Anti-Semitism

[indjaseemun]

Why this word, anti-semitism? Why when it is against blacks or other races, it is called simply racism?

Is it because anti-semitism is referring to not only jews as race, but also as culture and religion? Then how come it is so much more evil to be an anti-semite than to be anti-christian or islam? Why do jews have special protection, why can't you question the holocaust in germany and other countries? A guy was arrested in germany just for sending an article questioning the holocaust to a number of people.

Look at this:

In The Robots' Rebellion (1994), Icke introduced the idea that the Global Elite's plan for world domination was laid out in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a hoax published in Russia in 1903, which supposedly presented a plan by the Jewish people to take over the world.[56] According to Mark Honigsbaum, Icke refers to it 25 times in the Robot's Rebellion, calling it the "Illuminati protocols."[57]


The Protocols portrays the Jewish people as "cackling villains from a Saturday matinee," as Jon Ronson put it in his documentary about Icke, David Icke, the Lizards and the Jews (2001).[56] It was published in English in 1920 by The Dearborn Independent, Henry Ford's newspaper, becoming mixed up with conspiracy theories about anti-Christian Illuminati, international financiers, and the Rothschilds, a Jewish banking dynasty. After it was exposed that year as a hoax by The Times of London, Michael Barkun writes that it disappeared from mainstream discourse until interest in it was renewed by the American far right in the 1950s.[56] Barkun argues that Icke's reference to it is the first of a number of instances of him moving dangerously close to antisemitism.[59]

Moving dangerously close to antisemitism? It seems like the jews are like, special people that are dangerous to be against?

Icke's use of the Protocols was greeted with dismay by the Green Party's executive. They had allowed him to address the party's annual conference in 1992, despite the controversy over his Wogan interview, but in September 1994 decided to deny him a platform.[60] Icke wrote to The Guardian protesting against the decision, denying that The Robots' Rebellion was antisemitic, and rejecting racism, sexism and prejudice of any kind, but in the same letter insisted that whoever wrote the Protocols "knew the game plan" for the 20th century.[61] Barkun argues that Icke was trying to have it both ways, offended by the allegation of antisemitism while "hinting at the dark activities of Jewish elites."[62]

Trying to have it both ways, ha. Just for exposing the protocols he is called an anti-semite, and in order to prove he is not, he has to shun the protocols completely, if not, he's "trying to have both ways". You can't "hint at the dark activities of the jewish elites" or you are an anti-semite.

Alick Bartholomew of Gateway, Icke's former publisher, said that an early draft of And the Truth Shall Set You Free (1995) contained material questioning the Holocaust, and that Icke was dropped because of it.[57]
Icke was briefly detained by immigration officials when he entered Canada in 2000, after his name was added to a watch list because of complaints from the Canadian Jewish Congress.[66] His books were removed from Indigo Books, a Canadian chain, and several stops on his speaking tour were cancelled, as was a lecture in October 2000 at Blackheath Concert Halls in London, for the same reason.[67] Human rights lawyer Richard Warman, working at the time for the Canadian Green Party, took credit for much of this in Jon Ronson's documentary about Icke, which catalogued some of the cancelled appearances.[68]

http://www.henrymakow.com/000298.html

In May 1920, Lord Northcliffe, a part owner of The Times, printed an article about the Protocols entitled "The Jewish Peril, A Disturbing Pamphlet, A Call for an Enquiry. " It concluded:

"An impartial investigation of these would-be documents and their history is most desirable...are we to dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of such a book as this work unchecked?"

Then in May 1922 Northcliffe visited Palestine and wrote that Britain had been too hasty to promise it to the Jewish people when in fact it belonged to 700,000 Muslim Arab residents.

Mr. Wickham Steed, the editor of The Times of London in 1921 refused to print the article and Northcliffe tried to get him fired.

Somehow Steed was able to have Northcliffe declared "insane" and committed. Later Northcliffe complained he was being poisoned and died suddenly in 1922.

http://www.rense.com/general82/joly.htm

[Svmmoned]

You actually think the crappy movies/tv/music/academic literature they make/promote are actually designed to make us degenerate? Like, they're not just stupid because that's what the public wants, but there's a specific ill-will involved?

This whole thing sounds like an escape to me.  A fantasy.

Slogans. If you tend to look on it in such intentionally simplified way you could also apply it to liberals with ease. But we know that's not the case here. It should be stated, that presence of both groups implicates some circumstances - they are shaping our surroundings in ways we perceive as inappropriate. It's as simple as that. We know that our problems won't end if we simply get rid of those groups, because we got our share of fault. But their efforts in politics, academia, art, their influence over lower castes, which after all are also a part of nation, tend to perpetuate our problems. It's a way for their causes to self-reproduce.

Many people on this board talk about the Jews as if they are some simple, linear group. They are like Whites, in that some need to be shot, some need to be convinced, and some are crucial to progress. No need to bash or support them as a whole.

As there are no two things equal, maybe Jews are not the same everywhere, it is that small recombination. But their defenders should also take that into account. My experience with them is that they are not faithful to their popular (relatively recent) portrayal. They are pedophiles/retards/liberals(formerlycommunists)/deceivers of this land and I'm not talking about ZOG-like conspiracies but about outspoken, declared Jews or ones of such heritage and their overt and transparent actions - almost never "out of character". They can be merely an individuals, but somehow they are behaving in that stereotypical way, attributed to them as a collective. Sans for few individuals, honorable exceptions maybe, underneath their fairly upstart identity they still seems to be that same unwashed disgusting rabble as many Europeans, against emerging trends, saw them.

If someone, because of ever difficult situation of Israel, our agent in the Middle East, wants to turn his head from problems we are having with them in our homes, it is his choice, but he should not pretend, that it's complete experience. But don't get me wrong - I'm not using your typical American (also German recently) pro/anti-Israel rhetoric here. Israel is a fact. I'm not against Israel as a country, while, I must say that, I think that its modern origin is at least controversial and open to valuation. But since they have established a national country in such hostile surrounding - the only reasonable action now it is to preserve it.

[Dylar]

I don't understand the bias against Zionism. It's Jewish nationalism. That's worth supporting.

Thats what kills me, if you hate Jews so much, why not help with their Zionist mission and help them get the hell out of Dodge? If Zionists had their way, you wouldn't have to deal with the Jews materialistic bullshit, and they wouldn't have to deal with European and American pogroms. It's win-win.

Well, unless you're a Palestinian Arab.

[Dinaric Leather]

I don't understand the bias against Zionism. It's Jewish nationalism. That's worth supporting.

Thats what kills me, if you hate Jews so much, why not help with their Zionist mission and help them get the hell out of Dodge? If Zionists had their way, you wouldn't have to deal with the Jews materialistic bullshit, and they wouldn't have to deal with European and American pogroms. It's win-win.

Well, unless you're a Palestinian Arab.

I'm speaking from the western point of view. I'm biased though because I hate Arabs.

[crow]

Arabs, as a whole, or Islamists?
I must say, when I used to visit Morocco, the arabs were a generally friendly bunch.
Although this probably had a lot to do with trying to sell me stuff, at which they were very accomplished, to the point of being incredibly tiresome.

[Dinaric Leather]

Arabs, as a whole, or Islamists?
I must say, when I used to visit Morocco, the arabs were a generally friendly bunch.
Although this probably had a lot to do with trying to sell me stuff, at which they were very accomplished, to the point of being incredibly tiresome.

g
I hate Arabs because they do what everyone thinks the Jews do, destroy beautiful ancient cultures and replace them with their ugly culture. They don't belong in Iraq, Persia, the Levant or North Africa but they act like they do. They also nearly moved in on India but luckily that didn't work out for them. Thats not to say there aren't Arab individuals I respect (contrary to modern thinking, respect doesn't mean "like"), but as a whole I believe Arab culture has been a bad thing for Humanity and more importantly (to me and most of us here) Europe. Their religion is very multicultural, they accept you as one of them no matter what you are (even Jewish*) as long as you convert to Islam, absolutely ridiculous. Not to mention the disgusting way they treat their women, which even to my (very) traditionalist outlook strikes me as bizarre and unnecessary.

I spent a year in Detroit and met many of them and their xenophobic attitudes didn't help my attitude much. It's one thing to want to preserve your culture but they came to my country and then demand they be left alone in their own little groups, undoubtedly to plot against us.

I'd also like to point out that Moroccan Arabs are intermixed with the indigenous population, as are all Arabs outside of Saudi Arabia.




*I just want to clarify I mean even Jewish as in even races who they are traditionally enemies of, not that being Jewish in and of itself is a bad thing in my eyes. I actually like the Jews to some extent.

[scourge]

Their religion is very multicultural, they accept you as one of them no matter what you are (even Jewish*) as long as you convert to Islam, absolutely ridiculous.

That would true for both of the Abrahamic heresies that revolted from Judaism, not just for one.

Not to mention the disgusting way they treat their women, which even to my (very) traditionalist outlook strikes me as bizarre and unnecessary.

Yet they are not rapidly dying off as an entire people, their treatment of women notwithstanding. Which is the worst evil by comparison?

[Saif al-Malik]

Arabs, as a whole, or Islamists?
I must say, when I used to visit Morocco, the arabs were a generally friendly bunch.
Although this probably had a lot to do with trying to sell me stuff, at which they were very accomplished, to the point of being incredibly tiresome.

I hate Arabs because they do what everyone thinks the Jews do, destroy beautiful ancient cultures and replace them with their ugly culture. They don't belong in Iraq, Persia, the Levant or North Africa but they act like they do. They also nearly moved in on India but luckily that didn't work out for them. Thats not to say there aren't Arab individuals I respect (contrary to modern thinking, respect doesn't mean "like"), but as a whole I believe Arab culture has been a bad thing for Humanity and more importantly (to me and most of us here) Europe. Their religion is very multicultural, they accept you as one of them no matter what you are (even Jewish*) as long as you convert to Islam, absolutely ridiculous. Not to mention the disgusting way they treat their women, which even to my (very) traditionalist outlook strikes me as bizarre and unnecessary.

I spent a year in Detroit and met many of them and their xenophobic attitudes didn't help my attitude much. It's one thing to want to preserve your culture but they came to my country and then demand they be left alone in their own little groups, undoubtedly to plot against us.

I'd also like to point out that Moroccan Arabs are intermixed with the indigenous population, as are all Arabs outside of Saudi Arabia.

*I just want to clarify I mean even Jewish as in even races who they are traditionally enemies of, not that being Jewish in and of itself is a bad thing in my eyes. I actually like the Jews to some extent.

The crossroads between secular Arab nationalism and religious radicalism exist, but ultimately fade away as one favors a progressive agenda and the other is at odds with that platform.  It is important to note, as you have, that Arab is a cultural-linguistic identity to the point that a person who speaks Arabic and knows Arab culture can become an Arab.  Saudi Arabs contrary to popular belief have South Asian ancestry.  Before the genesis of strong non-Arab Islamic cultures becoming a Muslim was a system of Arabization, and during that period, of which some traits exist to this day, to take the path of the Sunnah meant to joining the Islamic--then Arab--community.  As time progressed, more non-Arabic peoples like the Turkic peoples, Kurds, Persians, Hindustanis, Sindhis, Punjabis, Malays, and so on converted to Islam.  The conquest of India by Ibn Qasim was ultimately a success because it set the stage for the formation of a South Asian Islam that including India numbers about 500 million people.  These cultures which were not absorbed by Arabs started developing their own cultures within the Islamic perspective.  They have a healthy respect for their cultures and racial uniqueness which often is used by those furthering political Islamism.  The rise of modern Salafist Islam is a powerful force for cultural Arabization today in the west, steadily gaining popularity among both converts and those born into the Islamic tradition.  Ironically, this minhaj is anti-traditional and masquerades as a traditional force for an unhistorical ideology.

Islam as a religion supports patriarchy.  Domestic violence is an issue in Islamic society, and indeed in western culture as well, but the importance is that patriarchal structure be maintained.  My question is this: How does Arab culture differ from old Mediterranean cultures in their insistence on a patriarchal system?  To become a Muslim is taken quite seriously and unless someone is very gullible or naive, they will not rush into Islam without strong consideration.  It is in essence a movement to not just another religion, but an entirely different way of living, thinking, and doing.  Comparisons to the Jews are understandable as both peoples have strong mercantile leanings and in some cases are related through distant forebears.  Jews like Arabs are a mixed, but strongly cultured people with a strong sense of mission.  The similarity between the two religions--rigorous monotheism--and a history of tolerance of the Jewish people until recent times can be a strong attraction to people disgusted by the attitudes they find in modern Judaism.