Did Pres. Obama throw Israel under the bus?

I think Jimmy Carter is the man you want

Zbigniew Brzezinski:
How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quoted from Bells replying to GeoffP:

See for me, I have no problem whatsoever with someone pointing out the deficiencies of restrictive cultural inbreeding. For me, this criticism only becomes an offensive issue when the criticism is targeted at a specific demographic as a means of uniformly dehumanizing the entire group, and when it's applied as if the peoples being criticized were somehow an exception in the region.

Not only is it offensive and dehumanizing, but it's outright hypocritical. Considering how often S.A.M. has attempted to connect the modern Palestinians to ancient inhabitants on the same land, and the population statistics for the people living on those lands at various points in history, the rate of Palestinian population growth over the last two centuries and their post-1948 isolation from the rest of the Arab world to "preserve their distinctness"... not a good idea to be talking about Jewish settlers and their breeding practices.

BTW on the subject of interbreeding, IMO a wise Israeli government would be happy to take in African immigrants, diversify the gene pool, and promote Jewish culture and friendship throughout the African continent. It's really sad to see them turning their backs on so many peoples who look up to them and have so much in common.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Which group is that?

This group?

So according to you, demonstrating evidence of indigenous peoples is equal to inbreeding by race?

What do you think of this law in the ONLY democrazy in the Middle East?

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/not-jewish-enough-to-marry-a-cohen-1.150715

Or this one?

You understand that this is State Law, not individual opinion?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So do you think I misunderstood you that you were calling Jewish West Bank settlers inbreds who should breed themselves out of existence? Are you only saying that some of them are inbred, or that some of them have a desire to inbreed, or are you constructing some kind of abstract bogeyman description which only applies to a portion of them? The ontologically parsimonious interpretation of your claim is that the Jewish settlers (and possibly all Israeli Ashkenazi Jews) are inbreds who deserve to become extinct.

First of all, I wouldn't call anything you've provided to date "demonstrative", just like no one has yet demonstrated that an important Hebrew leader named Moses ever existed. Secondly yes, if you want to claim the Palestinians are almost uniformly indigenous to the land, then I'd like to know how their population multiplied something like 1000X over the last two centuries without mass inbreeding.

 

Actually, the settlers call themselves inbred [see not Jewish enough to marry a Cohen] since they consider themselves belonging to a 3000 year [or variously, 2000, 4000, 5000 etc] year old tribe and by their own religious tradition, this entitles them to the Law of Return. So yeah I consider such morons as perfect depictions of inbreeding.

I recommend you read Righteous Victims by Benny Morris to alleviate all residual effects of ziocaine hasbara. I also recommend you look up both, the term indigenous and the term inbreeding for clarity of comprehension.


Let me help you:

Indigenous peoples, or Natives, are ethnic groups who are native to a land or region, especially before the arrival and intrusion of a foreign and possibly dominating culture. They are a group of people whose members share a cultural identity that has been shaped by their geographical region. A variety of names are used in various countries to identify such groups of people, but they generally are regarded as the "original inhabitants" of a territory or region. Their right to self-determination may be materially affected by the later-arriving ethnic groups

Inbreeding is the reproduction from the mating of two genetically related parents, which can increase the chances of offspring being affected by recessive or deleterious traits. This generally leads to a decreased fitness of a population, which is called inbreeding depression. Deleterious alleles causing inbreeding depression can subsequently be removed through culling, which is also known as genetic purging.

 

You seem to have trouble distinguishing a culture's alleged desire to inbreed (insofar as a population of millions marrying amongst its own is considered inbreeding), in comparison to their actual genetic roots. You didn't say they want to inbreed, you said they're already a pack of subhuman inbreds as is. If it was meant as some kind of totally off-the-wall joke, I missed the subtlety.

 

Thats pretty obvious, I think.

What do you think of people being considered not Jewish enough or half Jewish, or not Jewish without documented lineage of Jewishness [which term, it must be clearly stated is as clear as Israel's borders] as an example of culture? Do you consider the delineation of people along a continuum of Jewishness in order to qualify for a Jewish marriage as an example of Jewish culture? Perhaps you could define for us the various grades of Jewishness and what their cultural rights are as Jews in a Jewish state? What are your opinions of these settler zombies who have an inalienable right to demolish Palestinian homes due to their purported biblical DNA but are not qualified for Cohenism due to a genetic recessiveness inherited from non-Jews?



'Gentile sperm leads to barbaric offspring' [to the tune of Every Jewish Sperm is Sacred]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4006385,00.html

This guy [Dov Lior] is currently making great waves in Israel:

I think I prefer Geoff's terminology for this one - illiberal freaks although Atzmon's psychotic collective is also pretty articulate.

 

I think any sort of preferential treatment based on bloodlines is absolutely pathetic and doomed to fail from its own stupidity, although it's every person's right to discriminate when it comes to marriage and friendship, however tasteless it might be. That's not the problem here. The problem is that in your earlier posts about Jewish inbreeding, I couldn't detect any attempt to distinguish one Jew from another or one settler from another. You basically said the settlers, as an entire ethnicity/demographic, are a pack of inbreds deserving of extinction. If someone said that about Palestinians, I'd expect to see them heavily scolded by certain moderators, likely accompanied by disciplinary actions, and I don't see why you should be treated any differently when you refuse to even acknowledge your lapse in judgment.

 

Stopped clocks

And your condemnations of the entirety of Indonesian society may now begin. Go slow at first. Take your time. You don't want to exhaust yourself in invective too quickly.

That's inbreeding, not interbreeding; and I was pointing out Sam's salivation via the use of irony. See, Bells, I didn't raise the issue: small difference in some quarters, I know, I know. But the ironic thing is that I don't agree with legal discrimination in any format...while you and Sam have a curious blind spot in some areas. Or perhaps a curious focus that the rest of us lack. Either way, it's baby stew. You certainly showed up quick to the thread, too, Bells. I suppose a little bird must have told you. :shrug:

Again, that's inbreeding. I do agree with your perspective in the first part of that paragraph, and also with your condemnation of Sam in the latter part of the paragraph. Sam, how do you respond to Bells' accusation? Bells is describing your comments as 'obscene'. I agree, naturally (and to which I add the deficiencies of your historical narrative, as usual), but I think you should give us both some kind of meaningful response.

Quite so: and this is where rationalism is in this discussion. I don't expect a ton more of it in the thread.

 

Listen Hilda Ogden, put your broom down and take the fag out of your mouth for a moment and pay attention. Sam didn't speak of nor refer to how terrible it is that there are countries which prohibits or discourages inter-religious marriages, Israel being one of them. She posted a link with the headline "5000 years of inbreeding leads to -----> Settler Zombies! Sasquatch has nothing on this guy!"

And then, in the usual erudite fashion that accompanies any of her characterizations of jews, she went on to state "I find most tribal mentalities support inbreeding - its also a typical meme of racists who want to avoid interracial marriages for reasons of bad blood. In my opinion, they should be encouraged so they can be bred out of existence. They are their own worst enemies."

If you were worth your salt you would see I was MOCKING her with the laws of Indonesia after the idiotic little statement she made over those 'inbreeders' in Israel. Notice how she rarely makes vitriolic rants or mocking comments towards what goes on in the muslim world? Oh wait...no...its always zee jews. I mean seriously doesn't this make Indonesians, BY HER OWN ACCOUNT, racists that should be encouraged to be bred out of existence? There own worst enemies and all?

Do you support that? I mean I know you have a thing about all those 'protected species' but on what racist planet do you live on that its cool to encourage a group to be 'bred out of existence' and then shroud it as intellectualism which is EXACTLY what David Duke does? But that's not what was really funny about the comment. What really is the kicker is that you can go to South Korea, Japan, hell not even that far, you can just check out the Amish, Amazon tribes etc and you will find that they are mostly groups that 'marry each other' meaning within their racial religious groups and frown on any union outside of that. So I guess we should look at them as all racists who for reasons of 'bad blood' disapproves of inter-religious or inter-racial unions and of course be bred out of existence. She actually means -inter-religious but in her glee to have them 'bred out of existence' she forgot that it was her muslim brothers in Indonesia who INSISTED that this be a part of their law. THAT is the reality in Indonesia!!! Think she would have cocked a smile if someone here had made the same assertion of muslims in Indonesia? But since its just a bunch of jews I guess its....

Meanwhile Willnever has his thread 'Who still thinks all cultures deserves respect?' shut down because he went on a rant over the Chinese abuse of small kittties, which culminated in this statement from Tiassa:

"You're a bit late on that one, Will. It was September, 2009, when we had a big brouhaha because one of our Muslim members was "anti-American" and a "bigot" for asking the same sorts of questions about America that Americans were discussing. I've tolerated this clearly disingenous thread largely because I wanted to give the topic poster—i.e., you—a chance to prove that this wasn't a bunch of racist tripe. Perhaps, Will, you thought you were executing some brilliant artistic statement. If that's the case, you absolutely failed. Meanwhile, your dedication has established you as someone who has some fundamental problem with Asians, especially the Chinese. Deal with it on your own time, because we're not going to be hosting that kind of ethnic hatred at Sciforums."

So either you believe Sam is engaging in some 'brilliant artistic statement' (I guess that's a euphemism for 'performance art') or you think she is positing some intellectually objective argument, 'Sasquatch' references and all! Who the fuck are you kidding!!!

The way I see it you're the one carrying on like a RETARD. You can take that mod hat out of your ass now.

Or as Sam instructed "Take what you want and pay for it"

Think she's not salivating at the idea of the destruction of Israel? Maybe you should instruct her to "be careful of what she wishes for". You're a bloody hypocrite!!

 

Let me put it this way - could you point out which one of the zombie settlers does not believe their biblical DNA and direct descendence from the Biblical tribes gives them an inalienable right to settle in Palestine via the law of Jews ONLY "Return"?

Also what is your opinion of such genetic estate leases based on mythical pacts?

Thats fine, she is entitled to her opinion. Note that I am a firm believer in giving people what they want. If people want to be inbred, thats their prerogative, if they want to be racists and inspect the bloodlines of people like horses and cows to ensure racial purity, thats also fine. The advantage to the rational world is that inbreeding is self selective for extinction so racists lend themselves to extinction by their own choices.

This makes everyone happy. The racists are happy they are only marrying pure bloods and everyone else is happy because they are freed from the racists

 

It was not a lack of judgement, she would never apologize for something she actually believes. And as far as her being treated differently like the forum token you can't blame her for that. Look to the ones wearing the funny hats.

 

Don't correct her she's a lawyer

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No I don't. I mean "inbred" as in marrying related individuals by virtue of tracing maternal or paternal descent to be racially acceptable due to being descended from a common ancestor.

When Dov Lior says "gentile sperm leads to barbaric offspring" he's not referring to theistic beliefs. When someone is rejected as not Jewish enough for a Jewish marriage because of who their parents are or are not, its not about religious belief.

 

Actually 'gentile sperm' DOES refer to theistic beliefs. It refers to non-jews, so its both racial and religious.

 

Can you identify the difference between the religious beliefs of gentile and non-gentile sperm for me?

Never mind. You can see it as difference in religious beliefs but when Jews have to provide written proof of Jewish lineage before being allowed to marry, I consider it as racism. They don't care what the beliefs of the person are [viz atheist Jews] they only care that the breeding is kept within the tribe or the marriage is not religiously sanctioned and the nationality of the person as a Jew is affected. Even if the person is a halachic Jew, if his father is not a Jew, it puts a restriction on certain marriages between Jews! Its a kind of religious racism.

 

No different from Koreans insisting that their children marry other Koreans (not chinese, not japanese, koreans) and ostracizing the children from inter-racial marriages (same with the japanese). Or the Amish only marrying those from their clan. Or muslims in Indonesia dictating one marry within ones religion. And when have religious muslims married jewish women and allowed them to raise their children as jews or not force them to convert? Your view on this is myopic.

Personally I find it more rude to dictate by law than by culture, meaning that it is entirely normal to marry within your group especially if you are religious. How else can you ensure the continuity of traditions? You will either force the other person to convert or you will have difficulty living within the conventions of your religious culture.

If its racist then the entire globe is predominantly racist, not just jews.

 

I don't think that is a correct analogy. They are all Jews - good enough for the law of "return" - but when it comes to marriage they need documented evidence that their mother or grandmother was Jewish and in some cases, the father too [for marriage to a Cohen].

In your Indonesian analogy, it would be Muslims in Indonesia needing to provide documented proof that their mother or father or grandmother or grandfather is a Muslim before they can be legally married to another Muslim.

I think that situation - where you have to prove religious lineage going back generations for a legal marriage - is not present anywhere else.

 

So what Sam? Women who wanted to marry the British Royals used to have to prove they were of good lineage and a virgin and a christian but not catholic and most decidedly caucasian, many Amish cannot marry for just any Amish clan but their specific clan which is equivalent to showing proof that ones grandmother and grandfather were also of that same clan.

It looks as if you are searching for any reason to make it seem as if this is unique to jews and its not. Most jews don't even hold this as a criteria for marriage. You are taking a minority and using it to judge the whole group, just like some use muslim radicals to cast aspersions on the all muslims.

Look at Syria, you say its not present anywhere else but it is:


Because of the cohesiveness of religious and ethnic groups, they universally encourage endogamy, or the marriage of members within the group. Lineages, or groups of families tracing descent to a common ancestor, also strive for endogamy, although this is in fact less common, despite its theoretical desirability. Viewed as a practical bond between families, marriage often has political and economic overtones even among the poor.

http://countrystudies.us/syria/29.htm

And...

Famous examples of strictly endogamous religious groups have been the Arab Christians in Middle East, Assyrians, Jews, Yazidi in Northern Iraq also the Mandaeans (early Christians and followers of John the Baptist) in Southern Iraq (all under Islamic majority), Turkmens and Armenians in Iran, Old Order Amish, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Memons muslims, and the Parsi of India (a non-Hindu minority in India).

The caste system in India is based on an order of (predominantly) endogamous groups. Its formation has been suggested to have originated from the social organization of these groups.

Islam, although against ethnic endogamy, typically enforces a limited form of religious endogamy. Muslim men may take wives from Christian and Jewish populations but MUSLIM WOMEN ARE NORMALLY FORBIDDEN TO MARRY OUTSIDE OF THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY.

This rule complements the rule of Islamic law presuming that if a child is too young to be accountable in his own right for his decisions regarding religious practice, his religion (or at least his outwardly exhibited one, given the tenet that all humans are born with knowledge of Islam's truth) is that of his father: Because the latter rule implies that Islam gains followers in the next generation if a Muslim man marries a non-Muslim woman but loses them if a
Muslim woman marries a non-Muslim man, the former rule represents a safeguard against the reduction of the Muslim population through exogamy.

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

 

That would only work is racism were itself a genetically-heritable trait. It is not. Indeed, if your theory there actually worked, racism would have disappeared millenia ago.

As it is, all you've got there is a smug little bit of racism - calling the Jews inbred - topped with a pat embrace of pseudoscience. Pathetic.