Re: Another Censorship . . . .

Andreas Pour wrote:
> James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> 
>>> [1]  The National Alliance is a white supremacist group, according to Jewish 
>>> supremacist groups like the ADL and JDO.  They may actually be correct in this 
>>> case, having read the article it does have that "feel" to it.
>> 
>> To quote George Will, you are equating the fireman and the arsonist.
>> 
>> Neo-Nazi hate groups *are* evil.
> 
> 
> I suppose that depends on how you define "neo-Nazi".  If that is your definition then 
> of course you are correct.  The reason I raise this point is that b/c the connection 
> "neoNazi = evil" is so profound in the public mind, many types groups are called that 
> simply to discredit them and cause others to hate them and dismiss their arguments.
> 
I *do* dismiss their arguments because they are based on racist rhetoric.  If they want to
have a reasonable discussion of the same issues without the racist rhetoric, then it would
be different.
> 
>> Therefore it is not "censorship" to resist their attempts to spread their ideas.
> 
> 
> But tell me, do you think the JDO or the neo-cons are any different?
> 
The JDO is the "fireman" and the racist group is the "arsonist".
> 
>> From http://natvan.com/:
>> 
>> 
>>> Martin Luther King was no hero. His multiracialist movement was intended to do 
>>> exactly what it did: destroy the fabric of White America. We who are the survivors
>>>  of the multiracialist experiment forced on us by King's handlers -- and many have
>>>  died because of it -- must do everything we can so that White children are still 
>>> being born in the future.
>> 
>> Hmmmmm ... .
> 
> 
> Is this any different from the *standard* Jewish view on marriage?  Do you know what a
>  Jew who marries a "goyim" goes through in the Jewish community?

It depends on how conservative the Jews in question are.  It also depends on whether the
non-Jew is the man or the woman since Jewishness is matrileal.

> In the first place most rabbis won't even perform the ceremony, making it effectively 
> illegal to marry a non-Jew.  And there are plenty of arguments about not inter-mixing 
> so that "Jewisch children are still being born in the future", hell, I bet you can even
>  find it in the New York Times!
> 
> This is just a case of double-standards, esp. w/r/t things like what the Jewish 
> leadership preaches to other races (inter-marriage is cool!) and what it preaches to 
> Jews (Jews must marry only other Jews!).
> 
> Now I ask you, who is more of a racialist?

To say that Jews are a race is racist because they are not a race they are a
religious/ethnic group.  So, it isn't any different than conservative Roman Catholics that
don't want their children to marry outside their religion.

> And please do not attack me personally for raising a fact about Jewish culture.
> 
> 
>> Or perhaps you believe that crap.
> 
> 
> Actually, I liked MLK, and I don't see what he has to do with the other point being 
> raised in the excerpt you quote.  Beyond that, I don't have a problem with Jews (or 
> Whites or Blacks) preferring to marry their own race / religion / culture / whatever, 
> and I also don't have a problem with them peacefully arguing others should do as they 
> believe (that of course is the nature of free speech). However, I do have a problem 
> with double-standards.
> 
It is only a double standard if the the two sides are equal -- they are not.
> 
>> You appear to believe anti-jew racist crap.
> 
> 
> As you are a sadly ignorant I will forgive this sadly ignorant comment.  But I suggest
>  you try to remove yourself from this brainwashed conditioning you have been immersed 
> in.  One way to start is to apply the same rules to Jewish supremacists that you apply
>  to White supremacists.
> 
Jews wanting to preserve their ethnic group is not about race so it isn't the same thing.
  Jews are no more supremacists than the Amish are -- they just want to preserve their
ethnic culture.  I see nothing wrong with that.

> Note, for example, that a majority of Israeli Jews want to ethnically cleanse Israel of
>  Arabs.  This is exactly what the Nazis, in everyone's estimation, started to do to the
>  Jews (the mass gassings claims start in 1942) - indeed pretty much everyone agrees the
>  original plan was to transfer the European Jews to Palestine (which failed b/c Britain
>  did not permit it) or Madagascar (which failed for several reasons, including b/c the
>  Zionists opposed it).
> 
This is a half-truth.  There are Arabs that have full Israeli citizenship.  However, it is
true that the State does not want too many Arabs because they want to preserve Israel as a
Jewish state.  This is no different than Iran wanting to preserve their Moslem state.  It
is not about race, it is about religion.

> Moreover, Israel has been steadily expanding its territory for 50 years.
> 
Wrong: they made peach with Egypt and gave the Sinai territory back.  And, other than a
small piece of Syria, they have simply been fighting over the same territory since 1948.

> So in that sense, I don't see a difference b/w Likud Israel and Nazi Germany.

You really don't see the difference.  Reduced to its absurdity it is much different.  The
Israelis want to get rid of the Arabs in Israel by having them move away.  The Nazis
wanted to get rid of the Jews in Germany by killing them.  Very large difference.

> But you never see that comparison in the mainstream press - indeed it goes out of its 
> way not to tell you that Israel is a nation of ethnic cleansers wannabees, or all the 
> multitude of racist anti-Arab laws that are in place.

Are they really anti-Arab laws or are they about religion?

> Now I do not see the National Alliance calling for the type of racist laws Israel has
> (e.g., Arabs cannot purchase real property in Israel).
> 
Does that apply to all Arabs or just Arabs that don't have Israeli citizenship?  Does it 
apply to all non-Jews that are not citizens of Israel?  They are certainly not the only 
country that restricts ownership of real property by non-citizens.  It used to be that way 
in Mexico -- probably still is.  Is is raciest to say that "Anglos" are not allowed to buy 
real property in Mexico.

> Yes, I disapprove of the National Alliance, but I also disapprove of racist-fascist 
> Israel.  Do you?
> 
I have some issues with various events in Israel, but I do not mix race into this.  And, 
yes I see some fascist tendencies in Israel, but reading history, I also see some fascist 
tendencies in the USA during WW2.

I guess my real point is that you don't need to mix in race to criticise Israel.

--
JRT


Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.