government interfering with religion.
You are a deranged faggot, take your simping for gay race communism somewhere else. You didn't address anything I actually said, just tried to shift the argument to a different topic entirely. You're an illiterate goblin, not a human.
Not sure why you're lecturing me. I didn't say Jews are responsibly for everything. I even was very clear that I wasn't saying antisemitism was right.
I said antisemitism doesn't just spring up out of thin air. People don't hate the Jews because they just want to hate the Jews, because hating the Jews is so dang cool. There's more to it. Just like with anti-black racism, for some people it is just poorly directed hate...and for others it's pattern recognition.
This whole 'people are antisemitic because they hate Jews' is a ridiculously circular argument.
Also, by your logic of 'you can't complain about Jews because there are bad nonjews as well' we also can't complain about any group. Can't complain about blacks, because whites can be violent too. Can't complain about gays, straight people rape kids too.
I agree that anyone who says all Jews are evil is silly. Or someone who says everything is the fault of the Jews is silly. But completely denying trends, distribution, and per capita behavior is also silly.
My core point was simple, though. Racism and prejudice aren't something that just pops out of the void and grabs ahold of people. For better or worse, for good or bad, people have reasons for their prejudices. This idea a lot of people float that antisemitism is some near-magical evil force is ludicrous.
It's a tribal tactic for subhumans, and it's a favored tool of the globalist to sow discord. Actual humans are capable of higher pattern recognition and more accurate distinction beyond color associations.
I don't give a particular fuck about jews and I'm also tired of the leftist bullshit wielding "anti-semitism" as a bullshit political cudgel. I'm equally tired of the mongoloids and sliders shitting up the place with their low IQ bullshit pretending that "reee jews hitler did nothing wrong" is actually an ideology, instead of monkey screeching and derailment of actual discussion.
People going "reeee niggers" when Clarence Thomas proves that skin color doesn't make you a feral are also retarded. Every thing that donated to Karmelo Anthony is a monkey. Plenty of those monkeys had white skin.
Being a pedo fag isn't an immutable characteristic, being a pedo fag is a choice. Gays need to go back in the closet and stay away from kids. The ones that act like people instead of like goblins, you don't even know they're gay most of the time. They are tolerable. The rest need an object lesson via committing the ones that do try to get access to children into mental institutions.
He is correct, though. Most of the anti-antisemitism laws only fuel more antisemitism. And, if that's something you care about, it is worth calling out. And, if you're coming at it from a freedom angle, it's still worth calling out, because it's a good logical argument to point out these acts won't even accomplish the stated goals.
As to "courage," which is the main point...while not the most courageous stance he could have taken, I still thinking opening your mouth at all on this issue, especially coming out against it (for whatever reason), is more courageous than keeping your mouth shut. This is a very loaded topic, and he could still get in major trouble for even a stance as relatively milquetoast as this.
I'm willing to give him partial points for this, for sure.
I give him all the credit in the world. Same to Matt Walsh. These two are advocating for a principled equality in the face of brazen philosemitism. Attacking obvious double standards is probably the only safe play for men in their positions. It’s an important starting point for necessary future conversations.
Good point, and agreed.
Countersignaling an expansion of Jewish power will be taken by Charlie's donors as exactly that, no matter how he dresses it up.
One interesting part of this, according to the summary, is...
Does this mean, for example, that this blocks and penalizes some people from pointing out if someone took money from AIPAC?
I wouldn't think so, AIPAC isn't an IGO.
The paragraph right about though:
It's not penalizing the IGOs. It has no authority over IGOs. This is about prohibiting (some) Americans from boycotting, the IGOs is just another method to determine prohibited boycotts.
AIPAC isn't an IGO, but it is an "organization that supports the boycotted country."
As far as I can tell, IGOs themselves aren't impacted or targeted in any way, anyway.
I'm no lawyer but the fact that AIPAC was found and funded domestically means you can BDS them all you want without this law affecting you. Unless I'm wrong.
No, you're missing the point. The IGO Boycott amendment adds in as a prohibited action, right there along with boycotting, that you can't draw attention to that someone is connected to an organization on the side that supports the country. Apparently under discrimination reasoning.
So it's not that you can't boycott AIPAC (they're not a country and, yes, they're technically domestic.) It's that, potentially, you could be violating the bill if you discriminate against someone by pointing out that they have a relationship with AIPAC.
I oppose this bill on principle but this isn't about American citizens boycotting Isreal.
It doesn't seem as dire as some are presenting it, but we don't need any more nibbling around the edges of speech protections.
It's also more government unelected bureaucracy.
It's also all those usual fuckers on Foreign Affairs.
Which, almost makes sense, except it does target Americans primarily, and the whole 'you can't boycott if a foreign entity is also boycotting' is a huge reach, in my opinion.
I agree the bill has been misconstrued somewhat. I wasn't sure what it was at first either.
But it is about Americans boycotting "US allies," this is just adding another way to identify foreign boycotts...which certain Americans (I'm guessing this is still about federal contractors and the like) then can't boycott.
So it's not as broad as some people are making it out but, no, it's not targeting foreigners, it's targeting Americans. It just means if, say, the UN, boycotts Israel, Israel goes on the list of things certain Americans are prohibited from boycotting.
At least that's my understanding.
It's also interesting, although it's never quite clear how laws will be applied, but this could stop some people from pointing out, for example, that someone else took money from AIPAC. I'll make a top level comment about that.
I already gave a longer response, but I want to do a TLDR:
This is entirely about Americans boycotting Israel. And expands it in several potentially dangerous ways.
Congress.gov summary:
How do you punish people for fucking boycotting?
Jesus, how enslaved can you get?
"Buy this slop goyim, or we will know you're one of the disobedients!!!!"
I'd bet he doesn't understand that we only got here because of his blanket advocacy for Israel.
Oy vey the goyims are noticing, shut it down!
The worst part about destroying people's rights to benefit Israel is the anti-Semitism. - alt Norm MacDonald.
IF Charlie Kirk was in congress, there is a 100% chance he’d favor that bill. He and his jewish handlers know that he’s losing credibility, so they’re giving him and turning point an opportunity to rebuild trust in order to keep his audience on the jewish reservation. They don’t want Turning Point to follow Ben Schapiro’s path, if the audience is gone they have no ability to influence them anymore, which is way worse than losing goyim hearts and minds over a bill the goyim can’t vote for anyway.
The bill already does nothing, so there's no courage here anyway.