# Why are the Jews such an easy target for the far/alt-right?



## AF 802 (May 11, 2019)

It just seems so worn out on these fringe conspiracy theories to blame it on Jews (who apparently aren't white to these types). Why can't they just find a new target to blame their garbage theories on, other than a group that already got their asses kicked with this type of thing in the 1930s and 1940s?


----------



## 2.D. (May 11, 2019)

because the jewish question needs jewish answers


----------



## The Manglement (May 11, 2019)

I mean, is there another ethnic minority that have the political, economic, and social power that the Jews do? If a quarter of all bankers, movie producers, and lawyers were Samoan, fringe conspiracy theorists would probably hate them too. Also the white nationalists get their jimmies rustled because Israel gets to be an ethnostate and commit genocide and nobody cares.


----------



## Clop (May 11, 2019)

Correlation equals wet panties of a conspiracy theorist.


----------



## Stoneheart (May 11, 2019)

Give Her The D said:


> Why can't they just find a new target to blame their garbage theories on, other than a group that already got their asses kicked with this type of thing in the 1930s and 1940s?


Because Jews are EVIL! have you read their freaking holy book? 
you dont need any theorie to find that out.
The holocaust endlösung was a crusade against pure evil...


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 11, 2019)

Ashkenazim are basically white from what I've seen.  Sephardim and Mizrahim seem to lean more towards the Semitic look you see in people from the Middle East.

Why are they easy targets? Well, Charlemagne basically guaranteed they could be nothing but loansharks and so on with his cock-brained laws regarding them.  They had a role in ensuring Jesus died (but nothing about that makes sense to me anyway given the fact that it was part of Jesus' plan, and Bible stuff makes my fucking head hurt anyway).  They have traditionally subscribed to a certain type of exceptionalism (that isn't a word filter.  I am speaking of the ACTUAL definition of the term) what with being "God's Chosen", and this has generally created a kind of rift between them and other peoples.  There are things floating around that claim to cite portions of the Talmud and other Jewish holy literature (veracity unknown, I don't really fucking bother with that crap) that make them look really fucking bad.  There are also either cleverly-edited or genuinely horrifying video recordings of Jews saying utterly retarded (that IS the wordfilter at work) things about their place in the world in relation to gentiles, and there are some quotes from Jews that really don't do them any favors.  It's entirely likely that there are significant portions of Judaism that subscribe heavily to something beyond the usual exceptionalism (you know what, this can go either way) and veer straight into supremacist shit, but I couldn't say for sure.

As almost a rule they gravitate towards very powerful professions, and this has resulted in accusations of nepotism (which might be founded in reality) and powerbrokering.


----------



## Y2K Baby (May 11, 2019)

The Jewish religion is weird and fetishizes knowledge (Satanic)
Jews in big power. 
Jews act like a race sometimes and have weird ethnostate.
Read book.


----------



## dopy (May 11, 2019)

broke: Nietzsche was actually right in genealogy essay 1 as pointing out their entire existence as a rebuke and explicit rebuttal to all other extant tribes
woke: because they're smarter as pointed out by molymeme and smart man bad


----------



## Tasty Tatty (May 11, 2019)

Because all conspiracies have some truth. 

Say, Muslims want to hire only Muslims because they share cultural traits. Trump says the country is Christian, meaning, he's pushing Christian values.

Why would Jews be any different? 

Our side of the world is very Christian-oriented. We don't notice it because we live in it and we're used to it. For many Muslims and Jews, it feels foreign. Many Jews communities have no idea who Jesus is, do not celebrate Christmas, and even celebrate New Year differently. This has made them "tribalists", as in they gather among and with their own community only. When they have power, they also look to share and push their own values and surround themselves with their own people. 

The fact that people think this is some sort of "racist conspiracy" is r/etarded. It's human nature. Of course, some are supremacists and want to get rid of those different, but they aren't many.


----------



## An Account (May 11, 2019)

Jews have decent IQs on average and a culture that is heavy on tribalism. So if one Jew makes it into a high position, they'll be very likely to appoint people who are also Jews. It's not really that big of a deal, but the blatant nepotism is annoying. But conspiracy theorists look at that and freak the fuck out.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 11, 2019)

An Account said:


> Jews have decent IQs on average and a culture that is heavy on tribalism. So if one Jew makes it into a high position, they'll be very likely to appoint people who are also Jews. It's not really that big of a deal, but the blatant nepotism is annoying. But conspiracy theorists look at that and freak the fuck out.


It's mostly annoying in the sense that they basically openly bait conspiratorial lines of thought and get the exceptional individuals so riled up and noisy that it's nearly impossible to make a sane and salient point about how shitty that kind of behavior is.  A Jew can always rope you in with mouthbreathing skinheads if you express disapproval with their behaviors or actions and the retards around you will buy into that shit.


----------



## Y2K Baby (May 11, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> It's mostly annoying in the sense that they basically openly bait conspiratorial lines of thought and get the exceptional individuals so riled up and noisy that it's nearly impossible to make a sane and salient point about how shitty that kind of behavior is.  A Jew can always rope you in with mouthbreathing skinheads if you express disapproval with their behaviors or actions and the exceptional individuals around you will buy into that shit.


Now let's talk about the Freemasons and the Skull and Bones.


----------



## Fascist Frederick (May 11, 2019)

I personally can not forgive them for 9/11.


----------



## MediocreMilt (May 11, 2019)

Because they run the banks and the media, social and traditional, all of which are actively attempting to deperson both alt-righters and people who are alt-right adjacent.


----------



## Y2K Baby (May 11, 2019)

MediocreMilt said:


> Because they run the banks and the media, social and traditional, all of which are actively attempting to deperson both alt-righters and people who are alt-right adjacent.


The alt-right is gay.


----------



## Yellow Yam Scam (May 11, 2019)

because they always up to shit


----------



## Eryngium (May 11, 2019)

Because out of coincidence almost every "white" person calling for white genocide or censorship is Jewish.


----------



## Banh Xeo (May 11, 2019)

I don't trust them, I dont hate on them, but I dont trust them


----------



## Black Waltz (May 11, 2019)

because they killed my wife ;-;


----------



## Eryngium (May 11, 2019)

http://iamawake1.blogspot.com/2019/04/and-then-one-day-for-no-reason-at-all.html


----------



## ProgKing of the North (May 11, 2019)

The noses can be seen from long distances and makes them very visible targets


----------



## Recoil (May 11, 2019)

I think a lot of it goes back to religion and the way people interpret the scriptures. For example, Exodus 22:25 - "If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not treat it like a business deal; charge no interest." The problem with that is how in practice, Jews were shut out of many trades and guilds in medieval Europe (source). They had very few options for putting food on the table - up through the 19th century in many places. Eventually they got into banking and moneylending.

Look at this way: If you won't let the Jews in your guilds or your blue collar workforce, don't be surprised when they find or create new markets and then give those jobs to their Jew children, who your uncle louie wouldn't dream of having in the Steamfitter's Union on account they killed Jesus.

Rabbis during the medieval era were at first very strict about moneylending & usury - for a long time one was strictly forbidden to lend cash to someone unless it was a life or death situation. That restriction eroded over time because of how profitable the practice could be in a world without options (source). There arose a lot of tension between Jews & Christians, for obvious reasons. It's a have vs. have not situation where you can argue against the Haves with the very scriptures your entire society is based on. That is a trash fire in the making.

It's very silly to blame the Jews for everything flat out, in no small part because every group of people has its grimy degenerates & predators, especially in the modern global village. It's too easy to paint it on ethnicity. People tend to look like what you repeatedly declare they are. If you keep making them out to be the boogieman, then don't be surprised when they seem to look the part.

Don't buy into anyone's hype. Things are usually more nuanced than people make them out to be.


----------



## Y2K Baby (May 11, 2019)

Recon said:


> It's very silly to blame the Jews for everything flat out, in no small part because every group of people has its grimy degenerates & predators, especially in the modern global village. It's too easy to paint it on ethnicity. People tend to look like what you repeatedly declare they are. If you keep making them out to be the boogieman, then don't be surprised when they seem to look the part.
> 
> Don't buy into anyone's hype. Things are usually more nuanced than people make them out to be.


You're right. There's the Jews, Satanists, Freemasons, Gnostics, Illuminati, the White ones, and lizardmen.


----------



## IV 445 (May 11, 2019)

Let’s see, Jews are financially more successful, take care of their offspring, have better community values.....

Sounds like they are more white than your aspiring Aryan wannabe 

Simple answer is jealousy. They are more Anglo than Anglos and this steams them

But do tell me how they have evil in their DNA


----------



## Y2K Baby (May 11, 2019)

Hortator said:


> But do tell me how they have evil in their DNA


Curly hair. Owned.


----------



## Tasty Tatty (May 11, 2019)

An Account said:


> Jews have decent IQs on average and a culture that is heavy on tribalism. So if one Jew makes it into a high position, they'll be very likely to appoint people who are also Jews. It's not really that big of a deal, but the blatant nepotism is annoying. But conspiracy theorists look at that and freak the fuck out.


Yes and no. They don't just hire any random Abraham who lives in Missouri. When there is not a close relative, they often hire other jews who are similar to them in class and status, making it more a problem of social status than religion. In fact, I think they would rather hire a rich Atheist before a low middle class Jew from middle America. I actually know a case of a business ran by Jews and they didn't doubt on hiring a Christian man who was the best for the job and also was a bit upper class. Of course, as soon as one of their relatives showed up with similar skills, they kicked the poor guy out but, before that, he was treated with respect and paid fairly for his job. All they cared is that he made money for them.




Hortator said:


> Let’s see, Jews are financially more successful, take care of their offspring, have better community values.....



A lot of SJWs are Jews and they're often the product of terrible parenting. Jews who are conservatives or religious like, for example, Ben Shapiro are ok. Liberal Jews are the real problem.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (May 11, 2019)

If good parenting creates more Ben Shapiros why even bother? At least SJWs all fuck each other and do drugs in between being boring scolds, neocon types like Benny just seem like boring scolds all the time.


----------



## Marco Fucko (May 11, 2019)

Every time I hear about Jewish world domination I get the inclination to convert and impregnate some 3/10 on Jdate. No but in all seriousness, you can't just chalk up sociopathic corporatists to one single ethno-religion.


----------



## Autopsy (May 12, 2019)

Apologies in advance to all the Philosophy nerds who are going to read this and realize that not only are the words I'm using mostly incorrect, but also that with careful inspection of the history of philosophical thought in the West things aren't nearly so clean and tidy in how they progress or interface with politics and social thought. I'm playing really fast and loose here because any attempt to get close gets dumped in minutia that misses the point and no one will care about unless they pay excessive and irrational attention to politics that will only affect them in the most esoteric of ways.
The U.S. was Analytic and has been in the process of becoming Continental for a couple decades. Most people in the U.S. are still Analytic and would prefer to be Analytic because Analytic is Positive and _Positive Leaves You The Hell Alone_™  but a sizeable chunk believes that a third of their country will starve to death and the racists will burn everyone darker than Eggshell alive if they don't at least pretend to think Continental so they do so even though every time they're polled on their fundamentals they in fact hate everything they claim to believe with a burning passion.
Unlike most of the U.S.' immigrant populations that cleaved to the Analytic side of things over time because that's what kept you safe and happy and away from the unwashed masses, the highly insular Jewish community happens to count among its ranks _the forefathers of Continental thought_ and as such it has always been a true and honest body of Continental support in the Americas.
Unfortunately, Continental theory of all kinds is hostile to the very same people who are the most radically supportive of Analytic thought. This shouldn't be surprising, since if Continental thought wasn't so hostile to them, why would anyone radically support the Analytic school? It kinda sucks most of the time and takes more work to use, though there are a few profoundly lazy political camps associated with it anyway. They aren't really Analytic but they pretend to be because Analytic is Positive and _Positive Leaves You The Hell Alone_™.
These extreme adherents (we'll call them Lolbergs With Attitude) don't see much different between themselves and the fair-weathers mentioned before. Those fair-weathers are in fact the primary people responsible for the country's slow slide to Continental thought, however it's really hard to blame people who don't know what the fuck a politics is for fucking everything up politically, because they don't really know better.
That being said, there are still a few ring-leaders who have been steadily pushing Continental onto the masses for decades, and they acted as a stopgap for hate for ages. While punks were raging against the machine, politics nerds were raging against the hippies, corporate sycophants, and intellectuals alike way before it was cool. These ring-leaders are old now, their agendas are basically achieved despite all protest, everything following that went exactly as horrible as expected, so who cares anymore?
The LWA's anger still needs somewhere to go, and it is true that they're on the receiving end of a lot of bullshit, make no mistake. Everyone is, and handling a bit of bullshit is a fact of living in a modern society. Unfortunately, this is where the Jews come in. They're simply the best target left.
A sizeable chunk of the Jews were killed in a genocide, which may explain whole the 'insular community' thing, and though this is not a rare thing it is quite recent in the grand scheme of things and therefore hard to ignore. No one wants to get dunked on by the state or social polity, so whenever a problem comes up, they play the G card and get away scot free. As such, despite falling within the very same social categories as the people most hurt by the shift in schools of thought, they are exempt from the fresh Continental hostilities. The very same ones many of their cultural leaders still perpetuate.
People love to suffer together but at the same time they really *really* hate when someone who should be suffering with them isn't suffering because they're effectively cheating their way out of it. People get quadruple triple pissed if they're by all appearances being _persecuted_ by said cheaters who should be suffering with them, who also claim to have a moral high-ground, and are effectively untouchable in the social hierarchy.
That aside, The most immediate difference between the Jews and the old fuddy duddies everyone hated before is that there are a hell of a lot of Jews who just exist. It's not their fault they do and asking questions about why they do is generally frowned upon these days. The tenor of hating the old fuddy duddies was a lot more jovial, or at least political, while the lines get really, really blurred with Jews because while it is in many ways an accurate target of the LWA's ire, they aren't strictly the people responsible and it's also a massive fucking group with a lot of people who have done nothing wrong.
Ignoring preexisting prejudice as a result of bad encounters, I think these blurred lines are the origin of "ethnic awareness" for a lot of these people. In brief defense of anti-Semites, Jews kind of suck at defusing this incredibly negative view of them. If you talk shit about black people they at least try to defend themselves with counterexamples or just plain getting pissed. White supremacists come out with (((Echoes))) and say "look, all these Jews really hate American values!" and boom, not only do a bunch of famous Jewish people fail to debunk this claim, they in fact _embrace it_, running their rich ass out to say "yes, my name is Jew and I hate those values!" when the dignified thing to do would have been to at least say nothing.
It doesn't even matter who's right or wrong on a given issue. It doesn't matter which school or point of view a specific outcome or event supports. The political divide is between two mostly incompatible ways of thinking, and the Golden Mean has been melted for bullets. This basic incompatibility would drive conflict even if Continental thought wasn't socially subversive statist filth dressed up as class struggle or Analytic thought wasn't a thinly veiled excuse to be racist, or however you want to spin things.
Okay, so what does that whole narrative support?
Take one person fucked by the new intellectual order, "white middle class man" seems to be the aggregate. Put this person in contact with other people who have noticed that Jews are also often white middle class and men but seem to dodge a lot of criticism (and frequently have views supporting the new intellectual order). Give this person some nondescript mental issues OR just put them in a high stress environment, Jewish manager optional but recommended. Give them a few bad experiences with minorities, or a ton, it doesn't really matter. Make sure that the opposing political position receives basically no criticism and any redress not only unfairly antagonizes this person but fails to rectify any social wrongs they perceive to be happening with their own eyes.
Congratulations! It's alt-right!

Like all good theories, this has a necessary prediction, and when 2024 rolls around and the LWA forms a real terrorist org I hope someone @s me and tells me how retarded and wrong I was. My bet is that they'll stop popping up when one of these conditions is met:

The U.S. re-embraces one of the many Positive-friendly political camps as its primary doctrine. The most likely shots in the dark are Classical Liberalism with Puritan Characteristics ("Reaganism"), Libertarianism, or Technocracy. By God just give me my tech overlords already, they're most of the way to owning everyone anyway. I want cool gadgets and free drugs.
Suffering is meted out to everyone evenly. I don't think it's any coincidence that when the #metoo hashtag accidentally rekt a bunch of rich Jews who had never seen the wrong end of the court of public opinion before the energy behind the ostensibly unrelated "Alt-Right" seemed to wane for a while.
A better target comes along. We just need a crazy mastermind hellbent on making the world a better place with his ill-gotten gains, but not George Soros because even though that is categorically what he is, he's Jewish so that would defeat the point. Bill Gates donates a few billions to the Justice Democrats or something retarded like that. Synagogue shootings swapped out for a ton of angry hatemail left on Microsoft's contact pages.


----------



## NN 401 (May 12, 2019)

Tasty Tatty said:


> Yes and no. They don't just hire any random Abraham who lives in Missouri. When there is not a close relative, they often hire other jews who are similar to them in class and status, making it more a problem of social status than religion. In fact, I think they would rather hire a rich Atheist before a low middle class Jew from middle America. I actually know a case of a business ran by Jews and they didn't doubt on hiring a Christian man who was the best for the job and also was a bit upper class. Of course, as soon as one of their relatives showed up with similar skills, they kicked the poor guy out but, before that, he was treated with respect and paid fairly for his job. All they cared is that he made money for them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Shapiro can be an asshole, too.

He threw Dave Rubin and his friendship under the bus as soon as Joe Rogan asked him how can he sit here and hang with this guy and then turn around and refuse to celebrate some of his most important moments with him? Like his wedding anniversary.

At least that’s how it came across to me.


I’ll just point out this:


Consistently preferring people due to racial and religious markers as opposed pure merit and/or adherence to American values makes you a bad American.


----------



## BONE_Buddy (May 12, 2019)

Autopsy said:


> Apologies in advance to all the Philosophy nerds who are going to read this and realize that not only are the words I'm using mostly incorrect, but also that with careful inspection of the history of philosophical thought in the West things aren't nearly so clean and tidy in how they progress or interface with politics and social thought. I'm playing really fast and loose here because any attempt to get close gets dumped in minutia that misses the point and no one will care about unless they pay excessive and irrational attention to politics that will only affect them in the most esoteric of ways.
> The U.S. was Analytic and has been in the process of becoming Continental for a couple decades. Most people in the U.S. are still Analytic and would prefer to be Analytic because Analytic is Positive and _Positive Leaves You The Hell Alone_™  but a sizeable chunk believes that a third of their country will starve to death and the racists will burn everyone darker than Eggshell alive if they don't at least pretend to think Continental so they do so even though every time they're polled on their fundamentals they in fact hate everything they claim to believe with a burning passion.
> Unlike most of the U.S.' immigrant populations that cleaved to the Analytic side of things over time because that's what kept you safe and happy and away from the unwashed masses, the highly insular Jewish community happens to count among its ranks _the forefathers of Continental thought_ and as such it has always been a true and honest body of Continental support in the Americas.
> Unfortunately, Continental theory of all kinds is hostile to the very same people who are the most radically supportive of Analytic thought. This shouldn't be surprising, since if Continental thought wasn't so hostile to them, why would anyone radically support the Analytic school? It kinda sucks most of the time and takes more work to use, though there are a few profoundly lazy political camps associated with it anyway. They aren't really Analytic but they pretend to be because Analytic is Positive and _Positive Leaves You The Hell Alone_™.
> ...



Jesus Christ that is a wall of text. 

Next time, hit enter another time or two between paragraphs.

Additionally, everything you wrote is wrong and gay.

Perhaps the point was to make satire, but if your intention was to make that clear, you failed.

___

Switching over to the topic at hand.

A lot of people hated the jews because of their very strong, insular, communities.

One of the focal points being community loans.

It goes something like this: "Hey guys, I have an idea to start a bank/restaurant/store/etc, but I have very little cash." The community then gives out a relatively low interest rate loan to the guy. That guy starts up a successful business and contributes to the community loan program.

Therefore, when the national/regional economies were money tight, the local jewish community had easier access to business start up loans. It created some envy.

You can also see this in many of the Asian American communities in the United States, especially in California which has heavily regulated banking.


----------



## Drunk and Pour (May 12, 2019)

Well, alt-right/neo-nazis, yada yada, aren't the brightest bunch.  I don't think they know why Jews are such an easy target, just that Hitler hated them.


----------



## ICametoLurk (May 12, 2019)

Jews were the ones that broke Feudalism. Because of their (((lending))) practices people could get loans, this led to the Feudal system being broken up.


----------



## millais (May 12, 2019)

ICametoLurk said:


> Jews were the ones that broke Feudalism. Because of their (((lending))) practices people could get loans, this led to the Feudal system being broken up.


Also they poisoned the wells and performed Christian infant blood sacrifice rituals to spread the Black Death, which killed off large swathes of serf population, thereby significantly increasing the value of labor of the surviving serfs, whose newfound earning power was gained at the expense of their feudal lords.


----------



## ICametoLurk (May 12, 2019)

millais said:


> Also they poisoned the wells and performed Christian infant blood sacrifice rituals to spread the Black Death, which killed off large swathes of serf population, thereby significantly increasing the value of labor of the surviving serfs, whose newfound earning power was gained at the expense of their feudal lords.


It's funny that the Jews that escaped the purges via hiding into Eastern Europe have CCR5Delta 32 which is immunity to the Black Death, AIDs, and HIV.

I'm sure it's a (((coincidence))).


----------



## Dante Alighieri (May 12, 2019)

With how easily claims of anti-Semitism get thrown around for daring to question certain events and activities, it makes things very fishy.


----------



## millais (May 12, 2019)

ICametoLurk said:


> It's funny that the Jews that escaped the purges via hiding into Eastern Europe have CCR5Delta 32 which is immunity to the Black Death, AIDs, and HIV.
> 
> I'm sure it's a (((coincidence))).


sounds about right. though they usually try to spin the high survival rate to say it was a result of their religious stipulations regarding cleanliness, as if abstaining from pork and washing their hands before religious service would magically reduce their risk of contact with plague fleas.


----------



## Karl der Grosse (May 12, 2019)

More like a (((cohencidence)))


----------



## Homer J. Fong (May 12, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> If good parenting creates more Ben Shapiros why even bother? At least SJWs all fuck each other and do drugs in between being boring scolds, neocon types like Benny just seem like boring scolds all the time.


That sister of his though has some nice titties.


----------



## Ambidextype (May 12, 2019)

Isn't it obvious? For being the 2% of the population in US, they wield a huge influence in politics and media feeding the mass very specific stories for inexplicable reason in decades and at the same time US pays 2 billion to Israel for whatever reason, if there was a justice, it should be reversed. There have been main tragedies USS liberty and 9/11 attack excused as a blunder or huge operation by the middle east terrorist outfit when there were obviously more to the story. Mainstream media buries the story a few months later making sure someone credible digs further into the story and firmly scapegoat the Islamic countries. For me this is not the reason but I'm going to be ranting incomprehensibly, I'll stop with this.


----------



## The best and greatest (May 12, 2019)

The Manglement said:


> *I mean, is there another ethnic minority that have the political, economic, and social power that the Jews do?* If a quarter of all bankers, movie producers, and lawyers were Samoan, fringe conspiracy theorists would probably hate them too. Also the white nationalists get their jimmies rustled because Israel gets to be an ethnostate and commit genocide and nobody cares.


Anglo-Huwites seemed to have a pretty good run of it.


Hortator said:


> Let’s see, Jews are financially more successful, take care of their offspring, have better community values.....
> 
> Sounds like they are more white than your aspiring Aryan wannabe
> 
> ...


So its kinda like how trans-trenders hate crossdressers.


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 12, 2019)

Btw, I'd like to know, what makes jews such an easy target in @Give Her The D 's opinion? Or for anyone who shares that point of view? Are jews really an easy target?

I was recently watching a livestream where the appeal is made that simply identifying a group as "jews" should not be allowed (which I think is impractical and unworkable)




I am also thinking of all reasonable scholarly work like that of Kevin McDonald recently being censored off of amazon. Just because it is perceived to be critical of jews (I came to admire jews in a lot of ways reading it).

I know that various european countries have tried outlawing circumcission because it's essentially an irreversable cosmetic surgery that is impossible to revert (anyone that has doubts about that statement, let me know and I'll open a circumcission thread and dump studies and other facts about circumcission).

But each time jewish lobbies have prevented european countries from changing the laws to forbid circumcission (and each time by invoking the holocaust).

Where people are careful to criticize muslims/islam for fear of terror attacks, people are careful to criticize jews for fear of legal and media attacks.

But maybe I'm just a big ol' anti-semite. I certainly posted enough in the jewish conspiracy thread to indict me. If I am, and it's thoroughly easy to criticize anything that relates either to ethnic, or religious judaism, show me a public person who has public critique of jews without substantial media / legal / harassment attacks.

I can find critics of islam, and they're usually with bodyguards and living in a safe house. I'd say that muslims aren't an easy target to criticize either. But what exactly makes jews an easy target to criticize?


----------



## 1864897514651 (May 13, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> [redacted]



"Jews" are an easy target to criticize because nobody knows what a Jew is. There is only one God, one religion, and one Truth in this world. The racists that cling to the superseded Mosaic Law in lieu of worshiping the Messiah are not Jews. It does not matter how many feasts, holidays, and sacrifices of the Old Testament that these people keep and make. These people are trying to reinstate the Mosaic Law and its festivities, as evidenced by the fact that they will reintroduce a false "passover sacrifice" when their stupid "third temple" is built.

All who believe in the Messiah, Jesus the Christ, and keep His commandments in the New Covenant are consequently the neo-Jews. We do not even need to call Christians neo-Jews. We can just call them Jews and be totally, semantically correct in our identification. Some other word needs to be used for the people that are attempting to build some temple in a desert in the Middle East to cook lambs and offer pagan rituals of sacrifice. It really does not matter what the word ends up being, but we need to stop calling these people Jews. I am a Jew because I have accepted the coming of the Messiah in the prophesied Messianic Age. I would be wary of any Christians that would revolt at the notion of being called a Jew, so I am of the opinion that all properly catechized Christians should understand that they can be identified as Jews.


----------



## The Estatist (May 13, 2019)

They've had thousands of years to behave themselves and instead they continue to be hostile.


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 13, 2019)

1864897514651 said:


> "Jews" are an easy target to criticize because nobody knows what a Jew is. There is only one God, one religion
> <snip>
> We do not even need to call Christians neo-Jews. We can just call them Jews and be totally, semantically correct in our identification.


You should go outside sometime. There are a bunch of differing religions. Or google shinto, candomble or hinduism sometime.

And yes, many people do have workable definitions of what a jew is, not least jews themselves. There is a valid genetic definition accompanied with clearly identifyable phenotypes and there are also a valid theological definitions of what a jew is.

You don't have to be a jew, but you have to pretty jewish to both say in one post "nobody know what a jew is" and "We can just call them (christians) Jews and be totally, semantically correct in our identification.", because that implies that you do know what a jew is.

Thanks for providing an example. Another reason why it isn't easy to critique jews or jewish actions is because whenever anything negative is said, there suddenly aren't any jews anymore, but when you publish your research of ashkenazi jews being more intelligent, then you are allowed to say that a thing such as jews exist.

Really makes me think.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 13, 2019)

1864897514651 said:


> stuff



When someone waxes like this on video games, anime or some other nerd shit it's considered at least kind of autistic.  But yammer on about this subject in this manner and suddenly he's just really interested in understanding God's purpose for us or whatever.


----------



## Basil II (May 13, 2019)

A combination of Nazi propaganda, Israel's shenanigans, Anti-Semitism being called way too liberally, "Chosen people", Hollywood, and edginess.


----------



## Bum Driller (May 13, 2019)

One reason not yet brought up might be that Jews are quite rare. Most people in the western world have never even seen one, so they are easy to use as a scapegoat. Also because anti-Semites in general are retards who want easy answers to questions not easily answered, so it's just quite easy to spoon-feed them this kind of bullshit.


----------



## Judge Holden (May 13, 2019)

I think I covered this in another thread

*- On the reason why the Jews seem to have so much monetary/media power -*


> Same basic reason Saudi Arabia is so fucking rich. They occupied a position that while unimportant and widely sneered at way back when, became an absolutely insane moneymaker centuries down the line.
> 
> In the cause of Saudi Arabia this position was a physical one, ownership of land which held insane oil reserves.
> 
> ...



*- The reason for the medieval roots of hating Jews -*


> As for the reason behind the popular hatred of Jews during the middle ages, its pretty simple. Jews were the only group condemned by the Bible who were integrated into Christian society and afforded official status and protections (conditional as these protections were) and thus they were the most visible "evil outgroup" to the common people of the time. The Church was responsible for the vast majority of this hatred both due to doctrine (i.e. "jews killed jebus! jews do usury!") and due to the fact that they really...REALLY pissed the fundies off since their refusal to convert to the "true faith" was seen as a straight up insult to christianity (and if their own personal efforts to convert them failed it was a staight up insult to them personally) which combined with the trippier parts of the book of revelations made it a pretty standard deal for firebrand priests to screech about how they were literally satanic and demons in human form.
> 
> A perfect example of this is Martin Luther. Early in his career he was full on white knighting them, since "obviously" the only reason they refused to convert was because of the wicked and corrupt Catholic Church had alienated and persecuted them, and thus made Christianity look bad to such innocent and worthy souls as seen in this early piece he wrote
> 
> ...


----------



## Syaoran Li (May 13, 2019)

Okay, this is going to be a very long post even by my standards, but I wanted to offer an in-depth explanation of my thoughts on this matter.

To be fair, the SJW's hate Jews too and are usually every bit as antisemitic as the Alt-Right (especially the Palestinian and Black Supremacist/Afrocentrist wings of the Left) but are more adept at disguising their contempt for the Jewish people in a more socially acceptable manner, usually through passing it off as anti-Israel or anti-capitalist rhetoric.

For all the Nazis liked to claim the Bolshevik Revolution was a Jewish plot, both Lenin and Stalin were more aggressive and violent in state-backed persecution of Russian Jews than even the worst of Tsarist-era pogroms. Even though Leon Trotsky himself was ethnically Jewish, he himself had renounced Judaism and considered most of the Russian Jewry as enemies of the revolution.

While the Romanov Dynasty benefited from the pogroms by keeping the lower classes focused on a convenient scapegoat, the pogroms in the later Russian Empire were almost never state-sanctioned (barring a few minor pogroms under Alexander III) and were more akin to the race riots of today, with the cossacks and Russian peasantry being like Black Lives Matter and the Imperial government being like the Democratic Party and simply acting like the problem doesn't exist.

Once Lenin took over, he enacted a lot of state-backed pogroms to curry further favor with the Russian peasantry by appealing to the antisemitic cultural inertia that had built up in Russia under the Tsars and also because Lenin was a militant atheist who hated religious Jews every bit as much as he hated the Russian Orthodox Church or the Muslim minorities in the Russian Empire.

Stalin took a lot of these Leninist programs and took them into overdrive. The Left has had its own tradition of hating Jews as well and it is still alive today.

Honestly, the Alt-Right hates Jews because the Jews have been a convenient target for conspiracy theories in Western culture since the Romans conquered Judea.

In Pagan Rome, Jews were seen as violent enemies of the State who refused to submit to the rule of either the Senate or the Caesars and the traditonal Roman pacification tactics of letting the conquered peoples maintain their original religion and culture so long as they paid taxes to Rome did not work due to several factors such as the monotheistic and rather ethnocentric nature of Judaism and the fact that Judea was already fairly economically stable before Roman conquest, making the idea of the Jews adopting Greco-Roman culture and customs due to economic and technological prosperity that came with Roman rule an unrealistic expectation.

A lot of the initial persecutions of early Christians under Rome was due to the Christians being not just a bizarre fringe cult that passively resisted the Roman state, but also being a cult that was originally an offshoot of Judaism and originating from the same area that was essentially the Roman equivalent of a terrorist hotbed.

Many Anti-Semitic folktales such as the Blood Libel were largely derived from older Anti-Christian beliefs that were common among Roman pagans.

Fast forward a few centuries where Christianity is the dominant religion in Europe and the only remaining vestige of the old Roman state is the Catholic Church, which harbors a lot of antisemitism through a mix of church doctrine that was also supplemented by adopting the rampant antisemitism of the old pagan aristocracy and middle classes of Rome as a means to win converts.

Because of the Old Testament, the Jews are technically a protected class in Christian society (albeit conditionally so) but are widely despised because they do not convert to the Church and unlike the pagans of old, cannot be converted or exterminated by military force. This breeds resentment and medieval laws regarding usury only made things worse.

Due to these usury laws, many European Jews find themselves entrenched in banking before anyone else and then begin to benefit greatly from the advent of the modern world and their wealth only exacerbates contempt for them.

Both the Holocaust and the Soviet persecutions of Russian and Eastern European Jews essentially wiped out the poor and working-class Jewish populations in Europe.

However, the horrors of the Holocaust finally make antisemitism a major cultural taboo and allow for the creation of the State of Israel in 1948.

This again breeds contempt for the Jewish people in the West among the fringe Far Right and also the "New Left" of the 1960's and 1970's due to the New Left's general support for the virulently antisemitic Soviet Union and the PLO.

The Alt-Right and the White Nationalists hate the Jews mainly due to tradition at this point, while the SJW Left's rekindled antisemitic streak is spurred on by their hatred of Israel, as Israel is a staunch American ally and is widely supported by the conservative Christian movement.

I've always held that the current SJW movement started as a backlash against the Religious Right and is still largely defined by that initial backlash a decade after the Moral Majority became dead and irrelevant.

Starting in the late 1970's, the Christian Zionist movement began to gain traction in America and exponentially grew in the 1980's and 1990's in tandem with the rise of the Religious Right at that same time and as such, American Christianity generally adopted a distinct pro-Zionist and Philo-Semitic streak.

SJW's hate the Religious Right and the Alt-Right initially began as a more secular approach to American conservatism before being hijacked by white nationalists, Neo-Reactionaries, and /pol/ shitposters and then later rendered into a meaningless buzzword by the SJW Left and the liberal media.

If there would be any surviving legacy at all of the Religious Right former dominance over the Republican Party for almost three decades, it would be the GOP's firm pro-Israel stance, as that stance also has strategic geopolitical value for both old-school Neoconservatives (who are currently down but not yet completely out) and the more populist and moderate elements of the GOP who are concerned with the threats posed by Islamic terror and countries like Iran.


----------



## Medicated (May 14, 2019)

Give Her The D said:


> It just seems so worn out on these fringe conspiracy theories to blame it on Jews (who apparently aren't white to these types). Why can't they just find a new target to blame their garbage theories on, other than a group that already got their asses kicked with this type of thing in the 1930s and 1940s?



The Jewish population are historically have been the money lenders, merchants, and eventually banks, and due to Jewish traditions have either remained in control of Jewish families, or kept within the same family for hundreds of years.

So typically they have always been at the top of the totem pole, and instead of people realize it's power and money that connects all this together, they make the mistaken assumption it's religion that ties it all together.  The religious aspect is merely incidental, as in the old days it's only the Jews that were religiously allowed to be money lenders. So of course eventually they held the basis of the foundation of most of the major financial institutions that exist today.

When you see a powerful person act and find out they are Jewish, are just because statistically, they are the ones who are likely to be in control of these institutions, they are likely to have a circle of friends that are Jewish, they are going to reccommend their friends that are Jewish for those jobs, they are going to try and use their leverage to get their family members nice jobs.  Just like any person would do.

So really it's in a way a self fufilling prophecy.


----------



## Super-Chevy454 (May 14, 2019)

Looks like that upcoming movie about the Rothchilds will add fuel to the fire.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/may/14/mel-gibson-casting-in-rothchild-comedy-sparks-outrage ( http://archive.fo/urq2k )



> A wave of condemnation has greeted the announcement of a new film starring Mel Gibson, in which the actor is due to play a character called Whitelaw Rothchild, the patriarch of a wealthy family.
> 
> The film, called Rothchild, is being offered to buyers at Cannes, and is described as a “dark comedy” and “an action-packed cautionary tale on wealth and power”. Shia LaBeouf also stars, playing family outcast Becket Rothchild, who has to supplant nine other family members to claim an inheritance. The script – which on the face of it bears a distinct resemblance to the 1949 British comedy Kinds Hearts and Coronets – is set among a group of the New York super-rich, whose surname is nearly identical to the celebrated Jewish banking dynasty who are ubiquitous as the target of antisemitic tropes.
> 
> While the ethnicity of the family in the film has not been specified in reports, its similarity to the Rothschild name has sparked outrage because of the series of incidents that contributed to Gibson’s lengthy ostracism by Hollywood. In 2006, he launched an antisemitic tirade against a police officerafter he was arrested in California; he later apologised. In 2012, he was accused of “hating Jews” by screenwriter Joe Eszterhas. Two years later, he was recorded using racially abusive language in a voicemail message to his former partner Oksana Grigorieva. And, in 2016, he described the continuing controversy over his 2006 outburst as “unfair” and “a dim thing in the past”.



And it triggered one snowflake. Gee, if we couldn't laugh of the Rothchilds anymore....
https://twitter.com/TheRaDR/status/1127965853150900224  ( http://archive.fo/GtnVP )


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 14, 2019)

Give Her The D said:


> It just seems so worn out on these fringe conspiracy theories to blame it on Jews (who apparently aren't white to these types). Why can't they just find a new target to blame their garbage theories on, other than a group that already got their asses kicked with this type of thing in the 1930s and 1940s?



I think I can provide some perspective on this. When I was a wee lad back in high school I got into reading The Right Stuff, way back before the term "Alt-Right" was even coined. So, I've been familiar with those circles for a very long time.

Jewish folks have a very disproportionate role in Leftist movements and perceived immoral businesses. If you get to looking up prominent Leftists, especially anti-White and Communist Leftists, you'll find that a very large number of them are Jews.

By contrast, you'll very rarely find them associated with any sort of genuine conservative (as in, traditional values, not just capitalism) movement. They also have a huge amount of the media, financial industry, and academia under their thumbs, all of which have very heavy anti-Rightist bias.

As far as immorality goes, you tend to find a lot of Jews in things like the porn industry, Hollywood (which is all kinds of fucked up), and the Mafia. Older generations, even after WW2, tended to adcknowledge that Jews had a predilection for sleazy dealing.

That's how the modern wave of anti-Semitism started: Far Right guys who were disaffected with their own movements noticed that Jews were heading up most of the things they hate, which made them enemies. The Nazism stuff followed afterwards as a result.

There are other complications in this. Jews are also very disproportionately involved in Libertarianism too (not just Communism), and Leftist movements outside of the West are generally lead by the ethnic majorities of their countries, with Jews not really playing any role. The Israelis/neoconservative American Jews and the Leftist Jewish diaspora also hate each other. Personally, I do believe in the Holocaust and I despise the Nazis, but I agree with the Alt-Right that Jewish influence in Western politics is toxic, even though they take it to a retarded level of hysteria.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (May 14, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> There are other complications in this. Jews are also very disproportionately involved in Libertarianism too (not just Communism), and Leftist movements outside of the West are generally lead by the ethnic majorities of their countries, with Jews not really playing any role. The Israelis/neoconservative American Jews and the Leftist Jewish diaspora also hate each other. Personally, I do believe in the Holocaust and I despise the Nazis, but I agree with the Alt-Right that Jewish influence in Western politics is toxic, even though they take it to a exceptional level of hysteria.


How do you combat this influence, though, without making religious laws that are blatantly unconstitutional? Sure, I guess you could restrict foreign funding for political shit which might get rid of some Soros money, but American Jews have just as much right to participate in the process as any other American, and don't deserve to have their political rights restricted because you (or anybody else) dislike their opinions


----------



## Caesare (May 14, 2019)

They killed Christ and they are ugly as fuck.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 14, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> How do you combat this influence, though, without making religious laws that are blatantly unconstitutional? Sure, I guess you could restrict foreign funding for political shit which might get rid of some Soros money, but American Jews have just as much right to participate in the process as any other American, and don't deserve to have their political rights restricted because you (or anybody else) dislike their opinions



Don't know. I don't really care about political rights as a concept, personally; I was authoritarian before I started reading The Right Stuff (them also being authoritarian was what attracted me to them). So it doesn't bother me to just bring down the hammer with death squads. 

The reason I shifted to authoritarianism is pretty much due to a libertarian version of the paradox of tolerance. There's little use in putting up with other ideologies that want to kill/rob/enslave you. I feel like the development of the Left over these past years has pretty much backed up my stance. There's no dealing peacefully with these people.

In my dictator fantasy, I would probably just have the leadership slaughtered, the middle expelled, and the normal folks would be allowed to stick around with no real penalty. Unlike the Neo-Nazis, I think the "Jewish Question" is going to resolve itself, anyways. Jews have an extremely high rate of exogamy, and the most problematic ones are also the ones who care the least about preserving their culture. Give it a few generations and they'll have bred themselves out of existence and forgotten their heritage. 

I have separate theories on where Jewish trouble-making comes from. It mostly comes down to, I believe, a combination of being extremely educated and urban (cultural holdovers from the era of discrimination) and having being persecuted for so long. Jews are the ideal


----------



## wellthathappened (May 14, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Personally, I do believe in the Holocaust and I despise the Nazis, but I agree with the Alt-Right that Jewish influence in Western politics is toxic, even though they take it to a exceptional level of hysteria.



You are a brave young man. I wish you the best of luck in being a weirdo outcast with ridiculous premises.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (May 14, 2019)

Coleman Francis said:


> They killed Christ and they are ugly as fuck.


genuine theological question I've never understood

Wasn't Christ being killed some sort of fullfillment of prophecy/covenant/whatever you wanna call it? So isn't it a good thing they killed Him in order to accomplish it? 

Sure, the crucifixion was a bit rough, God shoulda sent him to a time with a guillotine, but it didn't seem to have any long-term negative effects


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 14, 2019)

wellthathappened said:


> You are a brave young man. I wish you the best of luck in being a weirdo outcast with ridiculous premises.



Which ones?

I hate the Nazis because, whether or not Jews have a bad effect on politics, that doesn't justify rounding them up whole, regardless of the individual, to kill like animals. And the Holocaust deniers are idiots. Nazism is also a shitty ideology in other ways. Shitty economics, shitty heavy-handed social policies. It doesn't have much of anything going for it.

That's one reason I lurk (and now post) here. Most discussion boards are way too strict for me, but Alt-Right places tend to be pissholes.


----------



## wellthathappened (May 14, 2019)

Yes, Nazis are bad. Wax on with your dictatorial fantasies.


----------



## 1864897514651 (May 14, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> [redacted]



If a mother should commit a crime that sentences her offspring to death some time in the future when they become adults, and then this generational execution redeems the mother, would you call this sequence of events "good" because it fulfilled the terms of criminal law to re-establish order? Similar situation with the Passion. It is our sins that crucified Jesus. The Resurrection is only good in-so-far as it redeemed us and gave men another chance to love God. It is not good that we had to be redeemed since sin is a personal choice made through the execution of free will. The fact that prophecies in alignment with Truth must be fulfilled does not mean that said prophetic events are automatically "good" once consummated. Prophets can also prophesy evil events that should not need to happen.


----------



## Recoil (May 14, 2019)

Bum Driller said:


> One reason not yet brought up might be that Jews are quite rare. Most people in the western world have never even seen one, so they are easy to use as a scapegoat. Also because anti-Semites in general are exceptional individuals who want easy answers to questions not easily answered, so it's just quite easy to spoon-feed them this kind of bullshit.


Wow. Now that I think about it, all of the most virulently anti-semitic people I've met have lived in bumblefuck, the ghetto or in gated communities. Either way, it's about them existing in an echo chamber where they don't see any actual socioeconomic or religious diversity.


----------



## Underestimated Nutria (May 14, 2019)

Have all y'all read E. Michael Jones?

I've started reading him and am very impressed.  He actually doesn't seem antisemitic at all, contrary to expectations; he just thinks that they're adapted an intelligent survival strategy (namely, weakening white society and fighting racial prejudice to ultimately make life easier for jews), and isn't that just what every group does?


----------



## shartshooter (May 14, 2019)

Give Her The D said:


> Why can't they just find a new target to blame their garbage theories on, other than a group that already got their asses kicked with this type of thing in the 1930s and 1940s?


You've provided yourself an answer as you ask the question- irrational conspiracy theory.

But lumping all grievances across history and culture together as a single nebulous theory of anti-semitism can be seen in itself as reductive, conspiracy theory logic. Hundreds of years of history have seen numerous different flashpoints of conflict. A Palestinian suffering under apartheid will speak differently than Solzhenitsyn witnessing a terrible revolution or a survivor of the USS Liberty attack.

Not telling you what to believe, but if you want to hear other answers you've got to be more honest about the question. In general though, the division, anger and conflict of the world is far more grounded and coherent than you are now comfortable believing. Like the cliche goes, the truth hurts.


----------



## Bad Headspace (May 15, 2019)

Most people wouldn't really have cared about them having a lot of power, but on the same time they were forcing the shitlib white privilidge and general hate whitey stuff down the people's throats. Hypocricity always pisses people off. Always.


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 15, 2019)

Underestimated Nutria said:


> He actually doesn't seem antisemitic at all, contrary to expectations; he just thinks that they're adapted an intelligent survival strategy (namely, weakening white society and fighting racial prejudice to ultimately make life easier for jews), and isn't that just what every group does?



I think michael e jones considers "white" a recent madeup identity and not one that he favors. He generally favors catholicism rather than white society and anything that isn't catholicism is a rebellion/revolution against christ.

With that said, he has some amazingly good observations, particularly in regards to jewish actions and results as well as ramallah and sexual control.


----------



## big ol' idiot (May 15, 2019)

I could never understand the hatred, I love the nation of Israel and its people!


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 15, 2019)

Recon said:


> Wow. Now that I think about it, all of the most virulently anti-semitic people I've met have lived in bumblefuck, the ghetto or in gated communities. Either way, it's about them existing in an echo chamber where they don't see any actual socioeconomic or religious diversity.



The reason is that respectable/worldly people express their opinion non-virulantly or not at all, particularly when it is pretty much in regard to the most protected group. This also means you're more likely to hear the unhinged perspectives rather than the more reasonable ones.

Considering that nobody has been able to answer my question about what makes jews an easy target to criticize, I think at this point it's safe to conclude that mostly people agree, that jews or jewish actions are not easy to criticize?


----------



## Slimy Time (May 15, 2019)

A history of Jews being in the stereotypical role of money lender and having customs foreign to the host nation. People don't like their creditors, so for centuries when shit went south, people would blame the rich creditors. Nothing has changed since then, numerous Jews in positions of power, whether they be billionaire tech giants/media positions, high up politicians or high up banking positions. Add into the mix laws which essentially protect them from criticism by labelling something as Anti-semitic, and its easy for the far right to blame them.

Regarding Germany and the rise of Nazism, the German revolution of 1918 was attempted by the communists near the end of WWI (still undergoing)...which were led by a number of Jews. The result was the abolition of the monarchy and the Weimar Republic being established. Combine this with the economic collapse and the lingering threat of communism...if you wanted opposition to that, the Nazis were the only ones who were outright opposing the Communists. Mix in some "they attempted a coup which ended the monarchy, they crashed the economy so they could prepare to make another take over", and people took the bait.


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 15, 2019)

Slimy Time said:


> The result was the abolition of the monarchy and the Weimar Republic being established. Combine this with the economic collapse and the lingering threat of communism...if you wanted opposition to that, the Nazis were the only ones who were outright opposing the Communists. Mix in some "they attempted a coup which ended the monarchy, they crashed the economy so they could prepare to make another take over", and people took the bait.



Don't forget the rampant child prostitution of the Jewish Weimar Republic.

I'm glad we live in a time where that is completely unthinkable.


----------



## Dante Alighieri (May 15, 2019)

Without people hating the Jews, how could they constantly play victim and always pull the anti-Semitism card every time someone starts connecting dots or asking questions?


----------



## UnclePhil (May 15, 2019)

I never understood Jew hate myself.

They wear silly hats and have hilarious accents. They grow sage wizard beards when they get old. And sometimes Israel does some heinous shit and the rest of the developed world looks the other way.

Aside from that, every time I hear a money haggling joke or read a nudge-nudge comment with the funny ((double parenthesis)), it just comes off like a tired old meme. These 8chan kids are gonna cut themselves on their edge if they aren't careful.


----------



## TerribleIdeas™ (May 15, 2019)

Medicated said:


> The Jewish population are historically have been the money lenders, merchants, and eventually banks, and due to Jewish traditions have either remained in control of Jewish families, or kept within the same family for hundreds of years.
> 
> So typically they have always been at the top of the totem pole, and instead of people realize it's power and money that connects all this together, they make the mistaken assumption it's religion that ties it all together.  The religious aspect is merely incidental, as in the old days it's only the Jews that were religiously allowed to be money lenders. So of course eventually they held the basis of the foundation of most of the major financial institutions that exist today.
> 
> ...



Kind of like how 13/50 is a thing, but there's underlying reasons for it beyond the facile and trite ones put forward by anti-darkie commentators?


----------



## GenderCop (May 15, 2019)

ICametoLurk said:


> It's funny that the Jews that escaped the purges via hiding into Eastern Europe have CCR5Delta 32 which is immunity to the Black Death, AIDs, and HIV.
> 
> I'm sure it's a (((coincidence))).


a jesuit of my acquaintance said this was the whole reason for the "chosen people" stuff.  he believed it started at this time.   ppl were spooked that the jews (always considered spooky & weird) DID NOT GET THE PLAGUE.    he told me there was little mention of "chosen people" in catholic literature until that time--suddenly there was the narrative that they are chosen, "small but mighty" & needing gentile protection.

native americans also believed priests/jesuits were holy & chosen, since they were the ones giving (not getting) smallpox, influenza & all the rest of it. 
altho SJWs like to lie & say all indians were forcibly-converted by meanie white cavalries, millions of indians actually converted _after they saw their loved ones dying & christian whites surviving. _ they didn't even know why, so just imagine the priests saying "see?  you better do what we tell you."  (undoubtedly the priests believed this too)  the conversion of millions of native americans is relatively easy if you bring epidemics with you.

jews probably seemed like this to ppl around them:  they don't get sick.  must be magic.  chosen people.

since they indeed did not die when 90% of europe did, they were able to consolidate economic power.  succeeding epidemics likely had this same consolidating effect.


----------



## Medicated (May 15, 2019)

TerribleIdeas™ said:


> Kind of like how 13/50 is a thing, but there's underlying reasons for it beyond the facile and trite ones put forward by anti-darkie commentators?



Ben Shapiro touched on it once in a black community meeting, Black Culture in America is similar to the tribalism of Africa, there's an opposing tribe that has been keeping you down, you have no chance against the controlling tribe, they just hate you for existing, you must undermine them, its seen as noble to work outside the system of the opposing tribe, and crime and drug dealing and hookers looks glamorous as anyone whos exposed themselves to black social media and music for an extended period, these are their role models.

If someone exhibits opposing tribal behaviors he's an "uncle tom" whos betrayed the tribe.  Most black people in America are raised in this way, despite most of them being at least 14% white.  Constantly being told they should be personally offended and victimized of events that happened almost 100+ years ago for their whole life.  You can say "Massa Massa" to some millionaire black rapper whos never had anyone in his family a slave for 3+ generations and they can get personally offended.  They are taught this.  It's cultural.


----------



## TerribleIdeas™ (May 15, 2019)

Medicated said:


> Ben Shapiro touched on it once in a black community meeting, Black Culture in America is similar to the tribalism of Africa, there's an opposing tribe that has been keeping you down, you have no chance against the controlling tribe, they just hate you for existing, you must undermine them, and crime and drug dealing and hookers looks glamorous as anyone whos exposed themselves to black social media and music for an extended period, these are their role models.
> 
> If someone exhibits opposing tribal behaviors he's an "uncle tom" whos betrayed the tribe.  Most black people in America are raised in this way, despite most of them being at least 14% white.  Constantly being told they should be personally offended and victimized of events that happened almost 100+ years ago for their whole life.  You can say "Massa Massa" to some millionaire black rapper whos never had anyone in his family a slave for 3+ generations and they can get personally offended.  They are taught this.  It's cultural.



I especially like how they'll get offended at me not immediately accepting their BLM/"we so uhpressed narratives/you owe us reparations!" narratives, since I've seen my genealogy, and there's no slave owners in it; they refuse to accept that anyone they _think _is a yt isn't responsible for admittedly terrible actions undertaken by a combination of assholes ranging from Europeans to Africans to Arabs.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 15, 2019)

Recon said:


> Wow. Now that I think about it, all of the most virulently anti-semitic people I've met have lived in bumblefuck, the ghetto or in gated communities. Either way, it's about them existing in an echo chamber where they don't see any actual socioeconomic or religious diversity.



Is a ghetto really not diverse, though? Your block may be 99% Black, but you can walk down the street for a pizza and suddenly be in Chinatown...



Bad Headspace said:


> Most people wouldn't really have cared about them having a lot of power, but on the same time they were forcing the shitlib white privilidge and general hate whitey stuff down the people's throats. Hypocricity always pisses people off. Always.



I was a bit Semitophile until I started exploring the Leftist connections. Jews are talented, civilized people, seemingly better than your typical gentile. If they weren't pushing horrible shit (on average), I wouldn't care.



UnclePhil said:


> I never understood Jew hate myself.
> 
> They wear silly hats and have hilarious accents. They grow sage wizard beards when they get old. And sometimes Israel does some heinous shit and the rest of the developed world looks the other way.
> 
> Aside from that, every time I hear a money haggling joke or read a nudge-nudge comment with the funny ((double parenthesis)), it just comes off like a tired old meme. These 8chan kids are gonna cut themselves on their edge if they aren't careful.



The actual religious Jews aren't even a problem, although a lot of Alt-Right idiots don't have the nuance to distinguish between them. Religious Jews believe some bad stuff I despise (hateful attitude towards other religions), but they don't even evangelize (much less use violence), so they're easy to live besides. It's specifically the Leftist, atheist/Reform/Reconstructionist Ashkenazi diaspora that pushes Far Left ideology. And that ties back in to my idea on why they developed that way. Urban life is already known to correlate with progressive values. So is higher education. Who has a history, since Medieval times, of living in cities, doing tertiary sector work, with all of their men being taught at least basic literacy?

A lot of the Alt-Right believe that Jews are malicious and use Leftism as a way to try to undermine groups. I believe they genuinely believe their own BS and are the first real victims of it.

Ashkenazis living on Slavic shtetls, Sephardim, Mizrahis, and other groups like that turned out pretty conservative and mostly keep to themselves.


----------



## Recoil (May 15, 2019)

@Ughubughughughughughghlug ghettos are not socioeconomically diverse. they can be ethnically diverse, but if they were socioeconomically diverse they wouldn't be ghettos, they'd be regular neighborhoods.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 15, 2019)

Recon said:


> @Ughubughughughughughghlug ghettos are not socioeconomically diverse. they can be ethnically diverse, but if they were socioeconomically diverse they wouldn't be ghettos, they'd be regular neighborhoods.



Fair point.


----------



## Bad Headspace (May 15, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> I was a bit Semitophile until I started exploring the Leftist connections. Jews are talented, civilized people, seemingly better than your typical gentile. If they weren't pushing horrible shit (on average), I wouldn't care.


They pretty much bred favoring intelligence, but they got some strange mental patterns because of that. 
So you have your higher average IQ and tons of unique diseases and neurosis.

Nobody would really care about them if they weren't messing around too much. 
They just enjoy 1) making everything about them 2) push destructive shit 3) get collectively defensive over anything.

They should chill more.


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 15, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Religious Jews believe some bad stuff I despise (hateful attitude towards other religions), but they don't even evangelize (much less use violence), so they're easy to live besides. It's specifically the Leftist, atheist/Reform/Reconstructionist Ashkenazi diaspora that pushes Far Left ideology. And that ties back in to my idea on why they developed that way. Urban life is already known to correlate with progressive values. So is higher education. Who has a history, since Medieval times, of living in cities, doing tertiary sector work, with all of their men being taught at least basic literacy?



I think the Ben Shapiros of the world with their neo-conservative positions (those on the right who are in favour of a lot of foreign wars, particularly in israel's favor) are no less a problem than then far left, whether supported by jews or gentiles... but neoconservatism just like far leftism is a jewish movement originally.

Certainly I think the type of work is part of it. It only takes us 10 generations to turn foxes or other animals into being mostly domesticated and respond positively to humans. It only took a couple of generations for Niger to suddenly throw off lactose intolerance and for the majority of the people being able to digest milk effectively:

(lactose intolerance world map)





-----

Though that prelediction only gives reason for jewish disproportionate success in the modern world (and even the IQ difference doesn't fully explain the large overrepresentation at higher education); it only addresses one of the many criticisms that there are.

It does not really examine for example the ethnic aggression from modern jews, broadly speaking.


----------



## Jace E. Denton (May 15, 2019)

Jews wouldn't exist if not for the lizards breeding with the martians about 567,000 years ago.


----------



## Duke Nukem (May 15, 2019)

Jews are an easy target because they cook so well, just ask a certain mustachioed fellow about it.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (May 15, 2019)

Duke Nukem said:


> Jews are an easy target because they cook so well, just ask a certain mustachioed fellow about it.


When did Mario eat Jewish food?


----------



## Medicated (May 15, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> I think I can provide some perspective on this. When I was a wee lad back in high school I got into reading The Right Stuff, way back before the term "Alt-Right" was even coined. So, I've been familiar with those circles for a very long time.
> 
> Jewish folks have a very disproportionate role in Leftist movements and perceived immoral businesses. If you get to looking up prominent Leftists, especially anti-White and Communist Leftists, you'll find that a very large number of them are Jews.



Yeah if you look further back in history, various rulers have used the Jews a convenient scapegoat for whatever they were up to.  Not only were the Jews the "out group" of any country they occupied, they also had wealth and would lend money to the rulers, which made people view them with suspicion and distrust, and when it was time to place blame on the Jews and drive them out, all their loans were cleared by force, how convenient for them.

If all the Jews were killed, then the financial and banking power vacuum would have to be taken up by a new party, who would eventually through typical networking and family favoritism would end up being viewed in the same way as the Jews decades and centuries later.

When people say there is a disproportionate representation of Jews in certain fields, it's simply the result of self selection over generations.  Most banking and merchant families were Jewish, people in their network would be Jewish and get a leg up.  Those people became financiers themselves, of other projects, and eventually become a pioneer in their own field.  And you always need money in order to finance businesses.  You need money to make money.  Now remember, money is power, and power corrupts.  So the stereotype of the rich, corrupt, immoral Jew, is just the result of this self selection process over time.

Of course there are plenty of people that are Jewish that are in the low to middle class, but most people ignore that, because they guys at the top are doing so well and have so much power.

Now I'm not saying that the Jews are a super persecuted "i dindunuddin" group, but neither are they the reptilian vampires others speak of, as usual the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.


----------



## The Last Stand (May 15, 2019)

Something I want to know, where did the (((Jew Name))) meme come from? What do the three parentheses represent?


----------



## Duke Nukem (May 15, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> When did Mario eat Jewish food?



Nah, I'm thinking of that Austrian fellow everybody seems to compare non leftist people to these days.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 15, 2019)

The Last Stand said:


> Something I want to know, where did the (((Jew Name))) meme come from? What do the three parentheses represent?


Story I heard was that some brilliant person somewhere made a comment about how the names of the Holocaust victims would echo throughout time.  People in places picked that up and ran with it.  To make it even funnier some people against those people started using the echoes to show solidarity or to thumb their noses at evil bigots or something.


----------



## eternal dog mongler (May 15, 2019)

Incel basement dwellers hate the Jews because what the hell else is there to hate? Black people? No, they look down on black people so obviously it's not black people preventing them from getting laid and sticking them in retail jobs with no hope of advancement. And if you call a random black man walking down the street a nigger then good fucking luck.

Must be the (((Jews))) because the alt-right has mainlined cowardice and tilting at windmills. Gotta blame everything else for your own damned failure to launch.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 16, 2019)

Bad Headspace said:


> They pretty much bred favoring intelligence, but they got some strange mental patterns because of that.
> So you have your higher average IQ and tons of unique diseases and neurosis.
> 
> Nobody would really care about them if they weren't messing around too much.
> ...



Ancient wisdom held that everything is best in moderation. I believe the same is true of intelligence, too. Being a little bit above average seems to be the ideal amount to make people successful in life. People who are actual geniuses tend to be crazy, and often wind up being useless. For whatever reason, intelligence seems to correlate with craziness.

Nobody has ever accused Blacks of being the smartest people around, yet they're the happiest ethnic group in America despite also having a really shitty situation. Likewise, has anybody ever seen an unhappy retard?



Lemmingwise said:


> I think the Ben Shapiros of the world with their neo-conservative positions (those on the right who are in favour of a lot of foreign wars, particularly in israel's favor) are no less a problem than then far left, whether supported by jews or gentiles... but neoconservatism just like far leftism is a jewish movement originally.
> 
> Though that prelediction only gives reason for jewish disproportionate success in the modern world (and even the IQ difference doesn't fully explain the large overrepresentation at higher education); it only addresses one of the many criticisms that there are.



I despise Israel and Right-wing neocon types too, I just respect them on some level. They cause problems, but the problems they cause are not as severe. They also tend to have better character, excepting their deceptive nature.

Take Israelis for example. I feel like creating Israel was wrong: they confiscated the land from the people already living there and moved in a bunch of outsiders of another culture. It's a colony. The Palestinians have every right to be upset. But, the Palestinians are still savages, while the Israelis treat them rather well (for hostile natives) and have made the place more livable than the locals would have. The Israelis also have a fine, masculine/militant culture instead of being degenerate parasites. But they are still backstabbing leeches, and I wish we had a President who would just tell them to fuck off. Ultimately, I would like for Iran to be the top dogs in the area (I think Persians are the best people around there), but I can't abide that for as long as Iran is going to antagonize the US.

Neocons are mostly bad in that they're rats who pretend to be conservative so they can move the Overton Window. I'm not all that opposed to the Middle Eastern wars and still have a soft spot for Bush, even though I know I shouldn't. Hussein had to be cut down to size, as did Al-Qaeda.



Medicated said:


> Yeah if you look further back in history, various rulers have used the Jews a convenient scapegoat for whatever they were up to.  Not only were the Jews the "out group" of any country they occupied, they also had wealth and would lend money to the rulers, which made people view them with suspicion and distrust, and when it was time to place blame on the Jews and drive them out, all their loans were cleared by force, how convenient for them.
> 
> If all the Jews were killed, then the financial and banking power vacuum would have to be taken up by a new party, who would eventually through typical networking and family favoritism would end up being viewed in the same way as the Jews decades and centuries later.
> 
> ...



Have you read "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by Thomas Sowell? It has a chapter on "middleman minorities," which describes how in every region of the world, there is some minority group which fulfills the same social role of Jews in terms of both the work they do and the position of being scapegoats. In Southeast Asia, it's Chinese diaspora. In Africa, it's traditionally been the Lebanese or Asian Indians. In the American Frontier, it was White traders. 

The Jews as a whole trend very Far Left (when not Libertarian; in generally, they tend to be highly modernist, but never reactionary), but as you said, they aren't all the same. It's the small Jews I worry for since they're the ones most likely to suffer when the public gets tired of the rich Jews' shit. The Soroses of the world will fuck off to another country, while the average people (like the ones I know) will get left behind.

I think (unlike much of the Alt-Right) that the modernist Jew problem didn't really emerge until the late Enlightenment. Even back before Marx, most socialists were gentiles. Somebody, I think Solzhenitsyn, noted that it was reactionary Jews living on shtetls who were the most content, while the "emancipated" ones who were partially integrated into society were the most aggressive.


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 16, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> The Israelis also have a fine, masculine/militant culture instead of being degenerate parasites. But they are still backstabbing leeches,


What do you mean when you say they're not degenerate parasites, but they are backstabbing leeches? Because I'm not really sure where the line between a parasite and leech lays in your perception. Elucidate it for me, if you like.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 16, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> What do you mean when you say they're not degenerate parasites, but they are backstabbing leeches? Because I'm not really sure where the line between a parasite and leech lays in your perception. Elucidate it for me, if you like.



They leech off of the US for free support. Lot of dumbass Evangelical money, Congress money, US army protection, benefits like that. They keep the US strung along, and it's all an act. One of the chief rabbis of Israel, a guy who's like their equivalent of Billy Graham or the Pope, once bragged about gentiles being cattle put on the Earth to serve them. He's supported by most of the Israeli public. Israelis like Netanyahu pretend to like America, but they really just see us as idiots to do their bidding.

But, the Israelis are also people who work their factories, work their farms, and patrol their borders. Unlike the Diaspora, who tend to be consumed with faggotry and work in occupations like media, law, and the like, Israelis get their hands dirty. They also rediscovered their ancient Hebrew culture (I hear a lot more Hebrew names among Israelis than I do Diasporas, even though both are mostly Ashkenazim), and promote good values among their own people. Neither have I ever heard of the Israelis running campaigns to promote degeneracy.

So Israel are backstabbing bastards (will sell your tech to China, will bomb your ships and pretend it was an accident, will send special forces into other countries to murder people), but they're real men, unlike their fucked up cousins in Brooklyn.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (May 16, 2019)

@Ughubughughughughughghlug in this thread:
"Nazis are evil, despicable people and the Holocaust shouldn't have happened!  Now, let me tell you about how the Jews are evil parasites, dictatorship is great, and my political enemies should be killed or expelled from the country."


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 16, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> @Ughubughughughughughghlug in this thread:
> "Nazis are evil, despicable people and the Holocaust shouldn't have happened!  Now, let me tell you about how the Jews are evil parasites, dictatorship is great, and my political enemies should be killed or expelled from the country."



That whole second part of the quote is basically the operating procedures for pretty much every society from ancient times on up to the French Revolution, but I think it's obvious to everybody you're not arguing in good faith anyways. 

If you want an example of an authoritarian society I like, look at Singapore. Rich, capitalist country, mostly socially open but they keep the worst troublemakers down. No secret police patrolling the streets or gulags. They arrest the worst of the worst (I know it may sound shocking, but you can run a dictatorship without going Full Stalin), but have a mostly free media. High happiness/life satisfaction among the people, and high immigration. It's also a one-party state. 

How has Singapore managed it? Because they don't let lunatics run wild. They have reasonable people in power and those people bash the skulls of those who threaten their society.

Democracy has some advantages; it tends to give back more competent government officials, lower corruption, and it acts a pressure release for political tensions. But it also has an unfortunate openness to bad actors, which ends up destroying it and creating the conditions for far worse forms of tyranny. But the average democrat doesn't really care about that. Democrats are like a more general form of centrists: they're cowards who want to preen about their "morality," so that they don't have to do the hard work of keeping civilization civilized. They're unconfrontational pussies. The betas of the political world.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 16, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Ancient wisdom held that everything is best in moderation. I believe the same is true of intelligence, too. Being a little bit above average seems to be the ideal amount to make people successful in life. People who are actual geniuses tend to be crazy, and often wind up being useless. For whatever reason, intelligence seems to correlate with craziness.



If we assume that intelligence is distributed on a curve while mental illness is more or less distributed equally across the whole range, it follows that as you approach either extreme of that curve you find an inordinate concentration of mental issues for that extreme IQ bracket.  That being said...

Being intelligent drives you insane.  Not so much the intelligence itself, but the cloying grasp of the education system which is equipped to handle average students far better than students at one end or the other and at times actively discourages higher end students from seeking out challenges more suited to them.  Then in the rest of the world, people at the extremes find very few people they can relate to in the sense of having someone else who understands what it feels like to know you can run rings around standard curricula, what it feels like to constantly be looking for things that genuinely stimulate and nurture one's intellect and what it feels like to, at times, be singled out as troublesome for not fitting cleanly into a system designed not just for people closer to the mean but also to enforce the mean as more desirable than encouraging personal excellence.  You are different, and not even a BAD kind of different, and you're still being treated as a problem.  It wears on people.

Having extraordinary IQ is like having a pristine block of the most beautiful, high-quality marble imaginable and public education is like being handed terrible, cheap sculpting tools which which to shape it.


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 16, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> How has Singapore managed it? Because they don't let lunatics run wild. They have reasonable people in power and those people bash the skulls of those who threaten their society.


Í have a liking for Singapore, but if I'm not mistaken, government critical bloggers disappear there, just like in China.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 16, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> If we assume that intelligence is distributed on a curve while mental illness is more or less distributed equally across the whole range, it follows that as you approach either extreme of that curve you find an inordinate concentration of mental issues for that extreme IQ bracket.  That being said...
> 
> Being intelligent drives you insane.  Not so much the intelligence itself, but the cloying grasp of the education system which is equipped to handle average students far better than students at one end or the other and at times actively discourages higher end students from seeking out challenges more suited to them.  Then in the rest of the world, people at the extremes find very few people they can relate to in the sense of having someone else who understands what it feels like to know you can run rings around standard curricula, what it feels like to constantly be looking for things that genuinely stimulate and nurture one's intellect and what it feels like to, at times, be singled out as troublesome for not fitting cleanly into a system designed not just for people closer to the mean but also to enforce the mean as more desirable than encouraging personal excellence.  You are different, and not even a BAD kind of different, and you're still being treated as a problem.  It wears on people.
> 
> Having extraordinary IQ is like having a pristine block of the most beautiful, high-quality marble imaginable and public education is like being handed terrible, cheap sculpting tools which which to shape it.



Are you familiar with unschooling? It's only really appropriate for motivated, gifted children, but that's where you just let your kids study what they want or their own (as long as it isn't vidya). Unschooled children tend to be a lot happier than other children and have better/no worse outcomes on average.

I personally felt like I didn't get any value out of elementary school. Already knew pretty much all of it, was taught how to read by my parents before I started Kindergarten. High school was more useful. University I like; it's still all stuff (in my majors) that I could study on my own, but having professors provides some important structure and perspective that you don't get from reading on your own. I still wish I was unschooled. Most of the great intellects (not necessarily scientists/engineers, but at least thinkers) were also self-educated, for the most part.



Lemmingwise said:


> Í have a liking for Singapore, but if I'm not mistaken, government critical bloggers disappear there, just like in China.



I understated the extent of repression there. They do "disappear" critics. It's still not to the extent of Nazi Germany or any Communist country, though. Singapore also tolerates making changes. Lee Kuan Yew once said that if they made a mistake, they would try something different. This is a very different attitude than most dictatorships have, where you just continue the same path.

In general, Rightist dictatorships seem* to only go after political enemies, whereas Leftist dictatorships go after entire classes of people. In a Rightist dictatorship, you can usually keep your head down and be fine. Don't concern yourself with matters of state. Leftist dictatorships are more the type to go apeshit over nothing. The Nazis are a strange case because they're arguably the most murderous regime in history, despite having been Right-wing. This mostly comes down to the Nazis having decided to just straight-up murder entire populations.

*This is contestable; I may well be wrong on this.

I'm mostly familiar with a handful of dictators who experimented with neoliberalism. Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore) seemed to do the best job. Augusto Pinochet seems to have done okay, although I understand there to be quite a bit of disagreement over his economic effects. Adolf Hitler was fucking awful, even from an economics point of view (his economy was basically a Potemkin village running off Jew gold). Francisco Franco (who I'm doing university research on right now) was awful but ended up getting good later in life.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (May 16, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> That whole second part of the quote is basically the operating procedures for pretty much every society from ancient times on up to the French Revolution, but I think it's obvious to everybody you're not arguing in good faith anyways.
> 
> If you want an example of an authoritarian society I like, look at Singapore. Rich, capitalist country, mostly socially open but they keep the worst troublemakers down. No secret police patrolling the streets or gulags. They arrest the worst of the worst (I know it may sound shocking, but you can run a dictatorship without going Full Stalin), but have a mostly free media. High happiness/life satisfaction among the people, and high immigration. It's also a one-party state.
> 
> ...


1. Incorrect.  Scandinavian societies governed themselves by devolved councils of senior tribesmen.  Rome was an oligarchical republic for the first half of its existence.  Most Medieval societies were functional oligarchies, not autocracies.  Tribal societies are run by elder councils for the most part.  Man gravitates towards oligarchy, not autocracy.  In addition, just because something was always done one way doesn't mean it was right.  We used to bleed anemics and try to exorcise epileptics.
2. Odd that the most notable cases of democratic societies made of unconfrontational pussies meeting the alpha autocrats on the field of battle resulted in the alpha autocrats eating shit.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 16, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Are you familiar with unschooling? It's only really appropriate for motivated, gifted children, but that's where you just let your kids study what they want or their own (as long as it isn't vidya). Unschooled children tend to be a lot happier than other children and have better/no worse outcomes on average.
> 
> I personally felt like I didn't get any value out of elementary school. Already knew pretty much all of it, was taught how to read by my parents before I started Kindergarten. High school was more useful. University I like; it's still all stuff (in my majors) that I could study on my own, but having professors provides some important structure and perspective that you don't get from reading on your own. I still wish I was unschooled. Most of the great intellects (not necessarily scientists/engineers, but at least thinkers) were also self-educated, for the most part.



I took matters into my own hands and sought out extracurricular stuff when I wasn't in school.  Public school yielded some degree of value in that I learned some basics of socialization, was able to get a good idea of what I wanted to pursue further outside of the classroom and it provided some degree of structure and later a sort of reprieve from other things (though that didn't last long).  At one point my elementary school shifted me into a GATE program, and I quickly discovered that it basically served as a "smart kids" counterpart to special ed - some place to stow the troublesome ones, put some books and board games in front of them, that kind of thing.

High school was concentrated misery for me for a number of reasons and I have no fond memories of it whatsoever.  College/university was initially pleasant but quickly soured.

In any event, this is a full-on derail.  If I had to guess why Jewish people tend to exhibit higher levels of neuroses I would examine the genetic angle, which also likely explains why Tay-Sachs is practically a Jewish disease at this point.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 16, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> 1. Incorrect.  Scandinavian societies governed themselves by devolved councils of senior tribesmen.  Rome was an oligarchical republic for the first half of its existence.  Most Medieval societies were functional oligarchies, not autocracies.  Tribal societies are run by elder councils for the most part.  Man gravitates towards oligarchy, not autocracy.  In addition, just because something was always done one way doesn't mean it was right.  We used to bleed anemics and try to exorcise epileptics.
> 
> 2. Odd that the most notable cases of democratic societies made of unconfrontational pussies meeting the alpha autocrats on the field of battle resulted in the alpha autocrats eating shit.



Honest question: how do you fine dictatorship? I had this argument with somebody in real life, recently. To me, a dictatorship is mostly determined by its intolerance for freedom of political views and lack of popularly elected leadership, as opposed to necessarily having an all-powerful executive. But, my friend argued that a dictatorship has to have a single executive.

In my case, monarchies are essentially dictatorships, as are bureaucratic governments like the First French Republic, Soviet Union, and People's Republic of China, as well as any Latin American junta. Actual absolutist governments are extremely rare. You're right, though, that feudalism doesn't really fit the description I gave. You can view it a number of ways: an entirely different sort of society, a privatized society taken to the extreme, a bureaucracy governed by tradition with hereditary posts. It still has the trait, though, of unelected leadership and I believe (could be wrong here), usually, intolerance of competing political ideologies.

In the case of the second bit, you have a point. My point about democrats being cowardly is more in reference to individuals within democracies, not the spirit of the society as a whole. It's also arguable that this is skewed a bit by more advanced civilizations having been the ones that developed democracies, so their successes are possibly attributable to their other advancements, rather than to their democratic structure itself. There's a few examples that suggest the latter may have been a hindrance, like:
- The Romans using their "dictators" to govern instead of the Senate during crises.
- The United States electing the same guy four times in a row during the Depression/WW2, and basically just flat-out destroying hostile political parties unconstitutionally.
- The War of 1812, when democratically-elected officers in military units got their asses handed to them by professional, autocratically-structured British military units.



Sprig of Parsley said:


> I took matters into my own hands and sought out extracurricular stuff when I wasn't in school.  Public school yielded some degree of value in that I learned some basics of socialization, was able to get a good idea of what I wanted to pursue further outside of the classroom and it provided some degree of structure and later a sort of reprieve from other things (though that didn't last long).  At one point my elementary school shifted me into a GATE program, and I quickly discovered that it basically served as a "smart kids" counterpart to special ed - some place to stow the troublesome ones, put some books and board games in front of them, that kind of thing.
> 
> High school was concentrated misery for me for a number of reasons and I have no fond memories of it whatsoever.  College/university was initially pleasant but quickly soured.
> 
> In any event, this is a full-on derail.  If I had to guess why Jewish people tend to exhibit higher levels of neuroses I would examine the genetic angle, which also likely explains why Tay-Sachs is practically a Jewish disease at this point.



I guess we can take it to a private conversation or a different thread, if you want. Your description of the gifted program sounds a lot like what they did in my county. We didn't really learn anything; it was just games and stuff. Activities meant to make you more creative, or something gay like that. But still more useful than regular class. For whatever reason, I never got bullied in school, and mostly liked high school, though I hated junior high. Too asocial to make any friends, though. Didn't do that until university.


Sorry to everybody else for taking this so off-topic; I'm real bad for that. Jew bad


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (May 16, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Honest question: how do you fine dictatorship? I had this argument with somebody in real life, recently. To me, a dictatorship is mostly determined by its intolerance for freedom of political views and lack of popularly elected leadership, as opposed to necessarily having an all-powerful executive. But, my friend argued that a dictatorship has to have a single executive.
> 
> In my case, monarchies are essentially dictatorships, as are bureaucratic governments like the First French Republic, Soviet Union, and People's Republic of China, as well as any Latin American junta. Actual absolutist governments are extremely rare. You're right, though, that feudalism doesn't really fit the description I gave. You can view it a number of ways: an entirely different sort of society, a privatized society taken to the extreme, a bureaucracy governed by tradition with hereditary posts. It still has the trait, though, of unelected leadership and I believe (could be wrong here), usually, intolerance of competing political ideologies.
> 
> ...


1. A dictatorship is best defined as having the following traits:
- The executive office is a lifetime position.
- The executive office has no or token checks on power and has legislative power.
- Citizens are considered to have zero, or close to zero, unalienable rights (or effectively have zero unalienable rights).

Not necessary but common features include a certain level of a personality cult, a tendency towards draconian legislation (punishment of minor crimes with public beatings, maimings, or execution, highly arbitrary laws with no sense of jurisprudence, laws suddenly changing outlawing extremely common behaviors or objects, etc.), and a tendency towards military adventurism.
The First French Republic was an Oligarchy in theory, as governance was conducted by a small, elite group with divided powers (effectively, though, it was an anarchy, and did have many of the second-order features of a dictatorship).  The USSR was a complex case: it was definitely a dictatorship under Stalin, but was much more oligarchical afterwards. 
I would agree that dictatorships are very _effective_: I simply disagree that _efficiency_ is the defining virtue of the human condition.
In regards to medevial societies and oppression of competing ideologies: you'd be quite wrong there.  The Guild system, for example, was a "threat to society", but despite sporadic efforts to stop it, the guilds were effectively tolerated.  The same would go for Christianity, which in many cases would directly undermine the local rulership if the local rulers were acting contrary to doctrine.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 16, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> 1. A dictatorship is best defined as having the following traits:
> - The executive office is a lifetime position.
> - The executive office has no or token checks on power and has legislative power.
> - Citizens are considered to have zero, or close to zero, unalienable rights (or effectively have zero unalienable rights).
> ...



Your definition of a dictatorship makes a lot of sense. I might keep that one. The common features mostly sound like things you'd associate more with tyranny, which admittedly goes hand-in-hand with dictatorships. I think that's more because tyrannical people are more attracted to dictatorships than the "power corrupting" idea, but both are factors.

The point about the guilds is interesting. Guilds are kind of an economic necessity, though, like how people complain about industrial lobbying... yeah, it's a threat to democracy, but it's not going anywhere. Christianity in Medieval Europe is complicated since it's sort of like a parallel power structure. The ruler has absolute temporal power (in theory), but lacks legitimacy (as opposed to a cult of personality, where the leader is his own source of legitimacy). 

I'm curious how authorities would have reacted to guys running around saying that the kings needed to be abdicate and institute a republic. I assume that it would be considered treason and prosecuted, but I honestly don't know. I know that Enlightenment despots tended to allow for republican philosophers to live in their courts, but it was sort of a special period of tolerance, too.


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 16, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> "Nazis are evil, despicable people and the Holocaust shouldn't have happened! Now, let me tell you about how the Jews are evil parasites, dictatorship is great, and my political enemies should be killed or expelled from the country."



Where did he say political enemies should be killed or expelled? Did I miss that?


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (May 16, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Your definition of a dictatorship makes a lot of sense. I might keep that one. The common features mostly sound like things you'd associate more with tyranny, which admittedly goes hand-in-hand with dictatorships. I think that's more because tyrannical people are more attracted to dictatorships than the "power corrupting" idea, but both are factors.
> 
> The point about the guilds is interesting. Guilds are kind of an economic necessity, though, like how people complain about industrial lobbying... yeah, it's a threat to democracy, but it's not going anywhere. Christianity in Medieval Europe is complicated since it's sort of like a parallel power structure. The ruler has absolute temporal power (in theory), but lacks legitimacy (as opposed to a cult of personality, where the leader is his own source of legitimacy).
> 
> I'm curious how authorities would have reacted to guys running around saying that the kings needed to be abdicate and institute a republic. I assume that it would be considered treason and prosecuted, but I honestly don't know. I know that Enlightenment despots tended to allow for republican philosophers to live in their courts, but it was sort of a special period of tolerance, too.


1. I actually agree with you on this: my primary problem with dictatorships is that, even if you have a good ruler, you'd better hope the entire upper echelon is equally good, and all inheritors too.
2. Guilds weren't an economic necessity:the tradition of father-to-son apprenticeship had worked very well up until then.  The guilds could simply outcompete those systems, and the only way to destroy them would be essentially to put all tradesmen under constant surveillance- which wasn't logistically feasible at the time and would have been a huge drain on resources even if it was.
3. There wasn't much of a need for that, as most peasant towns were effectively governed by local councils who answered to the lord, and if the lord became tyrannical, due to the fact that the feudal system was structured in such a way that the lord owed good governance and protection to his serfs, the peasants would simply petition another lord to come to their aid and then revolt.  It was only when power became centralized enough that the peasant revolt was no longer effective as a means of a check on power that liberal ideals began to flourish.
I am a fan of liberal democracy, but if I had to pick a form of governance besides that, I would choose European feudalism.  At the bottom of my list would be kleptocracy or Imperial China, which was such a perfect example of the excesses of unanswerable autocracy that its existence seems to be as a divine reminder.  Did you know that there were shops in Bejing during the middle ages that sold human flesh to members of the ruling class?  Apparently, after a number of famines, the nobility developed a taste for it.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 16, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Where did he say political enemies should be killed or expelled? Did I miss that?



I said that somewhere. Political enemy also meaning more like actual party officials, not people with lawn signs I don't like.



Senior Lexmechanic said:


> 1. I actually agree with you on this: my primary problem with dictatorships is that, even if you have a good ruler, you'd better hope the entire upper echelon is equally good, and all inheritors too.
> 2. Guilds weren't an economic necessity:the tradition of father-to-son apprenticeship had worked very well up until then.  The guilds could simply outcompete those systems, and the only way to destroy them would be essentially to put all tradesmen under constant surveillance- which wasn't logistically feasible at the time and would have been a huge drain on resources even if it was.
> 3. There wasn't much of a need for that, as most peasant towns were effectively governed by local councils who answered to the lord, and if the lord became tyrannical, due to the fact that the feudal system was structured in such a way that the lord owed good governance and protection to his serfs, the peasants would simply petition another lord to come to their aid and then revolt.  It was only when power became centralized enough that the peasant revolt was no longer effective as a means of a check on power that liberal ideals began to flourish.
> I am a fan of liberal democracy, but if I had to pick a form of governance besides that, I would choose European feudalism.  At the bottom of my list would be kleptocracy or Imperial China, which was such a perfect example of the excesses of unanswerable autocracy that its existence seems to be as a divine reminder.  Did you know that there were shops in Bejing during the middle ages that sold human flesh to members of the ruling class?  Apparently, after a number of famines, the nobility developed a taste for it.



You're right, I was talking out my ass about guilds. Come to think of it, they're really shitty, being a cartel of sorts.

My understanding is that peasant revolts were mostly failures in the Middle Ages since peasants could easily be run down by professional soldiers, though if you had outside support, that would certainly change things. Was this a common occurrence, that other lords would sponsor the revolt? I understood it as that peasant revolts became more dangerous in the Renaissance, since muskets were an equalizer on the battlefield.

I'm somewhat of a fan of Imperial China, in concept, though they seem to have done a terrible job with it. The idea of a meritocracy governing things is appealing. I imagine you know a lot more about it than me, though. I do know that the meritocracy wasn't really about practical skills, but more Confucian bullshit. WTF is up with the human flesh thing?


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (May 16, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> I said that somewhere. Political enemy also meaning more like actual party officials, not people with lawn signs I don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1. Guilds were a huge driver of technological progress, however, as they allowed for superior construction techniques to spread across Europe and for the first standardization of labor and techniques thanks to guild initiation.  They also provided a way for tradesmen to protect themselves against the nobility; if you ill-treated a member of a guild, you would have to settle for inferior, non-guild labor from that point on.
2. While peasant revolts at large generally failed (although they would generally lead to grudging reforms in policy, based on the pragmatic reasons of not wanting to have to kill half of your laborers), smaller-scale events that I would term "peasant double-crosses" were more successful: in these cases, the local peasantry would generally function as a "fifth column" of irregulars undermining a particularly disliked or tyrannical local noble.
3. The ideals of Imperial China- namely, a well-structured meritocratic system run for the good of all- are appealing, but the practice was a nightmare bureaucracy ruled by bugfuck insane perverts and sinister castrati.  The cannibalism, as I said, arose from members of the upper classes who lived through famines: to survive, they turned to cannibalism, and persisted in it afterwards due to a preference for the flavor and texture of human flesh and organs.  Normally, beggars, iterant monks, and orphans were targeted for harvest: orphans were especially valued for the same reasons veal is more valuable than steak.  If these weren't available, the butchers would often have to target people going home from the tavern or prostitutes.  As for why this was permitted: Chinese society didn't believe that the lives of individual humans had any value: your value was entirely in what you meant to the State and the Emperor.  So, if someone more valuable than you wanted to eat you, or have you crushed to death just to hear what your screams sounded like, or wanted to extensively mutilate you to be part of a menagerie of victims, that was their right, and it was only just as they were more important to the universe than your worthless, wretched self.
Those other two examples are real things Chinese nobles did, too.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 16, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> 1. Guilds were a huge driver of technological progress, however, as they allowed for superior construction techniques to spread across Europe and for the first standardization of labor and techniques thanks to guild initiation.  They also provided a way for tradesmen to protect themselves against the nobility; if you ill-treated a member of a guild, you would have to settle for inferior, non-guild labor from that point on.
> 2. While peasant revolts at large generally failed (although they would generally lead to grudging reforms in policy, based on the pragmatic reasons of not wanting to have to kill half of your laborers), smaller-scale events that I would term "peasant double-crosses" were more successful: in these cases, the local peasantry would generally function as a "fifth column" of irregulars undermining a particularly disliked or tyrannical local noble.
> 3. The ideals of Imperial China- namely, a well-structured meritocratic system run for the good of all- are appealing, but the practice was a nightmare bureaucracy ruled by bugfuck insane perverts and sinister castrati.  The cannibalism, as I said, arose from members of the upper classes who lived through famines: to survive, they turned to cannibalism, and persisted in it afterwards due to a preference for the flavor and texture of human flesh and organs.  Normally, beggars, iterant monks, and orphans were targeted for harvest: orphans were especially valued for the same reasons veal is more valuable than steak.  If these weren't available, the butchers would often have to target people going home from the tavern or prostitutes.  As for why this was permitted: Chinese society didn't believe that the lives of individual humans had any value: your value was entirely in what you meant to the State and the Emperor.  So, if someone more valuable than you wanted to eat you, or have you crushed to death just to hear what your screams sounded like, or wanted to extensively mutilate you to be part of a menagerie of victims, that was their right, and it was only just as they were more important to the universe than your worthless, wretched self.
> Those other two examples are real things Chinese nobles did, too.



Not to get all gay on you, but you have an impressive knowledge of history.

There seem to be problems associated with having chaste men in positions of authority, given that it's also one of the big factors behind the Catholics being taken over by pedos. It seems like Chinese meritocracy could have possibly functioned better if they had a different religion to base it around. I haven't studied Confucianism _that_ much, but I would think that its humanist principles should have curtailed some of that, whether or not people really live up to the standards of their religion in practice. Likewise for the Buddhist influences.

Either way, China is fucked up, and when I had Chinese History in college it imparted a strong disdain for the actual nation mixed with an admiration for its religions. Any nation that's that big and advanced but repeatedly gets invaded and conquered by horse niggers deserves no respect. Foot binding blew my mind, too. I genuinely believe that the first Emperor to implement it was a pedophile, since that's the only reason I can think of to prefer women with tiny feet. Fucking crippling women as a form of conspicious consumption.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (May 17, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Not to get all gay on you, but you have an impressive knowledge of history.
> 
> There seem to be problems associated with having chaste men in positions of authority, given that it's also one of the big factors behind the Catholics being taken over by pedos. It seems like Chinese meritocracy could have possibly functioned better if they had a different religion to base it around. I haven't studied Confucianism _that_ much, but I would think that its humanist principles should have curtailed some of that, whether or not people really live up to the standards of their religion in practice. Likewise for the Buddhist influences.
> 
> Either way, China is fucked up, and when I had Chinese History in college it imparted a strong disdain for the actual nation mixed with an admiration for its religions. Any nation that's that big and advanced but repeatedly gets invaded and conquered by horse niggers deserves no respect. Foot binding blew my mind, too. I genuinely believe that the first Emperor to implement it was a pedophile, since that's the only reason I can think of to prefer women with tiny feet. Fucking crippling women as a form of conspicious consumption.


1. I have good retention and am passionate about all sorts of subjects.  I've been compared to Sheldon, although more accurate was the person who compared me to Mycroft Holmes.
2. The Emperors and nobles were _very_ unchaste and they were the source of most of the depravity.  The eunuchs generally acted as an ameliorating force; although they formed their own potent faction in China's courtly games, despite frequently being executed.
3. Confucianism isn't really "humanist" _per se_: it just advocates submission to the Mandate of Heaven rather than God.  The form of Confucianism practiced in the government was heavily influenced by Legalism, which believed that humans were inherently evil and needed to be ruled with an iron rod.
4. Steppe peoples have an incredible talent for conquering peoples: Rome was also felled by steppe people.  So was India.  Eastern Europe, too.  Really, the only places that haven't fallen at some point in their history to Steppe people are those places that can't be ridden to on the backs of tiny horses (not to say there weren't efforts: for example, the Mongolian invasions of Japan).  I have great respect for people who wrote the first book (or, more likely horse-hide) on winning sieges and effectively administrating China without resorting to cannibalism, fratricide, or incredibly inventive forms of torture.


----------



## NN 401 (May 17, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> 1. I have good retention and am passionate about all sorts of subjects.  I've been compared to Sheldon, although more accurate was the person who compared me to Mycroft Holmes.
> 2. The Emperors and nobles were _very_ unchaste and they were the source of most of the depravity.  The eunuchs generally acted as an ameliorating force; although they formed their own potent faction in China's courtly games, despite frequently being executed.
> 3. Confucianism isn't really "humanist" _per se_: it just advocates submission to the Mandate of Heaven rather than God.  The form of Confucianism practiced in the government was heavily influenced by Legalism, which believed that humans were inherently evil and needed to be ruled with an iron rod.
> 4. Steppe peoples have an incredible talent for conquering peoples: Rome was also felled by steppe people.  So was India.  Eastern Europe, too.  Really, the only places that haven't fallen at some point in their history to Steppe people are those places that can't be ridden to on the backs of tiny horses (not to say there weren't efforts: for example, the Mongolian invasions of Japan).  I have great respect for people who wrote the first book (or, more likely horse-hide) on winning sieges and effectively administrating China without resorting to cannibalism, fratricide, or incredibly inventive forms of torture.





.....


I have joked that it is only a matter of time before the traditional Chinese medicine racket starts targeting black people for use in their virility concoctions and then I read this....

Soon... D:


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 17, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> So was India. Eastern Europe, too. Really, the only places that haven't fallen at some point in their history to Steppe people are those places that can't be ridden to on the backs of tiny horses


Why do you say "tiny horses"?


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 17, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> 4. Steppe peoples have an incredible talent for conquering peoples: Rome was also felled by steppe people.  So was India.  Eastern Europe, too.  Really, the only places that haven't fallen at some point in their history to Steppe people are those places that can't be ridden to on the backs of tiny horses (not to say there weren't efforts: for example, the Mongolian invasions of Japan).  I have great respect for people who wrote the first book (or, more likely horse-hide) on winning sieges and effectively administrating China without resorting to cannibalism, fratricide, or incredibly inventive forms of torture.



I can forgive being conquered by nomads once or twice. It's when it becomes a pattern that it's a problem. Like seriously, even the Russians only got conquered once (by nomads) to my knowledge, and they didn't have a massive, technologically-advanced, well-organized empire.


----------



## Love Machine (May 17, 2019)

The whole jew thing is all because its based on reality. On the world stage they are a small population, too small to deal with any problem with numbers. So their only way to survive after getting shit on for a good portion of their history is nepotism, subterfuge, and
cronyism. They have become masters at it, this combined with the fact that they have been given the golden goose of victim hood thanks to the Nazis allows them to keep them in the game and playing. They are a race of perpetual victims, at this point they will never achieve greatness, they will always be shadowmen and carpetbaggers. It's a great niche they've got, and also one people look down on. Its just the natural way of things.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (May 17, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Why do you say "tiny horses"?


Steppe horses tend to be smaller than the European breeds due to lack of easy nutrients.


----------



## Spatula (May 17, 2019)

Essentially, they are living the alt-right dream, but without repercussions because of their WW2 past. (Minus the circumcision)


----------



## WhoIsSutterKane (May 21, 2019)

There are a lot of anti-zionist people on the left these days as well.


----------



## RadicalCentrist (May 21, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> 1. I have good retention and am passionate about all sorts of subjects. I've been compared to Sheldon, although more accurate was the person who compared me to Mycroft Holmes.





Senior Lexmechanic said:


> I've been compared to *Sheldon*


Alright you had me going for a minute but  way to blow it at the end, chumbo.


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 22, 2019)

My previous question has gone unanswered. The question whether it really is easy to criticize jews (for the alt right).

Now I have a new question as I was just watching a Joe Rogan talk:







I was also thinking of the lefties I knew a couple of years ago in my country, that had a considerable anti-israel worldview, some of which actively travelled to palestine and risked their lives getting past military checkpoints and protesting. Of course although criticism of israel is criticism of jews, criticism of jews is not necessarily criticism of israel.

It seems I'm not the only one who noticed:



WhoIsSutterKane said:


> There are a lot of anti-zionist people on the left these days as well.



I don't think I've ever met a muslim who wasn't very critical of jews (which is the first thing I ask of any person when I meet them) and one of the reasons for rising anti-semitism in Europe is because of the larger growing islamic population.

Also, yes, there was a joke in there, it's a small sample, because although I've met many muslims, it's not a topic that comes up quickly.

From talking to americans I get the impression that their experience with muslims is remarkedly different, though both observation in regards to Dearborn and Nation of Islam puts some doubt in my mind about the clarity of perceptions of americans in this regard. Muslims in Europe were a lot more "go with the flow" before they reached a certain critical mass, and more than a few people have noticed muslims become more islamic over time and even cutting friendship ties with non-muslims (as is often recommended, for how can you make friendship with someone that does not put allah first in his life?).

Now what exactly "anti-semitism" means might well need its own topic; because although the way we typically use it is not the way how it is defined in various laws, if I'm not mistaken US law includes criticism of dual loyalty to israel / united states as a form of antisemitism for example, which would also mean criticizing Biden would be anti-semitic as he said "you don't have to be jewish to be a zionist".

I know I'm bringing up a lot of disparate things, but I wanted to somewhat set the stage for the following question. Is it really just the alt-right that critizes jews?


----------

