This is not generally accepted by Jews or their political opponents. It’s possible, I suppose, but it’s inconsistent with the behavior of the Jewish group before and after the timing of the alleged Khazar conversions.
Of course, that would be strange, but the point is that she’s not “white” – at least not in any politically or biologically relevant sense.
As for Ms. Sontag and her friends, why limit it to thousands? Ms. Sontag is part of a cohesive group numbering in the millions. I’d refer you to Frank Salter’s work here, regarding ethnic nepotism and domination of ethnopolitics by the Jewish group in the US. Though its activities are imperfectly coordinated, the Jewish group possesses the size, resources, and cohesion to dominate the gentile population, which continually encounters the Jewish group as atomized gentile individuals or in small, relatively uncoordinated groups. And, of course, one of the primary functions of the Frankfurt School and its progeny is to ensure that no coalescence into larger groups and no significant within-group coordination will occur.
That’s incorrect. White people created the English language. The concept of race already existed and just needed to be labeled. What Europeans did was circumnavigate the globe and observe and chronicle human biodiversity.
Cites, please.
In 1977, Bonne-Tamir et al. concluded that “not much admixture
has taken place Ashkenazi Jews and their Gentile neighbors during the last 700 years or so.” Bonne-Tamir, B., Ashbel, S., and Kenett, R. (1977). Genetic markers: Benign and normal traits of Ashkenazi Jews. In “Genetic Diseases Among Ashkenazi Jews”, ed. R.M. Goodman & A.G. Motulsky. New York, Raven Press.
Okay – Susan Sontag and her ilk were not the first to use the term “white race”. Before she uttered her infamous quote, “white race” – like any other term – was understood to mean different things to different people. The US Supreme Court once ruled that “Hindus” weren’t “white” and therefore weren’t eligible for citizenship. But enough of that.
Are you asking me to translate from English to English? Either we’re looking for a prescriptive, or “objective”, historically based definition, or we’re looking to divine the subjective meaning – what’s going on in Ms. Sontag’s head. If it’s the former, I say: you speak English – why aren’t you as qualified as I to interpret her statement? If it’s the latter, what’s the point of the reference to the fact that its history predates Ms. Sontag’s existence?
Imagine Hitler saying, “I will exterminate the Jewish race”. You would hold that the onus was on the Jewish group to define its boundaries before you would recognize the legitimacy of defensive actions. That’s bizarre, to say the least.
In 1861, pro-slavery whites secede from the Union. The result is a 4 year long war that kills hundreds of thousands.
After the war is over, President Lincoln is assassinated by a white Southern sympathizer.
Pro-slavery whites engage in an eleven year campaign of terror under a loosely organized group known as the Ku Klux Klan. This terror campaign ends only when the last Northern troops are pulled from the South.
From that time until the forties, large numbers of blacks are lynched, allegedly for various crimes, in violation of habeas corpus and of their right to a fair and speedy trial with representation and the right to face their accusers.
Just a few years ago, in the bloodiest act of terrorism ever at that time, eclipsed only by the later 9/11 attacks, a white man who’d obsessed over The Turner Diaries, an account of a Nazi sympathizer who blew up an FBI building in Washington with a fertilizer bomb, blows up a Federal building in Oklahoma with a fertilizer bomb.
Yup, they’re peaceful for now. But they haven’t always been. Why anyone is talking to these, um, wonderful people is beyond me.
Ignore them. It’s the least they deserve.
I wish like hell we’d all intermarry and get rid of these racial lines and definitions we’ve all been obsessed about for 300 years. ESPECIALLY to get rid of whiteness, which for the most part, IMO, is a non entity. Many historians and scholars of race will conted that white racial identity is solely derrived from what is not the other races in the European schema of looking at things. But then again maybe theyre part of a huge conspiracy, along with the white president, white congress and white supreme court, to deprive whitey of power. Not that whitey couldnt afford to give up a little power, maybe even out the playing field…
You don’t know what you mean by it. Yet you claim to belong to it. You cannot define it without having your whole silly little world of imagined threats and illusory struggles fall apart. Hitler tried to define it as well; the result was round about as confused as the babbling you guys are entertaining. Politically, nationally defined human races that only crystallize under threat from other imagined groups and purported races that don’t exist in any other place than the damaged minds of the neo-Nazis.
It’s all mind ghosts and spooks in the heads of people so afraid to deal with reality that they make up a simplified model for the world and smack some facile labels on it. The really scary part is that these people then somehow manage to go live in this pretend world. If it wasn’t for the fact that their actions still have effect in reality we could just let them exist in there, in the isolation of madness and delusion, but their hateful little regurgitations of lies, half-truths, misinterpretations and idiocy do have effect on other people - nasty dangerous effects.
Hence they need to be fought. Every time their diatribe exceeds the limit for what is legal, every time they open their intellectually parched mouths to spread their opinionated dung, every time they profess to have the Truth, yes every time that neo-Nazism shows its ugly, despicable, hateful, inferiority complex ridden, pimply little ass it needs to be exposed for what it is - a teaching based on lies and delusions that has no benefit to humanity and only sows hatred, intolerance and ultimately death. It is the philosophy of suicidal madmen and murderers.
I’m not – you should see me when I am angry.
Sparc
In her new book, “The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration,” Vanderbilt University professor Carol Swain “infuriates her critics,” says the Chronicle of Higher Education, by arguing “that society should combat white nationalists in part by acknowledging the legitimacy of some of their grievances” specifically by abolishing affirmative action and reducing immigration.
Well, I read the interview and that’s a vast, headline-grabbing oversimplification of her position. She’s making the point that the white nationalists have gotten more sophisticated in their approach, that they’re subtly using widespread American perceptions that Affirmative Action isn’t working and that U.S. immigration policies are stupid, to win people to their racist point of view.
So she’s saying that to counteract this, the government should just go ahead and reevaluate both Affirmative Action and U.S. immigration policies. IMO neither statement is particularly " :eek: " -worthy. People from all parts of the political spectrum agree that Affirmative Action doesn’t always work the way it’s supposed to, and that immigration policies should be looked at.
Tom is probably referring to the black Jews of Africa, like the Lemba and the Ethiopian Jews, among others.
Direct insults are not allowed in the Great Debates forum. If you want to call somebody a “clown,” you’d better make sure they have a job in the circus first.
Some Jews are, yes. Some are European. Some are African. Etc. See, that’s the thing about Judaism – it’s a religion, not a race. So just as some Christians are white and others aren’t, the same is true of Jews.
It is this basic lack of simple understanding on your part (and the other WNs) that show how completely your ideas are based on bigotry rather than anything in the real world.
It seems plausible that the Jews can make themselves a Race, should their religious psychology demand that they consider themselves a People, apart from others. And clearly this is what they believe.
Yossi Klein Halevi, who grew up in an American Orthodox community, notes that the word “shiksa” means “a gentile woman, that nasty Yiddish word implying ‘slut.’” [HALEVI, MEMOIRS, p. 224] When Israeli Ze’ev Chafets married a non-Jewish woman in 1997, he had to face more firmly the institutionalized Jewish racism (and moral double standards) against his new wife:
“Jews who would rather cut off their tongue than say 'nigger ’ or ‘spic’ and consider ‘kike’ and ‘Hymie’ fighting words talk about ‘goyim’ and ‘shiksas’ with blithe indifference. They assume that we can’t be guilty of prejudice because we are all victims … But terms like ‘shiksa’ … no longer sound like charming Yiddishisms to me; they seem like slurs.” [BROWNFELD, p. 85]
JEWISH GENES
DNA Evidence for Common Jewish Origin and Maintenance of the Ancestral Genetic Profile
By Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman
Recently published research in the field of molecular genetics – the study of DNA sequences – indicates that Jewish populations of the various Diaspora communities have retained their genetic identity throughout the exile. Despite large geographic distances between the communities and the passage of thousands of years, far removed Jewish communities share a similar genetic profile. This research confirms the common ancestry and common geographical origin of world Jewry.
Jewish men from communities which developed in the Near East – Iran / Iraq, Kurds, Yemenites, Roman Jews, and Ashkenazim / European Jews – have very similar, almost identical genetic profiles.
“Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.” (M.F. Hammer, Proc. Nat’l Academy of Science, June 9, 2000)
[/quote]
Of course, that would be strange, but the point is that she’s not “white” – at least not in any politically or biologically relevant sense.
[/quote]
You are simply wrong regarding the acceptance of by the Jewish community of people of different ethnic origins. While it has never been a proselytizing religion, Judaism has accepted converts from any group among which it lived–witness the Ethiopian, Indian, and Chinese communities I already noted (to say nothing of the other North African, Mesopotamian, and European communities that were founded between 500 B.C.E. and 200 C.E.) Your reference to Bonne-Tamir does not contradict my assertion in any way. I had actually placed the cut-off almost 300 years earlier. However, 700 years (or 1,000 years) is not sufficient time to set up some new “race” (and would require that the Jews be identified as at least three separate “races” if it were true). As to the evidence of intermarriage at the founder/settler level, see http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/ECON/faculty/curran/ Adobe%20Files/Thomas2002.pdf.
I am not sure where you get the idea that Susan Sontag is, somehow, not “white.” She is certainly self-identified as white and does not appear to have any other barriers to that association. The fact that she is critical of the society in which she lives does not automatically remove her from that society.
As to the Supreme Court: it has also ruled that tomatoes are vegetables. The court is not above politics and cannot be used as a guide for setting scientific or social boundaries except as various political groups want those boundaries established in law–and outside science.
But if you are trying to defend it–and by extension, defend me, since by any definition of the word, my Celtic and Germanic ancestors qualify–I would like to know who is in this group with me. Since I cannot find any objective standard by which Jews would somehow magically be excluded, I am curious to know how you find ways to exclude them.
The concept of race did not always exist. People have understood that “those people over there are different from us” forever. However, the definition of “those people over there” has changed frequently throughout history. The notion that skin color defined actual divisions in humanity is quite recent despite the fact that, say Africans and Europeans, have known of each others’ existences for millennia, (but, by that standard, Jews are white).
However, note that what has been demonstrated is that Jewish male “founders” migrated throughout Europe and the Middle East, but often married women they met when they arrived. To posit a “race” of Jews (other than using the older meaning of “descended from a common legendary ancestor”), we would actually need to posit at least three, and possibly more, separate Jewish “races.”
No, the point of your exercise is to argue semantics and creatively define your words to suit your claim.
The context of El_Kabong’s statement about genocide referred to genocide as allegedly performed by the Jews towards your nebulous “white race”. Are whites being syetematically murdered, by any definition, by Jews, with the intent of destroying the “white race”? No, they are not. No matter how you choose to define “genocide”, it is not occuring against “whites”.
No matter how creatively you choose to define your terms, you cannot justify Halogen’s claim. If you are not attempting to justify that claim, then, it is as I stated before: your “exercise” is nothing more than a semantic tangent, and irrelevant to any discussion in this thread.
It is? Wow. I didn’t realize that you had the inside track to what all Jews believe. Hell, I didn’t realize that all Jews believe the same thing.
Oh, wait. That’s because you’re wrong.
Judaism is a religion. Your little quoted genetic study shows that many people in the religion stay in it for generations and thus the genes are similar. So what? Others leave and new ones come in (lately with more leaving than coming in).
Of course, all of this ignores the post I made several pages ago about how there really aren’t any such thing as “races” in any real genetic sense. But I wouldn’t suppose that Nazis would want to hear that…
I couldnt agree more. Have you ever heard of critical race theory? Its interesting. It starts with the presumption that race is largely a social phenomena, with little basis in physical reality. Race is a thing to be navigated, not so much cut and dry. Ian Haney Lopez wrote an amazing book where he showed that naturalization courts had a hard as .hell time deciding who was white and who wasnt. Armenians were considered white - Syrians not. A convincing argument that Indians of Aryan ancestry were ‘white.’ All these people’s hopes for naturalization rested solely on their ability to prove they were white. Its interesting because a 100 years before these cases only northwestern (Germanic/English/Dutch) Europeans were considered ‘white.’
IT IS ABSURD TO SAY THAT ISRAEL IS NOT A RACIST STATE
BY Charley Reese
It was no surprise that the United States and Israel walked out of a United Nations conference on racism as soon as Israel came in for criticism. It is, however, a disgrace.
Israel certainly is a racist state. Its own human-rights advocates call it that. The claim that Israel doesn’t discriminate against non-Jews is absurd on its face.
Suppose, for example, the U.S. Congress passed a law that said the United States is a Christian, Anglo-Saxon nation and that any Christian, Anglo-Saxon person anywhere in the world is automatically eligible to become a citizen. Do you seriously think the Anti-Defamation League would not have a conniption fit and scream racism? Well, Israel has such a law for Jews.
Thus a Russian Jew, for example, can become a citizen, but a Palestinian driven out of his own country in 1948 cannot return.
“Curious psychological norm”? The “norm” seems to be nothing more than a collection of those people who choose to worship God in a particular way being persecuted, on and off, for some 2,500 years added with the relatives of those people who are still persecuted even though they no longer observe those religious practices.
If one slogs through all the hate literature devoted to Jews, we find that they are controlling all the world’s banking–yet attempting to destroy the economic society on which that banking rests; that they are attempting to destroy some imaginary “white race”–which would bring about their own destruction since >99% of the world’s population recognizes them as “white”; and that they have some secret clannish propensity, aided by their brilliance and deviousnous, for world domination–that they have been unable to carry out despite being one of the few recognizable groups whose history transcends the other empires and societies among which they have lived.
Agis, quoting Charlie Reese around here is going to get you laughed at. He has published articles railing against so many scientific facts that he does not understand, that he is generally regarded as a cranky loon.
As to the content of this particular piece:
Israel was established as a refuge for anyone who was persecuted for having been identified as Jewish. Since the people who have persecuted the Jews throughout the 20th century never distinguished between religiously observant Jews and those whose parents or grandparents might have practiced Judaism, punishing each group as “Jewish,” the rules that Israel established for entry were written to provide a haven to the same persecuted people.
The U.S. should not have similar laws because the U.S. was never established for the same purpose. There are no claims in the writing of the Founding Fathers that this country is (or even should be) established for the preservation of White Anglo-Saxon, Protestant culture. (In fact, several of the leading founders wrote strongly against any inclusion of any religious references in the Constitution or laws.) There is no more reason for people inthe U.S. to criticize the purposes of another country’s founding than there is to criticize them for establishing a parliamentary system in place of a presidential/congressional system.
Agis, the fact of the matter is that you have not shown, in any way, shape, or form, that the majority of Jews consider themselves a race rather than a religion.
Furthermore, reality is not subject to a vote no matter what. Can you convert and become Asian? African-American? No, of course not. Yet you can do so and become a Jew. Judaism is a religion, pure and simple, not a race. And though it apparently makes the Nazis uncomfortable, there are even <gasp> white Jews. Deal with it.