Difference between revisions of "Document talk:Jewarchy"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (t) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
: We can do without ad-hominems of the sort demonstrated in the last sentence above please. There is indeed widespread corruption everywhere, and what Urban says about people calling themselves Christians is arguable, but I don't agree that labels are meaningless or unhelpful; neither do I see Wikibear as promoting hate - that is a historically VERY Jewish 'gotcha' response to pretty well any and every criticism that the guardians of Judaic orthodoxy don't like - just as an 'antisemite' in its current usage is more accurately defined as a person feared/disliked '''''by''''' Jews, rather than a person who hates Jews. The plain fact is that, other than to affirm the alleged 'eternal suffering' of Jews at the hands of Gentiles, the 'J' word has become absolute taboo in the west. Those who argue differently in Europe wrt to WWII earn themselves a prison sentence; elsewhere (especially the UK/US) they will be disqualified from political and academic life. Those facts alone should tell you that Judaism, its 'Jewish identity politics' (per [[Gilad Atzmon thanks Nick Cooper|Gilad Atzmon]]) and the effects of specifically Jewish interests on the history of the past 150 years in particular, are in dire need of some serious scrutiny. But a better framework for such scrutiny and analysis is - IMO to adopt Judaism's OWN categories of '''Jew''' and '''Gentile'''; it makes matters much simpler too. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 08:13, 11 January 2016 (GMT) | : We can do without ad-hominems of the sort demonstrated in the last sentence above please. There is indeed widespread corruption everywhere, and what Urban says about people calling themselves Christians is arguable, but I don't agree that labels are meaningless or unhelpful; neither do I see Wikibear as promoting hate - that is a historically VERY Jewish 'gotcha' response to pretty well any and every criticism that the guardians of Judaic orthodoxy don't like - just as an 'antisemite' in its current usage is more accurately defined as a person feared/disliked '''''by''''' Jews, rather than a person who hates Jews. The plain fact is that, other than to affirm the alleged 'eternal suffering' of Jews at the hands of Gentiles, the 'J' word has become absolute taboo in the west. Those who argue differently in Europe wrt to WWII earn themselves a prison sentence; elsewhere (especially the UK/US) they will be disqualified from political and academic life. Those facts alone should tell you that Judaism, its 'Jewish identity politics' (per [[Gilad Atzmon thanks Nick Cooper|Gilad Atzmon]]) and the effects of specifically Jewish interests on the history of the past 150 years in particular, are in dire need of some serious scrutiny. But a better framework for such scrutiny and analysis is - IMO to adopt Judaism's OWN categories of '''Jew''' and '''Gentile'''; it makes matters much simpler too. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 08:13, 11 January 2016 (GMT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: Peter, sure there is a strategy to use power over others by guilt induction. I am not suggesting we fall for that strategy by avoiding the topic. In contrary, let's be very clear about it! But suggesting to hate those using violent strategies just adds more violence on top. I hope we consent that there is enough violence on the planet and we do not want to add to it? This verbatim quote is scary for me: "Blomstrom finally settled on anti-Jewarchism as an appropriate term for people who have nothing against ordinary Jews but hate or are opposed to the full spectrum of Jewish corruption, including but not limited to Zionism. It's similar to a person hating the Sicilian Mafia without directing hate at all Italians." I don't see a way to peaceful conflict resolution or a deeper understanding of the control and guilt mechanism at work. Quite the opposite. Is there anybody who "deserves" that hate is directed against him or her? Is there such a thing as "righteous anger"? --[[User:Urban|Urban]] ([[User talk:Urban|talk]]) 12:54, 11 January 2016 (GMT) | ||
Revision as of 12:54, 11 January 2016
A different POV
You say: "A word coined to denote the corruption that is so widespread in the Jewish community". Corruption is widespread everywhere. Probabely most people killed on this earth were killed by people who labeled themselves "Christians". The label itself has no meaning. Is that clear?
The point is not to switch from hating all Jews or Christians or Muslims to a part of what you label as such - but to eliminate hate itself.
Do you see my point? Did you come here to promote your personal page? Or to do some sort of propaganda? --Urban (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2016 (GMT)
- We can do without ad-hominems of the sort demonstrated in the last sentence above please. There is indeed widespread corruption everywhere, and what Urban says about people calling themselves Christians is arguable, but I don't agree that labels are meaningless or unhelpful; neither do I see Wikibear as promoting hate - that is a historically VERY Jewish 'gotcha' response to pretty well any and every criticism that the guardians of Judaic orthodoxy don't like - just as an 'antisemite' in its current usage is more accurately defined as a person feared/disliked by Jews, rather than a person who hates Jews. The plain fact is that, other than to affirm the alleged 'eternal suffering' of Jews at the hands of Gentiles, the 'J' word has become absolute taboo in the west. Those who argue differently in Europe wrt to WWII earn themselves a prison sentence; elsewhere (especially the UK/US) they will be disqualified from political and academic life. Those facts alone should tell you that Judaism, its 'Jewish identity politics' (per Gilad Atzmon) and the effects of specifically Jewish interests on the history of the past 150 years in particular, are in dire need of some serious scrutiny. But a better framework for such scrutiny and analysis is - IMO to adopt Judaism's OWN categories of Jew and Gentile; it makes matters much simpler too. --Peter P (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2016 (GMT)
- Peter, sure there is a strategy to use power over others by guilt induction. I am not suggesting we fall for that strategy by avoiding the topic. In contrary, let's be very clear about it! But suggesting to hate those using violent strategies just adds more violence on top. I hope we consent that there is enough violence on the planet and we do not want to add to it? This verbatim quote is scary for me: "Blomstrom finally settled on anti-Jewarchism as an appropriate term for people who have nothing against ordinary Jews but hate or are opposed to the full spectrum of Jewish corruption, including but not limited to Zionism. It's similar to a person hating the Sicilian Mafia without directing hate at all Italians." I don't see a way to peaceful conflict resolution or a deeper understanding of the control and guilt mechanism at work. Quite the opposite. Is there anybody who "deserves" that hate is directed against him or her? Is there such a thing as "righteous anger"? --Urban (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2016 (GMT)
