Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Postby Seneca on October 17th, 2015, 10:01 pm

jumpy64 wrote:
pov603 wrote:Jumpy, I think you'll find it was a joke! Ease up a bit.


OK! IC got me, then... :D

But like most good humor there is some truth in it. If there really is a conspiracy dominated by circumcised liars, that would be a way to prove you're not one of them.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Postby jumpy64 on October 18th, 2015, 1:58 pm

Seneca wrote:
jumpy64 wrote:
pov603 wrote:Jumpy, I think you'll find it was a joke! Ease up a bit.


OK! IC got me, then... :D

But like most good humor there is some truth in it. If there really is a conspiracy dominated by circumcised liars, that would be a way to prove you're not one of them.


Good point! :D
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Postby Seneca on October 18th, 2015, 5:51 pm

I think this is an excellent post by edgewaters.
edgewaters wrote:
jumpy64 wrote:I think the most important thing would be trying to find out who's really behind the conspiracy to keep humanity in its present sorry state, and what, if anything, we can do about that.


I disagree. It would certainly be good to discover this, but I don't think it's the most important thing. The most important thing is to expose the methods, because that's the only protection. Discovering the perps can serve justice, but it doesn't provide much protection ... a new bunch will just come along and replace them as long as the method remains viable. But if the method isn't viable, then that truly is game over.

Let us hope that by zooming in on the perps we can expose more of their methods and protect more people.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Postby Seneca on October 19th, 2015, 3:40 pm

jumpy64 wrote:I think the brainwashing dimension is essential to understand how a group (or "tribe" if you will) of our fellow human beings can be conditioned to act "with no concerns for morality nor the slightest empathy for the other tribes sharing this world", as in Simon's brilliantly concise definition.
I am not so happy with the usage of the word "tribe" by Simon and jumpy64. We had some good words already: JPM's, Talmudists (Simon), Sayanim, Pharisees (from Elizabeth Dilling 's book).

I will explain what I mean and what I have against other general terms. The main problem I have with the word tribe is that it is too broad. It encompasses everyone who identifies himself for some part with the term "jew". And as I wrote I think there are many among them who don't teach their children to see other people as inferior. Now what do you expect these people to think when they discover this website. I think they have a few choices.
-"They are wrong about this, I am a member of this tribe and I am not like that. So they are probably mistaken about the rest too."
-"They are right most of the time, so maybe they are right about this as well; I don't want to be part of this tribe anymore!"

Will this help our struggle much? I doubt so. They would likely end up ruining their relationships with most of their friends and family who are not as far as them. It would become very hard to get any of their connections to learn from our research. It would become very hard to do their own research in their community. These choices are not always taken consciously, I think our brains would go for the first choice.

When we refer to this group as Talmudists, jewish people have other choices. They could check the book out and decide if it should stay a part of the culture that they want to give their children. They don't have to break up with their friends, unless they are real devote followers of that book (in which case it wouldn't be very bad). They could talk to other people asking them what they think of that book. They could explain why they don't like it. I think this is much more helpful, for one reason because it has the potential to isolate the Talmudists (or JPM's, whatever) .
Maybe someone can explain this better, writing English doesn't go very well today.
Maybe we should ask some of the good jews out there ?
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Postby jumpy64 on October 19th, 2015, 5:51 pm

Seneca wrote:
jumpy64 wrote:I think the brainwashing dimension is essential to understand how a group (or "tribe" if you will) of our fellow human beings can be conditioned to act "with no concerns for morality nor the slightest empathy for the other tribes sharing this world", as in Simon's brilliantly concise definition.
I am not so happy with the usage of the word "tribe" by Simon and jumpy64. We had some good words already: JPM's, Talmudists (Simon), Sayanim, Pharisees (from Elizabeth Dilling 's book).

I will explain what I mean and what I have against other general terms. The main problem I have with the word tribe is that it is too broad. It encompasses everyone who identifies himself for some part with the term "jew". And as I wrote I think there are many among them who don't teach their children to see other people as inferior. Now what do you expect these people to think when they discover this website. I think they have a few choices.
-"They are wrong about this, I am a member of this tribe and I am not like that. So they are probably mistaken about the rest too."
-"They are right most of the time, so maybe they are right about this as well; I don't want to be part of this tribe anymore!"

Will this help our struggle much? I doubt so. They would likely end up ruining their relationships with most of their friends and family who are not as far as them. It would become very hard to get any of their connections to learn from our research. It would become very hard to do their own research in their community. These choices are not always taken consciously, I think our brains would go for the first choice.

When we refer to this group as Talmudists, jewish people have other choices. They could check the book out and decide if it should stay a part of the culture that they want to give their children. They don't have to break up with their friends, unless they are real devote followers of that book (in which case it wouldn't be very bad). They could talk to other people asking them what they think of that book. They could explain why they don't like it. I think this is much more helpful, for one reason because it has the potential to isolate the Talmudists (or JPM's, whatever) .
Maybe someone can explain this better, writing English doesn't go very well today.
Maybe we should ask some of the good jews out there ?


Thank you, Seneca, point taken. I've edited my post. I can't edit the quote, but I think the term "tribe" balances out there, because Simon uses it to define both the Jews and the "other tribes".
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Postby Seneca on November 11th, 2015, 4:06 pm

jumpy64 wrote:Thank you, Seneca, point taken. I've edited my post. I can't edit the quote, but I think the term "tribe" balances out there, because Simon uses it to define both the Jews and the "other tribes".

Thanks for editing that post in the open conspiracy topic. I will use another quote from that topic to illustrate another point without derailing the topic.
hoi.poloi wrote:You are right to point out what evil there is in Judaic fanaticism. I don't think I missed that point. I just think all religious fanaticisms have their particular characteristics; that's why they are considered different world views. To say that one world view is more insidious than another is itself a basic tenant of a world view.

The problem with saying one is just pointing out what one observes about other world views is that it inherently relies on the world views of the writer. I am skeptical of all world views including my own, but I have faith in my little principle that people see things very differently from one another on this planet, and trying very hard to understand those different world views is productive (unless it reaches the point of exhaustion).


What does this mean: "To say that one world view is more insidious than another is itself a basic tenant of a world view."

This reminds me of an idea that many (educated) Western people have adopted. That it is bad to criticize another culture. Because that criticism is always informed by your own culture and is a form of ethnocentricity.

I would love to hear from Hoi and other people what they think about that idea I underlined, which I believed for a long time, if I remember correctly.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Postby ICfreely on November 11th, 2015, 8:50 pm

I think moral relativism is a euphemism for mental retardation. It’s a psychological tactic which pits rational intelligence against emotional intelligence thereby creating cognitive dissonance. IMO, cross-cultural criticism is a healthy peer-review of sorts. For instance, I wasn’t offended by your “Don’t want to be an American Idiot” post in the “Songs that speak the truth” thread (although I can’t stand Billie Joe Armstrong’s poser, wanna-be Brit punk rocker accent). I don’t think Critical Mass is offended by my ‘crusade’ against the Royal Society of London.

IMO, if you think of yourself as a victim, you’ll most likely scapegoat your perceived oppressor. In so doing, you cloud your judgment & build a false, fear-based construct of reality. Speaking of which, I was dumbfounded by an article I just read. It touches on many of the topics bandied about lately on CF. Here it is in its entirety:


NYU JILP Symposium: The Memories of Collectives, the Gadgetry of Victimhood
November 11th, 2015
by Mark Drumbl

[Mark A. Drumbl is the Class of 1975 Alumni Professor of Law and Director, Transnational Law Institute, Washington & Lee University, and Visiting Scholar, CICJ, VU University Amsterdam.]

This post is part of the NYU Journal of International Law and Politics, Vol. 47, No. 4, symposium. Other posts in this series can be found in the related posts below.


Atrocity begins with story-telling. Elegies lament unrighted wrongs from ancient battles. Fables weave and spin the bravado of national or ethnic superiority. The roll, pitch, and yaw of an entire literature ritualizes dehumanization: stories of vermin, poisonous mushrooms in children’s books, bespectacled intellectuals, enemies of the state. Then come exhortations to cut the tall trees, to take out the garbage, and to make way for Lebensraum. The filth is to be scrubbed, the society purified, the landscape cleansed.

Atrocity metastasizes once these stories become performed. New stories then emerge. These stories narrate pain and suffering. Their tales, however, may redound with redemption; their ballads may record harrowing strategies of survival paired with forensic accounts of death; at times, too, chants of resistance arise.

In the aftermath of atrocity, these stories become memory. The construction of memory, then, becomes an act of the living and a sign of life. For survivors, authorship over memory represents the exercise of agency and autonomy. For perpetrators and their supporters, revising (or denying) memory – also an act of authorship – becomes a tactic to thrive in changing times.

It is no surprise that in the aftermath of mass atrocity the recovery of memory, and its reclamation, matters so much to so many. The hunger for memory, however, intersects with the blandness of law. This encounter frustrates, perhaps most acutely for victims.

It is here that Professor Lopez enters the conversation. She recognizes this frustration. She also gestures towards a path forward. For her, law can respect memory. [ :huh: ] It can channel stories of survival, subjugation, and suffering. While Professor Lopez is an optimist about law’s potential, she remains more circumspect about how, exactly, we should understand memory. In a particularly thoughtful argument, she contends that conversations ought to move towards “collective memory.” For Professor Lopez, collective memory arises when those most affected by mass atrocity “though discussion and ritual … merge their fragmented recollections into one holistic narrative.” Collective memory is unscripted. It emerges organically through a synthesis of informal conversations, shared glances, tacit rejections, and knowing nods. Drawing from a rich array of sources, Professor Lopez posits that collective memory is more accurate, consistent, and concise than individual memory.

In sum, then, Professor Lopez effectively exposes law’s predilection for individual conduct and illustrates how this penchant inhibits law’s ability to inflect collective action. For her, this is a loss. It is a loss because victims yearn for more. Professor Lopez’s response is reformist. Human rights lawyers should preserve and promote collective memory. Integrating collective memory of victims into legal process, for Professor Lopez, would clarify how atrocity begins and could document the pain it inflicts, while also furthering aspirations of reconciliation, transition, the development of an historical record, nation-building, and legal reform.

How to accommodate collective memory into legal proceedings? Professor Lopez’s recognizes that the criminal law may find such accommodations awkward, if not downright unworkable. The criminal law, after all, is primarily about adjudging the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The need to focus on the defendant requires the foregrounding of all sorts of due process rules. This need stymies the use of collective memory in penal process because collective memory cannot be properly vetted. Professor Lopez therefore directs our gaze elsewhere. She points to tort-based claims, action civile, and the victims’ participation scheme built by the Rome Statute and present at the ECCC.

Professor Lopez’s article makes a tremendously valuable contribution to the literature on transitional justice. Her diagnosis of law’s foibles, and her proclamation of the potential of collective memory, is sterling. She has the courage to offer some remedial responses. Her article is a rich base for a symposium.

For me, her piece opens two shutters. The first is architectural. The second is discursive.

On architecture: if collective memory is a worthwhile goal, a claim on which Professor Lopez convinces, then why bother to hook it into penal process? Why must the criminal law always hang around, diversified cosmetically with hangers-on like partie civile or victim’s participation? If criminal law can’t accommodate collective memory (which it can’t, really) and if collective memory matters (which it does), then why not jettison the criminal law as a point of reference? The criminal law cannot be all things to all people all the time. Massaging goals of restoration, reparation, reconciliation, and now the preservation of collective memory into an architectural framework girded by penal process (the guilt or innocence of the defendant pursuant to prosecutorial charges) may simply be too much or, perhaps, far too little. Rather than subordinating collective memory, why not give it its own institutions entirely, including at the international level? These institutions could eschew the adversarialism, microscopic truths, and rules of evidence that contour legal process. And perhaps lawyers – whether steeped in criminal law, civil litigation, arbitration, or mediation – should stray, or perhaps simply stay, far away from them.

On discourse, or – better put – story-telling: in the aftermath of atrocity, how often does a single shared collective memory of victimhood emerge? Professor Lopez elaborates how, following sustained human rights abuses, an informal distillation of collective memory emerges. But care should be had not to overstate the impulse among survivors to unite and together remember experiences. The collectivization of memory in the aftermath of mass violence may not necessarily be seamless or integrative. Instead, this process may be fraught with dissensus. This dissensus, however, may be healthy. It may democratize. Pushing one correct remembrance, and collectivizing it, risks memorializing the experiences of the strongest among the survivors while neglecting the recollections of the weakest. Survivors may remember differently, or memorialize selectively, or in many cases not wish to remember anything at all and simply overlook (or forget).

It is not always the case, moreover, that one collective memory organically emerges. Hence, it may be more apt to speak of collective memories. And these aggregated memories may compete, complement, or even contradict.

In post-war Poland, as I discuss in a forthcoming article in the Journal of International Criminal Justice, memories of human rights abuses were synthesized, to be sure, but into different collectives. One collective memory was that of Jewish suffering at the hands of the Nazis. Poland, after all, was the site of several of the most horrific German concentration camps. Another memory, deliberately distilled and articulated by the Supreme National Tribunal of Poland, recollects Polish suffering at the hands of Nazi Germanization. This Tribunal was created to circulate this memory precisely because of Polish frustration with the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg’s perceived anemia in concretizing the Nazi fervor to destroy the Polish nation. A third collective narrative involved efforts to memorialize extensive Soviet atrocities: a politically pointless endeavor at the time and for many decades thereafter.
If collectivized memories are diverse, then, the choice as to which one to authenticate, or which one to solemnize more than others, become deeply contested and political.

The ICC’s inclusion of victim participation and entitlements to reparation, however beneficial, has created new tensions. Who is a victim? What is a memory of victimization? Who can claim to survive atrocity? Law’s categories include only by excluding. This is the legal imperative. Yet, collective memories of suffering in times of atrocity are capacious. Saira Mohamed daringly writes about perpetrator trauma. The Dominic Ongwen case, as I have discussed elsewhere, uncorks the granularity of when a victim becomes a victimizer and the victimizer, too, is a victim. Ongwen – a formerly abducted child soldier – is soon to face prosecution at the ICC. He is accused of crimes that he himself suffered, to wit, enslavement as a crime against humanity and apparently now child soldiering.

By-standers and side-standers, upstanding collaborators, idlers, piddlers, and profiteers also may see themselves as victims.

We are spending the semester in Amsterdam. Last month we and took our children to the Dutch Resistance Museum. The museum has a gripping children’s section. I say gripping because it held the attention of our eight- and six-year old sons. It did so because it narrates life in Amsterdam during the Second World War through the stories of four children: Henk, Ava, Nelly, and Jan. Jan’s family is in the resistance. Henk’s family members are mind-your-own-business types and Henk initially finds the war exciting. Nelly’s parents are avid Nazi collaborators. Eva is Jewish. In the last room, each of these four children – real people – appear in video recordings as they now are, namely, elderly. It is Nelly who most sees herself as a victim: a victim of imprisonment after the war, a victim because her memories of a joyful adolescence in spirited (and healthy, fit, tanned) right-wing youth groups now are socially toxic, and because she is dogged by loneliness and longing. A conjured victimhood? Glib? Pitiful? Sure: but her memories are, for her and anyone who listens, very real.
http://opiniojuris.org/2015/11/11/nyu-jilp-symposium-the-memories-of-collectives-the-gadgetry-of-victimhood/#more-32202


A conjured victimhood? Glib? Pitiful? Sure: but Mark Drumbl’s memories are, for him and anyone who listens, very real.

I’m interested in CF’s contributors’ (you, Simon, Hoi, Farcevalue, Anonjedi2, BTO, Jumpy, etc.) take on the above article. In particular, CF’s legal minds (smj, SacredCowSlayer and CF’s senior legal eagle – The Honorable Fbenario!).
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Postby hoi.polloi on November 12th, 2015, 8:10 am

Seneca wrote:What does this mean: "To say that one world view is more insidious than another is itself a basic tenant of a world view."

This reminds me of an idea that many (educated) Western people have adopted. That it is bad to criticize another culture. Because that criticism is always informed by your own culture and is a form of ethnocentricity.


Every culture has venues for critiquing other cultures. The ways in which those venues differ contributes to breakdowns in communication between cultures at peace, and those breakdowns seem to be the first place exploited by wedges of propaganda placed by militants of either culture.

Why we would want to point precisely at these conflicts without showing the highest amount of desire for understanding them without emotional pleas is indicative to me that we are creating a platform for the most enormous disagreements known to humankind.

Why we would want our forum to get buried in such things, I cannot say.

Is it bad to criticize another culture? Hmm, that's a valuable question. In America we are taught something called "political correctness" which many people on the Internet complain about, because it feels to them like censorship. In that case, it may be considered bad not to criticize other cultures.

But when it is done, I think it's best done sensitively, in person, with the presence of members of the culture being critiqued, with the expectation that you might get some responses from that culture about your own.

However, that's just my personal opinion and so although I haven't seen many people be very tactful about their discussions of other cultures, this is the Internet and free speech is important, so we should support the discussion threads about evils done in the world by various cultures even when they are a bit clumsy. After all, how much experience have we had?

We should also bear in mind that pitting world views is the main tenant of a lot of propaganda. And so it's a subject that I think should be treated delicately — not to protect propagandists but to prevent ourselves shooting ourselves in the foot in the eyes of interested readers. So far, we've only appeared to offend a couple members (who were not acting totally forthright or intelligently) so I would say it's not going so badly. And that's a big credit to our forum.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4830
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Postby jumpy64 on November 12th, 2015, 12:08 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Is it bad to criticize another culture? Hmm, that's a valuable question. In America we are taught something called "political correctness" which many people on the Internet complain about, because it feels to them like censorship. In that case, it may be considered bad not to criticize other cultures.

But when it is done, I think it's best done sensitively, in person, with the presence of members of the culture being critiqued, with the expectation that you might get some responses from that culture about your own.


Regarding the second part of the quote, I would like to have more declared members of the Jewish culture participating to the discussion, but unfortunately so far we've had only one that I remember: Omaxsteve, whom I have always commended for declaring his cultural/religious allegiance.

I don't know how many members Cluesforum has. I think it's much more than a hundred, but even if it were a hundred, considering that Jews are at least 2% of the world population, we should have at least two members of the Jewish culture here.

Evidently Jews, who are usually overrepresented in intellectual endeavors, are underrepresented in this forum. Or maybe there are some who so far have not felt comfortable with divulging details of their cultural/religious upbringing, as Simon, Seneca and I (and probably someone else I don't remember right now) have done, for example.

That could be understandable, I guess, but maybe someone will respond to Hoi's observation by declaring a link with or at least a more direct knowledge of the Jewish culture and/or religion. Since I'm discovering here that there are some peculiar rules for the transimission of the so-called Jewish race, it could be also an incomplete link through the wrong parent (i.e. the father, since apparently you need a Jewish mother to be considered Jewish) or a more distant relative, I don't know.

I still hope that will happen sooner or later. But if it won't, it's not anybody's fault here. Nobody has ever prevented anyone of any culture or religion from participating freely to the debate, I think.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Postby hoi.polloi on November 12th, 2015, 1:40 pm

You're right jumpy64. And of course, I find it quite suspicious that no Jews have joined the forum to say, "You know what? Here is the strange abuse going on that I have observed. Here are the lies that are told in such-and-such Jewish community." And why did member Selene take such quick offense to the most simple of questions about that obviously propaganda-infused "Holocaust"?

It adds credence to your theory that the tribal bond of Judaic beliefs is not limited to the Talmud. Of course, it is important to specify and clarify as much as possible. However, I think it is safe for me to speculate that there may be some kind of subconscious fear instilled in Jews everywhere that "Jews are constantly persecuted! Look out! Don't trust non-Jews!" and perhaps that is one reason the media constantly emphasizes the lie. "Don't step outta line, or you're a self-hating Jew! Nazis are everywhere!"

It's really a ridiculous and somewhat offensive paranoia, but it's even worse because I am positive that there are extremists in such an "opinion leader" position who spew that poison in one very public direction and meanwhile secretly plan their next colonial or systemic attack on a sovereign people that does little to truly benefit the generic Jewish populace, except perhaps some kind of twisted ego boost for what Americans would call its "conservative" members. I am not a huge fan of States, but when they're happily born by an innocent indigenous people who have found their State is the only way to survive an imperial invasion, and some Zionist schemer acts like that is some kind of invitation to parasitically attack and weaken the host for take over by an Anglo ally or other alliance, I must wonder if the devil you know (States) is better than the alternative — an arrogant, deluded and self-important "race" claiming its medieval beliefs bring an important element to the civilizations they target.

I would also like to echo jumpy64's invitation to anyone with any experience in any sort of Jewish community, where they have noticed such things, that here on this forum is a safe place your exposure of the dark underbelly can be safely written out. And such a person should not fear being "persecuted". On the contrary, we would highly welcome those who are capable of examining their own culture and recognizing what mania or fanaticism may have seized its leadership, just as we have done so regarding our own American and Italian "bosses" and "leaders" that are abusing their power.

I think, sadly, just as there are so few of us researchers capable of looking at this stuff in the entire English-language Internet-using public, there is also probably an even smaller percentage within any given ethnic pool willing to share known inherited evils with outside cultures. Especially so for a nexus of cultures that have so comfortably stationed themselves with (if not as) recent and current empires.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4830
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Postby jumpy64 on November 12th, 2015, 2:05 pm

Seneca wrote:What does this mean: "To say that one world view is more insidious than another is itself a basic tenant of a world view."

This reminds me of an idea that many (educated) Western people have adopted. That it is bad to criticize another culture. Because that criticism is always informed by your own culture and is a form of ethnocentricity.

I would love to hear from Hoi and other people what they think about that idea I underlined, which I believed for a long time, if I remember correctly.


I think here you're referring to the idea of cultural relativism, Seneca, which as far as I know was introduced by Jewish anthropologist Franz Boas in the first decades of the 20th century, and maybe also to moral relativism, which seems to have more ancient origins, but it's represented in our modern era by Sephardic Jew philosopher Baruch Spinoza.

While Spinoza notably held that nothing is inherently good or evil, Boas considered any form of ethnocentrism - including criticism of other cultures as a product of the ethnocentrism in question - as a pathology. But since he was strongly identified with his Jewish affiliation, Jewish ethnocentrism was excluded from the "scientific" examination, unfortunately.

For me cultural relativism especially is one of the best examples of the blatant use of double standars involving the Jews and the rest of the world, i.e. what is good for "Jews" must be made bad for "Gentiles" (in this case, we're talking about having a strong racial/cultural identity). I think its main function, from Boas' perspective (and a bit later also from that of the mainly Jewish Frankfurt School) was to undermine "Gentile" culture though what professor Kevin MacDonald defines "The culture of critique", while at the same time preventing criticism of the Jewish culture. I plan to write a post about professor MacDonald's work in the "Hidden in plain sight" thread, also to expand on the concepts oversynthesized here.

But coming back to what pertains to our discussion here, I think "cultural relativism" can be used to stifle it. Since it's obvious and implicit that each one on earth comes from a particular culture, I think that, instead of talking about "cultures" in general, anyone who's participating to the discussion should declare his cultural background, so that we can know where everyone is coming from, and take that into due consideration, also to try and and understand him or her better, as Hoi especially invites us to do.

I think I have done that for myself, but I have no problems in doing it again here in more detail.

Being Italian, I come from a catholic upbringing, then I became an atheist (and politically a radical leftist) when I was fifteen, and stayed that way until, in the Eighties, I tried buddhism for a while, then esotericism. I abandoned my "esoteric" studies after discovering the Indian "philosopher" Krishnamurti. In the nineties I discovered and embraced the "New Age movement" and a "syncretistic" form of spiritual culture. Then in the 21st century I went back to a more personal version of the Christian (and not necessarily Catholic) religion, adopting also a more "conservative" political view, and lately I've re-discovered a more Western version of Buddhism (which includes also strong elements of Christianity) though the teachings of the popular German author Eckhart Tolle.

So now, after having "exposed" my cultural and religious background, I feel somewhat entitled to ask to other people to do the same. And especially to you, Hoi, since you're the one here who's predominantly advocating points of view that seem influenced by cultural relativism, and since you've also tried at least a couple of times to put me on the "psychoanalist's couch", so to speak, by asking me "how I feel" and what brings me to questioning Jewish influence in our society.

So of course you're free not to answer my question, Hoi, but at this point, as I said, I feel entitled to ask it. Where do you come from? What kind of cultural and religious environment did you grow up in? Being an American, the kind of conditioning you were subjected to is less obvious. Was it Chistian (Catholic or protestant)? Atheistic? Jewish? Buddhist? Hindu? Muslim? Something else?

Please help us understand you better, as you're asking us to do with anyone else. What's the starting point of your perspective, relativistic as it seems or otherwise? Whatever it is, I'm convinced it's nothing to be ashamed of, and I hope you (and others here) will agree with me on this point.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Postby jumpy64 on November 12th, 2015, 2:26 pm

I'm sorry, Hoi, but I had not read your latest post when I posted mine, and the system didn't alert me to the new post, as it usually does, so we probably have posted almost at the same time :)

Anyway, I've given a cursory look at your post, and it seems very interesting. Now I can't answer it because I have a foot out of the door already, but I'll come back to it, and hopefully also to your answer to my latest post, when I'll be home again.

See ya!
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Postby ICfreely on November 12th, 2015, 2:43 pm

Jewish people are composed of three ethnic groups – Ashkenazi, Mizrahi & Sephardic. In Israel, the Ashkenazi are first class citizens & the Mizrahi/Sephardic are second class citizens. It’s not really a big secret. It is, however, a taboo subject for the media. Last year’s Donald Sterling controversy highlighted this fact.

Donald Sterling points to Israel, V. Stiviano cites Holocaust
By Daniel Treiman April 28, 2014 12:18am

L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s scolding of his mixed-race girlfriend for associating with black people is no longer just an appalling exchange at the center of a media frenzy. It’s now an appalling exchange at the center of a media frenzy that involves Israel and the Holocaust.

The NBA announced that it is probing Sterling after audio surfaced of a man identified as him berating his girlfriend, V. Stiviano, for posting photos to Instagram of herself posing with black athletes. In the audio, Sterling also warns his girlfriend not to bring black people to Clippers games.

Now more audio from the conversation has been released by the website Deadspin. In it, the man identified as Sterling is heard explaining that his views reflect the way the world works, and as evidence he says that black Jews in Israel “are just treated like dogs.” His girlfriend is heard countering that as a Jew Sterling should know better than to advocate discrimination, and she cites the Holocaust as an example of where racism can lead.

Here’s a transcript (via Deadspin) of the exchange between the two about Israel:

DS: It’s the world! You go to Israel, the blacks are just treated like dogs.
V: So do you have to treat them like that too?
DS: The white Jews, there’s white Jews and black Jews, do you understand?
V: And are the black Jews less than the white Jews?
DS: A hundred percent, fifty, a hundred percent.
V: And is that right?
DS: It isn’t a question—we don’t evaluate what’s right and wrong, we live in a society. We live in a culture. We have to live within that culture.
V: It’s like saying, “Let’s just persecute and kill all of the Jews.”
DS: Oh, it’s the same thing, right?
V: Isn’t it wrong? Wasn’t it wrong then? With the Holocaust? And you’re Jewish, you understand discrimination.
DS: You’re a mental case, you’re really a mental case. The Holocaust, we’re comparing with—
V: Racism! Discrimination.
DS: There’s no racism here. If you don’t want to be… walking… into a basketball game with a certain… person, is that racism?
http://www.jta.org/2014/04/28/news-opinion/donald-sterling-points-to-israel-v-stiviano-cites-holocaust


Although Sterling is a despicable person, he was speaking the truth – black Jews (Mizrahi & Sephardic) are the lowest class citizens in Israel. Acknowledging this is a big no, no! Of course the media spun it into a ‘Donald hates blacks’ story as a cover for why he had to go.

Don really sealed his fate in an interview with CNN’s Mr. ‘Keeping them honest’ Vanderbilt:

Donald Sterling on race, Magic & the NBA


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5hj057WrxY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5hj057WrxY

0:21
COOPER: Magic Johnson, you know, has made a public comment. What — do you have something to say to him?
D. STERLING: What could I say to him? He — it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter.
I’m hurt, but it doesn’t matter.
COOPER: You’re hurt that he — that he said — that he spoke out publicly?
D. STERLING: I’m hurt that he called me up and he said: “Don’t do anything. Wait until you hear from me.”
[b]Then somebody called me later and said, he doesn’t want to be involved. And then he released the tape that I sent to him, that I talked to him in confidence.

I — I don’t — I didn’t give any interviews. You are my interview. I’m deciding if I like you.
No, but I — here is a man who is — I don’t know if I say this. He acts so holy. I mean, he made love to every girl in every city in America. And he had AIDS.
And when he had those AIDS [those AIDS? :lol: ], I went to my synagogue and I prayed for him. I hoped he could live and be well.
I didn’t criticize him. I could have. Is he an example for children? You know, because he has money, he’s able to treat himself.
2:04
D. STERLING: I don’t think it’s worthy of me even discussing. Such a stupid remark.
But he lulled me into waiting a week. Do you know what I mean? He says, “Don’t do anything.”
COOPER: He told you — you’re saying he told you not to say anything?
D. STERLING: Yes: “Don’t do anything. I know the girl. Don’t do anything. I will help you.”
I’m waiting and I’m waiting and I’m waiting
.
COOPER: What you’re saying is, Magic Johnson called you up, or you called him up?
D. STERLING: I don’t know his phone number.
COOPER: He called you up when the tape broke?
D. STERLING: Yes. I don’t call anybody.
COOPER: He called you up?
D. STERLING: I’m loyal to you.
COOPER: He called you up when the tape came out and he told you not to say anything?
D. STERLING: Yes.
COOPER: Why did he say, don’t say anything?
D. STERLING: He just said: “Wait. Be patient. I will help you. We will — we will work it out.”
COOPER: Why do you think he said that?
D. STERLING: I think he wanted me just to do nothing, so he could buy the team.
He thought maybe the whole thing would be resolved in two weeks.
What has he done? Can you tell me? Big Magic Johnson, what has he done?
COOPER: Well, he has — he’s a businessperson. He…
D. STERLING: He’s got AIDS. Did he do any business? I would like — did he help anybody in South L.A.?
COOPER: Well, I think he has HIV. He doesn’t actually have full-blown AIDS, but…
D. STERLING: Well, what kind of a guy goes to every city, he has sex with every girl, then he catches HIV and — is that someone we want to respect and tell our kids about? I think he should be ashamed of himself. I think he should go into the background.
But what does he do for the black people? Doesn’t do anything.
You call up and say — well…
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: He’s opened a lot of businesses in inner-city neighborhoods.
D. STERLING: The Jewish people — the Jewish people have a company, and it’s for people who want to borrow money and no interest. They want to give them a fish pole — a fishing pole. We want to help people. If they don’t have money, we will loan to it you. You don’t have interest. One day, you will pay us back.
COOPER: So…
D. STERLING: I’m just telling you, he does nothing. It’s all talk.


http://www.insidesocal.com/clippers/2014/05/13/full-transcript-donald-sterlings-interview-with-cnns-anderson-cooper/


“There is an idea that many fear: to be made an example out of when we have done wrong. This is to receive a particular kind of punishment that often is severe and unrelenting so that other potential law breakers can see what happened to you and resolve to not follow the same course.” –Dana Dill

Sterling royally screwed himself when he said, “The Jewish people — the Jewish people have a company, and it’s for people who want to borrow money and no interest.” That’s another big no, no! IMO, the JPM made an example out of him to send a (subtle/subconscious) message to the elite Anglo-Jewry – ‘STFU or else!’

As for Magic Johnson - he truly is a scumbag! He gets praised for his business acumen (despite his atrocious grammar) and altruism (for establishing businesses in predominantly African American communities). In reality, he’s nothing more than a ‘Stepin Fetchit’ Uncle Tom. After the L.A. riots, corporate America became even more hesitant to ‘invest’ in African American communities. Magic is basically an insurance policy. Corporations give him a piece of the pie in exchange for using his name (i.e. Magic Johnson Starbucks, 24 Hour Fitness, Fat Burger, theaters…). The idea being, blacks are less likely to steal from or burn down an ‘MJ’ establishment. But I digress (I’ll elaborate on Magic in a future AID$ post).

Anyhow, the Donald Sterling affair is a good example of, “When keepin’ it real goes too far!”
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Postby Apache on November 12th, 2015, 6:06 pm

jumpy64 wrote:So now, after having "exposed" my cultural and religious background, I feel somewhat entitled to ask to other people to do the same.


English. Religious background - none. Not baptised, so apparently I'm straight off to Hell when I die :lol:, which might suit me after putting up with UK perishingly cold winters all my life.
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: October 22nd, 2015, 12:02 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Postby jumpy64 on November 12th, 2015, 11:36 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:You're right jumpy64. And of course, I find it quite suspicious that no Jews have joined the forum to say, "You know what? Here is the strange abuse going on that I have observed. Here are the lies that are told in such-and-such Jewish community." And why did member Selene take such quick offense to the most simple of questions about that obviously propaganda-infused "Holocaust"?

It adds credence to your theory that the tribal bond of Judaic beliefs is not limited to the Talmud. Of course, it is important to specify and clarify as much as possible. However, I think it is safe for me to speculate that there may be some kind of subconscious fear instilled in Jews everywhere that "Jews are constantly persecuted! Look out! Don't trust non-Jews!" and perhaps that is one reason the media constantly emphasizes the lie. "Don't step outta line, or you're a self-hating Jew! Nazis are everywhere!"

It's really a ridiculous and somewhat offensive paranoia, but it's even worse because I am positive that there are extremists in such an "opinion leader" position who spew that poison in one very public direction and meanwhile secretly plan their next colonial or systemic attack on a sovereign people that does little to truly benefit the generic Jewish populace, except perhaps some kind of twisted ego boost for what Americans would call its "conservative" members. I am not a huge fan of States, but when they're happily born by an innocent indigenous people who have found their State is the only way to survive an imperial invasion, and some Zionist schemer acts like that is some kind of invitation to parasitically attack and weaken the host for take over by an Anglo ally or other alliance, I must wonder if the devil you know (States) is better than the alternative — an arrogant, deluded and self-important "race" claiming its medieval beliefs bring an important element to the civilizations they target.

I would also like to echo jumpy64's invitation to anyone with any experience in any sort of Jewish community, where they have noticed such things, that here on this forum is a safe place your exposure of the dark underbelly can be safely written out. And such a person should not fear being "persecuted". On the contrary, we would highly welcome those who are capable of examining their own culture and recognizing what mania or fanaticism may have seized its leadership, just as we have done so regarding our own American and Italian "bosses" and "leaders" that are abusing their power.

I think, sadly, just as there are so few of us researchers capable of looking at this stuff in the entire English-language Internet-using public, there is also probably an even smaller percentage within any given ethnic pool willing to share known inherited evils with outside cultures. Especially so for a nexus of cultures that have so comfortably stationed themselves with (if not as) recent and current empires.


Hoi, this is by far the best post I've read from you on this topic. For the first time, I think, I agree with everything you say here, and especially with what pertains to Jews' fear of persecution, and to the media constantly reinforcing it. That concept in particular couldn't be expressed better. Thank you for your clear analysis of the subject at hand.

I still hope you will answer my question, though, as Apache did in a humorous and effective way.
Last edited by jumpy64 on November 12th, 2015, 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests