Jews in Wall Street - Rude Awakening For Me

Originally posted by RamsOnTop
I think the OP has a point. Of course not all Jews control everything but when was the last time you've seen a homeless Jew?

This is really and quite honestly the most ridiculous comment yet.

For starters no one would give me a damn thing, if I don't get my rent paid i'm homeless and I have never been "homeless" in the manner of a bum before... but I have had to crash places with friends and stuff in my 20's when I screwed up, after my divorce for 3 months I had to rent a 300.00 room... And there was no secret Cabal of Jews to rescue me when I made mistakes in my life.

But the part that makes this completely mental...

You act Like a Homeless Jew would be sitting on the street with a sign that says "homeless Jew" or wear a Yarmulke on the street...

so bizarre the way people think...

Originally posted by mopusvindictus

Originally posted by RamsOnTop
I think the OP has a point. Of course not all Jews control everything but when was the last time you've seen a homeless Jew?

This is really and quite honestly the most ridiculous comment yet.

I can't disagree here.

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
For starters no one would give me a damn thing, if I don't get my rent paid i'm homeless and I have never been "homeless" in the manner of a bum before... but I have had to crash places with friends and stuff in my 20's when I screwed up, after my divorce for 3 months I had to rent a 300.00 room... And there was no secret Cabal of Jews to rescue me when I made mistakes in my life.

Lucky you. After my ex left me, I ended up staying alone in a 550 Euro/month (excluding gas and electricity) appartment that's too big too maintain all by myself. And when I lost my job due to the economic crisis, I had to pay my bills with an unemployment check alone.... A small 300 dollar appartment seems pretty decent for a man on his own IMO, especially if you have a job.

Nevertheless, you also said that if you wanted to start your own business you already have a queue of people wanting to invest in you because you're a Jew. This is an advantage no gentile has unless they're part of some elitist country club or "secret society" and that's probably the major difference between being a Jew and being a gentile these days.

I currently work in Business Intelligence, by the way.

reply to post by PC equals Newspeak


These statements are complete nonsense, there is no Nation on Earth you wont find prostitutes and crime. Pointing out Jews that may or may not have been involved in those things as evidence of some kind of tendency is bunk, your referring to the oldest profession and it was active long before there were any Jews

As for antisemitism... that's not what I am talking about... a reaction or movement against, this country today is filled with all kinds of Racism, take Black people for example... there are many people that don't like them Racism always exists...

It doesn't mean that there was something going on or some kind of issue, this is again like looking in the mirror and saying there are two of you because you see yourself...

In any time Yes there was racism for Jews and others and vice versa always... but it wasn't a problem, there are racists against white people right now, it doesn't mean I live in a time of racism against white people, when they start trying to drive me away, ot kill me, then it's real...

Same as the above.... Jews and Prostitution duh..... us and every other culture that exists and Jews and people who are racist... always, us and everyone else alive.

If you look for a Jewish criminal you will find one, same goes for any race or culture your post supports nothing in regards to the nature of Jews or anyone else.




[edit on 4-12-2009 by mopusvindictus]

reply to post by PC equals Newspeak


I don't know...

I'd say in respective fields Indians, Japanese, Wasps all share that same kind of stereotyped success offered... No one will question an Indian Doctor or Computer expert for example.

It's not like we are alone in this, living where I do I see the same stuff from Mormons too, secular, secretive, saving money...

And allot of people hate them too

There are reasons Jews and Mormons share this common trait of being distrusted and disliked but mainly it is not that they as a group do any wrong...

I thing people get wierded out when they aren't included or by people who live a different way.

reply to post by PC equals Newspeak


Correct - sociology isn't a science. People debate over this, but I take the side of the positivists, and reject sociology as a true science, since it doesn't truly use the same methodology.

And here's the 'father' of sociology on the subject:

"Sociology is not a science. It is a system of strategies being used to reach a particular goal." - Auguste Comte

Further - and this is interesting with respect to my accusations against MacDonald - Comte said, "“the entire systematisation of human life on the basis of the preponderance of the heart over the intellect.” ... "“ . . . what is meant is, that the intellect should devote itself exclusively to the problems which the heart suggests, . .”

He explicitly advocates an interpretive methodolgy, which is essentially the opposite of science, and that's exactly what MacDonald does in his racial screeds - he systematizes his personal opinions and feelings.

Most of psychology isn't terribly scientific either, save for fields like behaviorism, CBT...and of course, what MacDonald used to be involved in, bio-behaviorism.

Re. Lehi - MacDonald did not single that group out to compare it to the NAZI's - he spoke of Jews as a whole. Further, did the Lehi carry out genocide? No. They were terrorists, but they did not carry out genocide. It's an analogy that just doesn't work. And please don't pretend that holocaust deniers are legitimate scientists. This is just ridiculous.

Re. Marrying withing your kind - it's what most people do. Just look around you. What people say is of no consequence - it's their behaviors that count. And nowadays, Jews intermarry quite a bit - about a third of them.
Your assertions about the extremism of Jewish ethnocentrism are truly just your opinion, not based on a set of facts.

Calling me prejudiced is a herculean feat of projection.

And you're brainwashed alright. Being a member of a smaller cult doesn't make you an independent thinker.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by TrueTruth]

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
These statements are complete nonsense, there is no Nation on Earth you wont find prostitutes and crime. Pointing out Jews that may or may not have been involved in those things as evidence of some kind of tendency is bunk, your referring to the oldest profession and it was active long before there were any Jews

True. However, this doesn't change the fact that Jewish involvement in immoral activities (including crime) has always been significant. There is ample evidence for this.

An interesting reference is the "bargoens" slang that's become popular among the youg generations in Holland. "Bargoens" is a Dutch form of slang originating from the criminal underground (a synonym for "bargoens" is "dieventaal" or "thief language") and the dominant influence in "bargoens" is the Yiddish language.

Look for a list of the most succesful pornographers and you'll find Jews being overrepresented. In fact, Jews have been a major influence in human trade and exploitation for centuries. Black professor Tony Martin even wrote an interesting book on how the black slave trade was dominated by Jewish merchants.

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
As for antisemitism... that's not what I am talking about... a reaction or movement against, this country today is filled with all kinds of Racism, take Black people for example... there are many people that don't like them

... because blacks are overrepresented in violent crime and because blacks tend to underachieve at many levels. In fact, scientific studies have shown that American blacks score an average of 15 points lower at IQ tests in comparison with Whites and even middle class blacks score lower than underclass whites. African blacks (with no White admixture at all) score even lower than their American counterparts.

Thus, antiblack racism is likely the consequence of black underachievement and involvement in violent crime.

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
If you look for a Jewish criminal you will find one, same goes for any race or culture your post supports nothing in regards to the nature of Jews or anyone else.

Obviously not all criminals are Jews and not all Jews are criminals, but when you see that Jews are overrepresented for some specific crimes or otherwise immoral behavior it is worth pointing that out. The same can be said about black or latino overrepresentation in certain crimes.

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
I'd say in respective fields Indians, Japanese, Wasps all share that same kind of stereotyped success offered...

It's not the fact that you guys are succesful that's a problem. The problem is that gentiles never experience the advantages you mention you get as a Jew (like finding someone to invest in your company with little to no effort).

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
No one will question an Indian Doctor or Computer expert for example.

I don't know about Indian doctors (I've never seen any personally), but in IT the Indians are known for their incompetency

Basically, it's said that Indians in IT are about 5 times cheaper but also take about 5 times longer to complete the job and the quality is usually far inferior compared with Western-Europeans.

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
It's not like we are alone in this, living where I do I see the same stuff from Mormons too, secular, secretive, saving money...

Unlike Jews, Mormons are not involved in spreading an anti-gentile agenda all over the Western world. Big difference !

The people most similar to Jews in their attitude towards outsiders and insiders are gypsies and gypsies are disliked all over the world for pretty much the same reasons. The main difference between Jews and gypsies, however, is that gypsies are fairly powerless and not nearly as intelligent as Jews.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Correct - sociology isn't a science. People debate over this, but I take the side of the positivists, and reject sociology as a true science, since it doesn't truly use the same methodology.

Explain yourself. What's wrong with the methodology and why is psychology a real science?

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Further - and this is interesting with respect to my accusations against MacDonald - Comte said, "“the entire systematisation of human life on the basis of the preponderance of the heart over the intellect.” ... "“ . . . what is meant is, that the intellect should devote itself exclusively to the problems which the heart suggests, . .”

He explicitly advocates an interpretive methodolgy, which is essentially the opposite of science, and that's exactly what MacDonald does in his racial screeds - he systematizes his personal opinions and feelings.

I beg to differ. I see no difference between the methods used in biology to analyse and categorise life and the methods used in sociology to analyse and categorise life. Basically, sociology and anthropology are nothing but a behavioral analysis of group behavior based on careful observation and experimentation.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Re. Lehi - MacDonald did not single that group out to compare it to the NAZI's - he spoke of Jews as a whole.

Just like there are radical Jews and moderate Jews, so were there radical Nazis and moderate Nazis. I was just comparing two extremes, but the moderates compare as well.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Further, did the Lehi carry out genocide? No. They were terrorists, but they did not carry out genocide.

The creation of Israel did go parallel with an ethnic cleansing of the area.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
And please don't pretend that holocaust deniers are legitimate scientists. This is just ridiculous.

I see no scientific reason to disqualify revisionist works. All I see is political reasons, which is probably why there are censorship laws in several countries to make any such research illegal.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Re. Marrying withing your kind - it's what most people do. Just look around you. What people say is of no consequence - it's their behaviors that count. And nowadays, Jews intermarry quite a bit - about a third of them.
Your assertions about the extremism of Jewish ethnocentrism are truly just your opinion, not based on a set of facts.

There is ample evidence to prove you wrong.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
And you're brainwashed alright. Being a member of a smaller cult doesn't make you an independent thinker.

My views on hallucingenic and empathogenic drugs I share with hippies, my views on Jewish culture I share with antisemites, my views on heredity I share with racists, my views on totalitarianism I share with anarchists and my views on capitalist globalism I share with lierals. My views are my own and not based on any particular belief system. I don't fit into any "cult" or ideology, which does qualify my thinking as independent.

reply to post by PC equals Newspeak


Go back and re-read what I said about psychology. As to why sociology isn't a true science...it doesn't study things that are truly objective. It studies 'things' that are often concepts. Biology deals with the objective world. The things it measures and studies can be measured and studied by other biologists, and using the same instruments of analysis, they can verify or falsify certain facts in a clearly repeatable manner. This is not the case with sociology. There's too much subjectivity and interpretation in terms of what constitutes things like a culture, and people, an idea, etc. The field is not shy about its embrace of qualitative research, and many sociologists argue that to pretend as if it can be any other way is folly. They very much do NOT use the same methods of experimentation, because they can not. You can't put the alleged beliefs of Jews under a microscope to reach consensus over their structure.


Re. Lehi - this is getting tiresome. Lehi was a small group, not all Jews, and MacDonald didn't focus his analysis on Lehi - he focused it on Jews as a whole.

Re. Revisionist history and the holocaust. You've got the whole thing upside down - it's that there's no 'scientific' reason to take it seriously. Use love using the word 'science', but you don't seem to know what it means.

Re. Ethnocentrism - claiming there is evidence is not evidence. You're again just making things up based on your personal opinion - the world as seen through your very cloudy filter.


The cult comment was an analogy. It means you THINK you're an independent thinker, but you show no sign of either independence or thought. You've latched onto a handful of counter-cultural ideas, and that helps you fool yourself into thinking you're a real individual, when really, you're just like a teenager trying to differentiate himself from his parents by grabbing onto whatever ideas are oppositional. That's your 'particular belief system'.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
As to why sociology isn't a true science...it doesn't study things that are truly objective. It studies 'things' that are often concepts. Biology deals with the objective world. The things it measures and studies can be measured and studied by other biologists, and using the same instruments of analysis, they can verify or falsify certain facts in a clearly repeatable manner. This is not the case with sociology.

I don't see why not.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
There's too much subjectivity and interpretation in terms of what constitutes things like a culture, and people, an idea, etc.

Obviously there are many grey areas and overlapses that make categorisation of individuals very difficult, but that doesn't mean that different "breeding groups" (in modern research, the concept of "race" is repaced by "breeding group") cannot be identified.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
The field is not shy about its embrace of qualitative research, and many sociologists argue that to pretend as if it can be any other way is folly.

??

Originally posted by TrueTruth
They very much do NOT use the same methods of experimentation, because they can not. You can't put the alleged beliefs of Jews under a microscope to reach consensus over their structure.

You can perfectly analyse the differences in behavior, attitude, character and intelligence between different breeding groups by means of experiment and/or by means of real life examples and use statistical techniques to map them. That's all very scientific.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Re. Lehi - this is getting tiresome. Lehi was a small group, not all Jews, and MacDonald didn't focus his analysis on Lehi - he focused it on Jews as a whole.

I would never suggest otherwise. I was just using the Lehi as an example because the resemblance with the NSDAP philosophy was striking. Many other Zionists or Jewish groups also have similar features.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Re. Revisionist history and the holocaust. You've got the whole thing upside down - it's that there's no 'scientific' reason to take it seriously.

Yes there is. Holocaust Revisionists (the term "denier" distorts what they represent) base their statements on forensic evidence, documentary evidence, testimonial evidence, etc. I find their methods in general to be far more objective and scientificly valid than those of their oponents, who rarely go beyond strawman arguments and defamation if they ever care to address Revisionist claims.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Re. Ethnocentrism - claiming there is evidence is not evidence. You're again just making things up based on your personal opinion - the world as seen through your very cloudy filter.

If you don't consider MacDonald a reliable source, then take Jewish dissidents like eg. Israel Shahak, Israel Shamir, Norman Finkelstein, ... They provide ample examples of extreme Jewish ethnocentrism.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
The cult comment was an analogy. It means you THINK you're an independent thinker, but you show no sign of either independence or thought. You've latched onto a handful of counter-cultural ideas, and that helps you fool yourself into thinking you're a real individual, when really, you're just like a teenager trying to differentiate himself from his parents by grabbing onto whatever ideas are oppositional. That's your 'particular belief system'.

My beliefs regarding the world we live in are based on scientific evidence, personal experience and logical arguments alone. I don't allow myself to be influenced by any particular belief system and always try to verify a claim by checking out multiple sources from different perspectives before I consider it a fact.

Just because my views counter mainstream culture, that doesn't mean I'm little different from those many teenage rebels without a cause. It doesn't mean I'm counter-cultural either (quite the contrary). I just recognise that Western civilisation is bound to collapse as Oswald Spengler already sensed almost a century ago and I'm trying to understand the mechanisms behind t.

reply to post by PC equals Newspeak


Re. qualitative research..here's a very brief primer i just nabbed off the net. i've got a book about somewhere in this house, but i have no idea where. it's not hard to find more if you care to.

Re. breeding groups? to the extent that were possible, you'd be talking about biology. but when you're talking about 'jews', that's a way bigger population. and you ignored my other points, about the subjective conceptualization of things like cultures, attitudes, etc. and identifying behaviors isn't nearly as simple as you make it sound. to the the extent we're able, it's really the province of behaviorism, not sociology. you can take all the data you want, but if the 'thing' you're studying isn't and can not be clearly defined or agreed upon, then it's just window dressing. counting my burps doesn't make me a gastroenterologist. charting, isn't science.

and what 'statistical techniques' have you availed yourself of to support any single claim you've made? that's right, none.

i mean, people can write very scholarly papers about things like victorian literature, or write very nice books about history, and include lots of facts, but neither literature nor history are sciences.

see?


All the rest is basically opinions. Every race has ethnocentrism in its ranks, so why the fixation on jews?


Please share the 'forensic evidence' proving there was no holocaust. Shoot - the NAZI's kept their own records about how many they killed.

But go ahead - where's the 'science'?

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Re. qualitative research..here's a very brief primer i just nabbed off the net. i've got a book about somewhere in this house, but i have no idea where. it's not hard to find more if you care to.

Here? Where? Did you forget to insert a link?!?

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Re. breeding groups? to the extent that were possible, you'd be talking about biology.

Sociology, anthropology and biology are fields with a big overlapse when involving human populations.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
but when you're talking about 'jews', that's a way bigger population.

The Askenazi and Sephardic Jews are two clearly defined breeding groups. Although there exists of course various subgroups, these subgroups are not as relevant due to significant interbreeding between the subgroups.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
and you ignored my other points, about the subjective conceptualization of things like cultures, attitudes, etc.

I wouldn't speak of a subjectivity issue but rather of a complexity issue.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
and identifying behaviors isn't nearly as simple as you make it sound. to the the extent we're able, it's really the province of behaviorism, not sociology. you can take all the data you want, but if the 'thing' you're studying isn't and can not be clearly defined or agreed upon, then it's just window dressing.

Obviously, clear definitions and parameters need to be described before you start measuring.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
and what 'statistical techniques' have you availed yourself of to support any single claim you've made? that's right, none.

You never asked for it. I don't see you providing source references with every statement you make so why should I?

Originally posted by TrueTruth
i mean, people can write very scholarly papers about things like victorian literature, or write very nice books about history, and include lots of facts, but neither literature nor history are sciences.

History, psychology and sociology are all human sciences. Human sciences differ from exact sciences in technique and approach but that doesn't make them unscientific.

Literature on the other hand is obviously not a science.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
All the rest is basically opinions. Every race has ethnocentrism in its ranks, so why the fixation on jews?

Its radical nature and its huge effect on gentile society.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Please share the 'forensic evidence' proving there was no holocaust. Shoot

The forensic evidence is not conclusive on its own, but corroberates the case that's presented by the documentary evidence, statistical evidence, documentary evidence, etc. Below are the two best known examples of forensic evidence.

- When the Americans entered the German concentration camps in 1945, they stumbled on piles of bodies. These were tested by an American expert sent by the army and the main cause of death was determined to by typhus, followed by typhoid and starvation. Germans claimed this was because the devastation of allied carpet bombing did not allow medicine and food to arrive at these camps and Red Cross reports confirm this. Unfortunately no bodies were tested on the Sovjet side, where the camps are located still referred to as death camps today (orriginally, camps like Buchenwald, Dachau and Bergen-Belsen were also referred to as death camps).

- Germar Rudolf compared Zyklon B traces of alleged gas chambers with traces in the KZ kitchens and delycing facilities. While large amounts of Zyklon B were found in delycing facilities, Zyklon B traces of alleged gas chambers with traces in the KZ kitchens and delycing facilities. While large amounts of Zyklon B were found in delycing facilities, the traces found in the alleged gas chamber were no more significant than those found in the KZ kitchens.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
the NAZI's kept their own records about how many they killed.

Indeed. Those figures don't even add nearly up to 6 million. Official historiography has to claim many records are destroyed (without any evidence) and/or that most KZ inmates were not registered (again without evidence) to come even close to 6 million deaths. The also use almost surreal excuses for the lack of any reference of extermination in the Wannsee protocols and the lack of any written order to extermination. There exist only a handful documents that contradict Holocaust Revisionists and each of them has been debunked after an in depth analysis.

reply to post by PC equals Newspeak


Rudolph. I'm so glad you mentioned him. He didn't test a thing. He commented on the tests 'done' by Leuchter - which in reality, was just Leuchter hackign of some chunks of brick and sending them off to a lab for to be tested....

And I happen to personally know the man who conducted the analysis of the brick samples Leuchter sent him. Leuchter never told the man - Dr. James Roth - what the samples were from. So the lab ground up the samples, and didn't find the chemicals. Dr. Roth told me the the results of the analysis were ultimately meaningless... well, just check out the wikipedia entry. This is almost exactly what he told me:

en.wikipedia.org...

"Lab manager James Roth swore under oath to the results at the trial.[2] It was only after he got off the stand that Roth learned what the trial was about. In an interview for Morris' film, Roth states that cyanide would have formed an extremely fine layer on the walls, to the depth of one-tenth of a human hair. Leuchter had taken samples of indeterminate thickness (he is seen in Morris' film hammering at the bricks with a rock hammer).[2] Not informed of this, Roth had pulverized the entire samples, thus severely diluting the cyanide-containing layer of each sample with an indeterminate amount of brick, varying for each sample. Roth offers the analogy that the tests were like "analyzing paint on a wall by analyzing the timber that's behind it."[2]"

**

Later on, a REAL scientific analysis was done, and it refutes the deniers.

You can find a details discussion of it here:

www.holocaust-history.org...

**

I've run out of time for now...

but the one piece of actual science you've dragged into this discussion, has been thoroughly debunked.

i'll leave you to savor the defeat until later.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Rudolph. I'm so glad you mentioned him.

Why is it Americans always replace an F by PH at the end of German names? It's not like you don't use an F in your own language or you don't know how to pronounce it...

Originally posted by TrueTruth
He didn't test a thing. He commented on the tests 'done' by Leuchter - which in reality, was just Leuchter hackign of some chunks of brick and sending them off to a lab for to be tested....

Wrong. Rudolf took samples of his own. The following quote comes directly from the infamous Rudolf Report as it can be found online. In this, he also acknowledges Leuchter's lack of what he called a "regard for depth".

As far as I am aware, test samples from buildings at Auschwitz have been analyzed by four persons or groups so far.[499]

1. Fred A. Leuchter, Consulting Engineers, Boston, MA, on behalf of the defense of E. Zündel, Toronto. F.A. Leuchter marked the locations where he took samples from crematoria in maps of these buildings drawn by himself and reproduced in his expert report. Only Leuchter's samples taken from morgue 1 ('gas chamber') of crematorium II are reproduced in the sketch below (Fig. 67). There is also a video establishing Leuchter's sample taking locations.[500] J.-C. Pressac has subjected the sample taking to criticism.[45] Leuchter failed to indicate a more exact specification of the sample material; the designation is "brick" in all cases. The sample taking was done without regard for depth. From the traces left by Leuchter in the corresponding places in the masonry, one must calculate sample taking depths of up to 3 cm and more.

2. Prof. Dr. Jan Markiewicz, Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Research, Toxicology Department, Cracow, on behalf of the Auschwitz State Museum. J. Markiewicz provides more exact data on the sample taking locations, the type of material, and the depth taken in a sample taking records. The control samples were taken from a disinfestation chamber in the Auschwitz main camp, the interior walls of which, according to the report, were painted during the war, so that only a pale blue tint is visible in places. This is not, therefore, unaltered masonry material; thus, in case the samples were taken from the upper layer of the wall only, one has to expect lower results in comparison to an untreated wall.[56],[57]

3. Dipl.-Chem. Germar Rudolf, Stuttgart, Germany, on behalf of the defense of the late Major General O. E. Remer. The samples were taken in the presence of witnesses by hammer and chisel and immediately sealed in a plastic bag. The subsequent numbering of the bags was recorded by hand, including the measured sample taking location and type of sample. Table 19 shows buildings, sample taking locations and depths, as well as a brief description of the wall material. The exact locations are shown in the sketch of the corresponding buildings in chapter 5 of this book.

4. John C. Ball, Ball Resource Services Ltd., Delta, BC, Canada. John C. Ball has not given any details about where exactly he took his samples, nor what kind of material it was. According to his own description, at least the samples from the delousing rooms of BW 5a and BW 5b consist of a mixture of material taken at various places of these rooms, both inside and outside. Hence, the same might be true for his other samples. For this reason, we will only briefly list Ball's analyses results here without going into too many details about how they are to be interpreted.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Roth offers the analogy that the tests were like "analyzing paint on a wall by analyzing the timber that's behind it."[2]"

As I said, Rudolf was aware of this and he has sufficient understanding of forensic testing not to make that same mistake. This also still doesn't explain why the sample from the delousing chambers taken for use as control purposes exhibit enormously high cyanide concentration.

Also, if he had the option between testing only the top layer of the entire piece of brick depending on the purpose of the test, why didn't he request for more information before crushing the brick?

Originally posted by TrueTruth
Later on, a REAL scientific analysis was done, and it refutes the deniers.

What specific analysis are you referring to?

Originally posted by TrueTruth
but the one piece of actual science you've dragged into this discussion, has been thoroughly debunked.

Only in your dreams

The Holocaust aside for the moment, as a non Jew (both in ancestry and religion) I'd like to add my two cents to this.

I'd also ask those members who are Jewish and have contributed, to answer one of my questions re the notion that the prominent Jews in our world (eg Hollywood, financial system) are actually not Semitic Jews by ancestry but Turkomen who adopted the Jewish religion. I'm very interested in knowing the facts about that.

Re the anti Jewish points made here including: the Jews exploit gentiles as is their aim, are brought up to despise non Jews, have been persecuted for good reasons throughout history etc etc, I'd like to add my view. I don't believe in Jewish conspiracies and I reject the notion that Jewish people somehow have a gene or a culture that makes them work against the interests of whatever country and society they happen to be in unless it's Israel.

Let's start with money and the notion of banking conspiracies, the Rothschilds etc. Many Jewish people in European society were at the bottom of the heirarchy - forced to live in ghettoes, distrusted, persecuted in many incidents. They did not have the power to wield all this influence that they are (dis) credited with.

Their relegation to areas of work that were not land owning, farming and other positions that non Jews occupied in society gave them the freedom to engage in activities that became increasingly important as Europe moved into times of rapid changes that heralded the early phase of what became modernisation of European societies.

Jewish people had contacts in the great trading centres outside of Europe (what was known as the Levant for example) because of the reality that they had been people on the move and had acquired knowledge and contacts of trade.

A fashionable racial slur for Jews in the 19th century and 20th century was the word 'cosmopolitan'. That in fact was a term that reflected the background of Jewish people in European society - they had experienced greater mobility than non Jews, they had engaged in occupations that removed them from a static life such as farming.

Yes Jewish people engaged in ursury - forbidden by the Church. Of course that built resentment among non Jews. However, let's be realistic - if the Jews had not charged interest in European business, non Jews would have done so first. The Church's laws were alway elastic when it suited their secular disguised as religious authorities.

About banking - the Medici family of Italy (sources have tried to portray them as Jews but that's incorrect) should really be credited with more or less starting what became modern banking in Europe.

Yes the Rothschilds heavily influenced European politics later with their frankly immoral financial practices but are you trying to say that it didn't suit the non Jewish authorities to give families such as the Rothschilds their authority to engage in banking? Hundreds of years before the English king Edward 3rd (I think, it was one of the Edwards) invited the Jews to England after they had been expelled from a country in Europe. My basic point: the Jews initially had as much power as the non Jewish authorities were prepared to give them.

As for the Holocaust - the revisionists score points on a few matters but Leuchter or whatever his name is does not. And a common argument used by revisionists/deniers such as Anne Frank died of typhus as did many Jews ignores the fact that you can only murder so many people at one time. The death camps were a huge operation and of course many Jews died of illness in such dehumanising and cruel conditions.

The anti Jewish argument also fails to look at other ethnicities to gain perspective. The Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia have been scapegoated (murdered, women raped, shops burnt down) by Malays and Indonesians who resent their financial clout because they are engaged primarily in business. Sounds familiar?

And you think Jews are unique in being ethnocentric?

[edit on 6-12-2009 by dontbelievehype]

If you have ever experienced life in Japan and Korea you will know that those countries' cultures are firmly built on systematic bigotry against and distrust of non Japanese and non Koreans no matter how nice some Japanese and Koreans are.

Those two cultures perpetuate notions of 'blood' and 'race' that would be at home in a Nazi handbook or eugenics conference of the 19th century. It is not so much openly proclaimed as implicit in the structures of the societies and the way in which non Japanese and non Koreans can be so easily dismissed because they are gaijin (outside people) and waygugin (outside people).

All the window dressing of 'globalisation' has not altered these two cultures' fundamental premises that non Japanese and non Korean really don't deserve any real consideration as a matter of course. Korean culture is worse for that. Go to LA - generally Koreans perpectuate the attitudes found in the least sophisticated parts of the home country.

There is the wish to isolate themselves, to keep out 'waygugin' (ie Americans) from Korean run stores in America, the reality of Koreans who have lived in LA, other parts of ther US, for years and have never learnt English.

On the other hand Jewish people have mostly wanted to be part of the society around them. The Hitler and other anti Jewish apologists miss a key point about the persecution and murder of the Jews in Germany - it was based to some extenton resentment of the integrationist ability of the Jews, as well as creepy racist/occult ideology.

Many Jewish people who became professionals wanted to be part of German society, some to the extent of foregoing religious observation.

Anyway - now to Jewish people on here. Is there any truth to the view that the Jews who are prominent in Hollywood and business etc are actually descendents of people from Turkmenistan or whatever it is who simply adopted Judaism and are not descended from the original semitic Jews? I'd be interested to hear. Thanks.

Normal, everyday Jews - not a problem. Tribe of Dan? Now there's a different kettle of fish...

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Charnwood]

These comments and a bit from the OP are some of the weakest things I've ever read.
You're writing or explaining a FACT that you witnessed, that you have seen a correlation between Jews and business, then you apologizing for having witnessed it, like you did something wrong.

"I saw a kid get hit by a bus today.. I don't have anything against buses, or kids! I'm not a bus-hater or an 'ageist' OMG please don't burn me alive!!!"

This is ATS, we report alternate history and news.. so why are you apologizing now? I didn't see anyone say "I'm so sorry i had to bring this up.. but 911 is fake, not that I have anything against what happened on 911, or the people involved, or the united states, it's just something I thought I'd bring up? Oh never mind."

So why is it, there is this huge thing when it comes to Jews? Why the hesitation ? Why the apologies? Why the insistence we're not racists? Why do we have to explain ourselves on this subject?
I believe this merits a closer look at Jews in business or community. Just for the fact that you are all so scared to write about it.

Originally posted by corsig
Look at the whole Mel Gibson "Passion of the Christ" situation. He was 100% blaming the Jews for it and noone batted an eye at that.

Yeah, you're wrong. I live and work in hollywood. Eyes were batted. When is the last time you saw mel gibson in a film?

Bueller?

Jews run Holywood, plain and simple.

If you dont think so, look at Tarantino's new film,Inglorious Bastards. There is some real asskissing going on in that film.

It's just the evolution of the industry. It happened that the founding movie studios were made by Jewish people. It is what it is.

Originally posted by dragonseeker

Originally posted by corsig
Look at the whole Mel Gibson "Passion of the Christ" situation. He was 100% blaming the Jews for it and noone batted an eye at that.

Yeah, you're wrong. I live and work in hollywood. Eyes were batted. When is the last time you saw mel gibson in a film?

Bueller?

Edge of Darkness, opening next month. Next question?