Yuku free message boards

KentFord9 wrote:

---

disagreements are rare

Not really. We are actually individuals.

The excellent documentary of Judaism Life of Brian comes to mind.

KentFord9 wrote:

---

I don't think we were discussing the definition of democracy but the traditions of modern liberal democracies, which I called "democratic traditions." A definition of democracy which doesn't draw in the accumulated traditions doesn't speak to the larger proposition.

Well, Democracy being an umbrella term for All Good Things is a relatively new phenomenon, a propaganda buzzword mostly peddled by the UN and the U.S. that I have no intention of repeating. Hardly traditions.

Still, what is there to talk about when it comes to 'modern liberal democracies' or its traditions that Deniers never want to, evoking some sort of sadness into you?

Jonathan Harrison wrote:

---

The first article was not written by a sociologist and is a piece of junk, as it uses the term 'white' (white = Europeans) in a racial way that I reject.

Ph.D.
California Institute of Integral Studies
San Francisco, CA
School of Transformative Learning and Integral Studies(2002)

Well, it sounds about as dumb as sociology.

Actually, the nice person who wrote these things follows the same mantra as you do: that Europeans created the racial categories in order to oppress people. Read the whole thing.

Jonathan Harrison wrote:

---

The second article is by a sociologist and is clearly far more nuanced, treating whiteness as a construction that is increasingly defined as cultural rather than racial, and is volatile and changing over time. It does not use the word 'racist' at all, so I've no idea how it supports your claim. It's argument is that Jews in powerful cultural positions (e.g. US Jews) have partial (not total) access to a 'whiteness' that is denied to Jews of other cultures, towards whom they feel superior. However, this superiority is of a primarily cultural nature, not racial. It does not discuss the attitude of Jews towards other groups.

Naturally, it is too ridiculous for me to read past the abstract.

Jonathan Harrison wrote:

---

EDIT: Whilst the first article is junk, it does acknowledge that non-whites can be prejudiced. It simply defines racism as having the power to act on those prejudices:

By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination. (This does not deny the existence of such prejudices, hostilities, acts of rage or discrimination.)

So even that garbage piece of writing does not say what VBG wants it to say: that only whites are prejudiced and discriminatory in their attitudes.

The garbage piece of writing follows the usual confused liturgy that "non-Whites cannot be racists (and if they are it is reactive, justified or inconsequential)" expressed more thoroughly in other places. Surely you have heard about it? I bet it is in your thesis.

Jonathan Harrison wrote:

---

Hasidic Jews make up 3% of the US Jewish population.

So?

If you are Jewish and any rebbe says you are 'Hasidic,' then you are 'Hasidic.' The burden of proof for the SBA is quite low, actually. Just wearing the weirdo paraphernalia would probably suffice. This might interest you (and KentFord9, given that it deals with the crime network).

Please prove your source, as I am not aware that U.S. censuses record so-called 'Hasidic Jews' as 'Hasidic.'

Jonathan Harrison wrote:

---

The ludicrous slur that Jews "free-ride" resources is straight out of the Goebbels book of racial fiction.

The "ludicrous slur" happens to be, er, true in a de jure manner. It is as dumb as your pointing out any Nazi-era law and my saying that it is a "ludicrous slur." We could get into the de facto ethnic nepotism that helps along the way as well if you want to, but it would be a fruitless endeavour and my getting further trolled.

However, that is not the point. They receive AA as a group, that being further irrefutable proof that they are not White, which means they were not called 'racist' by at least one person who happens to have spread that filth through universities. Of course, I can find more like-minded 'White privilege' sociologist conspiracy theorists.

Cite the Goebbels book of "racial fiction" from which this "slur" is "straight out of" and explain why I should care if it is "straight out of" it. Godwin's law, much?

Jonathan Harrison wrote:

---

It's not my view that "Europeans created the racial categories in order to oppress people". They created them to rationalize that oppression.

Yeah, huge difference there. So if they do not do anything oppressive, why should we not keep them?

Jonathan Harrison wrote:

---

It's also not my view that "non-Whites cannot be racists (and if they are it is reactive, justified or inconsequential)" as I believe that the racism of, e.g. Farrakhan, Kahane or Ahmadinejad is far from inconsequential.

Of course, having fine-tuned your 'views' for the purposes of successful RODOHoaxsterism.

Jonathan Harrison wrote:

---

As for no racist Jews, the state of Israel itself has laws banning certain Jewish groups due to their racist activities.

So? I just answered davidwoolfe's question concerning the identity of one person who has claimed Jews cannot be racist. As I already told him, of course some Jews would certainly get called racist. After all, one needs only look at its genesis: the term used to essentially be a shibboleth by which one Marxist Jew identified another. Now it is slightly more fuzzy and does not really mean anything coherent and agreed upon to normal people other than an effective political smear word for whatever reason. Alas, you probably already knew that.