I said: "I can get along with and even like some Jews but as a whole they are my least favorite group of people." The thing is I have noticed a disproportionate amount of Jews tend to be involved in political movements I dislike such as communism(Marx, Trotsky, Luxemburg ect). I have also noticed a disproportionate amount of the top bankers are Jewish. One can do some research on the matter. I used to think such conspiracy theories were stupid but I looked into it and now I agree. This is my opinion and obviously I appose causing harm to an individual because he/she is Jewish.

Wait, since when was the Malay government running a anti-Christian pogrom? There's probably been issues between various citizens, just as there is in the US when white supremacist types burn down primarily black baptist churches.

That's why he wrote "today". He's not talking about the Crusades. Bringing up the death toll caused by the Christian bigotry of the Middle Ages is irrelevant to what's going on in the world today.


Have you now. Or perhaps you are confusing this with historical reasons for Jews going into the financial business...

I'm not disputing this, because I have little interest in the topic, but the section you linked to is completely unsourced.

Having been raised Jewish, I have something to say about this.

I agree that Jews are disproportionately represented in high places within government, finance, media, etc. However, this has absolutely zero to do with some Jewish desire/conspiracy to control the world or anything remotely of the sort. It has more to do with the fact that Jewish culture strongly emphasizes education. Statistically speaking, education leads to success.

Besides, Jews are not that cohesive of a group- like all religions/ethnicities, there are divisions and, hell, most rabbis can't even agree on proper interpretations of certain biblical verses or religious laws. There are orthodox Jews, conservative Jews, and reform Jews and further divisions even within those. If their leadership can't even agree on their own religion (the biggest commonality), how in the hell are Jews agreeing on how they should run the world? If Jews hold so much power, why are there so few Jewish heads of state??? I should also mention that there's really no central Jewish authority similar to what Catholicism and other Christian sects have.

Of course, you'll probably just read the first four words of my post and completely disregard what I said...





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... _Court_Jew
http://www.jewishhistory.org/jews-money-and-the-talmud/
http://www.jewishhistory.org/the-rothschilds/
http://www.eui.eu/Personal/Dronkers/nob ... Schijf.pdf

Better? Seems rather silly to nitpick the lack of sources for something everyone with passing knowledge in history would know, but eh...

Yeah, I'm sure most people do, but that wasn't my point. It's just that linking to unsourced Wikipedia snippets is a pet peeve of mine.

From what I understand, money was considered to be sterile when not being used, and therefore all loaning was considered usury. Later that changed, and money has value now even when it's sitting in a drawer.

But 43, 86%? That's worse than payday loans and such. That does sound like usury by any definition.

But Jewish people generally are good with their personal finances, some people see this and see some kind of conspiracy. I don't. I say good for them.

For the record, I'm fucking awful with money.

Gotta keep the money safe just in case another crazy world power reams you in the ass and your only ticket out is $$$.

I find this a bit strange. First you say that Jews are in some way accurately represented by communist thinkers, then say they are disproportionately bankers and landlords. That's not necessarily contradictory, but obviously implies that there is not a unified political philosophy or practical application of their schemes as you say there is based on your research into conspiracy theories. More, though, the idea that Marx, Trotsky and Luxemburg are representative of Jews and that that is a reasonable basis for not liking the Jewish race is like saying that white European monarchists of the 19th century are representative of the views of white Europeans and that that is a reasonable basis to dislike white Europeans. They aren't representative of the group and it's not rational to make those kinds of judgements on that basis.

It's true that a lot of Jews, being an oppressed minority, were involved in communism (although for every Marx you'll find an Engels, and for every Trotsky a Lenin). There's a disturbingly close association between anticommunism and antisemitism in the early twentieth century (see parts of the White forces in Russia and the counterrevolutionaries in Germany). As a massive Red, however, their role in revolutionary movements makes me like Jews more, not less

As for the claim that 'the Jews' control banking, people have already posted links refuting this.

You can repeat things like this until you're blue in the face, but when have racists and bigots ever been rational?

The EU supports the Hamas every year with millions of euros. Try this one:http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/25/fancy-restaurants-and-olympic-size-pools-what-the-media-won%E2%80%99t-report-about-gaza/

And why should muslims oscillate every day between the West Bank and Israel for working if Israel is the racist/facist state people want us make to believe?



It outrages left- and right-wing extremists every day while they have NOTHING to say about conflicts like the genocide in Sudan. It's not because "they concentrate only on one conflict", it's their obsession. BTW, Israel IS the only democracy in the Middle-East and the only state that focuses on economic growth and technical innovation (ok, Turkey is getting bigger these days). Maybe that's one reason it is so hated.



Today, 80% of oppressed religious minorites are christians. Maybe that's because the muslims listen to much to Black Metal... And please don't come with the crusades. 500 years ago, yawn.



In every german talk-Show about the Middle-East we have always Jürgen Todtenhöfer, Peter Scholl-Latour, Ulrich Kienzle, Udo Steinbach or someone from the LINKE. I recognize the opposite in german news coverage than you do.




The Fuhrer is an honest man, so that's something for worth. Jews can do (or not do) what they want, someone will find a reason not to like them. Anti-semitism is an old passion that will always find new reasons and excuses.

Sorry, I wasn't accurate. It was about the saudi-arabian journalist Hamsa Kaschgari who flew to Malaysia because he twittered some critical things about Mohammed. Now he is threaten with death because Malaysia wants to extradite him.

I do not get what you want to say? Hamas is the elected government of the Palestinians. So, what is your point? That they are corrupt, a terrorist organization or generally behaving stupid? True ... so? Look at Merkel and what is currently doing to Europe... and Germany; we should be appalled by it. Does this one article that you have referred to make the dire situation in Gaza better? Water/sewage treatment is bad, building materials are often not led through by the Israeli border control, medicine is rare ... etc.

and regarding this article, look at the sourcing ... it tells a lot about the journalistic quality and integrity.



1. Should a democracy, then ignore the human rights and international conventions and act in a criminal way against another people?
2. Should a democracy wage wars with no hold barred and use weapons that are internationally condemned; especially when used against civilians -- the Genever conventions especially emphasize the protections of civilians in an armed conflict and a breach of this convention can lead to potential investigation into war crimes or crimes against humanity.
3. Should a democracy not encourage other democracies to thrive in its vicinity? The 2006 elections of Hamas were widely hailed as free and fair, but instantly condemned by the West (EU, USA; Israel).

Noam Chomsky has written an article, which had been divided into two parts the last few days -- from his forthcoming book:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/15-3

More quotes could easily be drawn from it.

Why Sudan is not on the radar? Who cares about Sudan? The conflict in Western Sahara, the nearly civil war in parts of India, or in Nigeria? The uprisings in China or ... you name it ... the list is endless. You should watch this:
http://www.archive.org/details/manufacturing_consent
What had been true back then is true now. Would the media be independent, then we would have this kind of information, but it is not. There is always an editor or an editorial policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBZ_dpiFQ
Around 34:00. Or a bit earlier if you want to get the whole story.



Ok ... you are talking about 'oppression'. It is a nice word indeed and it is creates an instant amount of sympathy. But what does this word actually imply? How does this oppression actually exist and how is it played out? Question: is a dictatorship, sponsored by the West with weapons and money, not also an oppression? Look at Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan ... to name some prominent examples. Are these free societies? Do we not have an impact on how everything is played out? More examples could be offered easily. Unless you get more specific about what you mean, there is no way of checking your arguments. Simply throwing a number out and awaiting some kind of sympathy is no way or doing an argument.

And about the death toll. Look at what had happened in Indonesia under Suharto. Sponsored by us ... by the way, how do you separate the aspect of 'Christianity' from how a country behaves on the international stage? Are the acts of the US an act of a Christian nation -- one nation under god -- or merely the one of an imperialistic empire. I am curious about your response/s.


1. German talk shows are bad... have editorial scripting at times -- there been some scandal some time ago when someone broke out of it -- and tend to have always the same persons, with the same stuff ... over and over again.
2. The print media is often on the side of Israel -- editorial editing. Look at the SZ for instance. Bad articles at times, with false information, tend to pop-up at Saturday and vanish on Monday, so no one can comment on them -- the comments of offline during the weekend. Die Welt, Spiegel-Online and FAZ show a similar tendency. What is left, then? Die Zeit?

What happens in Gaza should be on the front page, but it is not. Instead, the war drums are shaken for a war against Iran; a war that might turn the region into chaos.

So some people don't seem to understand that Zionism = Jewish nationalism and semitism is just about being a jew. Considering them same is like you consider National Socialism and regular German people the same.
Yes, I've noticed if you don't like some kind of people you're a nazi.

This is a bit of an aside from the topic, but since it came up in the last two pages.....


Anyone referring to the Hamas victory in the Gaza elections (or Hezbollah's victory in Lebanon, for that matter) as a "free and fair election" is either badly misinformed or a willfully ignorant anti-Semite with an agenda. Yes, that includes Chomsky. While the election(s) was not technically fraudulent, any election in which a front group for a foreign intelligence agency wins outright would not be considered "fair" in anybody's eyes. If the people of Britain were to hypothetically find out, say, that the CIA donated huge sums of money and influence to elect David Cameron, I doubt that anyone would consider it a "fair" election---with or without any obvious voter fraud, voter intimidation, or any of the usual suspects. Especially if Tony Blair then went about doing everything the CIA wanted him to do, and with CIA weapons and "advisers" to boot. Hamas and Hezbollah are veritable arms of Iran's intelligence services. It is an open secret as verifiable as Israel's nuclear program. So despite the apparent fact that they won their parliamentary elections legally by their countries' own standards, and in accordance with UN election monitors, the end result was not "a free and fair election."

That is the ultimate problem with Israeli-Palestinian relations: there has never been a truly grassroots Palestinian peace movement of any note. Most of the elements of the PLO acted under the direction of foreign Arab intelligence agencies; hell, the entire concept of the PLO was born from an Arab League summit. It was not a Palestinian idea. The only purely grassroots Palestinian movement of any note was the original incarnation of Fatah that was founded in the late 50's, and they were an explicitly violent militant group, not a peace organization. The others? PFLP-GC, As-Sa'iqa and Palestine Liberation Army are all Syrian proxies, the Arab Liberation Front was started by Saddam Hussein, and the rest are too small to be significant. All of these organizations act according to the objectives of their host states, which is to say they really do not give much of a damn what happens to Palestinians.



The problem is compounded by the fact that truly grassroots revolutions (peaceful or otherwise) of any sort are extremely rare, so the fates of Palestine and Lebanon look to be effectively governed by Iran for the foreseeable future.

@oneyoudontknow

Ok, I will keep it short because a statement like "look at Merkel, what she's doing with Europe" as a comparison to the Hamas doesn't make me keen on a long discussion.

1. As Earthcubed pointet out, Noam Chomsky is a very one-sided source of information. There are a lot of people specialising on Israel-bashing and waiting for the next possibility to accuse them. Of course, it is ok to criticise Israel but at the same time leaving the Hamas, Hisbollah or Iran out of critique makes me suspicious about their motives.

2. It is conform with the Genever conventions to us civilians as shield against military attacks? You may ask Mr. Chomsky.

3. Israel is a threatened state since it's foundation and one, whose existence is always in question. Maybe we are a little airy with moral judgements.

4. Being elected democratically means nothing if you don't rule democratically and under the rule of law. I can understand the Israel Government that they distrust the Hamas. They tell their people that they will evict the jews from palestine. Many countries still count the Hamas as terrorist organisation and they have good reasons for that. You can wait for the next rockets and suicide bombers as well as for the next Hamas-Fatah-conflict.

I think I'll still drop my two cents in here in the end, although ManAtArms does a fantastic job at what I'm supposed to be doing.

Oneyoudontknow, you, as many other critics (or proponents, by the way), see things with one eye closed. Let me illustrate what I mean:

Yeah, you're probably right... except that the immediate example of such "democracies" are the UN and US in their overblown (pun intended) support of the rebels in Lybia. Ignoring human rights and using weapons against civilians you say? At least we notify the civilians via pamphlets and even telephones before we bomb anything. Hamas and its subsidiaries, on the other hand, overtly targets our civilians (while firing rockets out of their civilian clusters), sends martyrs to explode in civilian buses, bombs CHILDREN BUSES (!) and slay families in their sleep. None of these are fabricated by me - all of these are well documented, but isn't it just conveinient to brush these all aside, so they don't interfere with your, Chomsky's and that cunt Finkelstein's opinions that you so fancy to quote?

Free and fair you say? Then let's roll back a little - it's 2005, Israels moves out of Gaza, Fatah takes control. What happens next? Hamas begins to slaughter Fatahites so badly, they even cry to Israel to stop this mess. Now hold that in mind and tell me this - were the elections in 2006 as free and fair as you say, or were they simply handled out by people who fear for their lives?

This is a lame argument. Democracy does something wonderful, it reduces the amount of radicalism of a movement. You can read this in the literature on the topic; even one on the Maghreb. If you simply follow one-line reasoning and ignore the impact that such a thing as democracy has, then how can you put the whole puzzle together?
The book is in German, but something similar might (does?) exist in English as well:
http://www.bpb.de/publikationen/5BUQ4H,0,0,Moderate_Islamisten_als_Reformakteure.html
This book goes through each of the countries in the Maghreb and discusses the politics on the ground, how they started, evolved and changed through the use of democratic principles. If you simply say, we have an election in country X but we only accept the outcome α and maybe β, then you will not encourage grassroot political activism and change. Democracy enables people to check whether the politicians have fulfilled what they had promised and how reality fits to the propaganda that is purported by the political parties. Even in a country like Morocco political parties are able to make small changes.


Thank you for taking the bait. I wondered whether you would ... I refer you to Seppmann and his latest book "Dialektik der Entzivilisierung".


He points out what we do ... this is what you can change. You cannot change the actions of Hamas, Hizbollah or Iran, but you can prevent our armies from destroying and killing them. First look at our deeds and then those of the others. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.


No, but these are not _our_ crimes. First thing you do is care about your own crimes and then put the blame on others. It is not the other way around.


Yes, this poor country with nuclear weapons and one of the strongest armies in the world will get defeated by some poorly equipped and starved suicide bombers... right.

I refer to what I have written above to "Earthcubed".


Again, our crimes is what we have to care about foremost and then the other.

We notify the people ahead? Sorry, I beg to differ. What about the Kundus incident in which over a hundred persons were killed because they had rushed to a fuel truck? What about the countless preemptive killings by the US-drones? What about the merciless shelling of Falludjah? The use of depleted uranium? Do you really want to open this can of worms and pretend that we are the good ones, while the others are the ones using extreme methods; methods that are despicable and should be brought before the International Criminal Court, but that actually fade in the light of the war crimes and genocidal actions perpetrated by the West?


Free and fair you say? Then let's roll back a little - it's 2005, Israels moves out of Gaza, Fatah takes control. What happens next? Hamas begins to slaughter Fatahites so badly, they even cry to Israel to stop this mess. Now hold that in mind and tell me this - were the elections in 2006 as free and fair as you say, or were they simply handled out by people who fear for their lives?[/quote]
Listen, both Fatah and Hamas have more than enough blood on their hands and both are behaving more than stupid all day long and this is out of the question. But ... if you hold and election, that is internationally described as open and fair and when the result does not lead to a person you like, then ... what ... Israel is described as a 'only' democracy in the Middle East ... but you have this election ... it is schizophrenic.

The one thing that should have been done back then is support Hamas:
- measure their actions
- their use of money
- how they treat their population and other political parties
- check whether money is channeled into some armament
etc.

if they fail, they would have been done ... possibly for good. But, the West decided to play the 'we do not like the evil guy' game. We only like our kind of guy. Like Saddam Hussein, who attacked Iran and used gas -- also from Germany -- to kill massive scores of people.

History ... we are not learning from it. Our leaders are ignoring it and the media does not bring these issues up. This is one of the core aspects of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Also of Anti-semitism.

He wasn't responding to anything about children's buses, he was responding to the part about Israel's existence always being in question. Yeah, they are under threat from terrorist attacks, but from a serious full-scale invasion and destruction of the nation? No way. Israel went to war with the Arabs before and utterly beat the pants off of them, even without nuclear weapons.

So the logical course would be to start making inroads now, that in time their differences will be forgotten...

...

The United States are allies with the United Kingdom.


The United States are allies with France.


France are allies with Germany.


The U.S. has a close relationship with Mexico.


Scotland is not overly opposed to being part of the United Kingdom.




Old wounds take time to heal, but it is not unprecedented.

"We" as in "We, Israel".

Agreed 100%. It could have unearthed some solid answers (as to why, as you say, Palestinians have no access to clear water for an example. And it's not that I support or acknowledge this statement by the way) that could have possibly diminished some of the polarization regarding the subject.

One can certainly be anti Zionist without being antisemetic. Just like one can hate Catholicism without being antichristian. I hate Zionism as much as the next guy, but I don't think that all Jews should burn or anything. The zionist fanaticism is just too much.

Fine, sure, disregard all that stuff I was talking about. "OF COURSE, IT'S SO OBVIOUS!"

Of course! It's so obvious!

Why bother with rationalizations or explanations? It's so obvious!

Pardon the thread necromancy, but these articles bear mentioning. As it turns out, Zionism isn't nearly as popular with Jewish people as Neocons and Evangelical Christians would lead you to believe.

Sounds like Varg's handiwork. For him burning down a black church is like killing to birds with one stone.



I read what you said I don't disregard it. I do not think Jews want to collective want to dominate the world. There is a global elite who are disproportionately Jewish but they are not looking out for Jewish interests. Far more of the oligarchs are gentiles. I just think that for the most part the anti-antisemites should stop crying about antisemitism, people are getting sick of it.



Communism and international supercapitalism have 1 thing in common, they want to take away out liberty! The same can be said for the European monarchies. I am generally not fond of Jewish culture but the Jews I have met generally seem to be intelligent and decent people. The problem is antisemitism often degenerates into pogroms and genocide. If Hitler did not kill all those Jews and agitate WW2 then history would probably consider him the best man who ever lived. But like the communists he destroyed liberty. The USA has a constitution that the whole world should used, the problem is the do not used their constitution anymore.

[/quote]
You are not going to take my liberty you gun grabber.

Anyway, I think we can all agree that the only solution which is a solution is a single, secular state of Israel and Palestine with full integration of Palestinians and right of return for refugees and their descendents.

You are not going to take my liberty you gun grabber.[/quote]


I think it's hilarious a fascist is condemning the fascism of socialist-in-name-only states.

So...where's the bad part in all of this, again? Because a lot of this anti-Zionism sounds like "The Jews aren't allowed to have nice things!"

Perhaps from an outside view. From an inside view, however, what you suggest is merely a naïve fantasy for several reasons:
1. A secular state of Israel is a fading dream. It is secular now, in theory, but just wait and see...
2. A secular state of Palestine is a delusion from the get-go. It can't happen, it can't be forced to happen, so it won't happen.
3. The only realistic two accomplishments of what you suggest is the expansion of the terrorist base and range of action, and a minor semantic one of renaming an "authority" to "state".

@Zelkiiro - I deem that Wikipedia definition of Zionism somewhat inaccurate. Zionism is "a form of nationalism of Jews and Jewish culture that supports a Jewish nation state, period"; I guess a few of you know that, but early and primary propositions by the zionist movement for establishing a Jewish state were, in fact, Birobidzhan and some areas in Uganda and not the "holy land".

Oh, dear Abrahamic God in Heaven preserve us all. It was only a matter of time, I suppose...



The 'inside views' with which I am familiar all tend to see a two-state solution as the real solution, actually. That includes Israelis and Palestinians. But for there to be a two-state solution, the Palestinians actually kind of have to have a state, which they don't. Again, from what I've heard, there are two reasons for this:

a.) The Palestinian Authority doesn't have any regular police or army functions within the territory it is supposed to control. Doing away with the occupation and allowing them to have police and an army might actually help with that terrorist problem Israel is so concerned about.

b.) In effect, the West Bank and Gaza have two different 'governments'. Gaza was bloodily captured by Hamas in 2007; and the West Bank continues to be governed by Fatah. Neither side can agree with the other; at this point, from what I've gathered, there's an uneasy stalemate between the two sides.

The most just solution I can see to this mess is basically the two-state solution, with a slight twist. The homeland of the Palestinians is Jordan, yes, but a Jordan in control of the West Bank as recognised by the UK in the 1949 armistice agreement. If the Palestinians do gain control over the West Bank, it is entirely likely that such a solution would happen anyway, given the current dysfunctional nature of the Palestinian Authority. It is also quite imaginable that participation in Jordan's government would have a moderating effect on Palestinian politics.

The one blindingly-obvious problem is that such a solution would be outrageously unpopular amongst Israelis who see the West Bank as their own. We may have to work on that...

I think you got my usage of "inside view" a little wrong - it was my opinion and my opinion only, a realistic one by someone who actually lives here as opposed to an "outside view" by someone who sees things as a mere "goodies vs. baddies" issue with a straightforward and simple solution. I am well aware of the goverment's view of the two-state solution as the only one and even support it, however - I don't define this "solution" as you might define it.

Dunno if that's what you've meant by "it was only a matter of time" line, but I'm not against the formation of a Palestinian state - if a sensible agreement can be reached, they can have it tomorrow as far as I'm concerned. Just to clarify. And dunno about Gaza, but the "A regions" in Judea and Samaria have a regular police, yet still it's not a place you'd rather hang around without Arabic/UN license plates.

Also, you've said "the most just solution I can see to this mess is basically the two-state solution, with a slight twist" - you didn't say (or I didn't get) what the twist is.

I am not a Fascist, despite my name. I sympathise with it in some ways, I can't help but to love Hitler. I hate communism that much. I have friends that are Fascist(as well as friends with other views I disagree with) but we agree to disagree. Fascism is a form of socialism. Mussolini was originally a socialist and Hitlers party was called, the National Socialist German Workers Party. Many use the term "libertarian socialism", libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. Socialism will always result in a dictatorship. I dislike supercapitalism but I do not want socialism, I am myself "bourgeois". I am in favour of sane capitalism or social-democracy. Social-democracy would be better for humanity, but I like my wealth. Social-democracy could also degenerate into statism. I am a right leaning(I am reactionary) libertarian. I am relatively conservative but I keep that to myself. I do not care if people want to take drugs, have weird sex ect as long as they are away from me. Many of the left are quite authoritarian, they want to enforce their egalitarian ideas on everyone.

Throughout history it is this ability to do well by being diligent and resourceful that has led to much of the persecution.

In the late fourteenth century they were blamed for the bubonic plague (black death) by much of Europe (who wanted someone to blame) due to their links to the east and strong commerce (it was due to large numbers of people being mobile at this time, and trading between regions made possible by the Mongols that let fleas spread so rapidly outward from east Asia - 1.5% of Frances population died as a result of WWII, estimates are over 30% from the plague), many thousands were burnt, some were "encouraged" to convert to Christianity.

Anti-semitic is a word invented by the Space Reptilian Jew overlords to the purpose of invalidating all opposition towards the ZOG as hate speech

mindshadow, was it absolutely necessary to resurrect this thread? Like, are you the current Doctor Who, and needed a Zombificated Anti-Semitism/Zionism Thread to fight the onslaught of the space-warping armadas of the Qwözögthnians, lest they steal our lungs?