Right wingers less intelligent

[SpineyNorman]

How do you know he's not?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Hitler wouldn't have called someone a cunt from the safety of the internet for expressing their views on lizards. I doubt he would have given them joke death threats either. Case dismissed.

Fuck off or I'll err... kill you to death!

 

[SpineyNorman]

Anyway, they're not really Jews. They're aliens.

Precisley!

 

[SpineyNorman]

We're just a bit of rock flying through the universe. Life is short so why not just accept all those protocols and bloodlines exist? if you can't become a free spirit like me just shut up because the world doesn't need your negative energies.

Negative energies lol. I know someone who's been spending a lot of time at the occupy camp and they've started to go on about negative energies and energy flows and stuff. Claims to be a Marxist still too I didn't think anyone really said that kind of thing, thought it was something people had made up to take the piss out of hippies!

 

[frogwoman]

believe it or not that is one arguement that some of the more clueless far-right morons who don't want to be seen as/associated with the neo-nazi right use (not that the jews are aliens but that it's allright to be anti-semitic because they're not really jews ). the khazar theory lol

 

[SpineyNorman]

Someone who I knew (only over the internet) from Palestinian solidarity stuff started coming out with that - sent me links to a load of videos on youtube made by a bloke who called himself "Khazars fake Jews".

And that's the other problem with these twats, they make it so easy for actual Zionists to paint all anti-Zionists as antisemites. They also sometimes infect well meaning, though naive, activists with their bigoted ideas.

 

[frogwoman]

Yep. noticed it especially in the free palestine movement. some of the people who come out with this stuff are all right but like you say they're being influenced by people who aren't.

that khazar stuff is mental, i think there is some truth to the theory myself given there's archaeological records etc but it's completely irrelevant to what israel is doing, it doesn't make a difference to the oppressed palestinians whether they're "fake" or "real" and when that theory is used to bolster anti-semitism it becomes even more ludicrous because 2000 years of anti-semitism didn't happen because "the jews weren't really jews" ffs.

twats.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Anyway, they're not really Jews. They're aliens.

True. That's what Parliament decided to classify us as in 1905.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Yep. noticed it especially in the free palestine movement. some of the people who come out with this stuff are all right but like you say they're being influenced by people who aren't.

that khazar stuff is mental, i think there is some truth to the theory myself given there's archaeological records etc but it's completely irrelevant to what israel is doing, it doesn't make a difference to the oppressed palestinians whether they're "fake" or "real" and when that theory is used to bolster anti-semitism it becomes even more ludicrous because 2000 years of anti-semitism didn't happen because "the jews weren't really jews" ffs.

twats.

Yeah, just reading the wiki page on it, looks like the theory hasn't always come from the far-right. One of the more recent authors to talk about it was a Zionist himself! (OK, perhaps that does make him far right but not in the traditional antisemitic way). Although it also says that the theory has been invalidated by genetic research.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yep. noticed it especially in the free palestine movement. some of the people who come out with this stuff are all right but like you say they're being influenced by people who aren't.

that khazar stuff is mental, i think there is some truth to the theory myself given there's archaeological records etc but it's completely irrelevant to what israel is doing, it doesn't make a difference to the oppressed palestinians whether they're "fake" or "real" and when that theory is used to bolster anti-semitism it becomes even more ludicrous because 2000 years of anti-semitism didn't happen because "the jews weren't really jews" ffs.

twats.

The whole Khazar schtick is the usual big lie wrapped in a little bit of truth, which is why some non-dimwits buy into it. The reality is, of course, that there are SOME "fake Jews", if you're operating on the premise of only strict matrilineal descent counting. You'd have to kick anyone with the surname "Subotnik" or "Subbotnik" out of the club for starters, because they were Russian Orthodox converts to Judaism. You'd have to bin a load of later converts too.
And yeah, some Khazars were originally converts, but inter-marriage took place, and within a couple of generations Judaism had taken hold of a large percentage of the ruling classes, and eventually spread, much as Christianity did a few centuries earlier in Britain, which is reflected in the mitochondrial DNA evidence that firmly disproves the "fake" theory.

 

[frogwoman]

and even if they were converts once in the mists of time they're still jews ffs (and anyone who converts is actually still jewish, and the conversion thing didn't become so strict till relatively recentry in the history of judaism). fash fail.

 

[frogwoman]

The whole Khazar schtick is the usual big lie wrapped in a little bit of truth, which is why some non-dimwits buy into it. The reality is, of course, that there are SOME "fake Jews", if you're operating on the premise of only strict matrilineal descent counting. You'd have to kick anyone with the surname "Subotnik" or "Subbotnik" out of the club for starters, because they were Russian Orthodox converts to Judaism. You'd have to bin a load of later converts too.
And yeah, some Khazars were originally converts, but inter-marriage took place, and within a couple of generations Judaism had taken hold of a large percentage of the ruling classes, and eventually spread, much as Christianity did a few centuries earlier in Britain, which is reflected in the mitochondrial DNA evidence that firmly disproves the "fake" theory.

and it's just completely irrelevant. even the israeli law of return now accepts relatively un-stringent converts and the israeli rabbinate (which recently got into a dispute with the UK orthodox rabbinate about allowing a kid whose mum had converted into a jewish school).

the converts to judaism etc also weren't "fake jews" fuck's sake. as if such a concept even exists ...

 

[SpineyNorman]

I don't really understand why it matters to be honest.

(Not the antisemitism, of course that matters, but why does anyone care whether they're descended from Khazars, Moses himself or my fucking grandad?)

 

[ViolentPanda]

and it's just completely irrelevant. even the israeli law of return now accepts relatively un-stringent converts and the israeli rabbinate (which recently got into a dispute with the UK orthodox rabbinate about allowing a kid whose mum had converted into a jewish school).

the converts to judaism etc also weren't "fake jews" fuck's sake. as if such a concept even exists ...

There'll always be some Jews (mainly ultra-orthodox) who think that converts are "fake", unfortunately.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't really understand why it matters to be honest.

(Not the antisemitism, of course that matters, but why does anyone care whether they're descended from Khazars, Moses himself or my fucking grandad?)

Because if you argue that the Ashkenazim are descended from converts, then you argue against the legitimacy of European Jewry claiming a historical right to return to the territories of the kingdoms of Judea and Samaria.

So, for some there's reason to care.

 

[purenarcotic]

The ultra orthadox lot are just mental tbf.

 

[frogwoman]

of course it doesn't matter it's just far right shit no matter who's saying it ...

 

[purenarcotic]

Indeed, they all become as bad as each other when they become that extreme.

 

[frogwoman]

Because if you argue that the Ashkenazim are descended from converts, then you argue against the legitimacy of European Jewry claiming a historical right to live anywhere

So, for some there's reason to care.

fixed it for you

anyway there is enough of a reason not to accept zionism and the criminal behaviour of that state, it's not relevant where people are from "originally" thousands of years ago. the only people who think it matters are far right nutters on both sides frankly.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Because if you argue that the Ashkenazim are descended from converts, then you argue against the legitimacy of European Jewry claiming a historical right to return to the territories of the kingdoms of Judea and Samaria.

So, for some there's reason to care.

So it only really matters if you base support (or opposition) to the state of Israel on biblical arguments?

 

[ViolentPanda]

So it only really matters if you base support (or opposition) to the state of Israel on biblical arguments?

Or if you think legitimacy proceeds purely from lineage.

In real terms it doesn't "matter" at all, of course, because it's a non-argument.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I guess it kind of matters, in that a few right wing nutters in two mutually opposed camps think it matters, and them thinking it matters has consequences in the real world (just thinking out loud here)

 

[purenarcotic]

It's not just the right wing religious lot when it comes to zionism. A lot of it is perpetrated by very religiously 'relaxed' Jews who for reasons I cannot work out have jumped on the Israel bandwagon with real fervor.

Some ultra religious Jews don't actually agree with the State of Israel full stop, they think it should be destroyed because it's been set up by humans, not by the Messiah.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

The ultra orthadox lot are just mental tbf.

I find this value laden description of Jews a bit problematic tbh.

Israel exists and thrives because it benefits capital, it's fuck all to do with religion or ethnicity, they're just happy coincidences.

 

[Gmart]

[...]If you take the way Gmart was treated, it was frankly disgusting. Someone in the end 'genuinely' wished him to suffer.[...]

That is all part of being here really - I am aware that the posters here don't recognise the usual line concerning abuse, and yet I continue to post here which is my decision. Thanks for the thought though

Their response is:

[...]What GMart has done over and over again is enter threads with little intent to participate beyond pushing his own narrow set of political ideas. That's the main reason for him being treated in a way you quantify as "frankly disgusting" - because posters get pissed off with his dogmatic insistence that he's right, and that they're wrong unless and until they agree with him. You can't divorce his treatment from it's historical context.

The main posters here are stuck between agreeing with me on the principle that having some controls on parliament would be better than none, and wanting to replace the oppressive regime that we recognise, with their own version which would enjoy the same freedoms that the current unlimited powers enjoy. Butchers has already stated that he would not have such controls on parliament, thus identifying himself as the latter, whereas the rest tend to avoid the issue, abuse or misrepresent me.

This response above is classic: note how he describes my position as 'narrow', when I am asking if parliament will continue to have unlimited powers in his (or anyone else's) solution. If so then we will continue to be oppressed subjects in his solution whatever it is because the parliament will still be able to do what they want without limit. I need to know who I am dealing with. We all recognise the problems in the UK system but do they wish to replace the existing oppressive regime with one of their own, or do they wish to take actual steps towards checks and balances on power which would at least mitigate the worst excesses of power?

Their response seems to be that all systems are oppressive, and so there is no point improving them in the way I describe - but hardly any democracies are like ours - In France for example, if everything goes wrong, they simply re-write their constitution - the next one will be the Sixth Republic, and it represents the French system evolving with society. The UK doesn't have such a system with its fusion of powers and 'unwritten' constitution, and so we limp from disaster to disaster.

If they were truly confident in their views, then they would debate freely, answering questions and describing their alternative in the shared hope that a consensus can be reached. Such a discussion would have to be rational, ie no fallacies for either side (not just me), but they are not confident enough in their views to engage in such a way. They know that on forums it is better to wait until others post actual ideas and to snipe at them from the sidelines without being drawn into a discussion. That way their actual views are kept safely hidden from scrutiny.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Fuck off Gmart. You tedious twat.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

A written constitution would... oh, sorry, I see you already went there.

Good thing you don't have narrow interests or anything.

 

[Gmart]

A written constitution would... oh, sorry, I see you already went there.

Good thing you don't have narrow interests or anything.

I don't consider the unlimited powers that our parliament have to be a narrow concern - far from it - it is a key issue which has ramifications in all parts of government, you could just as easily dismiss the legal system as 'narrow' too - but it also is important and has ramifications for all society.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I don't consider the unlimited powers that our parliament have to be a narrow concern - far from it - it is a key issue which has ramifications in all parts of government, you could just as easily dismiss the legal system as 'narrow' too - but it also is important and has ramifications for all society.

No - your posts are apparently based only around a very narrow agenda.

 

[Gmart]

No - your posts are apparently based only around a very narrow agenda.

Talking about laws and rights cannot be described a narrow because they affect such a broad range of issues. You can choose whatever wider issue you like, but there will be rights and laws which affect it, and parliament will be able to shift the goalposts wherever and whenever they like to suit themselves without any consideration as to the rights of the population.