I personally have nothing against the jews as a people (though there are certainly some jewish individuals I dislike), why do you?

Give a brief summary, from personal experience to statistics, genetics et.c.

Also please tell me the nature of "the jewish conspiracy", without too many colourful adjectives.

I like the Jews, especially the Jewish community in Ireland. I am unaware of any grand scheme here.

I like the Jews, especially the Jewish community in Ireland. I am unaware of any grand scheme here.


Why do you like Jews? One objection I have to this thread is the premise that by default we should like Jews.

I don't like the Jewish political agenda, which has been described in the sticky thread Tearing the Mask Away (http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=618).

I have nothing against Jews as people. I also really can't fault Jews for their group sticking together and effectively helping each other, since that is the result of historical persecution, and is what any group should aspire towards anyway.

:: I personally have nothing against the jews as a people (though there are certainly some jewish individuals I dislike), why do you?

They are a major distorting influence within our culture (mostly because of their disproportionate wealth, intelligence, and organisation). In other words, were it not for the presence of the Jews, I feel we would be living in a very different (and better) world than we are currently immersed in. That's the bottom line. There is no point in debating the issue with the professional philo-Semites, as they start from the a priori assumption that the Jews can do no wrong. Discussing the actual activities of the Jews with such people is useless, for no matter how obvious it is to those with a shred of sanity that the Jews are a wealthy, powerful, ethnically conscious, and highly motivated community that organises itself to promote collective interests at the expense of others, its a waste of time arguing with those who have already arrived at their conclusions beforehand.

:: Give a brief summary, from personal experience to statistics, genetics et.c.

Its a simple choice: a world without Jews or a world with Jews. My experience with the Jews, described on this forum as well as others, has been overwhelmingly negative. Search my posts.

:: Also please tell me the nature of "the jewish conspiracy", without too many colourful adjectives.

This is a straw man argument. We have not argued that there is any "jewish conspiracy." Jews do not have to conspire to be paranoid, fanatical, assholes.

It has all been explained and will be explained again and then again next month.

Its a simple choice: a world without Jews or a world with Jews. My experience with the Jews, described on this forum as well as others, has been overwhelmingly negative. Search my posts.


I was unaware you had much in the way of personal real life experience.

The guys are cool, the women are nuts.

It has all been explained and will be explained again and then again next month.


Yes, and I have given up trying to convince people. For sometime now I've been just treating the issue as a given. It is so blatantly manifest that if people can't see it for themselves eventually, there is no use in trying to convince them.

The old Jewish man who lived in the house next to mine was assuredly conspiring to rule the world and poison our culture.

Would you believe that one day I saw him in his yard...wait for it...READING A BOOK!
Another worthless post from a worthless poster. Have you nothing of substance to add?


Highbrow Discussion
Civilized discussion only. Absolutely no flaming, trolling, or one-liner posts. Nothing inane, puerile, or idiotic shall be allowed in these forums. Post only in appropriate forums. Make only intelligent contributions to discussions.

Here's a tidbit for those of you who don't like Jews: They ain't going anywhere, at least here. My school has more steins than a German beer hall, and DAMN.

The guys do their best to dress like gangstas from tha streets, the girls like ho's. I mean, ****, there goes all that not assimilating stuff. Hard to keep the world conspiracy going when the only media the younger generation is interested in is MTV rap videos, eh?

Why do you like Jews? One objection I have to this thread is the premise that by default we should like Jews. - I never set that premise. Not disliking is not the same as liking.
:: I personally have nothing against the jews as a people (though there are certainly some jewish individuals I dislike), why do you?

They are a major distorting influence within our culture (mostly because of their disproportionate wealth, intelligence, and organisation). In other words, were it not for the presence of the Jews, I feel we would be living in a very different (and better) world than we are currently immersed in. That's the bottom line. - While I suppose you have nothing against wealth and intelligence (I seem to remember someone saying you used to be an objectivist?) it must be the organization bit you have problems with. But as you say below
We have not argued that there is any "jewish conspiracy." Jews do not have to conspire to be paranoid, fanatical, assholes. - So the jews are indeed not organized together in any way.... is it then at all fair to treat them as a group?

This is a straw man argument. - That was a question, not an argument.
:: Give a brief summary, from personal experience to statistics, genetics et.c.

Its a simple choice: a world without Jews or a world with Jews. My experience with the Jews, described on this forum as well as others, has been overwhelmingly negative. Search my posts.- The reason I've made this thread is because I'm not interested enough in the issue in it self to search the forum and wade through oceans of ranting.
I don't like the Jewish political agenda, which has been described in the sticky thread Tearing the Mask Away (showthread.php?t=618). - I quickly browsed through it; is the reason you dislike them (the jewish organizations, I suppose) the fact that they speak for equal rights?

You're thinking jews are the ones responsible for that line of thought?
Yes, and I have given up trying to convince people. For sometime now I've been just treating the issue as a given. It is so blatantly manifest that if people can't see it for themselves eventually, there is no use in trying to convince them. - I'm personally not looking to be convinced or to convince anyone here, I'm just curious.

So the jews are indeed not organized together in any way.... is it then at all fair to treat them as a group?

No conspiracy does not equal "no organization of any kind". Indeed, if you are ignorant of Jewish organization, there is not much that can be done for you, here or anywhere else.

Perhaps a reading of When Victims Rule? It can be found at www.solargeneral.com. Why don't you go educate yourself, so you can then contribute to conversations, rather than being a prick?

You "reasoning" is plainly dishonest.

"So if there's no Jewish conspiracy . . . then there's no Jewish organziation?"

Watch this asshole - he'll come back by saying that his tendentious sniping is "just a question".

Riiiiiight.

WM

Perhaps a reading of When Victims Rule? It can be found at www.solargeneral.com (http://www.solargeneral.com/). Why don't you go educate yourself, so you can then contribute to conversations, rather than being a prick? - You're assuming I'm here to convince you one way or the other. I'm not.

Watch this asshole - he'll come back by saying that his tendentious sniping is "just a question".

Riiiiiight.

WM - Whether I'm a prick or not has no bearing on this topic. Let's stay on it please.

No conspiracy does not equal "no organization of any kind". Indeed, if you are ignorant of Jewish organization, there is not much that can be done for you, here or anywhere else.

You "reasoning" is plainly dishonest.

"So if there's no Jewish conspiracy . . . then there's no Jewish organziation?" Main Entry: con·spir·a·cy http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cimg%20src=%22http://www.thephora.org/images/smilies/tongue.gif%22%20border=%220%22%20alt=%22%22%20title=%22Stick%20Out%20Tongue%22%20smilieid=%225%22%20class=%22inlineimg%22%20/%3EopWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?conspi04.wav=conspiracy%27%29)
Pronunciation: k&n-'spir-&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle English conspiracie, from Latin conspirare
1 : the act of conspiring (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=conspiring) together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=conspirators) b : a group of conspirators (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=conspirators)

Main Entry: con·spire http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cimg%20src=%22http://www.thephora.org/images/smilies/tongue.gif%22%20border=%220%22%20alt=%22%22%20title=%22Stick%20Out%20Tongue%22%20smilieid=%225%22%20class=%22inlineimg%22%20/%3EopWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?conspi10.wav=conspire%27%29)
Pronunciation: k&n-'spIr
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): con·spired; con·spir·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French conspirer, from Latin conspirare to be in harmony, conspire, from com- + spirare to breathe
transitive senses : PLOT (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=plot), CONTRIVE (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=contrive)
intransitive senses
1 a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement b : SCHEME (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=scheme)
2 : to act in harmony toward a common end <circumstances conspired to defeat his efforts>



Main Entry: 1or·ga·ni·za·tion http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cimg%20src=%22http://www.thephora.org/images/smilies/tongue.gif%22%20border=%220%22%20alt=%22%22%20title=%22Stick%20Out%20Tongue%22%20smilieid=%225%22%20class=%22inlineimg%22%20/%3EopWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?organi11.wav=organization%27%29)
Pronunciation: "or-g&-n&-'zA-sh&n, "org-n&-
Function: noun
1 a : the act or process of organizing (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=organizing) or of being organized (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=organized) b : the condition or manner of being organized (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=organized)
2 a : ASSOCIATION (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=association), SOCIETY (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=society) <charitable organizations> b : an administrative and functional structure (as a business or a political party); also : the personnel of such a structure

Main Entry: as·so·ci·a·tion http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cimg%20src=%22http://www.thephora.org/images/smilies/tongue.gif%22%20border=%220%22%20alt=%22%22%20title=%22Stick%20Out%20Tongue%22%20smilieid=%225%22%20class=%22inlineimg%22%20/%3EopWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?associ05.wav=association%27%29)
Pronunciation: &-"sO-sE-'A-sh&n, -shE-
Function: noun
1 a : the act of associating (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=associating) b : the state of being associated (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=associated) : COMBINATION (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=combination), RELATIONSHIP (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=relationship)
2 : an organization of persons having a common interest : SOCIETY (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=society)
3 : something linked in memory or imagination with a thing or person
4 : the process of forming mental connections or bonds between sensations, ideas, or memories
5 : the aggregation of chemical species to form (as with hydrogen bonds) loosely bound complexes
6 : a major unit in ecological community organization characterized by essential uniformity and usually by two or more dominant species
- as·so·ci·a·tion·al http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cimg%20src=%22http://www.thephora.org/images/smilies/tongue.gif%22%20border=%220%22%20alt=%22%22%20title=%22Stick%20Out%20Tongue%22%20smilieid=%225%22%20class=%22inlineimg%22%20/%3EopWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?associ06.wav=associational%27%29) /-sh(&-)n&l/ adjective

http://www.m-w.com/

But never mind that. Please talk more about "the jewish organization", then.

:: While I suppose you have nothing against wealth and intelligence (I seem to remember someone saying you used to be an objectivist?) it must be the organization bit you have problems with. But as you say below

My problem with the Jews is that they use their wealth, intelligence, and organisation to advance their interests at the expense of my own.

:: So the jews are indeed not organized together in any way....

No. The Jews most certainly DO organize themselves politically to advance group interests. Most groups do, except whites, in the U.S. This does not necessarily make any 'conspiracy'. That is simply a straw man that Jews constantly float and attack in our to misrepresent their critics.

:: is it then at all fair to treat them as a group?

Sure, because such organisations are representative of the Jewish community.

:: That was a question, not an argument.

Questions end with question marks.

:: The reason I've made this thread is because I'm not interested enough in the issue in it self to search the forum and wade through oceans of ranting.

If you are that uninterested in the issue, then there is nothing to discuss.

Kribert said;

The reason I've made this thread is because I'm not interested enough in the issue in it self to search the forum and wade through oceans of ranting.

If you can't be bothered then why should anybody waste time answering your frivolous question?

Why do you like Jews? One objection I have to this thread is the premise that by default we should like Jews.

I liek the Jews in Ireland, they have contributed to the Irish cause for reason, havent really interfered in anything in paticular. Can be interesting people too.

I am not going to seek reasons to hate Jews in Ireland because people on the Phora hate them.

On a side note, nobody set a premise that you should like the Jews, it's up to you whether or not you buy into anti-semitism, maybe in the U.S. I might just be an anti-semite too. I suffer from Islamophobia because Muslim's in Dublin openly proclaim that they intend to wage jihad, the Jews tend to go to just buy shares or read the Torah.

Why do you accept BS terms of debate, like "anti-semitism" and "islamophobia"?

Geist said;

the Jews tend to go to just buy shares or read the Torah.

Its obvious you don't know many Jews in Ireland. Reading the Torah indeed!

You might like to take note of the fact that the most prominent proponents of immigration in Ireland are Jews. Some of them are now talking about attracting Jews from Eastern Europe, heaven help us! Most of them have cleared off to Israel or London and NY.

I am not going to seek reasons to hate Jews in Ireland

But its not about "hating Jews", its about understanding what Judaism is really all about and how it informs the actions of Jews; its ethnosupremacism, its hatred of non-Jews and its generally pernicious influence throughout history. In Ireland they generally have to be on their best behaviour because of their small numbers but even then I can testify to a number of deeply unpleasant experiences with them.

it's up to you whether or not you buy into anti-semitism

Leaving aside the term 'antisemtism', I wish this were so but the fact is you cannot be neutral about this. We didn't ask them to hate us, its part of their identity as well documented in the Torah and Talmud.

Right, so - what I've gotten so far:

Some jews have organized themselves in groups that claim to represent all jews and work to serve jewish ends.

So you oppose, not necessarily every single jew, but these groups. Am I right?

So what do these groups work for? I got "equal rights" here, anything else?

:: That was a question, not an argument.

Questions end with question marks. - A "request for an answer" then. Stop being so damn captious.
:: The reason I've made this thread is because I'm not interested enough in the issue in it self to search the forum and wade through oceans of ranting.

If you are that uninterested in the issue, then there is nothing to discuss. - I never said I was disinterested. If that were the case I'd never have chosen to engage in this topic.

If you can't be bothered then why should anybody waste time answering your frivolous question? - To sum up and phrase out their thoughts on the issue. It's a useful mental exercise. And, of course, to spread love and understanding :|

So you oppose, not necessarily every single jew, but these groups. Am I right?

Who are you asking?

So what do these groups work for? I got "equal rights" here, anything else?

Well, I gave you the link in my post to some info.

You can read the book "Jewish Power" by JJ Goldberg to find out partly about what they do and how.

The National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council sets a stance on Foreign Policy, Feminism, Gun Control, Immigration, Public Schools, Secularism, Abortion, the Courts and discrimination legislation, Hate legislation, etc... above all, they seek to reduce and prevent European gentile group cohesion for the purpose of preventing "anti-semitism." Jews thrive when the society they live in is fragmented and materialist.

Krigbert said;

It's a useful mental exercise

So you are setting mental exercises for people in a topic you profess to be neither interested in nor knowledgable about?

I fear this is going to become circular. . .

This is some text excerpted from a recent article I compiled to distribute around my college campus. Perhaps this will adequately summarize some of the basic premises behind the existence of a “Jewish Conspiracy.”

----

1. The Jewish lobby is not a disorganized, passive collection of individuals representing a myriad of divergent views, but a tightly structured active cell containing explicitly outlined interests and constantly searching for a path of advance.

2. The Jewish lobby, allied with notable Jewish individuals, has been largely responsible for the historical shift in American immigration policy during the last century, and continues to support open-immigration today.

3. The Jewish lobby simultaneously supports ethnic-nationalism in Israel, which it regards as a “Jewish State” erected exclusively to support the Jewish People, and demands unconditional economic and military support for Israel on behalf of the United States; That the Jewish lobby therefore promotes multiculturalism in America, but ethnocultural homogeneity in Israel.

4. The Jewish lobby utilizes American television and print media, of which it (directly and indirectly) controls roughly fifty percent, in order to demonize any viewpoints opposing its core policy.


In evidence of point one—which asserts that American Jewry is highly organized and actively serving its group interests—I present the following text, quoted from the book “Jewish Power,” written by a Jewish author in praise of Jewish achievements:

"The council, known by the Jaw Breaking title of the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council, or NCRAC (pronounced "nacrac"), is nothing less than the central policy making council of the organized American Jewish community. Its membership includes a dozen of the most powerful and broadly representative groups on the national Jewish scene: the three main synagogue unions, Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox; the three main "defense agencies," Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, and American Jewish Congress; and the three largest Jewish women's groups, Hadassah, the National Council on Jewish Women, and Women's American ORT. Also included, along with a handful of other national bodies, are 117 local community councils, representing the world of Jewish federated charities and their donors."

"NCRAC's policy positions are hammed out in intense, year-long negotiations among the agencies, then voted on at the council's annual assembly and published each fall in a booklet, the Joint Program Plan. ... The eighty-four page plan for 1992 included, along with ten pages on Israel and eight pages on anti-Semitism in Russia and the Arab world, no less than six pages on public- school education, six pages on abortion rights and the status of women, four pages on poverty, three pages each on immigration policy, federal courts, and universal health care, and four pages on the environment." (Goldberg)

In 1997, the NCRAC changed its name to the JCPA. Despite the vast amount of published material pertaining to this organization (a simple google search will reveal hundreds of results), knowledge regarding its existence is not widespread amongst the Gentile public. From a randomly selected on-line encyclopedia:

“The JCPA (Jewish Council for Public Affairs) is self described as ‘the representative voice of the organized American Jewish community.’ It formulates a pro-Israel policy that all major organizations can accept, so as to avoid contradictory public statements that would weaken the strength of the pro-Israel position in America. JCPA also adopts broad platforms on other issues such as interreligious and interracial relations.” (Free Dictionary)

From the same encyclopedia, regarding a connected organization:

“The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations is self described as ‘a central address for key American, Israeli and other world leaders to consult on issues of critical concern to the Jewish community.’ It is often referred to as simply the ‘Presidents' Conference.’

Currently comprising 52 national Jewish organizations, the Conference meets relatively infrequently to make major statements or meet with important leaders. The Conference was originally founded to promote the state of Israel in the U.S., and that remains its most important task. The Conference does not draft comprehensive policies (which is done by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.” (Free Dictionary)

And finally, from the JCPA’s official website:

“For over half a century, the JCPA has served as an effective mechanism to identify issues, formulate policy, develop strategies and programs, and has given expression to a strongly united Jewish communal voice. By virtue of the JCPA's unique position and structure, our ability to reach out and motivate Jews and non-Jews alike to action is unparalleled. Through our network of 13 national and 122 local equal and independent partner agencies, the JCPA serves as a catalyst that heightens community awareness, encourages civic and social involvement, and deliberates key issues of importance to the Jewish community.” (JCPA [1])

Claims that that the Jewish lobby is either politically passive or disorganized to the point of nonexistence must therefore be regarded as categorically mendacious. The documents cited provide ample demonstration that the political Jewish community in the United States is highly structured, meeting annually in a nation-wide forum to set Jewish policy and determine Jewish expenditure.

Regarding point two, which concerns the role of Jewish individuals and organizations in altering America’s immigration policy, professor Kevin Macdonald offers sound insight:

“Senator Jacob Javits played a prominent role in the Senate hearings on the 1965 bill, and Emanuel Celler, who fought for unrestricted immigration for over 40 years in the House of Representatives, introduced similar legislation in that body. Jewish organizations (American Council for Judaism Philanthropic Fund; Council of Jewish Federations & Welfare Funds; B’nai B’rith Women) filed briefs in support of the measure before the Senate Subcommittee, as did organizations such as the ACLU and the Americans for Democratic Action with a large Jewish Membership.” (MacDonald)

This aspect of Jewish-American history has also been recognized by Jewish writers. Consider the following quotation from an article appearing in Ha’aretz, the second largest Israeli newspaper after the Jerusalem Post:

“Post-World War I U.S. laws restricting immigration discriminated against the entry of southern Europeans (in other words, mostly Catholics) and Eastern Europeans (largely Jews and Orthodox Slavs). To a great degree, these laws barred the entry of Jews who sought to flee the Nazis prior to the Second World War, standing in the way of the rescue of hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of Jews who perished in the Holocaust. This fact was to have a crucial bearing on the circumstance that American Jewry became the most active of groups backing a change in immigration laws… Passed in 1965, the new law also opened the gates of the United States to immigration from the Third World, in short order bringing about changes in migration patterns throughout the world.” (Salpeter)

Current Jewish policy has not altered much in this regard. The JCPA’s official immigration policy is worth quoting at some length:

“The JCPA supports an equitable immigration policy that protects the human rights of all newcomers and the civil liberties of every U.S. resident; generous levels of refugee admissions and full funding for refugee slots, including those for Jews from the former Soviet Union; a further extension of the Lautenberg Amendment. We support full restoration of public benefits and civil liberties protections for legal immigrants, refugees and asylees. This includes initiatives to expand eligibility for SSI, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for legal immigrants who entered the country after the welfare law’s enactment and the restoration of due process protections undermined by current law for legal immigrants and asylum-seekers, particularly with regard to expedited removal. (Agenda 2000-2001)

The JCPA supports an open, fair and timely naturalization process that reduces the application backlog without impeding access to those legitimately seeking to naturalize, or further restricting eligibility for citizenship (Agenda 1999-2000). While we support proposals to separate INS service and enforcement functions to improve accountability and clarity of mission, there must be strong leadership and coordination of the two functions to ensure consistent, unified immigration policy (Agenda 2000-2001).

The JCPA opposes "English-Only" initiatives, which can deny foreign-born citizens equal access to the rights of all citizens. We support increased availability of "English-as-a-second-language" and other training programs to help immigrants and refugees move into mainstream American life (JPP 1990-1991).

The JCPA supports immigration policy that retains family reunification as its basis and provides additional immigration slots for special skills (JPP 1991-1992). We support an open admissions policy that maintains the pluralistic character of American society and does not prefer one national group at the expense of another; we oppose the use of rigid caps on entry to the U.S. (JPP 1990-1991). While the JCPA supports humane measures to control illegal immigration, we oppose a national identification card system as violating privacy rights and civil liberties (JPP 1995-1996). We oppose use of employer sanctions to prevent employment of undocumented workers, believing it fosters discrimination against minorities whom employers may regard as “foreign” (JPP 1992-1993). The JCPA supports efforts to update a provision of immigration law known as “registry”, which provides for administrative adjustment of immigrant status, by moving the eligibility cut-off date from 1972 to 1986, allowing immigrants who entered the U.S. prior to January 1, 1986 to become lawful permanent residents; we favor also proposals that would, over time, advance the cut-off date further, to 1990 by the year 2006 (Resolution adopted in June 2000).” (JCPA [2])

It is not an overstatement to assert that America’s current immigration policy may not have come to exist without the strong pressure exerted by the Jewish lobby. Point three, which claims that such a position is highly hypocritical in light of the JCPA’s support for Zionism, can be confirmed by quoting a single line from the organization’s 2003 resolution on Israel: “Such a vision, however, will only be realized when a Palestinian leadership emerges that accepts the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state.” (JCPA [3])

Once again, Kevin Macdonald provides an articulate synopsis of the situation:

“Contrary to policies they advocate for the United States, American Jews have had no interest at all in proposing that immigration to Israel should be similarly multi-ethnic or that Israel should have an immigration policy that would threaten the hegemony of Jews in Israel. Indeed, the very deep ethnic conflict within Israel is an excellent example of the failure of multi-culturalism. Similarly, while Jews have been on the forefront of movements to separate church and state in the United States and often protested lack of religious freedom in the Soviet Union, the control of religious affairs by the Orthodox in Israel has received only belated and half-hearted opposition by American Jewish organizations and has not prevented the all-out support of Israel by American Jews, despite the fact that Israel’s policy regarding immigration is quite the opposite of that of Western democracies.” (MacDonald)

Point four, which asserts that Jewish individuals and groups control a large portion of American media, is easily and swiftly verified by researching the ethnocultural bakground of prominent CEOs, chairmen, and executive producers in the film industry, television, and the press. Below is a list of notable data:

Walt Disney/Touchstone Television/Buena Vista television: Michael Eisner

Walt Disney Picture Group, including Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures: Joe Roth.

Miramax Films: The Weinstein Brothers (parent company: Disney)

Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. (including the ABC Television network): Michael Eisner.

Time Warner, Inc., including subsidiary HBO: Richard Parsons (former CEO was Gerald M. Levin).

Viacom, Inc., (including Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, and Paramount Pictures): Murray Rothstein

DreamWorks SKG: David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg

Seagram Company, Ltd., (including MCA and Universal Pictures): Edgar Bronfman, Jr. (note that he also the president of the World Jewish Congress).

The New York Times: Arthr Ochs Sulzberger

The Washington Post: Donald E. Graham

The International Herald Tribune: Joint project between the Post and the Times.

The Wall Street Journal: Peter R. Kann

Readers should note that all of the individuals listed above, with the exception of Richard Parsons (who is African-American, and was proceeded by a Jewish CEO), are of clear Jewish descent. There is, of course, a large portion of public media that is not controlled by Jewish individuals, such as Ted Turner’s corporate empire, but it remains remarkable that the Jews, who comprise roughly 2.3% of the American population, should be so disproportionately represented in this field.

The book “Jewish Power,” previously quoted, also contains a lengthy discussion of American Jewry in Hollywood, a small portion of which is quoted here:

“In a few key sectors of the media, notably among Hollywood studio executives, Jews are so numerically dominant that calling these businesses Jewish-controlled is little more than a statistical observation ...

Hollywood at the end of the twentieth century is still an industry with a pronounced ethnic tinge. Virtually all the senior executives at the major studios are Jews. Writers, producers, and to a lesser degree directors are disproportionately Jewish -- one recent study showed the figure as high as 59 percent among top-grossing films.

The combined weight of so many Jews in one of America's most lucrative and important industries gives the Jews of Hollywood a great deal of political power. They are a major source of money for Democratic candidates.” (Goldberg)

The attentive reader will have observed that while the domination of American media by Jewish individuals has been established, no evidence has been offered to support the claim that these individuals are consciously working to promote Jewish policy via their business. I would assert that whether or not these individuals are conscious of how their ethno-cultural identity affects their professional decisions is largely irrelevant; strong ethnic identity introduces a bias one way or the other, and the effects of Jewish controlled media can easily be observed in the portrayal of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in newspapers and on television, the promotion of anti-Caucasian “multiculturalism” via MTV and large music publishers, and the nearly complete absence of Hollywood films depicting patriotic, proud European-Americans in positive contexts.


In the sense that American Jewry is highly organized, comprises a small but very powerful interest group, and has been competing with other interest groups for dominance by mendaciously presenting principally Jewish interests as American ones, a “Jewish Conspiracy” does indeed exist. It is important to mention, however, that such a term applies to organized, political Jewish-American groups only. Much of the information presented here has probably been as shocking to many Jews as it has been to Gentiles.

Further, the reader should be careful not to confuse a call for accurate diagnosis with a call for vengeance. The intention of this article has been to reveal a typically overlooked problem with American society—namely, that the founding stock of the United States has been systematically undermined and replaced due to the efforts of a highly competitive minority elite. It has not been the intention to incite violence or convince anyone that some kind of “punishment” is necessary to correct this problem; only that the Indo-European population of the United States must peacefully but firmly reclaim control of their nation and cease catering to the demands of foreign interest groups.

It seems fitting to conclude with another quote from Kevin Macdonald:

“At present the interests of non-European-derived peoples to expand demographically and politically in the United States are widely perceived as a moral imperative, while the attempts of the European-derived peoples to retain demographic, political, and cultural control are represented as ‘racist’ and patently immoral. From the perspective of these European-derived peoples, the prescribed morality entails altruism and self-sacrifice, and it is unlikely to be viable in the long run. And, as we have seen, the viability of such a morality of self-sacrifice is especially problematic in the context of a multicultural society in which everyone is highly conscious of group membership and there is between-group competition for resources.” (MacDonald)


Sources:

J. J. Golberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment.
Addison Wesley Publishing Company; (October 1, 1997)

JCPA, The Free Dictionary, 2004
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/National%20Jewish%20Community%20Relations%20Advisory%20Council

Presidents’ Conference, The Free Dictionary, 2004
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Presidents%27%20Conference

The Mission of the JCPA, Jewish Council for Public Affairs Online (1), 2004
http://www.jewishpublicaffairs.org/mission/main.html

Kevin Macdonald, Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review
Population and Environment; 1998

Eliyahu Salpeter, Background/Muslim Populations may push Jews to the Right
Ha’aretz Archives

JCPA Policy Compendium: Equal Opportunity and Social Justice, Jewish Council for Public Affairs Online (2), 2004
http://www.e-guana.net/organizations.php3?action=printContentItem&orgid=54&typeID=132&itemID=2933#2


Resolutions: Israel and Other International Concerns, Jewish Council for Public Affairs Online (3), 2004
http://www.e-guana.net/organizations.php3?orgid=54&typeID=128&action=printContentTypeHome&sortField=ralpha


Note: Information regarding Jewish CEOs, chairmen, and executive producers was obtained from a myriad of sources. For each individual name more than one source was used to validate the information. I consider this data to be common knowledge, and have therefore not taken the additional two pages necessary to reference the sources. All the info can be confirmed easily online or at your local library.

----

Who are you asking? - Everyone really.
The National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council - NJCRAC? Never heard of. I'll google around. They're a lobby group?
sets a stance on Foreign Policy - Don't tell me they're responsible for the whole American arrogance in foreign policy? Or is it just the support of Israel?
, Feminism, - By which you mean? Just equal rights or the more extreme "destroy all men and make them our slaves" kind? And how does this serve the jews?
Gun Control, - Why would the jews be interested in Gun control?
Immigration, - Same as above.
Public Schools, - Norway has almost only public schools and strict restrictions and controls for people who want to start up private ones (if you just make a school that's "just like the normal public school only better and more expencive" you wouldn't be allowed to do so.) And we have no jewish lobby groups (and public education is not, on average, of lower quality than private) - explain.
Secularism, - Why?
Abortion, - To make your culture more materialistic?
the Courts and discrimination legislation, Hate legislation, etc... above all, they seek to reduce and prevent European gentile group cohesion for the purpose of preventing "anti-semitism." Jews thrive when the society they live in is fragmented and materialist. - Right. Are there not any other kinds of religious lobby groups? I'd imagine the US'd have a rather hefty christian one.

There's certainly a lot of agreement all over that "anti semitism" is an expression that's a tad to easily brought up by extreme pro-Israelis. (And you'd probably want to say that this means we should just give up associating any meaning or concept to the word right away.)

And I don't think there's anyone who see anything wrong with critizising a religious lobby group because you disagree with their issues or because you dislike the concept "religious lobby group".

And those are, completely legitimate, things I seem to have picked up from this topic so far. I don't see why you feel the need to phrase yourself in extreme and over generalized terms or give people the impression that it's the jews as a people you hate. Is this an attempt to shock people, are you just plain dumb or is there something else behind all this?

So you are setting mental exercises for people - I didn't make this topic for your sake, I made it for mine. Do you have a habit of making topics for my sake? :|

Another handy thing for your sake, tho', is that this can be a handy place to refer people to if they have frequently asked questions about these organizations.
in a topic you profess to be neither interested in nor knowledgable about? - I never said I was disinterested. Quite on the contrary - "If that were the case I'd never have chosen to engage in this topic."

A jewish defector warns America (http://www.natvan.com/free-speech/fs956b.html)
Preface - Culture of Critique (http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Preface.htm)
My Awakening - Chapter 15 (http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/chapter15_01.html)
My Awakening - Chapter 16 (http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/chapter16_01.html)
My Awakening - Chapter 17 (http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/chapter17_01.html)
My Awakening - Chapter 19 (http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/chapter19_01.html)
My Awakening - Chapter 22 (http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/chapter22_01.html)
Who Rules America? (http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/)
By Way of Deception (http://www.stormfront.org/jewish/deception.html)
Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881– 1965: A Historical Review (http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/paper/ABERNET3.PDF)
Dossier on "anti-semitism" (http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/origins/index.html)
Institute for Historical Review (http://www.ihr.org)
The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's Early Soviet Regime (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html)
The Prop-Masters (http://www.hoffman-info.com/communist.html)
Behind the Balfour Declaration: Britain's Great War Pledge To Lord Rothschild (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_John.html)
Balfour Declaration author was a secret Jew, says prof (http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/10371/format/html/displaystory.html)
Revilo Oliver (http://www.revilo-oliver.com/)
USS Liberty (http://www.ussliberty.org/)
The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict (http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html)
Jewish History, Jewish Religion (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jewhis1.htm)
Who Benefits from Attacking Iraq (http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm)
The jews in porn (http://www.lukeford.com/subjects/content/jews_in_porn.html)
How Israeli terrorism and American treason caused the September 11 Attacks (http://www.davidduke.com/writings/howisraelcaused911.pdf)
Israel, Zionism, and the Racial Double Standard (http://www.davidduke.com/library/race/israel-zionism1.shtml)
Is the ADL Hypocritical? (http://www.davidduke.com/library/race/adl-hypocrite.html)
Behind the Mask of Respectability: The truth about the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (http://www.davidduke.com/adl/index.html)
An account of the trial of Jews for ritual murder in Europe over the last 1000 years (http://www.ety.com/HRP/booksonline/jrm/jrm_toc.htm)
So You Thought The Mob Was Run By Italians (http://users.mo-net.com/mlindste/jewmafia.html)
Those Awful Protocols (http://www.stormfront.org/rpo/PROTOCOL.htm)

I didn't make this topic for your sake, I made it for mine.

but

To sum up and phrase out their thoughts on the issue. It's a useful mental exercise.

This suggests that the beneficiaries are the correspondents.

I never said I was disinterested

I never said that you were, but you professed not to be intererested in it. there is a difference. And that you might not be 'disinterested' suggests something else. ;)

- Everyone really.

I don't only oppose the represenatitive group members because most Jews support them and follow their agenda. They get their money and legitimacy through the support of regular Jews.

I don't oppose every individual Jew because some openly dissent.

Is that clear?

- NJCRAC? Never heard of. I'll google around. They're a lobby group?

It is a Council composed of every powerful and established Jewish organization. They all meet every year and hash out a set of policies.

- Don't tell me they're responsible for the whole American arrogance in foreign policy? Or is it just the support of Israel?

I did not say they are solely responsible. I set this groups set foreign policy goals, then proceeds to act for them. They are an antagonistic element.

- By which you mean? Just equal rights or the more extreme "destroy all men and make them our slaves" kind? And how does this serve the jews?

The legislative, destructive kind that is couched in the rhetoric of "equal rights." Feminism has been part of the established Jewish agenda for quite some time. Don't ask me how it serves the Jews. They are the ones who agree that Feminism is an issue for them and that they will press for it as an antagonizing element.

- Why would the jews be interested in Gun control?

See above. It is not useful to ask me *why* they are interested in gun control. They *are* and act based upon their notions.

- Same as above.

Jews have always been interested in immigration. As I already posted, a central focus of the Jewish agenda is to weaken and prevent European gentile group cohesion to prevent "anti-semitism." They believed that a "pluralistic" society where European gentiles are in the minority would be preferable to a strong European society where "dangerous" nationalism could arise. They were also interested in keeping the door open for their kin.

- Norway has almost only public schools and strict restrictions and controls for people who want to start up private ones (if you just make a school that's "just like the normal public school only better and more expencive" you wouldn't be allowed to do so.) And we have no jewish lobby groups (and public education is not, on average, of lower quality than private) - explain.

I did not say Jews create public schools. They gather together and decide on goals regarding public schools and then act for those goals.

- Why?

They thought Christianity was scary and that weakening it would reduce "anti-semitism."

- To make your culture more materialistic?

Why do you keep asking why they do things? The fact that they do things is reason to oppose them. It has been proven without a doubt that Jews organize and agitate for things that many people oppose. They are antagonists. Voila! Anti-semitism!

- Right. Are there not any other kinds of religious lobby groups? I'd imagine the US'd have a rather hefty christian one.

Not only did that not address my statement at all, but it doesn't matter to me if there are other religious lobby groups as long as they don't conflict with my goals. Jews have consistantly conflicted with my idea of a healthy society. They are antagonists. Either you believe that Jews cannot be antagonists or you agree that what is called "anti-semitism" is perfectly justified. It is up to you.

By the way, they are not a religious group - they are an ethnic group.

And I don't think there's anyone who see anything wrong with critizising a religious lobby group because you disagree with their issues or because you dislike the concept "religious lobby group".

They are not religious groups and they are representative of the greater Jewish community. The Jewish community supports these groups. That makes them antagonists.

And those are, completely legitimate, things I seem to have picked up from this topic so far. I don't see why you feel the need to phrase yourself in extreme and over generalized terms or give people the impression that it's the jews as a people you hate. Is this an attempt to shock people, are you just plain dumb or is there something else behind all this?

When have I phrased myself? People like you slap the labels on me. The Jewish people as a group, as a community, are antagonists. A few Jews dissent from their people, but that does not excuse the more powerful actions of their group. I would be very careful about calling people "dumb" when you are so flabbergasted at the idea of the Jewish community having opposing interests with other groups.

but



This suggests that the beneficiaries are the correspondents. - The fact that my act was egoistic doesn't mean that it can't be beneficiary for anyone else. I made a topic out of my own egoistic interests, you asked how this topic would serve your egoistic interests, I replied with a couple of suggestions because having people respond to this thread would serve my egoistic interests.

It's like ripped out of a friggin' Ayn Rand novel :p

I never said that you were, but you professed not to be intererested in it. there is a difference. And that you might not be 'disinterested' suggests something else. ;) - Right....

I am interested, just not interested enough to go read 10 pages of ranting. Besides - I always learn better through dialogue and a dialogue is likely to leave less unanswered questions.

This is actually why I rarely read political books at all.

The fact that my act was egoistic doesn't mean that it can't be beneficiary for anyone else. I made a topic out of my own egoistic interests, you asked how this topic would serve your egoistic interests, I replied with a couple of suggestions because having people respond to this thread would serve my egoistic interests.

Well now, what to make of this? "The fact that my act was egoistic doesn't mean that it can't be beneficiary for anyone else." So now you are shifting, the original statement suggested the benefit of the respondents, then it was for your benefit, now it is your benefit and theirs.

you asked how this topic would serve your egoistic interests

I asked no such thing. I do not accept the premises upon which this statement rests.

I replied with a couple of suggestions because having people respond to this thread would serve my egoistic interests

I knew this was going to become circular. Why should anyone pander to the egotism of another?

It's like ripped out of a friggin' Ayn Rand novel

You certainly betray a Randian influence through your conception of egotism as a basis of human action.


I am interested, just not interested enough to go read 10 pages of ranting


So you have already decided that all writings about the Jews which are not adulatory are "rantings"?

This is actually why I rarely read political books at all.

Perish the possibility that you might have to do some intellectual labour.

Its obvious you don't know many Jews in Ireland. Reading the Torah indeed!

I'll put some humour quotes in for you next time.

You might like to take note of the fact that the most prominent proponents of immigration in Ireland are Jews. Some of them are now talking about attracting Jews from Eastern Europe, heaven help us! Most of them have cleared off to Israel or London and NY.

What are you talking about? The Irish media has little, probably no Jeish influence. The Jews are declining in Ireland if you really need to know. In fact it's kind of an epidemic at the moment.


But its not about "hating Jews", its about understanding what Judaism is really all about and how it informs the actions of Jews; its ethnosupremacism, its hatred of non-Jews and its generally pernicious influence throughout history. In Ireland they generally have to be on their best behaviour because of their small numbers but even then I can testify to a number of deeply unpleasant experiences with them.

All very well...but why should I hate Jews?

Leaving aside the term 'antisemtism', I wish this were so but the fact is you cannot be neutral about this. We didn't ask them to hate us, its part of their identity as well documented in the Torah and Talmud.

Why can't I be nuetral? By the way whats wrong with the term anti-semitism?

Why do you accept BS terms of debate, like "anti-semitism" and "islamophobia"?

I don't see why not?

There are anti-smites here would you not agree? Why can't I use it? Islamophobia is a new term that has caught on lately, I guess it slipped it.

You may use the term “anti-Semitism” as you please, I suppose, but it really is a largely vapid construct.

Much like the liberal catchphrase of “racism,” “anti-Semitism” is a political buzzword that has more to do with conjuring up socially programmed emotional responses than it does with communicating any coherent idea. For one it is highly inaccurate: the term is applied nearly exclusively to individuals who are anti-Jewish, even though “Semite” refers to a meta-racial grouping of which the Jews are just one modern descendant. For another it is almost always used to simplify ideological systems that are in actuality quite complex. Suddenly, movements in which opposition to Judaism is only a periphery or at best secondary element within a much broader and totalistic framework get reduced to reactionary movements which, we are to believe, can be easily and completely understood as anti-rational hate groups that play on people’s fears in order to advance seedy political agendas. To anyone who has seriously studied European/American nationalism, it is clear that the term “anti-Semitic” is typically used as an ad hominem to avoid discussing any real issues or recognizing the complexity inherent in modern ethno-cultural/radical traditionalist philosophy.

In short: The history of usage is what makes “anti-Semitism” incoherent, not something inherent in the term itself.

I don't see why not?

There are anti-smites here would you not agree? Why can't I use it?

That would depend on what an anti-semite is, Geist. Most people can't agree. Often when I ask people what an anti-semite is, I get the answer "Someone who hates Jews just because they're Jews." Using that definition, I say No.

Islamophobia is a new term that has caught on lately, I guess it slipped it.

It's a silly term. You should chastise yourself.

What are you talking about? The Irish media has little, probably no Jeish influence. The Jews are declining in Ireland if you really need to know. In fact it's kind of an epidemic at the moment.?

If you would like to check out the ethnic affiliations of the most prominent self-appointed representatives of immigrants you will find out what I mean.


All very well...but why should I hate Jews?

I never said you have to hate them. In fact I will repeat it now: 'its not about "hating Jews."' Judaism is the issue. Perhaps if you studied what they themselves have to say about themselves and what they say about the Goyim you will understand. Then you will be able to study their role in history and understand the significance of what they have done and what they are about.

Why can't I be nuetral?

Because they do not allow that. Their divine mission of tikkun olam makes you their business. How can one be neutral about people who believe everyone else than themselves to be sub-human (if you doubt that I will prove it to you)? Their actions are informed by such deep-rooted beliefs. I'm sorry, neutrality is not an option.

By the way whats wrong with the term anti-semitism

Terms are not value-neutral - the most well-known example is terrorist/freedom fighter - antisemitism is their term; in fact they insist on the spelling anti-semitism, much debating was done about this.

Antisemitism is a nonsense term. It actually describes anyone who opposes the Jews, that is, anyone who is not duped by them. It is a slur word, it is the kiss of death; anyone branded as an antisemite is finished, is a pariah, thus is the power of naming - something they have a keen understanding of - just read Genesis with that in mind and you will see.

Someone recently defined an antisemite as; "anyone the Jews don't like."

Another commentator has described antisemtisim as a disease you catch from Jews.

The best possible thing you could do to advance your own knowledge of the topic is to read what they themselves say - you don't need to read what evil Goys say at all and I guarantee you will not come away neutral.

Another commentator has described antisemtisim as a disease you catch from Jews.


That would be Edgar Steele.

http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/

His website has a few interesting articles.

Well now, what to make of this? "The fact that my act was egoistic doesn't mean that it can't be beneficiary for anyone else." So now you are shifting, the original statement suggested the benefit of the respondents, then it was for your benefit, now it is your benefit and theirs. - Eh? I'm not shifting at all. None of those statements exclude each other.
I asked no such thing. I do not accept the premises upon which this statement rests. "Originally Posted by Reinhold Elstner If you can't be bothered then why should anybody waste time answering your frivolous question?"

I assumed that by "anybody" you also meant yourself?
I knew this was going to become circular. Why should anyone pander to the egotism of another? - Because it serves them as well.
You certainly betray a Randian influence through your conception of egotism as a basis of human action. - I disagree with Rand on a lot of things, but I do believe we all act with our own happyness as a goal (i.e. happyness is the only autoelitic element there is) and that is compairable to some elements of Rand's philosophy, yes.
So you have already decided that all writings about the Jews which are not adulatory are "rantings"? - no
Perish the possibility that you might have to do some intellectual labour. - You're saying there's no intellectual labour in dialogue?

That would depend on what an anti-semite is, Geist. Most people can't agree. Often when I ask people what an anti-semite is, I get the answer "Someone who hates Jews just because they're Jews." Using that definition, I say No.

Well that is true but on this forum I surely don't need to explain that. I am well aware you have reasons to hate Jews. My version of anti-semitism is a hatred of Jews because they are over-represented as Fade would say in media etc.

In fact this definition would support my position as having no reason to hate Irish Jews as Jews in Ireland play no real part in society.

If you would like to check out the ethnic affiliations of the most prominent self-appointed representatives of immigrants you will find out what I mean.

Prove it, that's your job. I'm not going to look up your proof of Jewish involvement in immigration for you.


I never said you have to hate them. In fact I will repeat it now: 'its not about "hating Jews."' Judaism is the issue. Perhaps if you studied what they themselves have to say about themselves and what they say about the Goyim you will understand. Then you will be able to study their role in history and understand the significance of what they have done and what they are about.

I could say the same about the White race and present them badly if I wish.



Because they do not allow that. Their divine mission of tikkun olam makes you their business. How can one be neutral about people who believe everyone else than themselves to be sub-human (if you doubt that I will prove it to you)? Their actions are informed by such deep-rooted beliefs. I'm sorry, neutrality is not an option.

Conjecture. But go on and prove it anyway.




Antisemitism is a nonsense term. It actually describes anyone who opposes the Jews, that is, anyone who is not duped by them. It is a slur word, it is the kiss of death; anyone branded as an antisemite is finished, is a pariah, thus is the power of naming - something they have a keen understanding of - just read Genesis with that in mind and you will see.

See reply to Edana

I don't only oppose the represenatitive group members because most Jews support them and follow their agenda. They get their money and legitimacy through the support of regular Jews.

I don't oppose every individual Jew because some openly dissent.

Is that clear? - Certainly. You oppose the groups and the ones that support them (regardless of their ethnicity?)

It is a Council composed of every powerful and established Jewish organization. They all meet every year and hash out a set of policies. - Interesting.
Jews have always been interested in immigration. As I already posted, a central focus of the Jewish agenda is to weaken and prevent European gentile group cohesion to prevent "anti-semitism." They believed that a "pluralistic" society where European gentiles are in the minority would be preferable to a strong European society where "dangerous" nationalism could arise. They were also interested in keeping the door open for their kin. - Odd, I suppose they're wrong. Immigration without integration does nothing to stop nationalism or racism.
I did not say Jews create public schools. They gather together and decide on goals regarding public schools and then act for those goals. - Ah, so they lobby for their view on pedagogique(sp?) as well?
They thought Christianity was scary and that weakening it would reduce "anti-semitism." - That's dumb of them, then. In my experience the most extreme pro-jewish people are christian.
Why do you keep asking why they do things? The fact that they do things is reason to oppose them. It has been proven without a doubt that Jews organize and agitate for things that many people oppose. They are antagonists. Voila! Anti-semitism! - All people involved in politics focus on things people disagree on. If people agree on something it comes through, if they disagree - there has to be political work done. The current debate around the US presidency is a good case in point :p

Not only did that not address my statement at all, but it doesn't matter to me if there are other religious lobby groups as long as they don't conflict with my goals. Jews have consistantly conflicted with my idea of a healthy society. They are antagonists. Either you believe that Jews cannot be antagonists or you agree that what is called "anti-semitism" is perfectly justified. It is up to you. Main Entry: an·tag·o·nist http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?antago02.wav=antagonist'))
Pronunciation: -nist
Function: noun
1 : one that contends with or opposes another
www.m-w.com

Er... I choose neither then.
By the way, they are not a religious group - they are an ethnic group. - Most larger religious groups are both.

They are not religious groups and they are representative of the greater Jewish community. The Jewish community supports these groups. That makes them antagonists. - According to the definition above, I'm an antagonist as well.

When have I phrased myself? People like you slap the labels on me. The Jewish people as a group, as a community, are antagonists. A few Jews dissent from their people, but that does not excuse the more powerful actions of their group. I would be very careful about calling people "dumb" when you are so flabbergasted at the idea of the Jewish community having opposing interests with other groups. - I'm not flabbergasted about that at all. I'm just wierded out because people here at the phora use the rethoric they do. I mean, there's nothing anti-semitic about opposing the cases of Jewish lobbyist groups and the causes of people that support them - there are plenty of people who do so without ever being called anti-semites for it.

I do have a feeling there's something else behind all this.

Well that is true but on this forum I surely don't need to explain that. I am well aware you have reasons to hate Jews. My version of anti-semitism is a hatred of Jews because they are over-represented as Fade would say in media etc.

Hate is too strong a word to describe my feelings. Hate, to me, is a more personal emotion.

I recognize that termites are doing my house more harm than good and need to do something to fix that. I don't sit around passionately hating the termites.

This is an example, I don't have termites.

- Certainly. You oppose the groups and the ones that support them (regardless of their ethnicity?)

People who support these Jewish agendas which are contrary to our interests are part of the problem.

- Odd, I suppose they're wrong. Immigration without integration does nothing to stop nationalism or racism.

"Integration" means nothing and it is irrelevent to the topic. They pushed for an outcome based on their perceived ethnic interests, which are contrary to mine.

- That's dumb of them, then. In my experience the most extreme pro-jewish people are christian.

Irrelevent if they have counter-productive habits that were actually quite rational at one time considering Christian history towards Jews.

The point is that Jews pushed for an outcome based on their peceived ethnic interests that were contrary to the interests of the majority of the population.

- Most larger religious groups are both.

The Jewish community includes atheists.

- According to the definition above, I'm an antagonist as well.

You are definitely part of the problem if you support goals that are contrary to our interests. Every gentile who is apathetic about foreigners ruling Malmo, London, or any other major Western city is part of the problem. Every gentile who wants us all to "integrate" with a mass of Africans is part of the problem.

- I'm not flabbergasted about that at all. I'm just wierded out because people here at the phora use the rethoric they do. I mean, there's nothing anti-semitic about opposing the cases of Jewish lobbyist groups and the causes of people that support them - there are plenty of people who do so without ever being called anti-semites for it.

Everyone who points out the Jewish nature of such agendas is described as an anti-semite.

I do have a feeling there's something else behind all this.

Your unwillingness to understand, because it would violate your cherished prejudices, is behind this thread size.

After all of the evidence that Jews act in ways contrary to the interests of others based on their perceived Jewish interests, it should have been quite clear. Your response to this is to split hairs.

Hate is too strong a word to describe my feelings. Hate, to me, is a more personal emotion.

I recognize that termites are doing my house more harm than good and need to do something to fix that. I don't sit around passionately hating the termites.

This is an example, I don't have termites.

I can't think of another way to describe the feeling's expressed here at the Phora so.

Eh? I'm not shifting at all. None of those statements exclude each other

In their exposition they do.

To my initial question you responded thus; "To sum up and phrase out their thoughts on the issue. It's a useful mental exercise."

Clearly this means the benefit goes to your correspondents.

When this was pointed out you said that you had your benefit in mind - "I didn't make this topic for your sake, I made it for mine."

OK, this is not so important.

--
I assumed that by "anybody" you also meant yourself?

Yes, but hitherto I have not addressed myself to the substantive question to you for I am more interested in certain inconsistencies in your stated position.


"Why should anyone pander to the egotism of another?"

Because it serves them as well.

How can pandering to someone's egotism "serve" the one doing the pandering?

but I do believe we all act with our own happyness as a goal

You really don't need Rand for that you know. Eudaimonism is an ancient and broadly held basis for ethical theory and which does not necessarily entail ego satisfaction.

You're saying there's no intellectual labour in dialogue?

When the topic is empirical then there is little point in discussing the matter with someone who professes to lack a knowledge of the relevant facts and who states that they are not prepared to rectify. At the very least such a dialogue will come out one-sided and quasi-pedagogic. Rather it resembles a tendetious ploy of some kind.

People who support these Jewish agendas which are contrary to our interests are part of the problem. - Mkay, but you still group and see them seperately as "something else" than the jews who support it.
"Integration" means nothing - This is smelling of newspeak. Of course the word means something.
and it is irrelevent to the topic. They pushed for an outcome based on their perceived ethnic interests, which are contrary to mine. - I know you disagree with the causes of these groups, there is no need to repeat it.
Irrelevent if they have counter-productive habits that were actually quite rational at one time considering Christian history towards Jews. - Hardly
The point is that Jews pushed for an outcome based on their peceived ethnic interests that were contrary to the interests of the majority of the population. - I wouldn't necessarily say that. And that's a case in point that what you're saying is just variations of "I disagree with their causes"
The Jewish community includes atheists. - That's a question of definition.
You are definitely part of the problem if you support goals that are contrary to our interests. - I thought it was quite obvious that I disagree with many of your "interests".
Everyone who points out the Jewish nature of such agendas is described as an anti-semite. - Well, yes, because that choice of words hints of racism.
Your unwillingness to understand, because it would violate your cherished prejudices, is behind this thread size. - I made this thread to understand - and I am certainly not the one embracing prejudisms here.
After all of the evidence that Jews act in ways contrary to the interests of others based on their perceived Jewish interests, it should have been quite clear. Your response to this is to split hairs. - My responses are attempts to make sense of it and work out a clear phrasing without flowery bullsh!t.

Yes, but hitherto I have not addressed myself to the substantive question to you for I am more interested in certain inconsistencies in your stated position. - And I'm responding because I enjoy chatting about things like these.
How can pandering to someone's egotism "serve" the one doing the pandering? - "Pandering" is a value-laden word. But I'll reply anyway.

If you get yourself a job in a company, you are serving the interests of your employers. Yet you choose to do so because this also serves your interests - you get money.
You really don't need Rand for that you know. - I know. I believed that before I read any of Rand's writings. And I'm not planning on reading any more than that little "reader" I read.

hm... poetic.
Eudaimonism is an ancient and broadly held basis for ethical theory and which does not necessarily entail ego satisfaction. - thanks for the tip; I'll look it up.
When the topic is empirical then there is little point in discussing the matter with someone who professes to lack a knowledge of the relevant facts - If I know everything that was relevant to the given topic I'm debating - my debating style changes drastically. But I mainly debate to learn.
and who states that they are not prepared to rectify. - I don't believe I stated that...
At the very least such a dialogue will come out one-sided and quasi-pedagogic. Rather it resembles a tendetious ploy of some kind. - Not really - I'm just curious.

Mkay, but you still group and see them seperately as "something else" than the jews who support it.

Jews are a nation within nations. They form a seperate group within the polity that are organized and agitate for changes based on their perceieved ethnic interests. This has been repeated to you again, and again, and again. Yes, I distinguish between them and faddish individuals who have swallowed values promoted to them after the fact.

...there is no need to repeat it.

If I don't stick to the subject, you will split hairs until we are arguing about something else.

Well, yes, because that choice of words hints of racism.

Who invented the term "racism", painted it as "evil", and then promoted the stupid idea that different ancestral groups can't have conflicting interests and that Jews never organize and push for outcomes based on their own ethnic interests?

I am certainly not the one embracing prejudisms here.

You have prejudged Jews to be innocent and that anyone who opposes Jewry is "irrational." Your statement about thinking that "there is something more to this" is an admission on your part that you are digging for something that fits your preconceived notions.

My responses are attempts to make sense of it and work out a clear phrasing

Jews are a nation within nations. They form a seperate group within the polity that are organized and agitate for changes based on their perceieved ethnic interests. This is clear phrasing to anyone who knows English. We despise the results of their activism.

And I'm responding because I enjoy chatting about things like these.

Likewise.

"Pandering" is a value-laden word. But I'll reply anyway.

Its not actually. Its primary sense describes what a pimp does.

If you get yourself a job in a company, you are serving the interests of your employers. Yet you choose to do so because this also serves your interests - you get money.

What has this got to do with pandering to egotism?

I'm not planning on reading any more than that little "reader" I read.

Sensible. Rand is poison.

But I mainly debate to learn.

That's an odd motive for debate. In order to learn surely one inquires in the usual way; take classes, read books by authorities etc? Surely the purpose of debate is to pit opposing viewpoints against each other and that ideally some stronger third position will emerge by way of a conclusion? Of course there is the kind of debate where the purpose is to 'win' the argument, whatever that means.

I don't believe I stated that...

I think you did.

I'm not interested enough in the issue in it self to search the forum and wade through oceans of ranting.

not interested enough to go read 10 pages of ranting.

This is actually why I rarely read political books at all.

So if you really were interested in learning about the topic you would do so. But of course this is all a pretence.

Prove it, that's your job. I'm not going to look up your proof of Jewish involvement in immigration for you.

Ronit Lentin, israeli sociologist and holocaust promoter, and Ivana Bacik - I'm not certain but probably Jewish. These two are the most vocal. Add to this the well-documented and consistent lobbying for open immigration policies by Jews in the US during the 1924-65 moratorium.


Conjecture. But go on and prove it anyway.

Conjecture? Hardly, their scriptures are full of it.

From the Torah
Deut, 7, 1-2; 5; 16-19; 22

"when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them."

and

"you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Ashe'rim, and burn their graven images with fire."

"And you shall destroy all the peoples that the LORD your God will give over to you, your eye shall not pity them; neither shall you serve their gods, for that would be a snare to you. 17 "If you say in your heart, 'These nations are greater than I; how can I dispossess them?' 18 you shall not be afraid of them, but you shall remember what the LORD your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt . . ."


"The LORD your God will clear away these nations before you little by little; you may not make an end of them at once, lest the wild beasts grow too numerous for you"

You could add to this the whole Book of Joshua which reads like a an ethno-supremacists genocide manual and many other scriptural texts too numerous to mention, on and on in that vein. Thoroughgoing, divinely ordained hostility to all non-Jews.


That's the Torah. The Talmud is the normative text for most Jews now and grows out of the Pharasaism at the time of Jesus. It is actually much worse than the Torah.

---
""a low estimate of non-Jews pervades much of Talmudic liteature. The Mishna
admonishes Jews not to leave their animals unattended at the inn of a gentile,
because gentiles are suspected of engaging in beastiality. Gentiles are described
also as liable to rape and murder, so that a lonely Jew should avoid their
company ... [T]reatment of the 'other' remains a problem for Judaism. In
a divided world, we are entilted to take whatever measures will advance
our narrow interests. And it is such a world, in which holiness and hatred
are intertwined, that [jailed American fraudster] Rabbi Frankel inhabits."
[SCHORSCH, I., 4-30-99

cited in When Vcitims Rule

Double standards;

Other disturbing views from Jewish religious literature and tradition include:
"When we withhold mercy from others [it] is equal to that for doing
(merciful deeds) to members of our own people." [SHAHAK, p. 96]

"If the ox of a Jew gores the ox of Gentile, the Jew is not required to pay
damages, but if the ox of a Gentile ... gores the ox of a Jew, the Gentile
is required to pay full damages." [MISHNAH, BABA KAMA 4:3]

The last quote is from the Talmud.

And on it goes. They are intrinsically hostile towards the Goyim and will use every kind of device to subvert or 'get one across' which is why I suggested that neutrality is not possible.

:: Right, so - what I've gotten so far. Some jews have organized themselves in groups that claim to represent all jews and work to serve jewish ends.

No. The leadership of the Jewish Community organises itself to pursue what the Jewish Community perceives to be its goals (at the expense of others). Such organizations are REPRESENTATIVE of the Jewish Community. Jews regularly speak of the Jewish Community in their own literature, so I have no problem using the category myself.

:: So you oppose, not necessarily every single jew, but these groups. Am I right?

These groups are representative of the Jewish Community they represent. And while it is true that all Jews are not of the same political viewpoints, that is irrelevant to whether or not Jewish organisations are pursuing commonly agreed upon ethnic interests at the expense of others.

:: So what do these groups work for?

Very simple: 'what is good for the Jews'. This varies from time to time.

:: I got "equal rights" here, anything else?

You are missing the point. Equal rights are only desirable because equal rights are perceived to be 'good for the Jews'. When 'equal rights' are not perceived to be 'good for the Jews', then they are not supported. A good example of this is the widespread support on the part of Jews for Southern desegregation and opposition to integration in NYC public schools controlled by Jewish teachers unions.

Jews are a nation within nations. They form a seperate group within the polity that are organized and agitate for changes based on their perceieved ethnic interests. This has been repeated to you again, and again, and again. - So it has, and I got it the first time.
Who invented the term "racism", painted it as "evil", and then promoted the stupid idea that different ancestral groups can't have conflicting interests and that Jews never organize and push for outcomes based on their own ethnic interests? - None that I know of. I don't even believe I've heard of that way of thinking before.
You have prejudged Jews to be innocent - I certainly haven't. I have stated before that I won't judge an entire ethnic group as I would an individual.

But I will judge groups that people voluntarily enter (like that lobby group you mentioned) and individuals.
and that anyone who opposes Jewry is "irrational." - I have not used that word, nor do I think I've stated anything to that effect....
Your statement about thinking that "there is something more to this" is an admission on your part that you are digging for something that fits your preconceived notions. - No it isn't - and I think it might be you who're trying to make me fit in to your prejudisms.
Jews are a nation within nations. They form a seperate group within the polity that are organized and agitate for changes based on their perceieved ethnic interests. This is clear phrasing to anyone who knows English. We despise the results of their activism. - In other words;

You believe most jews act as a highly segregated ethnic group who form organizations that work for the interests of that group.

You dislike the effects these organizations have had.

Now, this is not something that neither I nor anyone else I know would call anti semitic or racist. It is like you said when people point "out the Jewish nature of such agendas" it's starting to look more racist (and I believe you know what definition of the word I'm working with here) as it looks like you're attatching a way of thinking to a "race".

Since you use the word "ethnicity" here, it seems you're not arguing on a racist basis though. You simply think it's part of their culture as an ethnic group to act with a sort of collective egoism (which I interpret you want "the white race" to do as well.) and that their goals, at this time, are contrary to yours and your(and perhaps my) ethnic group.

Did I get it all down right?

Its not actually. Its primary sense describes what a pimp does. - Laden with negative value then :p
What has this got to do with pandering to egotism? Main Entry: 2pander
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): pan·dered; pan·der·ing http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cimg%20src=%22http://www.thephora.org/images/smilies/tongue.gif%22%20border=%220%22%20alt=%22%22%20title=%22Stick%20Out%20Tongue%22%20smilieid=%225%22%20class=%22inlineimg%22%20/%3EopWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?pander02.wav=pandering%27%29) /-d(&-)ri[ng]/
: to act as a pander; especially : to provide gratification for others' desires <films that pander to the basest emotions>
- pan·der·er http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cimg%20src=%22http://www.thephora.org/images/smilies/tongue.gif%22%20border=%220%22%20alt=%22%22%20title=%22Stick%20Out%20Tongue%22%20smilieid=%225%22%20class=%22inlineimg%22%20/%3EopWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?pander03.wav=panderer%27%29) /-d&r-&r/ noun

Increasing my vocabulary once again. But technically it still works out. The pimp also panders to other people's egotism, so that they'll reward his. Just as the employee serves the emplyer's egoistic interests so that he'll serve the employee's interests by providing a steady salary.
Sensible. Rand is poison. - Rand is funny. If it really is true that FaDe used to be a Randist I can say I understand his current attitude towards morale and language :p

That's an odd motive for debate. In order to learn surely one inquires in the usual way; take classes, read books by authorities etc? Surely the purpose of debate is to pit opposing viewpoints against each other and that ideally some stronger third position will emerge by way of a conclusion? - This I've never experienced.
Of course there is the kind of debate where the purpose is to 'win' the argument, whatever that means. - Yes I never fully got that. How do you know you've "won"? When your opponent stops responding? When everyone else suddenly agree with you? When you're so full of yourself you get an erection every time you look in the mirror? :confused:
I think you did. - I stated I was relatively uninterested, not absolutely. I've responded to this thread several times almost every day, so I'm certainly not absolutely uninterested.
So if you really were interested in learning about the topic you would do so. But of course this is all a pretence. - I feel I learn better through dialogue. Especially when it comes to understanding how others feel. Before I joined DA (or, well, the "cyber I") I could read page up and page down on FOXnews or some other neocon propaganda, but I still wouldn't be any closer to understanding the neocon way of thought or mindset.

The pimp also panders to other people's egotism, so that they'll reward his.

No, no. The pimp panders to the lust of others in exchange for monetary gain.

Laden with negative value then

Its a descripitve term, I mean, how else do you name the one who does what pimps do?

If it really is true that FaDe used to be a Randist . . .

I don't know but it seems rather preposterous.

I stated I was relatively uninterested, not absolutely.

Obviouslyu, otherwise you would not have started the thread. However, not interested enough to do the spade work.

Especially when it comes to understanding how others feel.

Surely how, or what, others think is what is at issue?

I could read page up and page down on FOXnews or some other neocon propaganda, but I still wouldn't be any closer to understanding the neocon way of thought or mindset.

Your not supposed to. The whole point of that kind of stuff is turn the mind into malleable mush. People end up believing the most incredible nonsense after sufficient exposure, e.g. that Saddam was bent on world domination.