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

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

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.



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

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]

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.

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]

"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]

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]

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.

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]

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



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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Why do you say "tiny horses"?

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

 

[Spatula]

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

 

[WhoIsSutterKane]

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

 

[RadicalCentrist]

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.

I've been compared to Sheldon

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

 

[Lemmingwise]

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:

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?