Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Jews in Wall Street - Rude Awakening For Me

page: 15
18
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth
later you say blame for harm should lay with the harmer, which not only again directly contradicts your earlier statements, but is a standard you refuse to apply to the persecution of jews.


In human interactions, there is no standard one can apply for all people on all occasions. Sometimes the harmer is a victim reacting against previous harm done to him and sometimes the harmer is an evil exploiter. Similarly, sometimes the harded one is a victim of prejudice or tyranny and sometimes he's just harvesting the trouble he's sown for himself. You cannot judge a disease by its symptoms alone.


Originally posted by TrueTruth
your logic is no logic at all - you just warp your ideas to fit your bigotry. you are logically inconsistent.


What you call logical inconsistency is merely the ability to nuance and to see huge areas of grey where you only see black and white.


Originally posted by TrueTruth
mensa my #&!


You definitely don't seem Mensa material based on your apparent lack of an ability to nuance.




posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by PC equals Newspeak
 


I knew you could do it!

So. Assuming the source is accurate, it demonstrates that certain Jews took it upon themselves to help an oppressed people fight for justice.

The horror!


Re. what jewish parents tell their kids - this, again, is just pure BS.

And you can keep talking about nuance all you want - it's just you rationalizing hypocrisy serving prejudice.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth
This is just plain ignorant. The donations they bring in are not there for Jews - they're there for poor people.


Poor Jews. As some poster pointed out, poor Jews DO exist.


Originally posted by TrueTruth
Jews have a long established tradition in this country of being generous contributors to charity


... to Jewish charity mostly.


Originally posted by TrueTruth
this again, is you fictionalizing based on nothing but bigotry and total ignorance of their culture.


The issue of Jewish charity is something I first picked up from a mainstream article on the Jewish community of Antwerp. There, Jews have established an almost completely isolated Chassidic ghetto with its own economy centered around the Antwerp diamond trade (together with Tel Aviv the most prominent diamond center in the world and dominated by Chassidic Jews). What I found particularly interesting, was that it dealt with Jewish charity organisations and how they were exclusive for the Jewish ghetto.

My later research further confirmed that Jewish charity tends to be focused on benefiting Jews and Jews only. Most Jewish philanthropists support only or largely organisations serving Jewish interests.


Originally posted by TrueTruth
Nice backpeddling -and yet, not enough to stop yourself from still being disgusting.


It is disgusting to expect a woman not to dress like a slut?


Originally posted by TrueTruth
Your statements aren't nuanced - they're just you being only half honest - ie, they're you trying to hide your base nature with a garb of pseudointellectualism.


ROFL

I'm amazed you can even spell pseudointellectualism



Originally posted by TrueTruth
You haven't made a single statement of fact yet. You source nothing.


If you want sources, feel free to do your own research. I have better things to do than add a source reference for every statement I make (most which are obvious to anyone who ever looked into the matter).

Still, I would be willing to invest some of my time in providing source for specific claims on request.


Originally posted by TrueTruth
You fabricate history, and you fictionalize based on whatever you feel. Another lie.


Again, everything I've said is factual and can be verified if only you took the time to do some research.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth
I knew you could do it!

So. Assuming the source is accurate, it demonstrates that certain Jews took it upon themselves to help an oppressed people fight for justice.

The horror!


First you imply that I'm lying. Now you just twist the facts. I guess using logic is useless on you...


Originally posted by TrueTruth
Re. what jewish parents tell their kids - this, again, is just pure BS.


Then why is perspective this so commonly expressed by prominent Jews in their writings and speeces?


Originally posted by TrueTruth
And you can keep talking about nuance all you want - it's just you rationalizing hypocrisy serving prejudice.


Speak for yourself.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth
burden of proof is on the maker of a claim. come on mensa man - surely you must know this standard rule of debate.

surely you must be able to source your claims, being a genius and all.


Most of what I said can be found in the excellent and well-sourced publications of Kevin MacDonald and Israel Shahak whom I mentioned several times before and I also linked to The Culture of Critique (which is MacDonald's most prominent work). You should be able to do your own research starting with these sources.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by PC equals Newspeak
 


Like you, MacDonald begins with a premise of bigotry, and then tries to support it with 'facts'.

He's an avowed white supremicist and a hack of a historian.

What a horrible thing to cite.

But as I said - the more you talk, the more the truth comes out about who you are.

What other white supremicist literature do you read?

this just keeps getting better.....



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by PC equals Newspeak
 


lying....well, you are. insofar as you probably don't even know how intellectually dishonest you're being, perhaps that word connotes too much intentionality.

in any case, you are most certainly being duplicitous and inconsistent.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by PC equals Newspeak
 


burden of proof is on the maker of a claim. come on mensa man - surely you must know this standard rule of debate.

surely you must be able to source your claims, being a genius and all.

come on. impress me.


You misunderstood the semantics of the burden of proof. The burden of proof simply states that the maker of a positive claim has the burden of proof because it is impossible to prove a negative claim.

For example, if I say unicorns do not exist, I am making a negative claim. To prove this negative claim, I would have to show you every planet in every known universe to prove to you that none of those planets harbors unicorns. Therefore, it is impossible for me to prove my claim precisely because it is a negative claim. If you, however, say that unicorns do exist, that is a positive claim. The burden of proof would be on you to show me a unicorn because that is easily possible if you claim that they exist.

The burden of proof is not an excuse to not have to do your own research. If someone makes a positive claim and tells you how to verify it, it should be up to you to take the simple steps necessary to verify that information. Demanding that the other person do your homework for you is intellectual laziness which will never lead you to true answers, only bias.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ForAiur

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by PC equals Newspeak
 


burden of proof is on the maker of a claim. come on mensa man - surely you must know this standard rule of debate.

surely you must be able to source your claims, being a genius and all.

come on. impress me.


You misunderstood the semantics of the burden of proof. The burden of proof simply states that the maker of a positive claim has the burden of proof because it is impossible to prove a negative claim.

For example, if I say unicorns do not exist, I am making a negative claim. To prove this negative claim, I would have to show you every planet in every known universe to prove to you that none of those planets harbors unicorns. Therefore, it is impossible for me to prove my claim precisely because it is a negative claim. If you, however, say that unicorns do exist, that is a positive claim. The burden of proof would be on you to show me a unicorn because that is easily possible if you claim that they exist.

The burden of proof is not an excuse to not have to do your own research. If someone makes a positive claim and tells you how to verify it, it should be up to you to take the simple steps necessary to verify that information. Demanding that the other person do your homework for you is intellectual laziness which will never lead you to true answers, only bias.




I know precisely what it means. Thanks for the lecture, but no thanks.

Think about what you are saying: if some random guy on a message board makes a claim that may in fact be bogus, I'm going to have to waste a lot of time trying to 'prove' he's wrong by looking around only to not find something.

And the rule applies to debates. This thing people do now on message boards where they say "do your own research" would never have been acceptable a few years ago in board culture. It was taken for granted and rightfully expected that if you make a claim, you provide a source - just as if you were writing an article or an academic paper. Anything less is lazy, and rude, as you are wasting people's time, and shirking your responsibility to provide your data.

Furthermore, the term has more than one usage, including in the field of law, and that one goes back a very long time. You are wrong if you think the term only applies to that one narrow definition as used in formal logic.

Oh ya - originally, he didn't tell me where to look to see the evidence of his claim. He only did after I asked him to. You didn't even read the thread right.



If you expect anyone to take you seriously, you need to source your own arguments.

"Do your own research" is lazy and flippant.






[edit on 3-12-2009 by TrueTruth]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by PC equals Newspeak

Originally posted by TrueTruth
This is just plain ignorant. The donations they bring in are not there for Jews - they're there for poor people.


Poor Jews. As some poster pointed out, poor Jews DO exist.


Originally posted by TrueTruth
Jews have a long established tradition in this country of being generous contributors to charity


... to Jewish charity mostly.


Originally posted by TrueTruth
this again, is you fictionalizing based on nothing but bigotry and total ignorance of their culture.


The issue of Jewish charity is something I first picked up from a mainstream article on the Jewish community of Antwerp. There, Jews have established an almost completely isolated Chassidic ghetto with its own economy centered around the Antwerp diamond trade (together with Tel Aviv the most prominent diamond center in the world and dominated by Chassidic Jews). What I found particularly interesting, was that it dealt with Jewish charity organisations and how they were exclusive for the Jewish ghetto.

My later research further confirmed that Jewish charity tends to be focused on benefiting Jews and Jews only. Most Jewish philanthropists support only or largely organisations serving Jewish interests.


Originally posted by TrueTruth
Nice backpeddling -and yet, not enough to stop yourself from still being disgusting.


It is disgusting to expect a woman not to dress like a slut?


Originally posted by TrueTruth
Your statements aren't nuanced - they're just you being only half honest - ie, they're you trying to hide your base nature with a garb of pseudointellectualism.


ROFL

I'm amazed you can even spell pseudointellectualism



Originally posted by TrueTruth
You haven't made a single statement of fact yet. You source nothing.


If you want sources, feel free to do your own research. I have better things to do than add a source reference for every statement I make (most which are obvious to anyone who ever looked into the matter).

Still, I would be willing to invest some of my time in providing source for specific claims on request.


Originally posted by TrueTruth
You fabricate history, and you fictionalize based on whatever you feel. Another lie.


Again, everything I've said is factual and can be verified if only you took the time to do some research.


Nobody said poor jews don't exist. This is you being intellectually dishonest again. originally, you claimed that the donations brought to synagogues were only intended for other jews. i pointed out to you that this is false. now you say as a rebuttal that i might not know there are poor jewish? this is ridiculous. stop slithering away from what you said, and trying to make this about what it never was - it was all about you making an unfounded general assumption. period. own it

'everything you said' comes out of a book by an avowed white supremacist who isn't remotely taken seriously as a historian outside of his little nazi circles. that's not proving anything - that's demonstrating the weakness of the foundation of your argument.

seriously man. now you're pretending to know the destination of donations jews bring into synagogues based on some unrevealed source that allegedly claims to know where jewish philanthropists give all their money? even if your source was accurate - and thus far , your sourcing is has been dreadful - that says NOTHING about what the majority of Jews are doing with their donations. Nothing at all.

and then you throw in some random tidbit about something in Israel? How did this conversation drift across the atlantic? weren't we talking about wall street, and american jewish networks? again - you shift the topic, slithering away ....

there's no point talking to you any more. i've learned all i wanted to know about your true motives. and they're foul.

have fun at the next klan rally.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Like you, MacDonald begins with a premise of bigotry, and then tries to support it with 'facts'.

He's an avowed white supremicist and a hack of a historian.

What a horrible thing to cite.


Kevin MacDonald is an evolutionary psychologist explaining Jewish claims and behavior from the perspective of evolutionary psychology using mostly Jewish sources. If you really believe all that nonsense you wrote down, it shows both a lot of arrogance and ignorance from your side. If you'd actually read at least a chapter of the book, you'd have known how absurd your statement really is.

If you're going to dismiss scientific inquiries offhand because some Zionist PR guys have labeled them antisemitic, I see no point in continuing this discussion any further with you. It reminds me of those Christians who deny the reality of evolution within nature because some folks claim it's just propaganda for racial supremacism.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by PC equals Newspeak
 


There's nothing 'scientific' about revisionist history.

There's no reasoning with a bigot anyways.

Go burn a cross on a lawn. I'm done with you.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth
There's nothing 'scientific' about revisionist history.


Revisionist? In what way is The Culture of Critique revisionist?


Originally posted by TrueTruth
There's no reasoning with a bigot anyways.


You should know, since your words express how much of a bigot you are.


Originally posted by TrueTruth
Go burn a cross on a lawn.





Go kill an imaginary Nazi



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
s&f

interesting read



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by PC equals Newspeak
Kevin MacDonald is an evolutionary psychologist explaining Jewish claims and behavior from the perspective of evolutionary psychology using mostly Jewish sources.


He's also a posterboy for neo-Nazi, antisemitic, and white supremacist organisations the world over.

Needless to say, I won't be putting a huge amount of effort into investigating the other references you provided. Thanks nonetheless for the discussion. I'm done with this thread.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roark
He's also a posterboy for neo-Nazi, antisemitic, and white supremacist organisations the world over.


Considering the outcome of the scientific research of psychologists like Kevin MacDonald (specialised in Judaism) or Arthur Jensen (focusing on heredity and intelligence) supports many of their political viewpoints and considering this type of research has been boycotted for decades by leftist radicals and misrepresented by the media, it is no wonder that neo-Nazi, antisemitic, and white supremacists - who're also constantly boycotted and villified by leftists - have a great amount of admiration for these scientists.

Anyway, none of the above discredits the scientific value of the research in question. In fact, the dire need for leftists to stiffle any such research actually seems indicative of its high scientific value (pseudo-science like "creationism" isn't censored at all).


Originally posted by Roark
Needless to say, I won't be putting a huge amount of effort into investigating the other references you provided.


How unsurprisingly narrowminded and prejudiced of you to say such a thing...



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by PC equals Newspeak

Originally posted by Roark
He's also a posterboy for neo-Nazi, antisemitic, and white supremacist organisations the world over.


Considering the outcome of the scientific research of psychologists like Kevin MacDonald (specialised in Judaism) or Arthur Jensen (focusing on heredity and intelligence) supports many of their political viewpoints and considering this type of research has been boycotted for decades by leftist radicals and misrepresented by the media, it is no wonder that neo-Nazi, antisemitic, and white supremacists - who're also constantly boycotted and villified by leftists - have a great amount of admiration for these scientists.

Anyway, none of the above discredits the scientific value of the research in question. In fact, the dire need for leftists to stiffle any such research actually seems indicative of its high scientific value (pseudo-science like "creationism" isn't censored at all).


Originally posted by Roark
Needless to say, I won't be putting a huge amount of effort into investigating the other references you provided.


How unsurprisingly narrowminded and prejudiced of you to say such a thing...



Once upon a time, MacDonald did scientific research involving animal and child behavior.

His books on Jews have nothing to do with science. Here again, you're being intellectually dishonest. A sociological analysis is not scientific research. His arguments boil down to this: anti semitism is only natural, and Jews deserve the mistreatment they get, because they're a selfish impenetrable group of hyper-intelligent misanthropes. He even argues that the Nazi's were are a mirror image of the Jews, as both practice a form of Eugenics - which is just flat out nuts. Who did the Jews round up and try to exterminate? And what ethnic groups DOESN'T tend to marry withing its own members? How on earth can he rationalize the selective criticism of a common behavior, and how can he possibly equate to marrying 'your own kind', to a mass extermination program?

Rationalizing the holocaust? And you expect people to take this man seriously? You expect people to take YOU seriously?


Gimmie a break.

You're a lunatic.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by PC equals Newspeak
 





No it doesn't. In fact, the long list of numerous antisemitic events throughout history all over the world only makes sense if this antisemitism was actually triggered by the Jewish community. It doesn't make sense that people from that many eras and cultures would all scapegoat the Jews for no particular reason but envy and/or prejudice and actual era writings on these particular events seem to suggest that this antisemitism was indeed triggered by the the behavior of the Jewish community.


The only thing from one era to another the Jews actually have in common is that we are often secular and this doesn't go over well with anybody, we do not convert so you can't really Join and customs and food etc remain separate, it is not a bad trait per say but it is easy to see how resentment begins.

Now...

"Long History of Antisemitism"

There are very few people on Earth the Have a calender and Survival as a culture and religion as long as the Jewish people, when you have a history of Thousands of years it is easy to say that there is a Long History of attacks, but in reality this would go Hundreds of years at a time through which life has been problem free, the Holocaust is fresh in many Jews minds and images in this Century allows it to remain so... but even current problems could be seen as an extension of that conflict.

In reality we have gone very long lengths of time unaccounted by anyone, in fact the period from the Spanish Inquisition to the Holocaust is longer than the United States has even existed.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Once upon a time, MacDonald did scientific research involving animal and child behavior.

His books on Jews have nothing to do with science.


False. I guess you never read them.


Originally posted by TrueTruth
A sociological analysis is not scientific research.


What are you implying here? That sociology is not science but psychology is?!?


Originally posted by TrueTruth
His arguments boil down to this: anti semitism is only natural, and Jews deserve the mistreatment they get, because they're a selfish impenetrable group of hyper-intelligent misanthropes.


That's a charicature you make of it, probably based on biased reviews of his books rather than the books themselves.


Originally posted by TrueTruth
He even argues that the Nazi's were are a mirror image of the Jews, as both practice a form of Eugenics - which is just flat out nuts.


Actually, the parallels between radical Zionism and German National-Socialism are striking. If you take eg. the Lehi (pre-war Zionist terrorist organisation) programme and replace "Jewish" by "German" you'd swear you're reading the National-Socialist program.


Originally posted by TrueTruth
Who did the Jews round up and try to exterminate?


The Palestinians.

Do note that several scientists disagree that extermination did take place and that the Holocaust is a mixture of truths, half-truths and lies.


Originally posted by TrueTruth
And what ethnic groups DOESN'T tend to marry withing its own members?


Whites tend to believe such a policy is racist and immoral..... especially today (due to multicultural propaganda orriginally developed by Jewish Marxists).

Anyway, few cultures are nearly as extreme in their ethnocentrism as Jewish culture. Nazi culture probably is closest to it.


Originally posted by TrueTruth
How on earth can he rationalize the selective criticism of a common behavior, and how can he possibly equate to marrying 'your own kind', to a mass extermination program?

Rationalizing the holocaust? And you expect people to take this man seriously?


You're putting words in his mouth, which shows you haven't read his books.


Originally posted by TrueTruth
You expect people to take YOU seriously?


Rational people, yes. Prejudiced people like yourself, no.


Originally posted by TrueTruth
You're a lunatic.


Thinking out of the box does not make me a lunatic. It just makes me openminded and independent of NWO brainwashing.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
The only thing from one era to another the Jews actually have in common is that we are often secular and this doesn't go over well with anybody


Wrong. Far more important is Jewish involvement in immoral activities (from theft and prostitution to usury and subversive politics). This too is common in all eras.


Originally posted by mopusvindictus
There are very few people on Earth the Have a calender and Survival as a culture and religion as long as the Jewish people, when you have a history of Thousands of years it is easy to say that there is a Long History of attacks, but in reality this would go Hundreds of years at a time through which life has been problem free, the Holocaust is fresh in many Jews minds and images in this Century allows it to remain so... but even current problems could be seen as an extension of that conflict.

In reality we have gone very long lengths of time unaccounted by anyone, in fact the period from the Spanish Inquisition to the Holocaust is longer than the United States has even existed.


Before the Holocaust, antisemitism had already been on the rise for decades in Western-Europe (does the Dreyfuss affair ring a bell?) as well as Eastern-Europe (it has been suggested by many that the communist revolution was sponsored by Jewish bankers because the Czarist system was antisemitic - do note that the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" were first published in Czarist Russia).

By pretending that antisemitism was uncommon between the Spanish inquisition and the Holocaust, you're not giving an accurate view of reality.

[edit on 4/12/09 by PC equals Newspeak]





new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join