What modern nation is the most racist state on earth?

Where black women are sterilized...

Where you cannot marry an outsider...

Where your citizenship is your blood...

Isreal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvhIYNzBtLs

(btw i dont dislike the Jews, this thread is for informational purposes and is not intended to spread hate)

pleep: (btw i dont dislike the Jews, this thread is for informational purposes and is not intended to spread hate)

lol, but you're posting a video by David Duke?

PhysicsQED:

lol, but you're posting a video by David Duke?

haha yup, the former leader of the KKK

But still, the video does have merit, did u watch it?

I would go easy on the Jews, even though I disagree with the idea that any criticism of Jews or Israel is equivalent to "anti-semitism". They can be criticized, but it's kind of bizarre that so many of the people that want to criticize them always produce such extreme caricatures of their flaws or failings. I would especially go easy on them as regards their never-ending conflict/race war/competition with white Europeans because I recall that they were forced into "Western Civilization" against their will by white Europeans. Basically all of the problems they face today, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, can actually be traced back to European imperialism, starting with the Romans and proceeding up to the 20th century and the actions of the British. If the ancestors of the people that hate them so much (mostly white, but occasionally also from some other racial groups, especially middle eastern groups), had simply left them alone to fight it out with their Semitic cousins in the Middle East, they wouldn't even be that relevant to the history of other places in the world and nobody would have a reason to complain so much about them.

Every once in a while, when searching on the internet for information relating to something race related, I'll stumble upon a thread on the forum of a white supremacist site like stormfront or vnn and instead of just reading the one topic that I stumbled upon, I'll start reading through more of their forum just to see what they're claiming about us and other groups now. Recently while on stormfront, I came across a link that was posted there to a completely different site called "The Occidental Observer." The entire site, its members/commenters and its article authors, and the founder of the site (a psychology professor) are all obsessed with Jews to an extreme degree. As I read more and more of the articles and claims and analyses, the things that kept bothering me and which kept popping up in the back of my mind were

a) "if you hate these people so much, why did your forefathers force them into your European cultures and societies?" (firstly through the actions of the Romans, who are praised widely by most European and European descended groups for conquering their ancestors and thereby disseminating "civilization" to their forefathers and who are praised by some not for spreading civilization to other Europeans but just for being white and having a civilization and conquering some other non-European groups, and then secondly through the actions of later European kingdoms/countries in expelling the Jews many times from their lands, forcing them to migrate into other European countries and disperse themselves even more widely into Western societies in the absence of a Jewish state)

and

b) "why did you adopt wholesale a plagiarized and modified version of their morality and ethical code?" (through Christianity). After a while, the complete overkill, distortion and exaggeration in their claims on Jews in the articles and on those sites and forums started having the opposite effect of what was intended and started making me feel even sorrier for the Jews for having to put up with such paranoid obsession, fear, and loathing from other groups that they never wanted anything to do with in the first place.


But at the topic, yes Jews can be racist against non-Jewish whites, against Arabs, against black people (even against "black Jews" in Israel), and against any other group. They have just as much of an ability to be racist as other groups and I have come across racist statements from Jewish writers and "intellectuals", etc. before, but I have my doubts about Israel being "the most" racist nation on earth. It sounds like more exaggeration.

much of Israel racism is unreported because as a "protected group" any criticism of them is often faulted as anti-semitism and in european countries you commit crime when you speak against jew.

Judaism in halakah (legitimacy) is matrilineal. By selectively tampering with child bearing capabilities of black jew women they are doing population control (a sub-form of euthanasia), the exact act they accuse nazi Germany for.

I dont give a fvck about jew, just as they dont give a fvk about black. by declaring that they are God's chosen people they already discriminately exclude non-jews from God's Grace. Only God can exclude a people from his Grace and he did not designate jews to speak for him in this regard., neither has He issued suxh decree.

Some of the jew haters on supremacist websites are plants working ti keep the crminalization of criticism alive.

Semitism is not the exclusive birthright or tongue of jews, the culture and language is broadly shared across diversities of people. The monopolization of semitism is calculated towarda a design to completely lay claim to the length and breadth of the region from Red sea to Euphrates and from Meditteranean to the gulf.. Christianity accomplished that, its why we cant find any Hebrew Bible today......Rome used tongue identity to conquer adversaries. Islam has done the same when it forced that only Arabic tongue is allowed in prayer.. Israel has a long term vision of using tongue to monopolize action and response to its cultural values.

pleep: haha yup, the former leader of the KKK

But still, the video does have merit, did u watch it?

I watched it.

-The quotes from those rabbis are crazy and offensive, but after looking them up it seems that those statements were criticized by some other Jews. I don't take the statements of a few religious nutjobs too seriously in assessing what the worldview of an entire group of people is.

- I don't see what the big deal is about the shiksa thing - the intended meaning of a word as it is used, not its original etymology is what is important. The etymology of "Ethiopian" is some Greek words that mean "burnt face." Does that mean that someone who calls himself an Ethiopian is trying to say that he is a burnt faced person? However, if it is used not just to designate a non-Jewish woman, but to denigrate that woman because of her non-Jewishness, and if the Jews that started using the word viewed non-Jewish women as promiscuous or whor1sh in the places that they stayed in in Europe, then that means that they too developed ugly stereotypes about other peoples just as those peoples did about Jews. I guess you could call it "anti-gentilism" of some sort. This is basically evidence that Jews can be just as bigoted as other groups, but I can't see how it indicates that they are uniquely hateful or "the most" hateful.

- On the U.S. Congress honoring that crazy rabbi - it seems they didn't do their homework. That was very dumb.

- On Iraq, I agree that the Iraq war was basically about Israel (and a possible future war against Iran would also be about Israel), not about Saddam or imaginary WMD's. Certain strongly pro-Israel Jewish "neoconservatives" in the Bush administration basically convinced Bush (not exactly the brightest guy to hold the U.S. presidency), Rumsfeld, etc. of the need for a war in Iraq to eliminate the threat that Saddam Hussein's regime posed to freedom, liberty, his own Iraqi people, etc., when the underlying motivation probably had more to do with removing the threat that Saddam posed to Israel (consider Israel's 1981 strike against Iraq's nuclear program) through conquest and occupation and possibly partitioning Iraq along ethnic or religious (Shia vs. Sunni) lines to weaken the strength of the country as a threat to Israel. On Afghanistan, I agree with the idea that that war is basically about Israel, although there was not really any pro-Israel high level political plot involved there. That war, unlike the Iraq war, is really the U.S's war, and not Israel's even if the root cause of the conflict has a lot to do with Israel. It's very unlikely that Al-Qaeda would have attacked the U.S. and U.S. forces multiple times (not just on Sept. 11) if not for the U.S.'s continued unwavering support for Israel, but nobody wanted that war to happen and it only happened because those terrorists carried out such a large attack on the U.S. and insisted on using Afghanistan (an area where they could operate unchecked by a real government) as their base.

The U.S. and most of Europe will continue to support Israel and the right of the Jewish people to have that homeland in the middle east because many influential or politically powerful non-Jewish people in the U.S. and Europe are basically Christian Zionists who support Israel for religion-related reasons, because many of them are scared that Jews will be subjected to genocide if they let the Arab states take over that area, because many of them feel guilt about previous mass murders of Jews in Europe, and because some people in Europe fear that if they don't have somewhere else to keep the Jews away from them then Jews will flood Europe and affect their societies in ways that they wouldn't want (in areas of economic, political, and media influence).

- The Lavon affair was a pretty disgraceful scheme. I'm surprised that the Israeli government hasn't apologized to the U.S. for that. The attack on the U.S.S. Liberty seems to have been a mistake from what I've read.

- As for the closing parts of David Duke's speech, it sounded very politician-like, full of self-aggrandizement and inspirational, positive sounding platitudes. Doesn't change the fact that, regardless of the few things he occasionally gets right, he is a dedicated hatemonger and not really a force for good.

I watched it.

-The quotes from those rabbis are crazy and offensive, but after looking them up it seems that those statements were criticized by some other Jews. I don't take the statements of a few religious nutjobs too seriously in assessing what the worldview of an entire group of people is.

You cant dismiss him as religious nutjos when he is the cheif Serphardic rabbi of Isreal. The opinions he expressed in those comments are standard orthodox Jewish beliefs. Orthodox Judaism is the official religion of Isreal and so is is perfectly acceptable to use this world view to paint the country in general.

According to the vid 95% of jews around the world are orthodox ( i do not belief that figure) but i do know that many of the most influencial jews are. If any other ethnic group had beliefs that extreme would the world tolerate it? no

don't see what the big deal is about the shiksa thing - the intended meaning of a word as it is used, not its original etymology is what is important. The etymology of "Ethiopian" is some Greek words that mean "burnt face." Does that mean that someone who calls himself an Ethiopian is trying to say that he is a burnt faced person? However, if it is used not just to designate a non-Jewish woman, but to denigrate that woman because of her non-Jewishness, and if the Jews that started using the word viewed non-Jewish women as promiscuous or whor1sh in the places that they stayed in in Europe, then that means that they too developed ugly stereotypes about other peoples just as those peoples did about Jews. I guess you could call it "anti-gentilism" of some sort. This is basically evidence that Jews can be just as bigoted as other groups, but I can't see how it indicates that they are uniquely hateful or "the most" hateful.

I cant fault your logic here, u make some good points.

On Iraq, I agree that the Iraq war was basically about Israel (and a possible future war against Iran would also be about Israel), not about Saddam or imaginary WMD's. Certain strongly pro-Israel Jewish "neoconservatives" in the Bush administration basically convinced Bush (not exactly the brightest guy to hold the U.S. presidency), Rumsfeld, etc. of the need for a war in Iraq to eliminate the threat that Saddam Hussein's regime posed to freedom, liberty, his own Iraqi people, etc., when the underlying motivation probably had more to do with removing the threat that Saddam posed to Israel (consider Israel's 1981 strike against Iraq's nuclear weapons program) through conquest and occupation and possibly partitioning Iraq along ethnic or religious (Shia vs. Sunni) lines to weaken the strength of the country as a threat to Israel. On Afghanistan, I agree with the idea that that war is basically about Israel, although there was not really any pro-Israel high level political plot involved there. That war, unlike the Iraq war, is really the U.S's war, and not Israel's even if the root cause of the conflict has a lot to do with Israel. It's very unlikely that Al-Qaeda would have attacked the U.S. and U.S. forces multiple times (not just on Sept. 11) if not for the U.S.'s continued unwavering support for Israel, but nobody wanted that war to happen and it only happened because those terrorists carried out such a large attack on the U.S. and insisted on using Afghanistan (an area where they could operate unchecked by a real government) as their base.

The U.S. and most of Europe will continue to support Israel and the right of the Jewish people to have that homeland in the middle east because many influential or politically powerful non-Jewish people in the U.S. and Europe are basically Christian Zionists who support Israel for religion-related reasons, because many of them are scared that Jews will be subjected to genocide if they let the Arab states take over that area, because many of them feel guilt about previous mass murders of Jews in Europe, and because some people in Europe fear that if they don't have somewhere else to keep the Jews away from them then Jews will flood Europe and affect their societies in ways that they wouldn't want (in areas of economic, political, and media influence).

Ok, ill admit that what you said here is pretty much the truth. But despite this you cannot deny the fact Jews have such a disproportionate amount of control in the country. These are ppl with a blatant dual-loyalties who are allowed to function in the United States government primarily for the benefit of a foreign power... When you look at the sheer volume of Jews that play a role in U.S policy you will see that the influence of 'christian zionists' is actually very low. Here is a list of Jews who have taken part in U.S politics throughout history. http://www.subvertednation.net/jew-lists/jews-in-government/

This number is insanely high for a group less than two percent of the population... and the list doesn't even mention Jews in finance like Ben Bernanke or Allen Greenspan. What about Rahm Emmanual.. Axelrod ... Larry Summers.. aka Obamas whole damn cabinet

What about jews in the media?

"Gerald Levin, CEO and Director of AOL Time Warner

Michael Eisner, Chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney Company

Edgar Bronfman, Sr., Chairman of Seagram Company Ltd

Edgar Bronfman, Jr, President and CEO of Seagram Company Ltd and head of Universal Studios

Sumner Redstone, Chairman and CEO of Viacom, Inc

Dennis Dammerman, Vice Chairman of General Electric

Peter Chernin, President and Co-COO of News Corporation Limited"


Thats ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MTV, BET, Universal Studios etc. etc.

I wish i could go deeper into this but i am very very drunk right now...

I just learned that Gabrielle Giffords is jewish... lol

The most innapropriate thing about all this is that the jews are allowed to function as a monolithic racist group on the world stage.

Take for example, the diamond cartel Debeers... they control the majority of the worlds diamonds yet are allowed to contract their products only to fellow jews. This is the 21th century, no other race could get away with something like that. I personally think own group preference is a good thing, and i don't fault them for doing this. The problem is that we are brainwashed into thinking racism is only ok for jewish ppl... there is litterally no backlash in mainstream media against jewish racism

pleep: You cant dismiss him as religious nutjos when he is the cheif Serphardic rabbi of Isreal. The opinions he expressed in those comments are standard orthodox Jewish beliefs. Orthodox Judaism is the official religion of Isreal and so is is perfectly acceptable to use this world view to paint the country in general.

According to the vid 95% of jews around the world are orthodox ( i do not belief that figure) but i do know that many of the most influencial jews are. If any other ethnic group had beliefs that extreme would the world tolerate it? no

The thing is, there are genuine claims about the supposed superiority of the Jews (or at least as far as I can tell from my interpretations of what I've read) from Jews, Jewish writings (ancient and modern), tradition, etc. but these particular claims by those three rabbis - about non-Jews existing only to serve Jews, or about the differences in the contents of the "soul" of a Jew and non-Jew, or about it being justified to murder a non-Jew and take his organs to give to a Jew that needs them - don't seem to be standard, widespread, or traditional views as far as I can tell from a quick perusal of Jewish attitudes on gentiles. Basically, those rabbis seem to be extrapolating more from pre-existing traditional attitudes of superiority to non-Jews than is already there. Jews did have and to some extent still do have religious doctrines that clearly emphasize the superiority of Jews over non-Jews as mentioned in their religious books (the Torah and Talmud, for example), but I haven't seen proof that these three particular claims are standard/widespread views or are really sourced directly from their religious doctrines or tradition.

As for the question of whether any other religion that expressed ideas about the inherent superiority of one group of people to another in the way Judaism does would be tolerated around the world today, I honestly don't think that religion would be. I think the reason such a blatant bias is not criticized heavily is because of religious brainwashing or indifference. Much of the world follows religions influenced by Jewish theology in some way or another and those people that don't, don't really care about or pay all that much attention to Jews.

Ok, ill admit that what you said here is pretty much the truth. But despite this you cannot deny the fact Jews have such a disproportionate amount of control in the country. These are ppl with a blatant dual-loyalties who are allowed to function in the United States government primarily for the benefit of a foreign power... When you look at the sheer volume of Jews that play a role in U.S policy you will see that the influence of 'christian zionists' is actually very low. Here is a list of Jews who have taken part in U.S politics throughout history. http://www.subvertednation.net/jew-lists/jews-in-government/

This number is insanely high for a group less than two percent of the population... and the list doesn't even mention Jews in finance like Ben Bernanke or Allen Greenspan. What about Rahm Emmanual.. Axelrod ... Larry Summers.. aka Obamas whole damn cabinet

What about jews in the media?

"Gerald Levin, CEO and Director of AOL Time Warner

Michael Eisner, Chairman and CEO of the Walt Disney Company

Edgar Bronfman, Sr., Chairman of Seagram Company Ltd

Edgar Bronfman, Jr, President and CEO of Seagram Company Ltd and head of Universal Studios

Sumner Redstone, Chairman and CEO of Viacom, Inc

Dennis Dammerman, Vice Chairman of General Electric

Peter Chernin, President and Co-COO of News Corporation Limited"


Thats ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MTV, BET, Universal Studios etc. etc.

I wish i could go deeper into this but i am very very drunk right now...

Yeah, Jewish influence in politics, economics, business and the media is definitely disproportionately high in the U.S., but that's not exactly evidence of something malevolent or sinister or even any evidence of any kind of "control" - it might suggest something about the abilities and/or tendencies of some Jews.

However one thing I agree with is the idea that the prospect of some politically active or politically involved people of Jewish descent possibly guiding the U.S. into another war (this time with Iran) out of dual loyalties, the way Jewish neoconservatives guided the Bush administration into war in Iraq (and even some Jewish American journalists criticized the roles of Jewish neoconservatives in guiding the U.S. into war in Iraq, so it's not an inherently "anti-semitic" (anti-Jewish) idea or anything, as some people might assume), is a scary prospect. Launching a war against Iran would be disastrous for world peace, as it could reach a WW3 level if things go really badly and if the Iranians manage to convince some other powerful nations to ally with them. The Iranians are a tougher nation mentally and militarily than any group the U.S. has fought - they would be a lot tougher to crack than anything the U.S. has ever faced before, including the Vietnamese, who U.S. forces did not defeat. And the military and civilian losses and casualties that would be inflicted on the U.S. and their allies in trying to conquer Iran (and even then, that would only be a temporary conquest if it were to happen, as the Iranians would only grow angrier, more indignant and more ready to fight their conquerors/oppressors after the occupation) would dwarf those incurred in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined if such a war were to happen.

If in the near future, a small group of politically influential Jews, as was the case with Iraq, is able to convince the head of the American government to prosecute an undeclared war (something the president can do without asking Congress) against Iran, which could eventually escalate into a full scale war, in order to serve the interests of Israel, this would be disastrous not just for all the nations directly involved (the U.S. and its military allies vs. Iran and its military allies), but even for the Jews themselves (or at least the ones outside of Israel), as they would lose an enormous amount of sympathy, goodwill and support, and be viewed much more suspiciously after that event to the point where few would want to deal with them or view them as trustworthy. If politically active Jews are somehow able to convince the U.S. president to initiate a military conflict with Iran, that would be the worst thing Jews could do for themselves, but I wonder if hardcore right wing Netanyahu types of Israeli politicians would even understand why that would be so bad. Anyway, with Hagel as the Defense Secretary of the U.S., we're basically guaranteed that the U.S. will not have any kind of military conflict with Iran at least until Obama leaves office. When Barack leaves the oval office and Hagel is replaced, anything could happen.

pleep: Take for example, the diamond cartel Debeers... they control the majority of the worlds diamonds yet are allowed to contract their products only to fellow jews. This is the 21th century, no other race could get away with something like that.

Is this actually true?

Can you post a source for this or provide facts to support this statement?

PhysicsQED:

Is this actually true?

Can you post a source for this or provide facts to support this statement?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4c1p_DMkIw This documentary talks about Debeers in general without going into the ethnic aspect of it. As you will see in this film they only license raw diamonds to select dealers, you have to read behind the lines or do outside research to find out they are all jewish.

It just goes to show the aura of political correctness that surrounds this ethnic group.

Yeah, Jewish influence in politics, economics, business and the media is definitely disproportionately high in the U.S., but that's not exactly evidence of something malevolent or sinister or even any evidence of any kind of "control" - it might suggest something about the abilities and/or tendencies of some Jews.

Well i always try to be unbaised in everything i write here, and in all honesty it is possible the Jews actually are an intellectually superior group of people. The raw data this guy puts out is staggering, even though his explanation for it is very weak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a_Ju8WCeHk

However one thing I agree with is the idea that the prospect of some politically active or politically involved people of Jewish descent possibly guiding the U.S. into another war (this time with Iran) out of dual loyalties, the way Jewish neoconservatives guided the Bush administration into war in Iraq (and even some Jewish American journalists criticized the roles of Jewish neoconservatives in guiding the U.S. into war in Iraq, so it's not an inherently "anti-semitic" (anti-Jewish) idea or anything, as some people might assume), is a scary prospect. Launching a war against Iran would be disastrous for world peace, as it could reach a WW3 level if things go really badly and if the Iranians manage to convince some other powerful nations to ally with them. The Iranians are a tougher nation mentally and militarily than any group the U.S. has fought - they would be a lot tougher to crack than anything the U.S. has ever faced before, including the Vietnamese, who U.S. forces did not defeat. And the military and civilian losses and casualties that would be inflicted on the U.S. and their allies in trying to conquer Iran (and even then, that would only be a temporary conquest if it were to happen, as the Iranians would only grow angrier, more indignant and more ready to fight their conquerors/oppressors after the occupation) would dwarf those incurred in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined if such a war were to happen.

If in the near future, a small group of politically influential Jews, as was the case with Iraq, is able to convince the head of the American government to prosecute an undeclared war (something the president can do without asking Congress) against Iran, which could eventually escalate into a full scale war, in order to serve the interests of Israel, this would be disastrous not just for all the nations directly involved (the U.S. and its military allies vs. Iran and its military allies), but even for the Jews themselves (or at least the ones outside of Israel), as they would lose an enormous amount of sympathy, goodwill and support, and be viewed much more suspiciously after that event to the point where few would want to deal with them or view them as trustworthy. If politically active Jews are somehow able to convince the U.S. president to initiate a military conflict with Iran, that would be the worst thing Jews could do for themselves, but I wonder if hardcore right wing Netanyahu types of Israeli politicians would even understand why that would be so bad. Anyway, with Hagel as the Defense Secretary of the U.S., we're basically guaranteed that the U.S. will not have any kind of military conflict with Iran at least until Obama leaves office. When Barack leaves the oval office and Hagel is replaced, anything could happen.

Honestly I fail to see the apocaliptic threat in attacking Iran. It would be a horribly unjust war, but i don't think it would be as bad as you are predicting.

First off, Irans military is good but the military gap between the U.S and the rest of the world is so big that it hardly makes a difference. The United states Abosolutly mowed down the Iraqi army in the Iraq war...the coalition was able to litterally bomb w/e target they wanted for days on end with no resistance. With stealth bombers they can do the same to Iran...
What the Israeli government wants to do is to weaken Iran to the point where they are no longer a threat. This can be done without ever putting boots on the ground.

Secondly, i see no reason why China would enter the war... they little vested interest seeing as their economy is so interwined with America's that war would probably damage them more than us.

Thirdly, i see no reason why Russia would join the war. People need to remember that the soviet union is gone, Russia is not such an important player on the world stage anymore, they are a paper tiger. The only thing that makes them relevant is their nukes and why would they use them over Iran?

If Israel and the U.S decide to attack Iran, the only thing the brick nations be able to do is Veto it in the U.N. aka nothing

But yes, as for the public opinion blow that Israel will suffer.... it will be huge. But will it change anything? I highly doubt it... the media controls the truth and Jews control the media

just think about all the insane stuff israel has gotten away with

pleeps right

Kandiiikane: pleeps right

Change "were" to "where".

ah ty

Despite the fact that it is from David Duke, just about every claim made in this video is verifiable & proven. This video is water-tight


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IheJ2Rohz1c

Yoruba_Omoge: Change "were" to "where".

I looked it up and that is actually incorrect.

It should be were.

^

She meant the "were" in the opening post, not the title.

pleep:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4c1p_DMkIw This documentary talks about Debeers in general without going into the ethnic aspect of it. As you will see in this film they only license raw diamonds to select dealers, you have to read behind the lines or do outside research to find out they are all jewish.

It just goes to show the aura of political correctness that surrounds this ethnic group.

So, are these "sightholders" all Jewish owned?:

https://www.dtcsightholder.com/en/Sightholder-directory11/

http://www.dtcsightholder.com/


Also, De Beers is basically owned by Anglo American plc. Is Anglo American plc also owned by Jews?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo_American_plc

pleep:
Well i always try to be unbaised in everything i write here, and in all honesty it is possible the Jews actually are an intellectually superior group of people. The raw data this guy puts out is staggering, even though his explanation for it is very weak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a_Ju8WCeHk

The Ashkenazi Jews may be intellectually superior to any group in a few specific but very important areas, but I don't exactly think of Jews as having bested every other group on the planet in every area of intellectual and creative endeavor. As just one example of an intellectual area in which they were not at the forefront, consider the area of graphical/visual representation of human thought for the purpose of communication, i.e. writing. The symbols of the Hebrew script were not invented by Hebrews - they came from Phoenicians/Canaanites, who got their Phoenician script from the Proto-Sinaitic script which had its origin in Egyptian hieroglyphics. Maybe the Jews or the parent group that they came from (the larger proto-Semitic group) were too small a group or maybe their patterns of social organization or social activity at that point were not ideal to have come up with a writing system of their own at the time that the Egyptians came up with theirs. Regardless of what the explanations are, what is clear is that the two early and influential systems of writing in the ancient Near East - Cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphics - were not produced by Semitic groups (Egyptians were/are an Afroasiatic group, but not Semitic), and not invented by Jews or their direct ancestors.

Even without the luxury that many other groups closer to the Near East (including groups like the Greeks, Persians, and ancient Indians, not just Semitic groups) had of being able to borrow the writing system (or modified versions of such a writing system) of a more advanced civilization like that of the Egyptians or the Sumerians, at least one group of isolated black Africans created their own system of communication using visual symbols:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsibidi
http://www.naijablog.co.uk/2010/09/5th-century-nsibidi.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Early+ceramics+from+Calabar,+Nigeria:+towards+a+history+of+nsibidi-a0160331983
http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/mit-press/early-ceramics-from-calabar-nigeria-towards-a-history-of-nsibidi-lGgpn9y0wc


And I agree that the explanation given in the talk is not particularly convincing. Nobody seems to have really figured out the cause or causes of high Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence, even after all the theories that have been put forward.

By the way, I don't follow Steven Pinker's professional research work, but I've read one of his popular books, The Blank Slate, and it was a very good read. I would definitely recommend it.

Pleep, on Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence:

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2006_06_17_thenewrepublic.html

^
This is an article by Steven Pinker in which he covers most of the same ground as he did in the talk you posted a video link to, basically summarizing and analyzing Cochran, Hardy, and Harpending's theory about the cause of Jewish intelligence.

http://www.economist.com/node/4032638

^
This is an article in the economist that summarizes the same idea (the Cochran-Hardy-Harpending theory), and presents it as plausible.

But there is something else that may be relevant or even more significant to causing their high intelligence - the possibility that Jews were (knowingly or unknowingly) practicing eugenics. Eugenics could be the main factor, or the most significant cause, rather than the higher reproduction and survival rate of the smartest middleman-occupation Jews in the European middle ages as the Cochran-Hardy-Harpending theory suggests.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/05/review-of-john-glads-jewish-eugenics/

^
This is that anti-Jew website I mentioned earlier. The review is by the founder of the site, and he is reviewing a book by a Jewish academic that argues that Ashkenazi Jews have been practicing forms of eugenics over the centuries (I haven't read the book, and don't intend to - I have only a passing interest in this kind of stuff). Try and ignore the "white people are the victims of the Jews" mentality that the reviewer and all of the comments display, and weed through the self-pity for whites, hatred of others, and delusions about others, and consider the relevant information there about the Jews and intelligence. If European Jews had been knowingly or unknowingly practicing eugenics for centuries - presumably to intentionally produce more intelligent offspring (as the review suggests) - it would probably explain their (intelligence/creativity based) prominence in so many areas of American life soon after immigrating to America much better than the religious idea that they're the "chosen people" of God or even the idea of Cochran, Hardy and Harpendig that selection pressures during the European middle ages resulted in smarter "middleman minority" Jews with traits that could result in higher intelligence reproducing and surviving at higher rates than Jews without such traits. But of course, even if the eugenics explanation is correct or more significant as a cause, it doesn't exactly resolve the issue, as it fails to answer the question of why Jews would come up with a rationale for eugenic practices or implement such practices before others in the first place.

On a related note, I remember from our discussion of eugenics and the black race months earlier, that you're a fan of eugenics, especially as a means of improving the intelligence of black people worldwide (which you think is represented by an IQ that is near 70 (based on the work of Richard Lynn and co.), although I doubt that that figure is accurate). While I still haven't changed my negative opinion of eugenics as it pertains to black people or as it pertains to humanity more generally, I think that deliberately encouraging subliminally eugenic practices, if kept within reasonable (not extreme) limits, could be beneficial in the short term for a group/race trying to develop their countries within a short period of time, and then afterward such practices could be somehow phased out so that nature can take its course. As for why I still oppose eugenics even after our discussion, I don't want to derail the topic too much, but consider, as just one possible objection, the higher incidence of certain terrible genetic diseases that Ashkenazi Jews have to deal with, and the possible connection between these diseases and their (possibly eugenics based) high intelligence. The possible connection between Jewish diseases and their high intelligence has been discussed seriously in scholarly articles that try to figure out the causes of Jewish intelligence (such as the theory by Cochran et al discussed above), but I don't know if anyone has ever considered the possibility that, if there is a connection between Jewish intelligence and intentional/unintentional practicing of eugenics by Jews in past centuries, then this means that any or some kinds of eugenics based practices - even if unintentional - could have unintended consequences such as creating a higher incidence of certain genetic diseases within a population. I just have an intuitive suspicion about there being a possible connection between eugenics and unintentionally creating higher incidences of certain genetic diseases, although of course I can't prove it and the whole issue is in an area of science (genetics) in which my knowledge is sparse.


I'll comment on Iran and the U.S. a bit later. I have a different perspective on that.

Hey Pleep, on the issue of intelligence and eugenics, I have a new comment on this thread of yours from last year:

https://www.nairaland.com/1094411/eugenics-selective-breeding-purify-black/3#14806152

Just a hort semi-offtopic question:

I know about Israel, but where is that Isreal you are talking about?!

Physics bros,your stuff too dey long joor. Am out

PhysicsQED:

So, are these "sightholders" all Jewish owned?:

https://www.dtcsightholder.com/en/Sightholder-directory11/

http://www.dtcsightholder.com/


Also, De Beers is basically owned by Anglo American plc. Is Anglo American plc also owned by Jews?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo_American_plc

Earnest Oppenhimer, the jewish man who created Debeers also created Anglo American PLC a few years earlier...... Now isnt that scary.

As for the sight-holders all being Jewish...probably not, but knowing that Jews have litterally dominated the gem stone industry for the last century (to the extent that is is common to hear Yiddish at trade fairs) I don't think the assumption that it is disproportionitly Jewish is not too far off.

This is the Antwerp diamond house... see how many clearly Jewish ppl there are here (fedoras indoors a/o yamchas)

On a related note, I remember from our discussion of eugenics and the black race months earlier, that you're a fan of eugenics, especially as a means of improving the intelligence of black people worldwide (which you think is represented by an IQ that is near 70 (based on the work of Richard Lynn and co.), although I doubt that that figure is accurate). While I still haven't changed my negative opinion of eugenics as it pertains to black people or as it pertains to humanity more generally, I think that deliberately encouraging subliminally eugenic practices, if kept within reasonable (not extreme) limits, could be beneficial in the short term for a group/race trying to develop their countries within a short period of time, and then afterward such practices could be somehow phased out so that nature can take its course. As for why I still oppose eugenics even after our discussion, I don't want to derail the topic too much, but consider, as just one possible objection, the higher incidence of certain terrible genetic diseases that Ashkenazi Jews have to deal with, and the possible connection between these diseases and their (possibly eugenics based) high intelligence. The possible connection between Jewish diseases and their high intelligence has been discussed seriously in scholarly articles that try to figure out the causes of Jewish intelligence (such as the theory by Cochran et al discussed above), but I don't know if anyone has ever considered the possibility that, if there is a connection between Jewish intelligence and intentional/unintentional practicing of eugenics by Jews in past centuries, then this means that any or some kinds of eugenics based practices - even if unintentional - could have unintended consequences such as creating a higher incidence of certain genetic diseases within a population. I just have an intuitive suspicion about there being a possible connection between eugenics and unintentionally creating higher incidences of certain genetic diseases, although of course I can't prove it and the whole issue is in an area of science (genetics) in which my knowledge is sparse.

I don’t actually believe the IQ test is a real measure of intelligence, as I said in the thread that figure was put in the title as an attention grabber… neither do I believe black people are less intelligent than other races, eugenics could simply be a way to help us overcome the geographical and situational impediments to our development.

I had to simplify the title post, cuz If it wasn’t dumbed down a bit the thread would never have made it to the front page.

The Ashkenazi Jews may be intellectually superior to any group in a few specific but very important areas, but I don't exactly think of Jews as having bested every other group on the planet in every area of intellectual and creative endeavor. As just one example of an intellectual area in which they were not at the forefront, consider the area of graphical/visual representation of human thought for the purpose of communication, i.e. writing. The symbols of the Hebrew script were not invented by Hebrews - they came from Phoenicians/Canaanites, who got their Phoenician script from the Proto-Sinaitic script which had its origin in Egyptian hieroglyphics. Maybe the Jews or the parent group that they came from (the larger proto-Semitic group) were too small a group or maybe their patterns of social organization or social activity at that point were not ideal to have come up with a writing system of their own at the time that the Egyptians came up with theirs. Regardless of what the explanations are, what is clear is that the two early and influential systems of writing in the ancient Near East - Cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphics - were not produced by Semitic groups (Egyptians were/are an Afroasiatic group, but not Semitic), and not invented by Jews or their direct ancestors.

Well, here you are suggesting that the development of a writing system was dependent on intelligence, and I’m sure we both know that is not the case.

Everyone should please watch the first half of this video, the most disturbing discription of the Jewish religion i have ever seen.

(disclaimer... i am not an "anit-semite" this thread is for informational purposes only)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH_Bs-pN46s

pleep:

I don’t actually believe the IQ test is a real measure of intelligence, as I said in the thread that figure was put in the title as an attention grabber… neither do I believe black people are less intelligent than other races, eugenics could simply be a way to help us overcome the geographical and situational impediments to our development.

I had to simplify the title post, cuz If it wasn’t dumbed down a bit the thread would never have made it to the front page.

Ok.

Well, here you are suggesting that the development of a writing system was dependent on intelligence, and I’m sure we both know that is not the case.

I'm suggesting that there is a connection between the ability to visually represent human thought and creativity. Intelligence isn't the only component of "genius" or intellectual brilliance - creativity is a huge factor, whether we're talking about science, literature, art, music, etc. Now I know that the development of a writing system among any group probably has more to do with utility (which would depend on whether the society was at a stage where it needed writing yet) and/or with religion than with intelligence or anything else, but I think that if Jews were "intellectually superior" to all other peoples, then we would see some evidence of their besting every group in every area of human creativity, including writing. I think the Jews are creative and maybe uniquely gifted as far as religion, mysticism, moral laws, moral fables, etc. and in commerce, finance, economics, etc. but I don't accept the idea that they're an "intellectually superior" group when there's no evidence that they're really better than every group in all creative and intellectual pursuits.

pleep: Earnest Oppenhimer, the jewish man who created Debeers also created Anglo American PLC a few years earlier...... Now isnt that scary.

Right, but is Anglo American PLC still owned and run by Jews today? I couldn't find any evidence that it is.

As for the sight-holders all being Jewish...probably not, but knowing that Jews have litterally dominated the gem stone industry for the last century (to the extent that is is common to hear Yiddish at trade fairs) I don't think the assumption that it is disproportionitly Jewish is not too far off.

This is the Antwerp diamond house... see how many clearly Jewish ppl there are here (fedoras indoors a/o yamchas)

Well, if Jews have been and still are dominating the gem stone industry that's not an inherently bad thing or evidence of them putting it exclusively under the control of their ethnic group. It just suggests that that is one of the areas of commerce they tend to venture into and do extremely well in.


I'll watch the other videos you posted a bit later.