Alien2311, got a problem with pro-Semites?

Over here, down three posts, Alien2311 attempts to discredit a cite of mine with this observation,

I should go find an anti-Semite for rational discussion? I’m trying to think of an interpretation where you did not just say that Jews are irrational. If the subject is not anti-war protesters, are Jews rational? Or, are they always incapable of reason?

You forgot these;j :wally ;j

Thanks, Lilly Putt. I had one after the “discussion?” I chose to go smiliefree in the end.

Rather than flame, I just would love to hear an explanation for the statment. “Biased,” fine. “Horribly biased,” fine. “A raging hormonal conservative,” fine. “pro-semite, therefore disqualified from rational discussion” - sound of car brakes
I’m not religious myself. My dad was a Unitarian agnostic, my mom was a non-practicing Catholic. My first pit thread was yesterday, a joke. Given the preceding information, the first person who mentions my thin skin is a fucking moron. 10…9…8…

What’s wrong with pro-Semites? You want a bunch of amateur Semites out there, doing half-assed jobs? Hell no!

Is it possible that Alien2311 was suggesting that a ‘semite-neutral’ person would be a better source than someone either pro or anti (are those two sides of the same coin anyway)?
Just a thought.

Probably, depending on the definition of Semite-nuetral. In Alien2311’s world can a person who happens to be Jewish also be Semite-nuetral or are they pro-Semites by definition?


Actually, that’s not a bad point. Logically speaking, the opposite of an anti-Semite (someone who thinks Jews are worse than everyone else) would by someone who thought Jews were better than everyone else: a Jewish supremacist. It’s possible that Alien2311 was saying that Sharon is a bigot who looks down on anyone who isn’t Jewish, and therefore his opinions should be given as much weight as a Klan member or Neo-Nazi; that is to say, none.

He could’ve phrased it a lot better, though.

FWIW, I think UnwrittentNocturne is spot on, and this:

is spot off (if that means anything).

That one you would have to ask Alien2311. I can see no reason personally that a Semitic person (doesn’t this cover a wider group than Jewish, I am not sure?) could not be regarded as neutral.
Of course it is also possible that the OP is right in the assumption and that **Alien2311[\b]'s weltenschauung. Shame there is no response from <thunderous voice>the Pitted One</thunderous voice> yet

Is this question directed at me? My moniker is mystic2311, not alien2311. I am just trying to show that their are two sides to every coin. If someone can be discredited for being an anti-semite, then someone else can be discredited for being a pro-semite, unless there is an inherent bias in the discourse. The posters who referred to semite-neutrality have the right idea.

But it was unfair to call Ariel Cohen a pro-semite; unfair to Palestinians and other Semites. All Arabs are Semites, but not all Jews are Semites. Sephardic Jews are Semites, but most European Jews(Ashkenazis) belong to the Finno-Turkic race, being descended from the Khazarians, as demonstrated by Arthur Koestler and others.

I should have called him pro-Zionist, in which his views of the Iraq war are definitely suspect. The original Zionist vision of Israel stretches from “the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates River” (Ralph Schoenman, The Hidden History of Zionism). It seems pretty obvious to me that Israel is using the US to fight their war of conquest in the middle east. Given that Israel has spied on us (Jonathan Pollard), killed our soldiers (USS Liberty), has nuclear weapons, has carried out pre-emptive strikes against other countries (Egypt 1967, Iraq 1981), has violated more UN resolutions than any other country, has a global terrorist network (Mossad), etc., the question is…

Why don’t we bomb Israel instead of Iraq?

OK, “Semite-neutral.” Now, if only I had some idea of what that meant. Last I checked “anti-Semite” had some pretty bad connotations and I’d never heard of a “pro-Semite.” I’m learning lots these days.

From the same thread, page 1:

**Yes, early this morning before I’d finished any coffee I magically transformed “mystic” into “Alien.” Dammit. Dammit. Dammit. If there is an Alien2311, sorry. **

Mystic Alien, lead singer.

Are you sure you want to hitch your cart to this pony? Not only is this the argument used by Christian Identity groups to claim that they are the true descendents of ancient Israel, but the grounds are very shaky for any such claim in the first place.

As far back as 1997 there was genetic evidence that Ashkenazi Jews carried the same genetic markers as Sephardic Jews.

1998 brought a follow-on study (by some of the same researchers) that expanded upon the findings of the Skorecki study. Unfortunately, the only abstract listing online points to a paid registration for Nature articles M.G. Thomas et al., “Origins of Old Testament priests,” Nature, 394:138-40, 1998.

While reasearch is most definitely ongoing, it’s difficult to see how anyone could stand behind such a position given the wealth of evidence that the various Jewish populations have retained such genetic similarity. On another note, while it’s true that just because a position or idea is espoused by a disgusting and hateful group such as Stormfront does not automatically invalidate the idea or position, you might want to make sure to wash your hands afterward and seriously reconsider where you’re getting your pointers.

Ironically, one of the characters in Pynchon’s “The Crying of Lot 49” was named Genghis Cohen. Did Pynchon know something about this debate?

This data on genetic markers is certainly interesting, but one has to be careful about the interpretation. There are at least 2 interpretations:

  1. The Ashkenazim and Sephardim both originated in Israel.

  2. The Sephardim originated in Israel, the Ashkenazim originated somewhere else, but they both have a common ancestor from a third geographic region. For example, it is possible that they had a common ancestor on the Anatolian plateau which then gave rise to migrations to the Middle East and to Southern Russia. This possibility is discussed in a well-balanced discussion here:

I have seen these sorts of genetic analyses (like Rebecca Cann’s analysis of mitochondrial DNA pointing to a common ancestor in Africa, the “Eve” hypothesis) published and they seem to be rock solid and then some other geneticist tears them apart on methodological or statistical grounds. Unfortunately, I am only a biochemist, not a geneticist and I don’t know enough to criticise the hypotheses.

The other problem is how to reconcile the historical data with the genetic data. One possible solution is that the Khazarians represent one of the 10 lost tribes that moved up there and either retained their Jewishness or lost it and regained somehow. But I don’t know the timelines well enough to judge if that is possible.

Even if the European Jews originated in the middle east, I don’t see how that gives them the right to move back there. Move your feet, lose your seat. Palestine was actually an arbitrary choice for a Jewish state; the Brits were going to send them to Madagascar. Uganda and Argentina were other alternate sites. The Madagascar plan was scrapped after Zionist terrorists blew up a ship full of Jews headed for Madagascar, killing about 250 Jews.

History is full of many examples of less than honorable behavior by Zionists, including Zionist collaboration with Nazis. But that should probably be another thread.

I am not anti-semitic (I am pro-Palestinian for example), but I am anti-Zionist and anti-Israel.

I’m not going to debate your other points, partially because I agree with some, and partially because I don’t care about others. But: would you mind demonstrating what makes the Mossad “a global terrorist network” rather than the Israeli intelligence agency?

I’m sure you can dig up some dirt on the Mossad, but then again, so could I about, say, the CIA. What makes the Mossad “terrorist”?

Judging by his previous post, it’s because they’re Israeli.

You’d better have a cite for this.


Damn! Can someone fix the coding glitch here?

First, a word about the genetics, of which I am quite familiar.

The Cohen Modal Haplotype of the Y chromosome is enriched obviously in Kohanim. It is also enriched in other groups, but that is a different story. The actual autosomal genetics of the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim are pretty close to their neighbors. The big distinguishing feature is limited gene pool size leading to allelic enrichment mostly by genetic drift. This is seen in the preponderance of genetic disease in both Ashkenazim and Sephardim. The most famous examples are in Ashkenazim – Tay Sachs and Gaucher Disease, as well as some clotting deficiencies and a whole host of other things. But it exists in Sephardim as well with a few thalassemias and a couple of other diseases. Amongst the non-Cohen Ashkenazim, there are not a lot of mtDNA or Y chromosome markers that would suggest an Asian descent, as you may expect from Khazaria. They look predominantly European in origin, similar to the Neolithic Europeans who colonized most of Europe and different from the Paleolithic and Neolithic waves who moved into Northern Asia. If I remember my Cavalli-Sforza correctly. What this shows is a bunch of interbreeding.

But few people are trying to argue the Jews are a genetically related group of people. I’m pretty sure no scientists are. Jews are related by a shared tradition, so it doesn’t really matter what their genetics are. And the tradition holds Israel holy. That is the founding force behind Zionism.

As far as I know, the British weren’t the ones trying to send the Jews to Madagascar – that was the Nazis. It was scuttled when they found a more convenient solution by “relocating” them to the East. If you can produce a cite for the British and Madagascar, that would be appreciated. Also a second for the Zionists collaborating with the Nazis.

Next, more of a rant.

mystic, you are just the latest of a series of people who I have encountered who talk and talk and talk about Evil Israel, while blindly turning your eye to anything else. You are just one step away from the ZOG and Protocols of Elders of Zion crowd, and that step grows increasingly skinny as one starts talking about the Mossad being behind 9/11 and the like.

You know it is all very well talking about the evils performed at the start of Israel. Sure, every group, every country has unfavorable aspects in their history, and even in their present. Your approach is to overlook or forgive all of the ones except those that occured in Israel. So of course Israel looks like the bad guy. It is the approach that you have used in all of your debates so far – there is only one side to the debate (your one) and all of the other arguments against it are just lies. So lots and lots of talk about the Irgun and the Stern Gang and Deir Yassin and Sabra and Shatilla and the USS Liberty, but of course nothing about the deportation of Jews from Arab countries, the massacres of Jews that occured before 1948 in Israel. Nothing about the PLO in Munich or or Tunis or Beirut or on the Achille Lauro. Nothing about surprise attacks on Israel in 1948 and 1973, or the events leading up to the 1967 war, even though those were a casus belli in every sense of the term.

Ya know, some of the early Zionists were kooks. Some unsavory policies of Zionism were kept around even until recently. But there is very little evidence of Israel recently acting expansionist. They gave back the buffer zone in Lebanon. Many Israelis want out of the territories even if it means acting unilaterally. I’m sure most would be glad to get out if they could be assured that they would not be invaded the day after they withdrew. I don’t agree with Sharon or the settlers. But any other country in a similar circumstance would have acted similarly. I honestly cannot say why Israel is such a lightning rod for ire.

I don’t understand what it means to be anti-Israel. Would you care to tell us? I am pro-Israeli in the same sense that I am pro-American, or pro-French or pro-Jordanian. Israel, the US, France, and Jordan are all countries with millions of citizens who aren’t going away. I am also pro-Palestinian in that I support the right of self-governance. But I can’t support the Palestinians over the Israelis. As you said, move your feet lose your seat. It cuts both ways. So please let us know what you mean by being anti-Israel but pro-Palestinian. Does this mean you would you support an Arab war of extermination against Israel?

Hey Michael Ellis. I see you too are in Location, Location. Perhaps we should organize the first ever Location, Location Dopefest?

Hey Beagle: you’ve got real smooth, silky skin.