Antisemitism in the Age of Austerity

She'll have to sacrifice herself to the greater good of purging everything semitic from this planet.

You sound like an autistic boomer racist complaining about ebonics.

What are you doing on the internet?

it is already here among us.

antisemitism isn't simply hating jews, it's a pathological psychic structure which is specific to capitalist modernity. antisemitism is when the discontent inherent to whole of capitalism is displaced onto an Other, which provides a simple answer as to why the subjects of capitalism are so disrespected/unhappy/etc. without an understanding that these sentiments are a direct result of their economic predicament. in this sense, we can have antisemitism without jews. conspiracy theories, anti-immigrant sensibilities, even the hatred of america underlying some forms of anti-imperialism all fall under this category.

as long as there is capitalism, we're gonna have antisemitism.

No fucking shit but just singling out the Jews as the great other is just disingenuous. The main goal for capitalists is to keep workers divided through race, religion, hair colour, fucking anything to stop them joining together. So why should we care about antisemitism anymore than we care about other ways to split up the workers? What makes the Jews special?

Because they they try to replace the lefts biggest enemy with da joo which drives people to the wrong answers for the right questions
No one blames the black people or lesbians for our inherently flawed system, but by explaining economic and political shortcomings with hatred against a "race" is what damages the left and human society in general the most

If you removed the Jews from the equation then it would be black people or the Chinese. The point is we should educated those who are blind to the fact that it's the capitalists putting up a scapegoat. Jewish people aren't just magically discriminated against, as with everything there is the historical conditions which have led to antisemitism. In the end antisemitism is no different than garden variety racism so why should we care? I again ask what makes the Jews special?

I'm not saying that there is anything inherently special about the racism against the jewish people it's the history of antisemitism that makes it stand out as well as the fact that porky is replaced by the jew on a very broad scale of different antisemite mindsets (not only nazis but radical islamists or fundamental christians as well)
I mean not even the dumbest of retards would think of a black people illuminati new world order conspiracy since the cultural conditions aren't given for that, and it took more than a thousand years for antisemitism to develop

The reason why antisemitism developed was from a mixture of hatred due to the Christian view on the Jews, the idealisation of the farmer and tradesman, and lastly the fact that Jews committed usury. The Jewish character is viewed as shifty because of the pharisees working with the Romans, lazy because they weren't allowed to become tradesmen or farmers, and lastly money hungry because of usury. The reason the Jews are singled out is because they've historically been viewed as the other in Christian society. Would you blame the former thief first if something went missing? And anyway if it was black people they would say that the ills of society are due to a mixture of the intelligence of east Asians and more emphasis put onto black people draining the economy. In the end elevating antisemitism above any other dividing tactic is playing into Capital's hands. The Jews aren't special.

alot of the aristocratic anti-semites were funnily enough harmless in the grand scheme of things. pograms at their worst killed a few hundred or thousand jews, and even those were government sponsored and supported by secret police, cossack military units and such. Even people like Tsar Nicholas was at worst negligent/ turning a blind eye to his own government's jew baiting. A lot of other monarchs also were anti semites but people such as Wilhelm II, even while cursing jews, at the same time shuttered when Hitler actually took coordinated state action and violence against jews. tl;dr it was mostly rhetoric, though tbf a lot of nobles got mixed up in fascist and nazi movements in the intewar and arguably shaped it a lot.

Lenin was a structural antisemite

t. ANTIDEUTSCH GANG

how is it different from anyone else complaining. it's utterly ridiculous to racialize a trait (nagging, complaining) that is common to many people.

My point wasn't that the jews or the racism against jews from the general public was special but the fact that porky has always used them as a mask to hide themselves behind in his characteristics while the racism against blacks was just as well as dividing tactic but from the problems and not from the main enemy
I mean u could replace special with different for all I care if it satisfies your autistic rambling but u can't tell me that if the jews magically disappeared anybody would buy into "oh now blacks are the evil bankers that show homosexuals in their movies"

Anti-semitism for aristocrats is a "Get out of popular discontent free" card.

The Holocaust, unironically. There has been systematic discrimination against blacks and rampant racism against many groups in modern history, but only antisemitism has ever activated the genocide impulse in directly on European soil (Gypsies too). We also don't know what Stalin had in store for after the Doctor's Plot, but it's likely the Jews were in for a huge persecution discrimination had he not died. This is not to equate Nazism and Stalinism, but it's to show that state violence can be easily turned to persecutory ends if the wrong person takes charge.
Otherwise, I agree. I highly doubt leftists would ever commit such atrocities against Jews.

Attached: learnthedifference.png (2568x1804, 218.09K)

It's something I've noticed with some jewish relatives of mine, and occasionally working retail and handling jewish customers. Maybe it's just a cultural thing where they don't hold back complaining that I'm not used to, somehow it seems they're more willing to complain 'at length'
Ive heard before that it's a stereotype of them

You think I'm saying that magically someone will assume the Jewish role of bankers. That's just utter fucking tripe as it's a historic trait of the Jewish people being involved in finance. What I'm saying is that no matter what the capitalist will use another section of the proletariat to divide them. If the Jews disappeared I wouldn't be surprised to see a world where media control is blamed on the Irish and financial fuckery being blamed on the Anglos. You're assuming that the current conspiracy theories have to be exactly the same for the next big other.

Well when Cromwell came to Ireland they had a lovely policy called "To Hell or to Connaught". What this meant was that the new model army went from village to village and exterminated anyone who spoke Gaelic Irish. In Byzantium there were multiple exterminations of the Latins. The Dutch killing off large numbers of Germans and French. St Bartholomew's day massacre. I can go on and on here but you forget that other races throughout history have been as hated as the Jews and have had extermination policies put in action against them. Now tell me what makes the Jews special?

Not really. Many of them held prejudices against Christian converts to Christianity long after their conversion. The Spanish Inquisition which targeted "new Christians" known as conversos is a good example of this. The fact that many Jewish families still had a hard time doing away the stigma of their Jewish heritage long after conversion to Christianity is a good example of this, Marx for instance, was brought up Christian and his father's conversion was sincere but that never stopped the slander against him based on his Jewish heritage. Although I think many of the medieval critiques of Judaism by European intellectuals were broadly correct, I'm not sure why its such a leap to think that racism had something to do with pre-modern anti-semitism. There's been racism against gypsies for a long time and its not even primarily a religious issue.

The whole meme about modern anti-semitism reminds me of the Afrocentric scholars that mainstreamed the claim that there was no racism against blacks or even racism in general before the Atlantic slave trade. Which wasn't true, racist ideas have existed since Ancient Times and given the Roman treatment of their colonies its hard to say that it was "better" than "modern" racism.

This actually existed in the late 18th and early 19th century with conspiracy theories that explained the French Revolution as being the result of a Jewish-masonic conspiracy against the monarchy. These theories served the ideological needs of the aristocrats in restoration France and of the broader European aristocracy in the conservative settlement of the Concert of Europe.

The French aristocracy for instance viewed themselves as being a separate race from common people, the fact that Jews were both disproportionately represented in the bourgeoisie and that many Christian bourgeois had relatively recent infusions of Jewish blood seemed to give credibility to these theories.

Funny the original fascist party was literally packed full of Jews. If we're gonna split hairs about "proto-fascisms" then I have to point out that Zionism was the first racist colonialist pseudo-socialist movement that sometimes affected a "Left" populist guise. Zionists were active in Europe and even America and starting Palestinian colonization efforts before Action Français was even formed.

Read Shahak and then read Sombart.
educate-yourself.org/cn/Jewish-History-Jewish-Religion-The-Weight-of-3000-Years-1994-Israel-Shahak-89pages.pdf

Read De Leon and watch Pierre Tru Dank:
marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/subject/antisem.pdf

The black hundreds and the Russian whites killed around 100,000 Jews during the Russian Civil War

Do you get all your information from Zionist meme factories?

Attached: nazbolallende.jpg (2275x1079, 464.57K)

That's not true. Antisemitism is different from "garden-variety" racism. Not because the former is somehow worse than the latter; not because the Jews are better or special — but because antisemitism presents itself as an emancipatory movement.
No American racist would pretend they're being oppressed or exploited by the blacks, or that the blacks are responsible for war and exploitation; when the white supremacist disparages "niggers", he does so by shamelessly insisting on his own (alleged) moral, biological and/or intellectual superiority. That's why no leftist would ever be caught dead supporting racism — it comes into blatant contradiction with their professed championing of equality.
Antisemites on the other hand rarely present Jews as less intelligent or less capable. If anything, they will concede the Jew is particularly smart and shrewd — maybe even more so than the Aryan in certain departments! For them, Jew-baiting is not supremacy at all but precisely mere self-defense against Jewish domination. They're not attacking innocent people for being inferior, they're engaging in struggle against moneyed powers. They're not discriminating against anyone, they're fighting for their own rights. They're not punching down, they're punching up.
Do you know of any other ethnic group associated with worldwide conspiracies or plutocratic capitalism? That's why some on the Left with a very crude understanding of capitalism were historically susceptible to antisemitism; it's much more compatible with their proclaimed support of social emancipation.

Attached: stormweeniessuicidewatch.jpg (1280x720, 318.17K)

Also
How boring. We're talking about a country that elected a Jewish socialist PM in 1936 but the only thing Zionists and their philo-semites care about is a case from more than 120 years ago. It's as if we were to treat the OJ Simpson case as the final word on race relations in the United States. I should point out that the advent of democracy in France and the revolution did not actually end the French aristocracy, who often held anti-semitic views and supported reactionary and anti-republican causes.

This view also ignores French support for Zionism and ruling class philosemitism in France. Why did French industrialists support Zionism and why did the French imperialist establishment give Israel the tech it needed to build nuclear bombs?

Why did Vichy drag its feet on deporting Jews to Auschwitz? Zionists can admit that their friend Mussolini drug his feet when it came to deporting Italian Jews and had little against Jews but won't admit the same thing about Vichy.

Yet they will defend the Tsarist regime from criticism of their anti-semitism when they were more brutally anti-semitic and killed far more Jews than France. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that Jabotinsky fought alongside the whites and opposed the Bolsheviks.

The Zionists main goal is to guilt the French public into supporting Israel and convince French Jews to move to Israel, so they create a lot of schlock that plays on these emotions for that purpose.

*and their philo-semite friends

Where are they from? If they grew up in New York or some other big city that's likely why. I suspect the obnoxiousness is likely a "New York" or big city trait moreso than a Jewish trait. Have you suspected it might be confirmation bias too? You're not likely to notice Jews who don't complain or nag you in a strange accent and intonation, only the one's who are annoying enough are going to be remembered by you.

The estimations and evidence for the Cromwellian invasion, its motives and its alleged brutality are still heavily debated. For polemical reasons it has been subject to over and under exaggeration. Your anecdote concerning killing Gaelics for no apparent reason strikes me as an exaggeration. The Holocaust, on the contrary, is well documented and on scales of magnitude and complexity greater than anything that happened in Ireland. I've read history books about Irish history so don't take this for cultural insensitivity or apologism.
Again, lack of good records and numbers. Also, which Latin pogram are we talking? The one in Constantinople? As it is it's not clear how many lost their lives here, or how willing or able the Byzantine state supported it. It was also wrapped up in political and economic involvement of Latin's in the Byzantine Empire, the expatriates in Byzantium being heavily involved in trade. The same case can be made for Jews, but the magnitude of the Holocaust and its targeting of Jews of minimal economic value (most killed were poor Eastern European Jews) for entirely ideological reasons is unique in modern history, entirely different from any 19th century pogram.

You mean matin of bruges in the early 1300s…? That was a massacre of the French-speaking political elite by Flemish artisans… hardly a genocide even if it did have cultural and ethnic motivations, which were inextricably linked with politics of the time.

It was just that, a "massacre". I'm sure the Catholic Parisians would, indeed, have tried to exterminate all Protestants had they had the means, but that was an impossibility in Early Modern France where Protestants not only started forming alliances of self-defense in southern French cities, but some of the most influential noble families were Protestants.

Historical circumstances, namely, the collision of economic modernity, unprecedented increase of state's ability to organize society, move populations and commit violence, and (as was mentioned) traditional Christian prejudices morphed into new Far Right Ideologies. Anti-Semitism is a truly unique and virulent pathology formed in the crucible of modern western history.

do you have sources to the contrary?
True. Jews also suffered massively in WWI at the hands of Tsarist armies, with hundreds of thousands of dislocations

Well, maybe that and targeting other well off minority groups, Asians might be next when America collapses

You're the one making the claim. Its true Stalin didn't have a positive view of Zionism or what he perceived to be influence from Zionist groups operating in the USSR. However, the claim that Stalin was planning to round up Jews for deportation hasn't been proved but it is widely repeated in Zionist literature and mainstream literature sympathetic to it.

Here is something to consider: it is well-known that Zionist intelligence was operating in the East bloc and the USSR during this time; it was the Mossad that first obtained and passed along a copy of Khruschchev's secret speech to the CIA. That Molotov's wife had Zionist sympathies and had family in America who were wealthy Zionists is also known. Consider also that there is evidence that shows that 1.the doctors were likely guilty of the crimes they were accused of and 2. Stalin opposed those in the Soviet press who used language that could be construed as anti-semitic.

You can read more about Stalin and this issue here:
ml-review.ca/aml/AllianceIssues/All30table.htm
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=4F13589002A3DFA4B0139B332FEF54AD

Wat. Comparing the Dreyfus Affair to the OJ trials is extremely disingenuous. One involved a fucking professional sports player, the other revolving around Geopolitical paranoia regarding France's preparedness for a war with Germany, connected to corruption and political loyalty of the armed forces, which is further connected to debates at the time involving Laicization (anti-dreyfusards usually being traditionalist authoritarian catholics and scandals coming to light that Freemasons in the army WERE spying on Catholic officers and Generals and holding back promotions of professed Catholics). This doesn't even touch on the huge international debate and domestic turmoil that revolves around the nature of Jews, their loyalty to the nation, their ability to assimilate into society etc. etc. Then there's the fact that Dreyfus Affair crystallizes the formation of the Far Right, with Action Francaise being founded by Maurras during the Affair

Antisemitism is garden variety racism. Asians have higher Autism Level scores so instead they're derided as lacking creativity and empathy. You're placing Jews upon a pedestal by attributing some mythical non-materialist trait to their plight. The Jews were merely, ironically, the chosen people to be a capitalist scapegoat as they were perfect: large population all around europe, known financiers, and for the past 800 years the common man was told about the sin and vice of the Jews because they killed Christ.
Anglos, Irish, Italians, Russians, Arabs, Chinese, Japanese, French.
Anglos, French.

He wasn't killing the Irish for no reason. His policy of mass deportation of the native Irish to the far less fertile farming lands of Connaught was so that English planters would be able to take over the land, as seen with the Ulster plantations. Thus any person who could speak Irish Gaelic was in offense of this law and thus put to death. Now how about the Irish famine? The fact that the British not only took the food that could have fed the Irish but also impounded ships sent from Indian Rajs with food for the Irish. On top of this the man put in charge of dealing with the famine believed that the Irish must be saved from themselves and that meant a large portion of them needed to die so as not to continue to breed at such a fast rate. Now the population of Ireland before the famine was around 8.5M, currently it is 4.7M.
I'm using this as a way to show that very much like the Jews other cultures were given the same traits which culminates into a pogrom.
I grant this was more to do with the political climate of the time and the want of more rights by the Flemish cities but it shows a governmental approval of a genocide.
I meant the entire suppression of French protestants by the French royal court and the allowance of the massacre. Again showing governmental approval of a genocide.

Now what makes the Jews special? Just because they had the latest genocide happen to them? Because it was the most efficient? The racial far right merely used Jews as the scapegoat because they were the most visible and wealthy "other" to the common workers in Europe at that time.

The evidence on that isn't exactly clear.
Also not clear. Scholars are still debating over this. There's also no doubting that Mussolini willfully deported Jews during the Social Republic period.
Nobody does this. The Tsarist pograms are a big part of Jewish folk memory in America
Nobody, on the other hand, knows about Jabotinsky unless they've studied the history of Zionism.
It's also in Israel's interest to get French Jews to move there and feel unsafe in France. But propaganda or not, there's no denying that muslim immigration to France, and the highly visible clashes and tensions that it has led to with the Jews there, does more than anything else to scare Jews out of the country. I'm not saying its rational but the propaganda writes itself. The French government and Israel don't have to do much.

woops

Antisemitism isn't hatred of Semites, it's hatred of the Jews — that might sound counter-intuitive, but that's how the world has been used since it was first coined.

You're right, I suppose. But I think the evidence I've read is strong that something was in the works. The arrest and indictment of all coincidentally Jewish doctors, the thinly-veiled propaganda that was being churned out targeting Jews dominating professions, managerial and party positions, was very similar to the build up to the political purges of the 1930s. It's not just something pointed out by "zionists". It's also clear stalin wasn't above wholesale persecution of ethnic groups, like when he deports chechens, tatars and cossacsks (and others) to Central Asia after WWII because he thought they were collective traitors.

I'm not going to rule out your view entirely, but a lot of this is redolent of any other anti-jewish accusations. Stalinist Russia was tightly sealed and secretive, so that Western powers knew fuck-all that was happening there in the 1930s. Why would some Zionist agitators magically be able to do this? Why wouldn't Stalin or intelligence services know of Molotov's Jewish having connections to the US of all places?

Stalin often postured himself as the 'moderate' to the public all the while condoning the things he was said to be against. The most obvious example was his "dizzy with success" article during Collectivization

Yes, but I think its a bit ironic that someone who is essentially arguing that the implications about the Dreyfus case go far beyond the actual case itself cannot see that for people at the time and even today somewhat the OJ case went far beyond the case itself in terms of its implications for race relations in America.

Ya know one of the most interesting conspiracy theories to emerge from the interwar far-right came from Japan. It was common belief in extreme far-right nationalist circles that communism was actually a conspiracy of the white race to preserve its domination of the world and its oppression of people of color in a new form. Funnily enough, many of our modern SJWs make claims similar to Japanese fascist ideology in terms of their views about the inherent evil of Europeans and descendants of the European diaspora and also their warnings and pleadings against "white" or "Eurocentric" socialism.

If its not clear then why do Zionist French "leftists" like Bernard-Henri Lévy and Daniel Cohn-Bandit insist on slandering the common French people as anti-semites and attacking France's historical legacy? It's not like the French people committed these crimes but rather it was done by those traitors in the French establishment who were willing to collaborate with the Germans. That DeGaulle's resistance movement existed shows that not even all of the French bourgeoisie and what was left of its aristocracy agreed on this traitorous program of the Pétainists.

What is known is that Jews living in the Nazi occupied zone were marked for death and were usually killed/deported/imprisoned immediately by German forces while those Jews living under the Vichy had a much better shot. I'm not saying that it was all magnanimity on Vichy's part they knew that Hitler's War in the USSR was lost in 1941. Vichy was likely trying to get in America's good graces since they were aware that the US wanted to occupy France post-war:
mondediplo.com/2003/05/05lacroix

However, I think the facts show that Vichy was more anti-proletarian and traditionalist then it was anti-Jewish in nature.

Zionists actually do do it implicitly with their fuzzy distinctions between traditional anti-semitism and modern anti-semitism. If Tsarist anti-semitism was actually "modern" then this is quite strange since it was the most conservative and backward major country in Europe.

Yes, and I'm sure the Zionists and their gentile sympathizers plan on keeping it that way. Much like how they were successful at hushing up Holocaust survivors who accused them of collaboration with the Nazis.

Attached: blackpanther.jpg (1200x1050, 167.01K)

Yes, the Irish Famine was definitely some sort genocide or democide, but more out of benign negligence. First of all, we're talking mid-Victorian England, where free trade orthodoxy was in the ascendancy (corn laws are repealed in 1848), the land of the cruel 1830s poor laws that eliminated the older but relatively effective system of welfare and food provisions in place since the late 1500s in one form or another.
Even so, charity relief was organized by Peel but it was highly unsystematic and patchwork (no surprise). iirc Protestants also suffered as badly as the Irish, except for the Anglo-Irish gentry and aristocracy who were deporting wheat out of the country while everyone else starved.
sauce

yes, but his intention wasn't genocide or even cruelty. You can even call it ethnic cleansing, but that was only a means to secure Ireland against royalists. Again, though, you can find historians arguing the opposite.

Ok well I agree that "Latins" were definitely stereotyped by eastern christians similar to jews. The difference is though that the state wasn't powerful enough and popular violence not thorough enough to effect a genocide. This isn't surprising in the medieval era though. The other difference is that Latins did have the extra menace of representing greater powers to the West, such as the Italian republics or even the Southern Italian kingdom. Venice, for example, could and did use its fleets to try to release the Venetians after they were arrested en masse (this was separate from the massacre of the Genoese and Franks in Constantinople, which ironically the Venetians were safe from because they were imprisoned at the time). Moreover, the Latins were allowed to resettle pretty soon after.
Condoning is different from carrying out. Even then elements of the Court were against it, Catherine de Medici (who is ironically seen as the perpetrator in popular memory). It happened to be politically advantageous to the Court but even the Court didn't support it for ideological reasons. And obviously politics and religion were inseparable at the time, whereas genocide of poor Jews by a powerful state for ideological motives is very suspect.

These, but as I said originally, the Left will never perpetrate a jewish genocide and I admit even the Radical racists will never be able to. Only the right is capable of it and even then the historical circumstances of the Holocaust were the perfect storm.

I think your correct. I think though that the Dreyfus trial mobilized the Far Right politically for the first time and the power of jew baiting to get votes and supporters. The OJ trial is similar for its publicity but its political consequences aren't really evident AFAIK. Also, we should remember that the Rodney King beating and the LA Riots which preceded and of which the OJ Trial was directly related to also had as much cultural resonance as the OJ Trial itself.
In general, the Third Republic and America are eerily similar as they had decades long "culture wars" that are similar in content. However, if anything Gamer Gate is more similar to the Dreyfus case than the OJ trial.

I'm not familiar with them tbh. What interest would they have in shit talking the people of their own home country?
Almost everyone is tainted by Vichy, Mitterand famously being one of them kek. I agree and say that a lot of people didn't have a choice or weren't willing or able to resist. But Free French were always the extreme minority while Vichyite collaborators or quietists were the majority. There's nothing wrong with this, that was the reality of the Nazi victory and Petain's choice to surrender instead of fight on, but it's not something to praise either, I think. Of course we can't deny that only a minority of the bourgeoisie were actively involved in the Vichy project.
Possibly, the problem is I don't know what we're arguing right now lol.
I think that's a false dichotomy tbh. Obviously there's a spectrum, with "modern" elements being that the Russian state propagandized and promoted the pograms, abused the judiciary (see Beillis affair) and mobilized or at the very least condoned conservative and reactionary elements within the country against the Jews to distract from its own political ineptness. The "old" aspects are the appeal to religious antisemitism moreso than rhetoric of sanitation, racial hygiene etc. etc. However, I've seen more recent historiography to say that the Russian state wasn't nearly as anti-jewish as thought.

Accused whom?

It was negligence stemming from a racial standing point of the Irish being a lesser people. And it was British policy under Trevelyan to do as little as possible to relieve the starving Irish.
Sir Charles Trevelyan, an AS of the treasury, writing to the Irish peer Thomas Spring Rice on the famine being an "effective mechanism for reducing surplus population"
So if Hitler had gone through his idea of relocating the Jewish people to Madagascar then everything would have been fine? Only as a means to secure the Reich against anti-fascists.
Yes and the Jews have been noted throughout history as having their own "cabal" which is devoted for securing Jewish interests. I'm just using the Latins as a proxy to show that the division between others peoples use the same rhetoric as against the Jews.

So the Jews are special because they were punched last, so when the next genocide happens we will have to make up a new name for racism against that race and treat them as special? Now you keep saying only the right can commit a Jewish genocide then why should we care? We're already anti-right wing so why must we then elevate the Jewish people into this special category? You're just playing into the hands of the capitalist by splitting them off and making them an "other", racism is racism no matter the race it happens to it's just there to cause division among the Proles.

All based on counter-factual speculation about an event that didn't happen. There are literally Zionist propagandists who claim a second Holocaust was coming but then Stalin died. Wow. First off they present no proof and secondly it dove-tails nicely with the mainstream idea that Stalin was bad, bad evil man while a revisionist douchebag like Khrushchev was actually a good boy trying to turn things around.

Again, you're absolving them of guilt without even reviewing the evidence in the case. Likewise, it was Beria and not Khrushchev who for better or worse put an end to the Doctors Plot incident rather than Khrushchev.

The campaign against cosmopolitanism was not an anti-Jewish campaign but more of a campaign against what we today call imperialist "globalization":
ml-review.ca/aml/CommunistLeague/COSMOPOLITANISM-COMPASS131-1998.HTM

We're getting a bit off-topic aren't we? First you tell us that anti-semitism is a special type of racism that is different from all other types of racism then you try to prove the validity of the threat against Jews using…the example of other groups who allegedly received discriminatory treatment! Well, that is a leap, being anti-black doesn't make one an anti-semite and in fact the Jim Crow South and colonial British Africa were surprisingly tolerant of Jews!

I think you should ask what Stalin hoped to gain from carrying out a pogram against the Jews in the USSR. This was a man who tried to build a nation for Jews within the USSR and after the Holocaust the idea of a second Jewish homeland in Crimea was contemplated but never carried out due to the obvious unfairness of it.

Its not a secret that many of the Soviet Union's most enthusiastic supporters in the West were Jewish. It doesn't make much sense for the Soviets to want to waste the credibility they gained from destroying Nazi Germany by persecuting Jews.

Likewise, to my knowledge, the deportations occurred during WWII and these minorities were allowed to return to their homelands afterwards, though some preferred Central Asia. There is evidence that they did collaborate with the Nazis but whether this treatment was fair is something you should decide for yourself, I would check out the Furr book I posted on this.

This actually isn't so there is damn good evidence that Nazi Germany, Poland, and Japan had intelligence sources and traitorous contacts within the Soviet government and wider society in the 30s. Even Churchill, the French embassy and Joseph E. Davies had fairly decent ideas about what was going on even if their positions weren't the mainstream Cold War orthodox positions of today.

Mossad also operated in Hungary prior to the Hungarian uprising and I don't know how Mossad got a copy of the secret speech but that they managed to obtain it and pass it onto Langley is a fact. Its possible it was passed to them by the KGB themselves but they did have contacts behind the Iron Curtain–the Holocaust had created understandable sympathy for Israel among some Soviet Jews.

meant for

Thanks for proving my point.
Nothing in your paragraph addresses my argument: that by the late 19th century the old forms of Christian antisemitism were decreasing in significance and that a new form of antisemitism specific to the modern era was emerging in its place or taking over. Not that there can't be overlap between the two, but they remain different things nonetheless.
They persecuted converts first and foremost because religious authorities believed they didn't "truly" convert and were still following their old ways.
I have no idea how you came to such a nonsensical analogy. I have never claimed there was no antisemitism before the modern era; what I said is that antisemitism underwent massive transformations during the 19th century, notably in its support base.
Not really. It's true that it was sort of a buffer period between traditional Christian antisemitism and modern antisemitism. But most reactionary conspiracy theories regarding the French Revolution in its aftermath focused on secret societies, usually the Freemasons and Illuminati. Augustin Barruel's infamous Memoirs makes no mention of Jews. We'd have to wait until the later half of the 19th century for any sort of consistent conspiracy theories regarding "Judeo-Masonry".
… So what? You said France couldn't possibly have seen widespread antisemitism because Engels said so. I told you you were wrong and cited the Action Française as an example of a mass political movement promoting antisemitism in France. That Jews themselves naturally can and did adhere to far-right ideologies is irrelevant.
No. People who uses "read this" arguments are people who are incapable of articulating their beliefs. Either make your point explicit or admit you have nothing to say.
There existed Fascist-inspired strains of Zionism, most notably Maximalism in the '30s. 19th-century Zionism however was a predominantly bourgeois liberal nationalist movement incomparable with Fascism (or proto-Fascisms such as the Cercle Proudhon).

Oh, so that's what you mean by "philosemite" then: people who don't support your own (admittedly more sophisticated than Zig Forums's) brand of antisemitism. Anyway, the Dreyfus affair wasn't "boring": It was a high-profile case of miscarriage of justice and it tore French society apart, with antisemites all over the country spitting venom at every occasion — about how they deduced Dreyfus' culpability from his race (Barrès) or how forging documents to slander Jews was a remarkable feat (Maurras).
That there were Jews or figures sympathetic to bourgeois Jewish interests among the French ruling class does not in any way means antisemitism was not widespread in France. Does the presence of Arab politicians in the Knesset today somehow disproves the Israeli persecution of Palestinians?
This was after the war. You know — when antisemitism suddenly, mysteriously went out of fashion.
This is unadulterated bullshit that has been dunked times and times again. The Vichy administration enthusiastically if not overzealously obeyed German orders regarding deportation. The only "consolation" for French Jews was that foreign Jews residing in France were deported first.
Who is "they" here? I have never heard of anyone defending Czarist Russia's violent antisemitism besides, well, Russian monarchists and antisemites.
Reducing any attempt to discuss the historical relationship between French Jews and wider French society with no tip-toeing to a Zionist conspiracy to "guilt" Europeans into their schemes is a tired antisemitic trick, you know. But I'm looking forward to your whining about how this accusation is evidence of "philosemitic" persecution. :^)

Philosemite much like Francophile is the love or affinity with the Jewish people/culture.

This was part of the mid victorian ideology and one of the most important elements i left out, namely malthusianism. It's what unites the poor laws and the irish famine together. It's not a racial project but a political economy inspires by the moral visions of malthus and smith. It's no coincidence that Darwin came to his ideas in the late 1830s, why another English colleague came to it separately in the late 1840s and why Spencer conceived of what we call "social darwinism" in the 1850s before Darwin had even published "Origins of Species".
Madagascar was never a serious proposition and always had Genocide implied in its argument. The rhetoric of Madagascar predated the Nazis and was always meant as a kind of exterminatory measure. I can't say for certain that Cromwell had exterminatory intent.
Again, the Jews being enemies and anti-partisans as per Nazi propaganda never held up to light. But it was plausible in Ireland where the Royalists had used Irish discontent accrued from a century of English settlement and incursions to take control of the Island and use it as a base against the Parliamentarians. The Stuarts would do so again in Ireland after the Glorious Revolution. I see it as mutual misunderstanding than purposeful extermination or a coordinated effort on one man's part.

Who else could a genocide happen to on Western soil? I simply think that the circumstances were unique historically and in scale, magnitude and thoroughness and only in this regard are the jews "special". I'm not arguing anything more than that anymore.
we should not.
To understand how the right wing operates politically. To understand why antisemitism is effective at mobilizing people, if at all. To understand why potentially leftist constituencies might embrace antisemitism and whether this is something that should be ignored or campaigned against. Why should jews capture the average person's imagination and why not leftist ideas? What is the left doing wrong? Is it always a losing battle fighting against anti-semitism when it is more psychologically comforting or appealing than leftist ideas? Is antisemitism subtly caused by capitalist media's tendency to personify ideals and encourage intellectual laziness?
I think it raises interesting questions about the capacity of the left and right wing to mobilize people, in other words.
I agree. The question is is does anti semitism hold more sway than other types of racism or not really? Nobody fantasizes about blacks having power and if they do its because they think "the Jew" is causing blacks to destroy society with multicultural and such

The guy clearly doesn't use that meaning of the word. Why would a love for Klezmer music or an interest in Kabbalah be politically compromising?

It depends. Do you consider the Vendeans' and the supporters of the Louis Napoleon to be far-right? I don't know if there was much anti-semitic content there frankly but these seem to be right-wing movements that seem to have had a fairly sized mass-base. Maybe you consider these different since they didn't work through the ballot-box? That is fair enough.

Speaking of the culture wars of the Third Republic, beyond the surprising vitality of the old elites, I think you can appreciate that the Third Republic lot to be desired in terms of actual democratic content. While the Anglo-Saxon countries had less in the way of a universal centralized democratic system, the French ruling classes were more successful at marginalizing the working class and poor peasants.

Their like a French anti-deutsch but more post-modern and even more blatant in their shilling for US imperialism.

The Zionists. Read this. Its based on primary source evidence and was composed by anti-Zionist socialist Jews in Australia:
scribd.com/document/62750832/BAZO

Attached: classconsciousness .png (1039x999, 988.81K)

I'm using it in DeLeon's sense, who like many other great socialist Jews, was extremely conscious of the reactionary character of Judaism:

faced, swindlers, physically and morally un-clean, cowards and usurers any one such justifiable charge, brought against a concrete Jew, is forthwith pronounced “anti-Semitism,” what conclusion, could that Traveller arrive at but that Semitism was the incarnation of all these vices, a veritable compound of vileness?-And that opinion, be it noted, would be gathered not from the anti-semites but from the philo-semites.
marxists.org/archive/deleon/pdf/subject/antisem.pdf

Not that guy but:
1. The Vendéan uprising was a counter-revolutionary military campaign led by monarchists who received support from local peasants for a variety of reasons, including opposition to mass conscription enacted by the revolutionary government and hostility towards the urban bourgeoisie among the peasantry.
2. Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte was not at the head of a mass movement. He was voted in mostly thanks to electoral support from rural dwellers, who were terrified of the urban agitation associated with the 1848 revolution. Then he staged a coup and declared himself Emperor.
None of those qualify as a "mass movement of the far-right".

I'm not arguing about Khrushchev though. I'm arguing about Stalin's intent. I agree though that it is at the end of the day based on speculation and the assumption that there was a Holocaust in the making. The thing is we'll never really know.

I agree. On the other hand, the opposite view that "stalin dindu nuffin" should be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps I'm guilty of finding some false sense of balance but I don't think Stalin is immune from criticism.

I only said in regard to how meticulous and large it was. Obviously, I admit I'm wrong because Stalin did large scale forced population movements to Central Asia, but most people weren't meant to be killed but the condition were poor enough to kill a lot of people on the way… Either way it doesn't reflect well on Stalin or his treatment of certain ethnic groups collectively…

Obviously it was to show that Stalin was capable of punished ethnic groups collectively and with cruelty and that he had done so recently. The question (that can't be definitively proven because its counterfactual nature) is whether his treatment of the Jews would have been qualitatively better or worse.

You mean that oblast in the middle of a siberian swamp, kek? He also forcibly deported or fooled jews to there ironically.
It's premised on Stalin mentally declining and becoming more paranoid in his later years and enabling such a rotten person as Zhdanov (a notorious anti-semite) to take over cultural life in the post-war period and whip up xenophobia. Stalin also turned against Zionism after initially supporting it, and such events as the Jews rallying for the Zionist golda meir in Moscow might have convinced him that the Jews were a zionist fifth column. I have a bad understanding of the period though.
true, they suffered greatly in the mean time though.
many cossacks certainly did, because the bolsheviks promoted liquidation and persecution of the cossacks in the civil war. can't say this is a bad thing. chechens and other caucasian collaboration is more suspect.

Interesting. But considering US Cold War policy was premised on totally unrealistic observations on the soviet government's intentions and policy making I find it hard to believe that people were getting an accurate picture. I've even read that many couldn't even tell that Stalin was truly in charge because of how secretive the Kremlin was. I'm not well read though.

What do you think constituted far-right, in as far as those terms apply, in the 1780s? Think about it.

Pretty sure that Marx argued Louis-Napoélon had a mass support base in the lumpen-proletariat. Likewise, you already pointed out the mass base in the peasantry, and that has to do with the fact that the peasantry did not do so bad out of the original Napoleon's rule. Those peasants who hired or were looking to hire labor hated and resented the labor movement–I wouldn't say they were exactly afraid of it. Whether you want to blame the failure of the Paris Commune on poor propaganda among the peasantry on the communards part or alienation from it, the facts are that the peasants supported reaction against what would be the last truly revolutionary event in the West for sometime.

DeLeon's reasoning is deeply flawed — just because he himself is Jewish doesn't mean he's exempt of intellectual rigor when dealing with antisemitism. His whole argument relies on anecdotes, arguing that the accusation of antisemitism being abused is itself the cause of antisemitism — a superficial approach terribly lacking in the materialist department. Besides, to associate people who come to the support of crooked Jews with "philosemitism" is a particularly dumb rhetorical move.

Boulangism does though. It's what split the blanquists into left and right wings, the left incorporating into the marxists and the right transforming into the radical right born in the Dreyfus affair. Boulangism is a waystation though imo between bonapartism and fascism/far right movements.

woops meant to reply to

They did not under Napoleon I's rule. This was one of the "myths" of pro-napoleonic propaganda that was popular at the time. Many peasantry resented the draft Napoleonic draft and economic conditions degraded under him. Napoleon III however lived up to his promise and was indeed pro-peasant in his policies. I agree that the peasants at best simply didn't give a fuck about revolution. Then again the Dem Soc of the late 1840s were extremely successful in propagandizing to the peasants the necessity of the republic. It's why Napoleon III couped the Second Republic- there was elite hysteria that the DemSocs were gaining in elections (they were)

Using that logic, the Cavaliers of the English Civil War were "far-right". I don't think it makes sense to speak of a far-right before the emergence of popular nationalism in the late 19th century. And again, it was a military campaign that received support from local peasants for a variety of reasons, not a consistent political movement.
Receiving a significant share of the vote isn't the same thing as being at the head of a mass movement. There was no popular organization supporting the leadership of Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte. He was a traditional imperial autocrat anyway, so most definitely not "far-right" according to the definition I use.

I agree, Boulangism was a right-wing populist mass movement and it did emerge around the same time as the Action Française (a little bit earlier, actually). Boulangism, however, was relatively short-lived — it didn't survive the suicide of its leader. The Action Française, however, remained a mass movement until it was discredited after WWII.

Thats fair but the criticism should be based on something solid. As it stands, this whole debate is premised largely on a counter-factual.

What can I say beyond what actually happened? You admit that it isn't really clear either way. I could bring up Ben Gurion's statement that the USSR was anti-anti-semitic but it wouldn't sway you either way. If concrete anti-semitic oppression can't be shown is there much point in debating the issue?

Considering that the "Pale of Settlement" maintained by the Tsarist regime was an extreme form of oppression that was very much like Apartheid or the Jim Crow South in its outlook and structure, I would be surprised if there wasn't any anti-semitic feelings so soon after the revolution. Let us not forget that the Nazis did their best to propagandize against the Jews in Soviet territory when they weren't genociding slavs to hell and back.

Never read anything about him deporting them there but I do know that many Jewish settlers weren't impressed with it. So what? It seems to have shown the correctness of his line that Soviet Jews did not constitute a nation and were not interested in national status–at least not within Soviet borders. Most Soviet Jews were assimilationist in outlook and I have to say Jewish social nationalists like the Bund failed at least in part because of their inability to grasp that fact.

Now, you're using the "modern" definition of anti-semitism! I don't see how this could be construed as an anti-Jewish action unless you think Zionism is worth supporting, if he did indeed support Israel rather than just holding his tongue on the Politburo's support for it, he should have dropped it a long time ago. To be fair to the anti-Zionist=anti-Jew philistines it does have some basis in the Jewish religion even though it is a quite garbled interpretation driven by modern motivations.

In what way? I find that liberals don't understand US Cold War policy but it seems that their rulers do.

Its not a bad guess. People like Molotov and Kalinin were very powerful in their own right. The idea of the Soviet government as a personalistic dictatorship of Stalin is undergoing considerable revision. One historian penetratingly has dubbed the style of leadership as "team Stalin". Hell, J. Arch Getty went even further than Grover Furr by arguing in the late 70s that Stalin had less executive power than Margaret Thatcher.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad guess on the US government's part there seems to be times when Stalin really wasn't in charge of the Soviet government. Which slightly deflates both the "Stalin as benevolent King" and "Stalin as omnipotent villain" myths.

At least you admit it.

Attached: AlbaniaPepe.png (785x757, 44.84K)

Why not? Reactionaries have never been anything other than vicious counter-revolutionaries. There's a lot about the monarchist mindset and anti-Jacobin/anti-Republican literature that has carried over to the modern far-right. It isn't all just memes for them, there is something quite tangible in it.

Fascism picked up from reactionary monarchism in seeking to turn back the clock to before 1789 or 1649 depending on your reckoning. This isn't to say they are successful/aren't forced to adapt but the rejection of democracy, of equality is something real to them.

Corey Robin explains this and the historical phenomenon of modern conservatism quite well:
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=020655DC4783D8A8909C2D49FC40DC16

In so far, as terms like "Left" and Right" mean anything before the 20th century and I think they do absolutist and Neo-absolutist monarchism in the modern age should be classified as being on the "far-right" of the spectrum.

Attached: JCP.png (567x425, 367.36K)

Left-wing and right-wing are hard enough to define as it is. Applying them to periods in which the conditions for the emergence of such a divide simply didn't exist yet is profoundly anachronistic.
Not that much, really. Don't forget that counter-revolutionary literature was unabashedly elitist and dismissive of the concept of Nation, a worldview that is anathema to the modern far-right's populist nationalism.
That's not at all what Fascism attempted to do. Fascism seeks the creation of an entirely new society along totalitarian lines through mass mobilization to bring about national rebirth, a project markedly different from a reactionary return to the status quo ante. Whether they want to admit it or not, Fascists are dyed-in-the-wool modernists though they might pay hypocritical lip service to "traditional values". The conservative aristocracy tended to be hostile to Fascist movements which they regarded as unkempt, plebeian thugs — the German Kaiser notoriously hated Hitler's guts and vice-versa. The only reason some of them did end up supporting the Nazis was their shared hatred of socialism.

To say the least. If you actually take Jewish religious tradition seriously, to be a Zionist today you would have to believe that in fact the third temple will be built, the messiah will come, and all Jews will return to Israel, even the anti-Zionist ones! Along with all of the gentiles recognizing the Jews and the messiah as the example to follow. I think it is safe to say that in fact very few gentiles today think there is anything exemplary about Israel. And that the actual leaders of Israel are not at all serious about the coming of the messiah either, they are as cynical as any latter day Jewish dynasty, Americanized in stead of Hellenized this time over.

What we are witnessing in Israel is in fact the same mistake that the Jews have made time and time and time again, where their being a people (under a kingdom or any other form) is put up as an idol in lieu of honoring the Torah. Give us a King like all the other people around us, the Israelites demand of God, He obliges, knowing full well that it was a mistake for the chosen people to desire this. He is too kind. And so you see that time and time again Jewish "success" in the secular realm coincides with a neglect of the Torah, and well deserved chastisement afterwards.

Modern, premature Zionism is just a precursor to another Babylonian captivity, or diaspora, or some such. It's a fool's errant absent the messiah. Enjoy the grace of Trumpey Maganus while it lasts, it will end as it always has.

Attached: jerusalem-destruction-70-ad.jpg (800x585, 117.04K)

I wouldn't be so sure about this. Many of the most steadfast supporters of Israeli imperialism in the world today aren't even Jewish — American evangelicals in particular are known for their relentless support of hardline Zionism. On the other hand, a 2016 poll of American Jewish college attendees showed only about half of them actually supported Israel, with as many as one out of ten supporting the Palestinian cause.

Sure, but I am not talking about support, but about them being an example for the gentiles to follow. Especially the evangelicals don't think the Jews have it right and need to be emulated, but only see Israel as a necessary condition for the second coming, at which point it will likely be eradicated in the ensuing wars. Jewish eschatology in contrast envisions that at the end of times all the people will come to look at the Jews as an example, recognize their piety, and so on.

In this sense, you at best have the neoliberals who support Israel because of its liberal values and many start ups, consider it exemplary in that regard at least for what concerns the rest of the middle east. But I think that very much conflicts with the idea of keeping the Torah holy; to the degree that Israel is today seen as exemplary, it is for the wrong reasons so to speak.

מַכָּה

Why?
Because nazi propaganda said so?

Did you ever consider the obvious, that anti semitism is a reaction to semitism.
Jews style of life is to be embedded into their hosts refusing to assimilate because they are the choosen ones, and permanently trying to inject (subversion) their ideas about how the society have to be conduced.
In other words, a small minority trying to rule over the majority.
To the public knowledge, they have been kicked out 359 times and counting.
With this record everybody should be asking what the Jews were doing to their hosts to deserve such a treatment, and not the other way around.

how can you fucking idiots be opposed to the exploitation of the capitalist system of wage and debt slavery,

without being opposed to the jews, who are vastly overrepesented in the system of usury and the ownership of the means of production?

this is why leftypol is a bad meme

Attached: antifagleadingmeme.jpg (1024x1064, 100.4K)

You mean virtue.

You're retarded and I shouldn't waste my time on you but here goes. We are opposed to Jews who control the MoP, we are opposed to Jews that make their buck exploiting others. The difference is that Zig Forums isn't opposed to white bourgeoisie, we all know it's A-OK with you as long as you're licking the boots of a white person.

And why would we oppose to a person purely because he's Jewish? Are you going to promote murdering doctors, professionals, and even average poor Jews? Even non-religious Jews (because obviously your issue is racial)?

...

Not just that, but also because you cannot name a single substantial bad consequence if jews completely magically disappeared over night.

Unless you consider everyone else not being needlessly drained of resources for no good reason anymore as "substantially bad".

if you honestly think only israelis would be able to keep sheepfuckers at bay and not, let's say the US which gives them billions in aid all the time, then I have no idea what to say because I am unfit to deal with delusion of that magnitude.

By your standards you are a racist. You disqualify yourself.
The same way you oppose a "nazi" doctor, engineer, or mathematician applies here.
You cannot cherry pick.

And if you talk to defend the oppressed you cannot have both ways.
Jews are a collective with a identity and purpose opposed to us (workers).
Redefine your dialectic because it makes no sense.

Attached: 4xj3zW.jpg (3434x2959, 3.55M)

The Jewish bourgeoisie is our enemy. The Jewish worker is our friend.

Yet, you say nothing about it. It has come down to Zig Forums to actually point out who is in charge of our current system, that we are in a commonly recurring historical predicament of "being ruled by an outside group", and that there is no way to solve this problem by changing the architecture of the system.

There is no way to design an occupation government to benefit the occupied. People must rule themselves.

I'm not Zig Forums and I'm not opposed to the white bourgeoisie, the problem is that, I do not have a white bourgeoisie. I am currently subjected to a Jewish bourgeoisie. If I ever get out from under them and I am stuck with a white bourgeoisie, I will then start worring about that.

Attached: jewisheconomicprivilege.jpg (768x1024, 168.63K)

Where are they?
I only see white collar jew workers and oligarchs.
And when you see an actual blue collar jew, it is because he or she have been cast out.
Please, get serious.

Imagine seeing a nazi try to use postmodern analyses. I've seen everything now

I just go down to your level baby.

"My standards"
you are retarded after all

Clearly not, or you'd recognize that the philosophical concept of the dialectic forecloses upon any essentialism. You can forego your anecdotal, 'empirical' data and sophistic platitudes - just go read a book.

Attached: Raf1.png (1641x900, 123K)

Interesting the screenshot, the saracen says it well, communism is derived from judaism.
However he strays badly when accuse "German propagandists" of libel.
The genocide by the millions of Christians was real, and is told by the same Russians who their families were victims.
A snip from: russia-insider.com/en/its-time-drop-jew-taboo/ri22186

Attached: AlexanderSolzhenitsynJewsCommunismQuoteMeme.jpg (779x1025 315.8 KB, 112.87K)

how the fug do you retards still believe the jew meme.

Attached: jew meme.png (1487x674 184.25 KB, 1.09M)

I am going to pass the two first answers because lack of substance.
But not the third one:
I omit your name calling and I would like to draw your attention the "have no idea what you're talking about".
To engage in serious discussion we have to phrase passages of the Talmud, you will find it quite instructive about Jewish behavior and their inner thoughts.
And please, do not dismiss it, because it is taught to every child, and this teachings models their adult thoughts. You will find it damming at least.

No. You did mention the White race first. Read your own statements.
Anyways, by your own set of believes, race is just a social construct, so IMHO discriminating by amount of melanin is a no go. Try something more atone with reality.

Nope, I am NutSac.
I like you guys, we have many points in common, however you should notice you ideology is plenty of holes.
Cognitive dissonance is a constant in your dialectic.
Please, let me clarify, cognitive dissonance is a psychological condition experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. Usually this is sign of external conditioning or indoctrination.
For a clearer and illustrated example of this condition refers to "doublespeak" in the novel 1984.

Holy shit can we ban threads like these they enable morons and fascists. Fucking stop. I will answer all questions and everyone will stop posting and this thread will die. Stop.
Yes most definitely, especially since Jews are the minority of minorities, everyone either hates them or would never stop/be against their extermination.
Yes, undeniable. This is in no way bad. To avoid arguments with Zig Forums on this just say "Yeah, so what?"
No, and if you believe this you need to leave.

I have spoken, no one else is allowed to, let this shit thread sink.

Attached: devoid of intelligence.png (460x500 6.95 KB, 42.72K)

Do not be afraid.
Freedom and exchange of thoughts make us wiser and stronger.
Do not deny it to this board's members, they are adults and not need "safe spaces". Let them grow.

Oh ok, so every self-proclaimed Christian is now beholden to every word written in the Bible as a model for their thoughts? This is not true for every religion that has ever existed. The religious within our societies have all made exclusions to the passages they follow in every day life in every historical period. You can't say a catch all term like that.

You think that anyone that disagrees with your "common sense assertions" are brainwashed when in fact, idiot rightwingers like to come here and spout polemics against socialism without any base knowledge about the theory behind it. You take Cold War and anti-communist propaganda to heart without any question and then come here acting like you're experts and screaming we're brainwashed. Fucking pathetic.

But those thoughts are literally the most retarded things anyone can say and contribute nothing of value to the board.
gtfo

This point will remain forever.
They have no upsides, only downsides.

Everybody has doctos and professors and science, especially if the affected jews would be ones living in other countries.
Then those countries have their own citizens.

And if these doctor jews are in homogenous jewish communities then, again, nothing bad would happen because all jews would be magically gone overnight, as the thought experiment states.
So nobody would miss those, either.

The world needs no jews.
If they all disappeared overnight, nothing bad would happen, only good things.
Only recuperation and enrichment of all other people of the world would happen.

Waste of quads

Don't be mad at me, be mad at the useless jews you have to defend, but have no actual arguments for, but if you don't do it then you get punished.

That's worse than a waste of quads.
It's a literal waste of life, time, energy, resources.

Guess reading books all day doesn't actually make people any smarter, huh.

…why?

You're fucking pathetic. Piss off, classcuck.

Attached: e60e09f014119d2527cbf8029e04d3f3d3ab98fae8d499d6be3834075c0429b1.png (600x449, 313.02K)

It makes us smarter than you at least retard, now leave.

Stop bumping the thread retard.

What the fuck kind of argument is this? We don't need to defend jews as a group, unlike you who needs to supply an excuse to kill them, which is still nonexistent.
Not even the claim that jews hold large swaths of economic power can be used in good faith by you, since you fully support the same structures that allow for usury and exploitation.

It only appears that way to the average sub 85 I*Q Zig Forumsack

this
/thread

"Prima facie" you have a valid point.
But with deeper scrutiny you will find out that the jewish collective is very different to the Christian one.
And I use the term "collective" because is precise; Jews are a tight knit community, far more than individualistic Christian.
They rely on their own to obtain social positions, and business opportunities, and their point of reunion are usually religious centers, in which they have to demonstrate devotion and loyalty to the collective.
Otherwise, they are on their own, and, have to rely on other "independent" Jews. This "per se" is dangerous because there is not a Rabbi in the middle to guarantee good faith.
Jews interactions and infiltration methods are fascinating.
Find out about them, you will learn a lot.