Re: Another Censorship . . . .

Andreas Pour wrote:
> James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> Certainly.  But the article I flagged at the get-go was rather devoid of racist 
> rhetoric, at least compared to the MLK one.  Unfortunately articles that report on bias
>  in the media are largely limited to sites like that b/c if you broach the subject you 
> are demonized instantly as an anti-Semite and so only people who are demonized already 
> broach the subject.
> 
> To take an example of this to its extreme, a US diplomat recently called a reference to
>  the US "Jewish lobby" an "ethnic slur".  See 
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=483856 .  There was also of 
> course the case of the Democrat who claimed that the Jewish lobby was influential in 
> supporting the unlawful war against Iraq and who was demonized and made to apologize 
> for simply speaking the truth.
> 
This *is* an ethnic slur.  He should have referred to the "Israeli lobby" and nobody with
any sense denies that that lobby exists.

> What these little anecdotes show is that if you start to see a large number of Jews in 
> positions of power and influence, you are not allowed to say it - somehow, this makes 
> you racist.

You just don't get it -- to say that *is* racist.

> Of course, if you notice a large number of Whites (and not many blacks), then this is 
> completely acceptable.  Just another one of the double-standards of the - yes - Jewish 
> media.

Saying that there are a large number of "Whites" (which should include Jews since Hebrew
Jews *are* "Caucasians"} is said in the context of discrimination against various
"non-White" minority groups.  It isn't the same thing.  An equivalent thing would be
complaining that there were too many Germans (on the basis of family name) in positions of
power and influence.

> Would have been interesting, as I noted from the outset, if the JDO had debated the 
> facts in the "Who Rules America" story (there was some rhetoric as well of course but 
> that can be ignored easily enough) instead of censoring the story. To me, that 
> indicates the facts are substantially correct.
> 
It isn't about the facts.  The "Who Rules America" story is racist and hate speech.  If
you don't judge people based on their ethnic origin, it doesn't matter what ethnic group
people are.  OTOH, it is perfectly proper to be concerned about the influence of the
"Israeli lobby" on our government as long as it isn't a racial issue.

> 
>>> 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.
> 
> 
> Yes, but the point is, it is a taboo in the predominant culture.  There are Jews who 
> don't care either way (just as there are Whites who don't care either way), but that is
>  not mainstream Jewish culture (nor is it mainstream European, African or Asian 
> culture).
> 
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> 
> The point is, I don't agree that it is purely religious; that explanation does not 
> explain matrilineage (note that the Reformists recently have challenged matrilineage 
> and expanded it to patrilineage, but the Orthodox and Hasidic Jews are very upset by 
> this) and it also does not explain the racial discrimination that is in play in 
> mainstream Jewish (as well as White and Black and Chinese or whatever) culture.
> 
> The simple fact is most people prefer a marriage partner that is genetically close 
> (indeed one can argue that a second cousin is biologically most suited as a breeding 
> partner), and I don't see anything wrong with that.  What I don't understand is why you
>  attack the NA for that. Just a brief glimpse at their website gives you plenty of 
> valid reasons to attack them for, like general stupidity, incorrigible irrationality 
> and actual racism :-/.

Those are the reasons that I simply dismiss anything that they might say.

<SNIP>
> 
> The difference is that the Arabs lived there first,

What!  Certainly the Jews lived there before the Muslims did.  And, here is where it gets
messy.  If you believe that Jews are a race then their ancestors used to live in Palestine
and they are just going back to their homeland.  Zionism asserts this without going into race.

> hence, your "preserve" argument if totally biased.  But for ethnic cleansers, that does
>  not matter. (Refusing the right of return is a continuation of the 1948 ethnic 
> cleansing, for example.)
> 
> And I would also point out that this "preserve my culture" thing is precisely what the 
> Nazis used to justify cleansing Europe of Jews

No it isn't.

> - and in the European case it is obvious that the Jews had a very large effect on 
> culture (indeed one could argue that Communism itself was an outgrowth of Judaism and 
> just on this basis was greatly effecting European culture).
> 
> I guess it's just another case of double-standards favoring Jews, eh?  Jews get to 
> preserve their culture and ethnically cleanse others, but nobody else can, isn't that 
> right?
> 
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> 
> That's not true, at a minimum (ignoring Lebanon, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, Jerusalem 
> and some other issues) they are at this juncture occupying the West Bank (which was 
> part of Jordan),

I said except for the Golan Heights.  However the other land was in dispute before the
partition.  It was the partition that made it part of Jordan.  So, they *have* been
fighting over the same land since 1948.

<SNIP>

>> 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.
> 
> Actually the Nazis wanted to get rid of the Jews by transfering them out of Europe. The
>  official story goes that in 1942 they changed the practice and started mass gassings 
> at a time when their was all-out war.  I am forbidden by law from challenging this 
> claim, and I have elected to comply with the law in this case as it is not that 
> critical to me to debate the dogma; but even if I acknowledge that after some time, 
> during urgencies of war when the survival of Germany was at stake the Nazis started 
> mass killing Jews, it doesn't take a genius to see that Israel is on the verge of doing
>  the same to the Palestinians.

No, it doesn't take a genius, it takes a racist.

> Talk about appeasement.  What the world is doing to Israel is far worse than 
> appeasement, it is aiding and abetting.
> 
> BTW, do you know how many millions of Germans were killed in 1945 and in the German 
> Holocaust that followed after Germany's defeat?  No, of course not, that does not 
> matter, indeed all of World War II has become a footnote to the alleged horrors of the 
> Jewish Holocaust.  All the suffering of the Russians (both from the Nazis and the 
> Bolsheviks) is just a minor fact not worth mentioning in comparison, right?  B/c the 
> Russians and Germans are not the "chosen people", or why exactly?

I know about Dresden.  I am quite aware of the fact that Bolsheviks killed a lot of Jews
and that Stalin killed a lot of Russians and people of other ethnic groups.  Estimates I
have read indicate that the USSR killed more people than the Nazis did.  However, I do
make a distinction between people killed in war and those deliberately exterminated.

> If you think that the Israelis would hesitate to murder vass quantities of Arabs in 
> time of a war like World War III, then I guess I will simply disagree with you and note
>  that this blood will be on your hands (as an Israeli supporter) and not mine.  Israel 
> is building up to the apocalypse, it is not there yet.  But unless it is stopped it 
> will get there and the tragedy IMO is likely to far exceed WW II.
> 
Israel has nuclear weapons.  I have no doubt that if attacked that they would use them if
they could not win by conventional means.  I do not see that as murdering vast quantities
of Arabs.  If they were not ready to use these weapons, where is the deterrent?
> 
>>> 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?
> 
> To prove you are a Jew you do not have to believe any religion, you only have to show 
> your mother was Jewish.
> 
Yes, that is about the Zionist right of return.

> As I noted before, Jews are a tribal ethnic group.  The only way one can understand 
> Jews is to think of them as a tribe, b/c that is exactly what they are.  Since most 
> people do not know what a tribe really is, think of it as a borderless Nation.
> 
> Hence if the Arabs had Jewish mothers yet believed exactly what they believe 
> religiously, they would be deemed Jews

And in the ethnic sense they would be Jews.

> - as they would be descendants of a citizen of the Nation / Tribe.  While the tribe is 
> not strictly "racial" (though the Ethiopian Jew treatment makes you realize to some 
> extent it is), it is not simply a question of religion or culture but genetics play an 
> important role.

Interesting aside: Genetic tests have shown that some of these African Jews have the
"Cohen gene".  Since the discrimination against them has been based on claims that they
aren't actually Jews, I wonder what will happen now.

> Indeed religiously Jews vary from Hasidic, Orthodox, Reformist to agnostic, atheist, 
> Communist, etc.  Yet all are granted special rights in Israel, so long as their mother 
> was Jewish (and their children too will be considered Jewish). This is the criteria for
> tribal membership.

It is the criteria for the right of return.  And this stands your argument of religious
discrimination against Arabs on its head.

> Now if you want to make the argument that Israeli Jews can make a "religious" law a/g 
> Arabs preventing them from, say, owning property, do you also think it is acceptable 
> for Christians to make a "religous" law a/g Jews, say, owning property?  Or are only 
> Jews allowed to discriminate on that basis, in your view?  Is this another one of those
>  double-standards to which only Jews are entitled?
> 
As I said, the laws are based on citizenship.  In this case, the Zionist criteria for
Israel citizenship confounds the issue.  But, you have admitted that it isn't about religion.
> 
<SNIP>

> Indeed when you hear Jewish leaders repeatedly refer to Palestinians as "beasts", 
> "crocodiles", "cockroaches" and other terrible insults, 

I would add what I consider to be a much worse insult: 'baby killers'.


> Part of the enigma of the term "Jew" is what is exploited to demonize tribal critics. 
> If I say, "the Jewish lobby was behind the Iraqi war", that, according to the US 
> official quoted above, is an ethnic slur.  But if I say, "the French lobby was against 
> the Iraqi war", that, I presume, is a valid statement.
> 
> Why the difference?  Just another double-standard (you start to get the point here, I 
> hope).

No, one refers to an ethnic group and might be considered to be racist.  The other refers 
to a country.

<SNIP>

> Most Jews (at least in the US, things are unfortunately much uglier in Israel) are not 
> nearly as racist as their leadership; indeed, on average, Jewish-Americans tend to be 
> less racist than European-Americans (and how much this has to do with the generally 
> higher education rather than historical experience I do not know, as it is also true 
> that educated people tend to be less racist).

Possibly has something to do with the fact that the Palestinians are trying to annihilate 
them.  It is hard under such circumstances not to hate your opponent as a racial group.

--
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.