But what if it’s not the ‘brutal racism’ of genocide, but simply the ‘smiling racism’ that typifies Spoke’s arguments? He doesn’t want Jews shot, he just wants to sue Hollywood because there are too many Jewish CEO’s and they must be acting as a clan to harm gentiles. He doesn’t want to have Jews deported, but he’s fine inventing non-facts and using blatantly unsound logic to argue for why any Jew in politics whose opinions differ from his is either a potential conspirator against America or an actual foreign agent working to bring down their own home for the benefit of foreign masters.
What does it matter if there’s a new round of pogroms or if Spoke gets his ways and Jews are, again, treated as “Jews rather than Americans”, just like we were once “Jews rather than Germans” and “Jews rather than Russians” and “Jews rather than …” What does it matter if there’s not a genocide but any Jew who dares enter politics has to be screened for potential Dual Loyalty?
Wolfowitz lived for half a year in Israel when he was nine years old or something, because his dad got a job there and later Wolfy did a bit of consulting work for their government. And this, ecuswbrkt, is reason to consider him having “close ties” to Israel and to watch out lest he be revealed as a part of a ring of traitor Jews or as an actual Israeli agent. And yet, Bill Clinton won a Rhodes Scholarship and studied in Oxford as an adult and then later cooperated with NATO in an actual war, and yet the same folks hunting for Jewish Dual Loyalty didn’t suggest that Clinton was really a pawn of the European elite.
Some Jews happened to advocate for Israel to stand on its own and act militarily without any US aid and without US economic aid, and this is taken as prima facie evidence to search for either a Jewish Conspiracy or actual Israeli agents who then used that plan to get the US to give Israel military and economic aid. The PNAC consisted of some of the most powerful members of the Bush administration, from Rumsfeld to Cheney to Libby, but there were also some Jews on it, so we need to investigate to see if there was a Jewish Conspiracy or if they were actual Israeli agents.
Is it really acceptable if Jews are just subjected to pervasive, disgusting racist nonsense as long as they’re not butchered? Is that going to be the standard? “You can assume that all Mexicans are probably knife-carrying thieves and blacks are lazy layabouts, and you can push for that to be a standard topic of conversation with those who object subjected to character assassination… but as long as you don’t hit them it’s okay.”
-
That doesn’t follow at all. If no-genocide, then someone like Spoke who reliably and repeatably uses racist arguments with obvious bullshit logic and which are based either on mere innuendo or outright fiction… then we can’t object? If, when those errors are pointed out that person, like Spoke, can’t ever seen to address let alone retract them, and instead personally attacks those who note the flaws in his arguments, we can’t point out what’s going on? Do we offer the same leeway to other crusaders against “Jewish Supremacism”, like David Duke? Why not?
-
We can never be objectively at a state where there is virtually no doubt as to someone’s views. Never. Look at this thread. Spoke alleged that a suggestion of cultural influence that caused disproportionate success in limited areas was a claim of innate Jewish superiority in all areas always and thus an example of “Jewish Supremacism” and yet, maybe Spoke just refused to actually read what was said. Maybe he didn’t kneejerk from the facts that were actually written to an old racist trope about a Jewish superiority complex, what with them calling themselves Chosen and such. Maybe it was just a strange accident and the reason he won’t retract his claims which he maintained even after his “sorry I called you a faggot” apology has nothing to do with racism… but who knows and who cares? Who knows what his views are? Hell, I honestly believe that David Duke really believes he’s not a racist, just that he too is a valiant crusader against Jewish Supremacism, also unfairly criticized for his honest views.
Just like some of my in-laws really didn’t think they were racists but saw a huge problem when their white granddaughter married a black man.
We can never win the “Guess what’s in my heart!” game. That’s why people who say racist stuff so often are almost guaranteed to use it, extensively.
But we can be pretty safe in saying that someone who reliably and repeatedly says racist things is using arguments that should be unacceptable even if that person believes that their fight against whatever race/ethnicity/group is justified.
If there was evidence for it, it wouldn’t be racist ranting about the Clannish Jews who control Hollywood. Spoke can no more retract it than he can even properly address it. The topic of conversation has to be changed or the facts have to be handwaved away (a list of Jews in Hollywood is proof of yet more American Jew traitors hurting gentiles and if there was such a list of British Jews in their movie industry it would be proof that there’s no such Clan operating in America. What, there is the same kind of list of Jews in Britain’s film industry? Can’t see how that’s relevant…)
As for why 5 has to be an “open question”, because Spoke can’t support his racist ramblings with facts. Jews in American government have to be subjected to Loyalty Probes because they worry Spoke. Jews in Hollywood need to be sued because they might just be Clanning up to fuck with gentiles. It isn’t the facts that govern it, it’s finding a way to combat the grave menace of Jewish Supremacism.
Spoke is, ironically, engaging in the Johnson school of mudslinging that he tells us is so horrible. We don’t need to prove that Jews are potential conspirators against America if they’re in government, or outright foreign agents. We don’t need to prove that Jews are a nasty Clan who are fucking over gentiles who try to get into the media (which Jews largely control). We’ve just got to make those Ky… good American citizens deny it. We’ve just got to make “American Jews: threat or menace?” the perpetual topic of conversation and allege that any Jew that doesn’t want to play along is a crazy paranoid weirdo. It’s not the facts that are important, it’s the innuendo because facts can be rebutted but innuendo never can be.
To properly challenge those (not necessarily but potentially) nefarious Jews, we don’t have to prove that they’re doing anything wrong at all. But if we keep up enough innuendo, treat them as foreigners in our midst, subject them to double standards, fabricated ‘reasoning’ and a constant barrage of insinuation and innuendo, then the job is done. Don’t prove that Jews are traitors, just continually make Jews prove that they really are loyal Americans.
Guess I shouldn’t buy that lottery ticket yet.
Care to explain how your own words are now an unsubstantiated claim? Of course you don’t, but can you amuse me at some point and give it the ol college try? Can you explain how your baseless racist rantings that you can’t and won’t offer solid logic for, let alone proof, put you “ahead in the polls” and how quoting your own words is dastardly character assassination?
Of course not. If people saying silly racist things could defend them, they would be making good arguments and not spewing racism.
Good try though. What’re you going to try to change the subject to next, and/or how are you going to avoid addressing your many odd (yet convenient!) honest mistakes? Do we get another Scientologist-Attack bit about how quoting your own words and asking you to address the glaring errors in your racist rantings just shows how much the person who’s pointed that out really has to hide.
Am I Fair Game now, Spoke?
And just to remind you, not that I expect you to answer because people who say racist things can’t defend them and have to change the subject when called on it:
have you figured out yet how you happened to make the mistake that limited cultural factors that produced relative increased success in a limited number of fields was really a claim of innate superiority that extended to absolutely everything? Ya know, while you were hunting for Jewish supremacists (a phrase which you totally invented on your own)?
I believe this is the point where you launch another impotent bit of character assassination and allege that by quoting your own words and showing what you yourself said, I’m being a meany.
Do I buy that lottery ticket yet?
