Jew Conspiracy - Where and how did it first started?

[Lemmingwise]

I want to walk you through what I think is being alluded to here:

• (((SOROS))) funds some groups that support [position I find repugnant]
• [Group I despise] supports [position I find repugnant]
• Therefore, [Group I despise] is funded by (((SOROS)))
• Therefore, they are (((THEM)))

This is the fallacy of composition: some A are B; therefore, all A are B. Some B are also C, therefore all B are C. Therefore, anything that is A, B, or C are all three.

Interesting.. I find the opposite to be the most common intellectual shortcoming in the west. The shortcoming where group trends can't be discussed even if they're huge and overwhelming. They should even be possible to be discussed even if the differences are minor, because even a couple of percentage points can result in quite meaningful differences between groups.

I think the "you have to judge people as individuals" is an intentional fillibuster. While undoubtedly the highest ideal in a court of law, it is a terrible lens if you want to detect either cultural or genetic differences between groups, of if you want to make national policy, for example.

If it isn't clear to how it relates, take this example.

Majority of muslims consider homosexuality immoral. It is no accident that maps of countries with laws against homosexuality and maps of countries with islam are very similar.

Now it's perfectly reasonable on its face to say, you can't judge every muslim to be against homosexuality.

What you should realize is that any given muslim is likely to think it immoral and also that if you have a large amount of islamic immigration, you will put gay rights under threat. Particularly since there is only one country in the world where muslims don't outbreed non-muslims (let me know if I missed one). I think the country is easily guessed considering the topic: Israel.

To summarize; you have to look at group trends to make accurate guesses. It is a modern sin to view everything through the lens of the individual. When people say muslims are anti-homosexuality, that doesn't have to be parsed as "every muslim is anti homosexuality". When someone says muslims have more children they don't mean every muslim does.

And similarly when someone criticizes jewish interest groups like aipac or the hundreds of irons soros has in the fire that can be very valid, accurate and necessary criticism.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Interesting.. I find the opposite to be the most common intellectual shortcoming in the west. The shortcoming where group trends can't be discussed even if they're huge and overwhelming. They should even be possible to be discussed even if the differences are minor, because even a couple of percentage points can result in quite meaningful differences between groups.

I think the "you have to judge people as individuals" is an intentional fillibuster. While undoubtedly the highest ideal in a court of law, it is a terrible lens if you want to detect either cultural or genetic differences between groups, of if you want to make national policy, for example.

If it isn't clear to how it relates, take this example.

Majority of muslims consider homosexuality immoral. It is no accident that maps of countries with laws against homosexuality and maps of countries with islam are very similar.
Ver archivo adjunto 677865

Ver archivo adjunto 677862

Now it's perfectly reasonable on its face to say, you can't judge every muslim to be against homosexuality.

What you should realize is that any given muslim is likely to think it immoral and also that if you have a large amount of islamic immigration, you will put gay rights under threat. Particularly since there is only one country in the world where muslims don't outbreed non-muslims (let me know if I missed one). I think the country is easily guessed considering the topic: Israel.

Ver archivo adjunto 677857

To summarize; you have to look at group trends to make accurate guesses. It is a modern sin to view everything through the lens of the individual. When people say muslims are anti-homosexuality, that doesn't have to be parsed as "every muslim is anti homosexuality". When someone says muslims have more children they don't mean every muslim does.

And similarly when someone criticizes jewish interest groups like aipac or the hundreds of irons soros has in the fire that can be very valid, accurate and necessary criticism.

It "can", but when you go "Wealthy jews back [position I find repugnant] therefore all Jews are deliberately attacking [my ethnic group] and must be [exiled/pogromed/killed", that's no longer in the realm of logic. George Soros has more in common with Donald Trump than he does with Mischa Blakowitz who runs a pawn shop downtown by a country mile.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

Well the problem with the worldwide Jewish conspiracy is it's predicated on the fact that ethnic Judaism exists and these people aren't doing this to make money or gain power.
And the only evidence I've ever seen for ethnic Judaism comes from idiots like Kevin McDonald refuses to debate anybody who criticizes him.
There is a lot of Jews only Jewish when they need to defend the progressivism or accuse people of being anti-Semitic basically played the Jewish card like playing the black card and a lot of them were never talk about Jewish Supremacy in Israel cuz a lot of them are closeted zionist is like packman and Chomsky.
Is also the Israeli Lobby in the United States and other European countries that has a lot of political power but the problem neo-nazis do realize through a lot of Jews who opposed Zionism and mass migration would be allies to them such as Richard Herrnstein and John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.
But the problem is neo-nazis actually want to be allies that there is a lot of Jews who agree with them but they'd rather keep following Kevin McDonald's Cult of Jews responsible for everything.
Sorry for all the grammar mistakes these are just my thoughts on the whole question

 

[Lemmingwise]

idiots like Kevin McDonald refuses to debate anybody who criticizes him.

On what are you basing this? Barely anyone seems to criticize Kevin MacDonald's work. Even Peterson just referred to Cofnan's criticism.

And Cofnan and MacDonald had a back and forth in writing which might as well be called a debate at this point.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

The fact that McDonald only goes on hug boxes of far-right idiots and then he ran away from a debate tree of logic.
Also how he poisons the well saying Jews can't criticize him cuz they have an ulterior motive basically the equivalent of saying white people can't criticize critical race Theory cuz the white.
Generally I also don't think he adds anything to the conversation about zionist influence in US politics and actually just makes people who talk about that looks stupid with his books.

 

[Slimy Time]

It also resulted in Jews eventually founding large merchant guilds which eventually became the banks. Their own ethnic cultural traditions, combined with ostracization due to religious and other factors, drove them into controlling the financial sector at a very early stage. And thanks to those same traditions, kept those banks in the hands of those families for hundreds of years. What you end up seeing is simply in modern society is simply the result of that. Those families helped other Jewish families, those families helped their people first.

It's not really a conspiracy than it is a result of factors in front of your own eyes that have been centuries in the making. Of course there will be people who will abuse that power, because power corrupts, but it's not purely a racial thing, more a power thing.

This combined with their historical inability to integrate with society over the hundreds of years. No one likes their creditors, no one likes people who get wealthy whilst the rest suffer. When it comes to anti-semitism, it's easier to have a scapegoat, one which may very well be based in some sort of fact, to blame.

I think in modern times, Israel's actions and position in the middle east doesn't help. In addition, Jews are traditionally seen as a group which are not exactly hard up. They are bankers, lawyers, politicians, in the entertainment industry, in social media and so on. As a whole, there are a number of them who do very well for themselves, and yet, are almost a protected group of people. If you criticise their religious practices, or mention their tendency to help one another over others, you will be publicly ripped apart. I don't think either has helped with the perception of a Jewish conspiracy. A group of wealthy influential guys who you can't criticise, of course people will latch onto the idea that they run the show.

 

[Lemmingwise]

It "can", but when you go "Wealthy jews back [position I find repugnant] therefore all Jews are deliberately attacking [my ethnic group] and must be [exiled/pogromed/killed", that's no longer in the realm of logic. George Soros has more in common with Donald Trump than he does with Mischa Blakowitz who runs a pawn shop downtown by a country mile.

Right. But now you have to go back to "all jews" when I was discussing trends which are obviously not about "all".

A group of wealthy influential guys who you can't criticise, of course people will latch onto the idea that they run the show.

Isn't this like saying "this group is powerful, of course people latch onto the idea that this group is powerful"?

Where does the assumption come from that that the majority of people who are critical of jewish influence assume that there is an exclusivity of power rather than just a disproportionate amount of it?

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Isn't this like saying "this group is powerful, of course people latch onto the idea that this group is powerful"?

No, because there is a difference between "Certain Jewish people are wealthy and influential", "The Jews control the government", and "The Jews control the world". Are you familiar with "motte-and-bailey" argumentation?

 

[Lemmingwise]

No, because there is a difference between "Certain Jewish people are wealthy and influential", "The Jews control the government", and "The Jews control the world".

Sure. I agree with the difference. I've been arguing for seeing the difference.

I do think people obfuscate the matter unnecesarily. The difference between "powerful" and "control (the world/the US/media/banks)" is a difference of degree, with control implying absolute power.

Because we may be able to discuss it here, we know the topic isn't salonfähig. Not even if you're just discussing the lobbying powerbloc.

In my experience when topics are a taboo, you're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. And when I started studying jewish influence when a group I supported was unable to make male genital mutiliation illegal due to lobby groups calling it anti-semitic for not wanting infant boys receive cosmetic surgery, I started wondering what else was falsely called antisemitic.

I know that may be a contentious to americans. I would happily start a thread and share all the available research (and coverups) I've studied in relation to "circumcision" if people wish to challenge either me or their own preconceptions about the topic.

But to get back to the point; I think a reverse motte and bailey is what is preventing people from having the honest and frank discussion (besides pressure groups like splc, aipac and ADL). By assuming any criticism is rooted in racism and must have the underlying motive of genocide or ethnic cleansing, jewish influence whether held in the hands of few or many, whether absolute power or disproportionate power, is untouchable. Jewish influence is untouchable, and impermissable to be criticized.

The tip of the ice(((berg))) if you will.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Sure. I agree with the difference. I've been arguing for seeing the difference.

I do think people obfuscate the matter unnecesarily. The difference between "powerful" and "control (the world/the US/media/banks)" is a difference of degree, with control implying absolute power.

Because we may be able to discuss it here, we know the topic isn't salonfähig. Not even if you're just discussing the lobbying powerbloc.

In my experience when topics are a taboo, you're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. And when I started studying jewish influence when a group I supported was unable to make male genital mutiliation illegal due to lobby groups calling it anti-semitic for not wanting infant boys receive cosmetic surgery, I started wondering what else was falsely called antisemitic.

I know that may be a contentious to americans. I would happily start a thread and share all the available research (and coverups) I've studied in relation to "circumcision" if people wish to challenge either me or their own preconceptions about the topic.

But to get back to the point; I think a reverse motte and bailey is what is preventing people from having the honest and frank discussion (besides pressure groups like splc, aipac and ADL). By assuming any criticism is rooted in racism and must have the underlying motive of genocide or ethnic cleansing, jewish influence whether held in the hands of few or many, whether absolute power or disproportionate power, is untouchable. Jewish influence is untouchable, and impermissable to be criticized.

The tip of the ice(((berg))) if you will.

The fact that hating on Israel is a massively-popular lefty talking point says otherwise.

 

[Lemmingwise]

The fact that hating on Israel is a massively-popular lefty talking point says otherwise.

I don't think "massively popular" is accurate. That would imply overwhelming and (without knowing stats, so correct me if I'm wrong), it seems to be pretty mixed on the left.

Hating on jewish influence is a pretty popular right wing point, though also mixed.

Though popularity is not the same as politically correct, salonfähig or acceptable topics. I mean sex has always been popular AND for the longest time also a taboo subject.

Also, neither anti-israel or anti-jewish influence sentiment get any traction in right or left wing political parties in the west, so much like restraints on immigration popular support means nothing if those with more power choose not to listen to it. Until it gets bad enough for people to start tearing society down. We're seeing that in France to some degree.

 

[GreenJacket]

The Semitic peoples: Assyrians, Phoenicians, Canaanites, Arabs, Jews, etc. Hate each other more than Asians hate each other. The Middle East should remain a containment region.

 

[raskogr]

This was a good thread until the autistic neo-Nazis ruined it.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

This was a good thread until the autistic neo-Nazis ruined it.

This statement applies to a depressingly large amount of topics.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

This was a good thread until the autistic neo-Nazis ruined it.

do autistic neo-Nazis realize that they would've been gassed as defective?

 

[Propane Daddy]

My problem with the jews is that when they're involved in politics, half of them are right wing neocons that want us to waste money fighting in wars that don't concern us, and the other half are far left socialists that want us to have open borders with Mexico. This is done while passionately supporting Israel's right to have a wall.

It wouldn't be so bad if they were any other ethnic group, but because of their high IQ's they hold a disproportionate amount of power and are able to manipulate the direction the country is going in through lobbying and their control of the media.

Also, someone here earlier said that jews tend to put their own kind first. I've had several jewish friends over the years and this is true. It's never done in an overt in your face sort of way, but in small indirect ways. The non-jewish people who see this kind of nepotism don't make the connection because they see all jews as white.

 

[The Great Chandler]

This is done while passionately supporting Israel's right to have a wall.

I can second that. A good number of Western Jews generally have contempt for Israel itself.

 

[The Last Stand]

This was a good thread until the autistic neo-Nazis ruined it.

Thank you for that, and I apologize for the derailment of the thread. A couple people have posted insightful ideas on the matter of Jewish relations in the world.

Also, someone here earlier said that jews tend to put their own kind first. I've had several jewish friends over the years and this is true. It's never done in an overt in your face sort of way, but in small indirect ways. The non-jewish people who see this kind of nepotism don't make the connection because they see all jews as white.

I kinda think that's the main reason why parts of the Black community are contempt of the Jewish community. Family values of a knit community that has more wealth and influence, although both have suffered through oppression and the oppressed.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

This combined with their historical inability to integrate with society over the hundreds of years. No one likes their creditors, no one likes people who get wealthy whilst the rest suffer. When it comes to anti-semitism, it's easier to have a scapegoat, one which may very well be based in some sort of fact, to blame.

I think in modern times, Israel's actions and position in the middle east doesn't help. In addition, Jews are traditionally seen as a group which are not exactly hard up. They are bankers, lawyers, politicians, in the entertainment industry, in social media and so on. As a whole, there are a number of them who do very well for themselves, and yet, are almost a protected group of people. If you criticise their religious practices, or mention their tendency to help one another over others, you will be publicly ripped apart. I don't think either has helped with the perception of a Jewish conspiracy. A group of wealthy influential guys who you can't criticise, of course people will latch onto the idea that they run the show.

Add also to the list, that video of Barbara Lerner Spectre who added fuel to the fire of conspiracies theories.

 

[Unog]

As far as I'm aware one of the largest problems with jews and why they're hated is that those with power and influence who happen to be jewish have the "problem" of acting exactly like the stereotype, knowing that regular people who happen to be jewish get the brunt of it.

It's kind of like how, while I think the "representation" argument is absolute dogshit, it's pretty shitty that "black america" is represented most often by the most stereotypical "black" people the media can find (in the news and other nonfiction productions).

All races and religions are probably bad people on average, people are cunts. The Jews ain’t special.

There's only one modern major religion that I can think of that not only allows but encourages rape, murder, and theft from non-believers, and it isn't Judaism.

It "can", but when you go "Wealthy jews back [position I find repugnant] therefore all Jews are deliberately attacking [my ethnic group] and must be [exiled/pogromed/killed", that's no longer in the realm of logic.

This is the same strawman that's brought up anytime anyone tries to make these criticisms. Which is a very large portion of the reason criticism turns into hatred.

If your knee-jerk reaction to someone going "oh hey this position I find repugnant is supported by a bunch of rich jews" is "HOW DARE YOU, YOU'RE JUST A FUCKING NAZI" how the fuck do you expect these people to come to reason?

George Soros has more in common with Donald Trump than he does with Mischa Blakowitz who runs a pawn shop downtown by a country mile.

Considering George Soros sold his own family out to the (actual, literal) Nazis I don't think he has much in common with anyone other than Satan.

The fact that hating on Israel is a massively-popular lefty talking point says otherwise.

The conflation between "Israel" and jews as a racial group is ridiculous. That's like conflating Ireland with the Irish.