Jews and Antisemites

[Esmeralda]

LMAO

Everyone who disagreed with Abu Fuckface in his thread was a troll! LOL That's a perfect example of his ability to think intelligently.

 

[BDBoop]

People on the left want to believe that in a nation as rich as this one, we should eradicate as much suffering as possible.

 

[abu afak]

All your concerns have been addressed in various ways by IQ researchers who are, of course, aware of test biases.
The Gaps persist despite culture, geography, income, etc.
I addressed all of that in this string:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-...rences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic.html
despite idiotic and trolling opponents.
Thankfully it was closed, regrettably it had to be.
An active 10 day run tho.
`

That was an interesting thread. Why was it closed? I wanted to contribute to it.

A lot of people, even people on the right, do not want to recognize the importance of being born with lots of high IQ genes.

People on the right want to believe that wealth is the reward for virtuous living. They want to convince others of that if they are rich. They want to believe it if they are not rich. They do not want to think that something over which they have no control will keep them from achieving their aspirations.

People on the left want to believe that social reform and social welfare spending can end poverty and racial inequality.

Are the both of you aware that you are essentially exxpounding the theories of Adolph Hitler
before J.D. Watson, Francis Crick, and Rosalind Franklin came down the pike and gave to us a genetic model that opened up the field.

Umm... Baby!
So Wrong and So Ironic!

1. Adolph Hitler Banned IQ tests because (Drum Roll), they Ruined his theory that Aryans were superior. Jews scored higher; Before, during, and Now/still.
It's DENYING the Truth that's Nazi.
It's Truth that defeats Nazis on the Right or LEFT.
Esmearalda and You are LEFTIST Brown-Shirts attempting to shout down truth.

2. James Watson got in trouble for telling that very truth.
How Frigging Ironic is it that you mention him... too!
I pointed this out in that previous string:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-...ge-iq-are-largely-genetic-10.html#post8235892

James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences
Gene Expression: James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences

[.......]
It's difficult to name many more important living figures in 20th century biology than James Watson. He ushered in the current age of molecular biology with his achievements in 1953, he built up one of the world's greatest biological research facilities from damn near scratch, and he is a former head of the Human Genome Project.

Given such an august curriculum vitae, you would think that this man perhaps understands just a few things about genetics. But given only the condescending media coverage, you'd think this eminent geneticist was somehow "out of his depth" on this one.

In his interview with the Times on Oct. 14th, we learned that:

... [Watson] is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says Not really", and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address.​

These thoughts were a continuation of an important theme in his new book 'Avoid Boring People':

... "there is No firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved Identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will Not be enough to make it so."​

Although Watson's book had already been out for a month with these more euphemistic, but still obvious, comments on race and intelligence, no one expressed any outrage. In fact the reviews were reverential and universally positive.

The explicit reference to intelligence and people of African heritage in his interview was clearly a violation of a much more formidable taboo. Still I am not aware of there being much noise about it until Oct. 17th when the Independent caused an immediate stir by calling attention to the remarks: Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners - Science - News - The Independent

There's no point in rehashing the rapid sequence of events in detail: several of Watson's sold-out speaking engagements were cancelled, many critical articles appeared in the British press, trailed by the American press a few days later, hundreds of blogs were fuming with negative commentary, including ones by the editors of Scientific American and Wired Magazine, a number of associations issued statements condemning his words, and soon he was suspended from his chancellorship at Cold Spring Harbor. Watson cancelled his already ruined book tour and flew home to tend to the Destruction. It was too late; the Eminent biologist retired in Disgrace on Oct. 26th.

One thing, though, was Conspicuously missing from this whole irritating denouement: any semblance of Factual refutation. There is good reason for this: Everything Watson got in trouble for saying was entirely correct!
[........]

You Ignorant Foul-mouthed Leftist Nazis can't compete on truth.
ALL the issues your are weakly bringing up WERE tackled/shot down in the other string.
Esmearalda is especially bad and could NOT answer me in that string after I straightened her Dumb ass out.
Nonetheless, the PC Bimbo has the gall to continue bad-mouthing.
`

 

[Delta4Embassy]

US could reduce suffering by simply not inflicting it any more. Much of why the middle east is unstable is of our own doing. We installed leaders who then subjugated their citizens, the citizens looked at who installed their masters and hey look, it's the Americans.

There are numerous legitimate grievances against the US by the Arab world. They didn't all wake up one morning and arbitraily take us on, they were provoked.

 

[dreolin]

That was an interesting thread. Why was it closed? I wanted to contribute to it.

A lot of people, even people on the right, do not want to recognize the importance of being born with lots of high IQ genes.

People on the right want to believe that wealth is the reward for virtuous living. They want to convince others of that if they are rich. They want to believe it if they are not rich. They do not want to think that something over which they have no control will keep them from achieving their aspirations.

People on the left want to believe that social reform and social welfare spending can end poverty and racial inequality.

Are the both of you aware that you are essentially exxpounding the theories of Adolph Hitler
before J.D. Watson, Francis Crick, and Rosalind Franklin came down the pike and gave to us a genetic model that opened up the field.

Umm... Baby!
So Wrong and So Ironic!

1. Adolph Hitler Banned IQ tests because (Drum Roll), they Ruined his theory that Aryans were superior. Jews scored higher; Before, during, and Now/still.
It's DENYING the Truth that's Nazi.
It's Truth that defeats Nazis on the Right or LEFT.
Esmearalda and You are LEFTIST Brown-Shirts attempting to shout down truth.

2. James Watson got in trouble for telling that very truth.
How Frigging Ironic is it that you mention him... too!
I pointed this out in that previous string:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-...ge-iq-are-largely-genetic-10.html#post8235892

James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences
Gene Expression: James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences

[.......]
It's difficult to name many more important living figures in 20th century biology than James Watson. He ushered in the current age of molecular biology with his achievements in 1953, he built up one of the world's greatest biological research facilities from damn near scratch, and he is a former head of the Human Genome Project.

Given such an august curriculum vitae, you would think that this man perhaps understands just a few things about genetics. But given only the condescending media coverage, you'd think this eminent geneticist was somehow "out of his depth" on this one.

In his interview with the Times on Oct. 14th, we learned that:

... [Watson] is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says Not really", and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address.​

These thoughts were a continuation of an important theme in his new book 'Avoid Boring People':

... "there is No firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved Identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will Not be enough to make it so."​

Although Watson's book had already been out for a month with these more euphemistic, but still obvious, comments on race and intelligence, no one expressed any outrage. In fact the reviews were reverential and universally positive.

The explicit reference to intelligence and people of African heritage in his interview was clearly a violation of a much more formidable taboo. Still I am not aware of there being much noise about it until Oct. 17th when the Independent caused an immediate stir by calling attention to the remarks: Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners - Science - News - The Independent

There's no point in rehashing the rapid sequence of events in detail: several of Watson's sold-out speaking engagements were cancelled, many critical articles appeared in the British press, trailed by the American press a few days later, hundreds of blogs were fuming with negative commentary, including ones by the editors of Scientific American and Wired Magazine, a number of associations issued statements condemning his words, and soon he was suspended from his chancellorship at Cold Spring Harbor. Watson cancelled his already ruined book tour and flew home to tend to the Destruction. It was too late; the Eminent biologist retired in Disgrace on Oct. 26th.

One thing, though, was Conspicuously missing from this whole irritating denouement: any semblance of Factual refutation. There is good reason for this: Everything Watson got in trouble for saying was entirely correct!
[........]

You Ignorant Foul-mouthed Leftist Nazis can't compete on truth.
ALL the issues your are weakly bringing up WERE tackled/shot down in the other string.
Esmearalda is especially bad and could NOT answer me in that string after I straightened her Dumb ass out.
Nonetheless, the PC Bimbo has the gall to continue bad-mouthing.
`

Perhaps you should learn to read more critically. I said that those who relegate greater or lesser intelligence to a people based upon their race espoused the same views as Hitler did, although he did it without the genetic model of Watson, Crick, and Franklin. I was not speaking specifically about Watson, Crick, and Franklin. They were molecular biologists, not geneticists.

You are misusing that model as there many environmental and genetic factors that influence intelligence. If I recall correctly, only one gene has been linked to intelloigence and that has a minimal effect, increasing IQ by only slightly more than 1 point and it is not "racially" linked. it also has a slight efect on the height of individuals which perhaps, to you, would mean tall people are smarter than short people.

If you need a refutation, I will give you this. Watson is an outstanding hard scientist but he strayed out of that realm into vague social commentary about an imprecise science that is given to wide interpretation. Intelligence tests are subjective evaluations of an uncontrolled population and affected by many factors and as a hard scientist, I am sure he would recognize the inherent flaws of human intelligence tests. Furthermore, if there is a differce in the many genes that govern intelligence, that really only equates to a difference, and not necessarily a "better" or "worse", a "more" or "less".

I do know one thing for sure about intelligence. I am smart enough to know that no matter what I say or what evidence I supply that you are too stupid to change your mind. I am intelligent enough to know that you form conclusions and then seek evidence to support those conclusions rather than carefully consider the wealth of evidential research, weighing carefully the objectivity or subjectivity of that reasearch, and then drawing your own conclusion.

You are willing to let other people do your thinking for you, which is entirely appropriate and evident from your choice of a screen name in conjunction with your sig line.

I am not particularly foul mouthed and being ignorant is a ccondition of human nature, although some of us are less so than others. What state has the eastern most point?

If somehow it soothes your delicate ego to imagine jews are a superior race because they have a greater intelligence, far be it from me to interrupt your fantasies anymore than I have already. Enjoy your HGMA2 with my blessing.

 

[Iceman]

If intelligence is due to environmental variation, than homosexuality must be as well, right?

 

[abu afak]

Are the both of you aware that you are essentially exxpounding the theories of Adolph Hitler
before J.D. Watson, Francis Crick, and Rosalind Franklin came down the pike and gave to us a genetic model that opened up the field.

Umm... Baby!
So Wrong and So Ironic!

1. Adolph Hitler Banned IQ tests because (Drum Roll), they Ruined his theory that Aryans were superior. Jews scored higher; Before, during, and Now/still.
It's DENYING the Truth that's Nazi.
It's Truth that defeats Nazis on the Right or LEFT.
Esmearalda and You are LEFTIST Brown-Shirts attempting to shout down truth.

2. James Watson got in trouble for telling that very truth.
How Frigging Ironic is it that you mention him... too!
I pointed this out in that previous string:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-...ge-iq-are-largely-genetic-10.html#post8235892

James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences
Gene Expression: James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences

[.......]
It's difficult to name many more important living figures in 20th century biology than James Watson. He ushered in the current age of molecular biology with his achievements in 1953, he built up one of the world's greatest biological research facilities from damn near scratch, and he is a former head of the Human Genome Project.

Given such an august curriculum vitae, you would think that this man perhaps understands just a few things about genetics. But given only the condescending media coverage, you'd think this eminent geneticist was somehow "out of his depth" on this one.

In his interview with the Times on Oct. 14th, we learned that:

... [Watson] is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says Not really", and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address.​

These thoughts were a continuation of an important theme in his new book 'Avoid Boring People':

... "there is No firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved Identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will Not be enough to make it so."​

Although Watson's book had already been out for a month with these more euphemistic, but still obvious, comments on race and intelligence, no one expressed any outrage. In fact the reviews were reverential and universally positive.

The explicit reference to intelligence and people of African heritage in his interview was clearly a violation of a much more formidable taboo. Still I am not aware of there being much noise about it until Oct. 17th when the Independent caused an immediate stir by calling attention to the remarks: Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners - Science - News - The Independent

There's no point in rehashing the rapid sequence of events in detail: several of Watson's sold-out speaking engagements were cancelled, many critical articles appeared in the British press, trailed by the American press a few days later, hundreds of blogs were fuming with negative commentary, including ones by the editors of Scientific American and Wired Magazine, a number of associations issued statements condemning his words, and soon he was suspended from his chancellorship at Cold Spring Harbor. Watson cancelled his already ruined book tour and flew home to tend to the Destruction. It was too late; the Eminent biologist retired in Disgrace on Oct. 26th.

One thing, though, was Conspicuously missing from this whole irritating denouement: any semblance of Factual refutation. There is good reason for this: Everything Watson got in trouble for saying was entirely correct!
[........]

You Ignorant Foul-mouthed Leftist Nazis can't compete on truth.
ALL the issues your are weakly bringing up WERE tackled/shot down in the other string.
Esmearalda is especially bad and could NOT answer me in that string after I straightened her Dumb ass out.
Nonetheless, the PC Bimbo has the gall to continue bad-mouthing.
`

Perhaps you should learn to read more critically. I said that those who relegate greater or lesser intelligence to a people based upon their race espoused the same views as Hitler did, although he did it without the genetic model of Watson, Crick, and Franklin. I was not speaking specifically about Watson, Crick, and Franklin. They were molecular biologists, not geneticists.

Yes and because I AM knowlegable in the topic, I was glad to point out Watson's view.
The two sciences are Not unrelated.

You are misusing that model as there many environmental and genetic factors that influence intelligence. If I recall correctly, only one gene has been linked to intelloigence and that has a minimal effect, increasing IQ by only slightly more than 1 point and it is not "racially" linked. it also has a slight efect on the height of individuals which perhaps, to you, would mean tall people are smarter than short people.

Close but No cigar.
The Gene is for Skull/head size not height.
And it is the only gene SO FAR; it's discoverers (the largest team ever assembled to study the brain) "expect Many more".
IQ is also app 75% Heritable. (see Wiki IQ heritability)
You really need a primer to even be in this debate.
As I said, it's All covered in the string I linked to above.

If you need a refutation, I will give you this. Watson is an outstanding hard scientist but he strayed out of that realm into vague social commentary about an imprecise science that is given to wide interpretation. Intelligence tests are subjective evaluations of an uncontrolled population and affected by many factors and as a hard scientist, I am sure he would recognize the inherent flaws of human intelligence tests. Furthermore, if there is a differce in the many genes that govern intelligence, that really only equates to a difference, and not necessarily a "better" or "worse", a "more" or "less".

That's not a 'refutation' that's vague apologetics.

I do know one thing for sure about intelligence. I am smart enough to know that no matter what I say or what evidence I supply that you are too stupid to change your mind. I am intelligent enough to know that you form conclusions and then seek evidence to support those conclusions rather than carefully consider the wealth of evidential research, weighing carefully the objectivity or subjectivity of that reasearch, and then drawing your own conclusion.

I am fully open to change my mind.
Of course, my side has Overwhelming Data, the other side Nothing but apologetics/Poor apologetics. It's laughable to watch the PC excuses.

IQ researchers have, OF COURSE, adjusted for socio-economic/environmental factors... Right down to Trans-racial adoption studies.
Guess what? It still holds true.
See the other string again PLEASE: At last the OP:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-...rences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic.html

You are willing to let other people do your thinking for you, which is entirely appropriate and evident from your choice of a screen name in conjunction with your sig line.

Idiotic assumption without Merit.
What's clear from this 'debate' is I DO know what I'm talking about and have researched the topic. You're wingin in on pure BS.
And Of course, If I merely posted my opinion, you'd accuse of doing just that...
If I post a sources/sources, I'm "letting other people do my thinking for me".
"Heads I win, Tails you lose" Fallacy.
:^)

I am not particularly foul mouthed and being ignorant is a ccondition of human nature, although some of us are less so than others. What state has the eastern most point?

What a silly question in trying to determine ignorance. These days, even goofs can Google a snippet like that in seconds. (Maine or Alaska depending on Mainland/continental or not. DUH)

If somehow it soothes your delicate ego to imagine jews are a superior race because they have a greater intelligence, far be it from me to interrupt your fantasies anymore than I have already. Enjoy your HGMA2 with my blessing.

Strawman Alert!
No one claimed "racial superiority'.
There are however Clearly "relative advantages" of different groups.
Genetics is going to make that more evident every year.

You think the overwhelming composition of the NBA or Marathon (East African) winners is some fluke? That they practice, train or eat better, than Euros who would love to be in/win same?

Someone (liberal Slate Mag writer actually) coined it "liberal creationism".
That is, just as creationists don't believe in evolution, liberals like to think evolution just stopped with the first Sapien. Denial.
It really comes down to that you know.. believing evolution just stopped. [Only] The human Species Don't/didn't evolve further 100,000/50,000/10,000 years ago.

It makes NO sense at all that races did NOT evolve relative advantages for their respective geographic Niches: Part of Watson's Point unaddressed by you.
Come to think of it you didn't really address anything.
But that's how this debate goes.
I/we say "we have data and data corrected for socio-economics" (and WE really believe in Evolution)... and the other side says "well..", "but...", and "racist".
`

 

[dreolin]

Umm... Baby!
So Wrong and So Ironic!

1. Adolph Hitler Banned IQ tests because (Drum Roll), they Ruined his theory that Aryans were superior. Jews scored higher; Before, during, and Now/still.
It's DENYING the Truth that's Nazi.
It's Truth that defeats Nazis on the Right or LEFT.
Esmearalda and You are LEFTIST Brown-Shirts attempting to shout down truth.

2. James Watson got in trouble for telling that very truth.
How Frigging Ironic is it that you mention him... too!
I pointed this out in that previous string:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-...ge-iq-are-largely-genetic-10.html#post8235892

James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences
Gene Expression: James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences


You Ignorant Foul-mouthed Leftist Nazis can't compete on truth.
ALL the issues your are weakly bringing up WERE tackled/shot down in the other string.
Esmearalda is especially bad and could NOT answer me in that string after I straightened her Dumb ass out.
Nonetheless, the PC Bimbo has the gall to continue bad-mouthing.
`

Yes and because I AM knowlegeable in the topic, I was glad to point out Watson's view,.
The two sciences are Not unrelated.

.
Close but No cigar.
The Gene is for Skull/head size not height.
And it is the only gene SO FAR; it's discoverers (the largest team ever assembled to study the brain) "expect Many more".
IQ is also app 75% Heritable.
You really need a primer to even be in this debate.
As I said, it's All covered in the string I linked to above.

That's not a 'refutation' that's vague apologetics.

I am fully open to change my mind.
Of course, my side has Overwhelming Data, the other side Nothing but apologetics/Poor apologetics. It's laughable to watch the PC excuses.

IQ researchers have, OF COURSE, adjusted for socio-economic/environmental factors... Right down to Trans-racial adoption studies.
Guess what? It still holds true.
See the other string again PLEASE: At last the OP:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-...rences-in-average-iq-are-largely-genetic.html

Idiotic assumption without Merit.
What's clear from this 'debate' is I DO know what I'm talking about and have researched the topic. You're wingin in on pure BS.
And Of course, If I just posted my opinion, you'd accuse of doing merely that..
If I post a sources/sources, I'm "letting other people do my thinking for me"
"Heads I win, Tails you lose" Fallacy.
FAIL Clown.

What an idiotic question in trying to determine ignorance. These days, even goofs like you can Google a snippet like that in seconds. (Maine or Alaska depending on Mainland/continental or not. DUH)

If somehow it soothes your delicate ego to imagine jews are a superior race because they have a greater intelligence, far be it from me to interrupt your fantasies anymore than I have already. Enjoy your HGMA2 with my blessing.

Strawman Alert!
No one claimed "racial superiority'.
There are however Clearly "relative advantages" of different groups.
Genetics is going to make that more evident every year.

Someone (liberal Slate Mag writer actually) coined it "liberal creationism".
That is, just as creationists don't believe in evolution, liberals like to think evolution just stopped with the first Sapien. Denial.
It really comes down to that you know.. believing evolution just stopped. [Only] The human Species Don't/didn't evolve further 300,000/100,000/50,000 years ago.

It makes NO sense at all that races did NOT evolve relative advantages for their respective geographic Niches: Part of Watson's Point unaddressed by you.
Come to think of it you didn't really address anything.
But that's how this debate goes.
I/we say "we have data and data corrected for socio-economics" etc and the other side says "well..", "but...", and "racist".
`

Go back to post #3 where the claim is made that "Jews are smarter than Christians"...

wait...here...

A post by Friends

I am not claiming that all the Jews in the world make and have more money than all the Christians in the world. I am claiming that the average Jewish income is higher than the average Christian income. The reason for this is that Jews tend to be more intelligent than Christians. The average Ashkenazi Jewish IQ is estimated to be from 110 to 115.

Although I do not worship rich people, I admire intelligent people. That is one of the reasons I admire Jews.


The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Friends For This Useful Post:
abu afak (12-14-2013), Truthseeker1 (Yesterday)

I think I will rest my case on your "thanks" to a poster who claims Jews are smarter than Christians.

 

[abu afak]

Go back to post #3 where the claim is made that "Jews are smarter than Christians"...

wait...here...
A post by Friends
I am not claiming that all the Jews in the world make and have more money than all the Christians in the world. I am claiming that the average Jewish income is higher than the average Christian income. The reason for this is that Jews tend to be more intelligent than Christians. The average Ashkenazi Jewish IQ is estimated to be from 110 to 115.
Although I do not worship rich people, I admire intelligent people. That is one of the reasons I admire Jews.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Friends For This Useful Post:
abu afak (12-14-2013), Truthseeker1 (Yesterday)

I think I will rest my case on your "thanks" to a poster who claims Jews are smarter than Christians.

1. So you have ZERO to say to my above elucidated post/categorical reply. CORRECT?
Best you can do? Go for a Cherry picked Portion of a thanked post!
You are unable to debate me.

2. I Personally went on to say that the IQ factor was ONLY for Ashkenazi Jews, and In fact, Sephardim were "Below 100".
There is ERGO, obviously no such thing as Jewish or Christian IQ.
IQ claim here is not religious, it's Racial (and your real accusation) and ergo Heritable (and the reverse actually).

3. You didn't address the volumes I've posted.
As always, I put up PLENTY just above showing a depth of knowledge/well thought out position on the topic and answered EVERY Point.
I also have probably 40 posts in the other string I linked you are welcome to have a go at.
(whatever happened to Despicable $5 Smearalda whose mouthy only with third party insults)
No takers on Fact.
`

 

[DGS49]

When meeting any individual for the first time, I try to purge myself of any pre-conceived notions about personality or personal traits, and make my own observations and draw my own conclusions.

I have met many, many Jews in my life (tho maybe not as many as if I lived in New York City), and they have filled a full spectrum of intelligence, wit, compassion, altruism, likeability, and so on. However, I think there have been some traits that are fairly common.

They seem to take formal education more seriously than most, and tend to be more rational in their thinking, and less emotional. Intelligence? I couldn't say.

They tend to think entrepreneurially more than most. A Jew who is a teacher tends to think about how teaching knowledge can be leveraged into some sort of small business, whether it be consulting or something else (just an example). Jews don't seek out jobs with big corporations or, generally, government jobs. Those that do tend to have low self-esteem.

Jews are disproportionatey involved in philanthropy, and support many, many worthy causes with cash and other support.

Now for the bad stuff.

Jews can rationalize ANYTHING if there is advantage to it. In the practice of law (which I am familiar with), Jews "pioneered" a lot of the seemier sides of the law. They were the original ambulance chasers, and the first to use crass late-night TV advertising to gin up clients. The aspects of tort law that drive people crazy (people doing stupid things, then suing the company that made the tool they were using) were largely pioneered by Jewish lawyers. They have been the ones who defended the undefendable clients (rapists, killers, pornographers), and are the backbone of the ACLU, which is one of the most un-American organizations ever conceived. In all of these cases, they can articulate sophisiticated and high-sounding arguments as to why they do these things, but the bottom line is there was BUCK to be made and they were going to do it anyway; then they later developed a rationale to make it seem like they were not just legal whores out to capitalize on something that ethical lawyers would not soil their hands with.

Jews tend to dominate industries that exploit public ignorance and vulnerability. They dominate the jewelry industry, pawn shops, and payday loan shops; they were the pioneers in porn; when one used to hear the expression, "slum landlord" the person in question was invariably a Jew. (I think with the advent of federal housing subsidies, that expression is passe). As magazines, television, and film have gotten more and more depraved over the years, the "pioneers" (publishers, producers) in the depravity have mainly been Jews.

The influence that "the Jewish lobby" has in Washington is disgusting, and the U.S.' policy toward Israel and the Palestinians - totally driven by Jewish money - is a national disgrace. While not taking sides on the specific issues of that whole situation, it is nauseating in the extreme to see all of our national politicians paying obiesance to Netanyahu out of fear of upsetting the "fictitious" Jewish lobby.

They almost unanimously support Democrat politicians and liberal causes, even though their economic demographics are more in line with Conservatism.

Nobody has any ill feelings about Jews because of their religious beliefs, or because their religious forbears reputedly saw to it that Christ was crucified. In this day and age, nobody gives a shit what you believe or why you believe it. Hell, most Christians think that Judaism is pretty cool, theologically speaking.

But individual Jews are responsible in large part for a lot of what is wrong with our society The explosion of pornography (both formal and informal), skyrocketing malpractice rates, criminals getting off on "technicalities," the "war on Christmas,"...you could even lay a bit of the antagonism of the Arab/Muslim world toward the U.S. at the doorstep of Jews; maybe it would not be so bad if we were able to take a more even-handed stance with Israel and its actions w/r/t "Palestine."

What separates Jews from "everyone else"? My own theory is that Jews do not formally recognize or believe in "the Pie in the Sky." To put it another way, they have no formal belief that a moral life will be rewarded or that a life of immoral activity will be punished in the afterlife. Therefore, morality and ethics have to be intrinsically justifiable. Also, Talmudic thinking questions everything, thus inviting rationalization of behavior that people from other traditions would simply shun because they are distasteful or go against "Natural Law." A Jewish pawn shop owner sees himself as doing a public service, while the "Christian" sees owning and running a pawn shop as exploiting people who are already in poor circumstances.

Just my view.

 

[abu afak]

When meeting any individual for the first time, I try to purge myself of any pre-conceived notions about personality or personal traits, and make my own observations and draw my own conclusions.

Me too.
As I always say, "you never know who you're shaking hands with".

Now for the bad stuff.

Jews can rationalize ANYTHING if there is advantage to it. In the practice of law (which I am familiar with), Jews "pioneered" a lot of the seemier sides of the law. They were the original ambulance chasers, and the first to use crass late-night TV advertising to gin up clients. The aspects of tort law that drive people crazy (people doing stupid things, then suing the company that made the tool they were using) were largely pioneered by Jewish lawyers. They have been the ones who defended the undefendable clients (rapists, killers, pornographers), and are the backbone of the ACLU, which is one of the most un-American organizations ever conceived. In all of these cases, they can articulate sophisiticated and high-sounding arguments as to why they do these things, but the bottom line is there was BUCK to be made and they were going to do it anyway; then they later developed a rationale to make it seem like they were not just legal whores out to capitalize on something that ethical lawyers would not soil their hands with.

This is bizarre and a needlessly nefarious take.
The ACLU is "Unamerican"?
Lawyers, of which Jews are certainly overrepresented (like most professional pursuits) are just doing their best/utmost for their clients.
Though I'll never forgive Dershowitz for defending OJ.. either.

Jews tend to dominate industries that exploit public ignorance and vulnerability. They dominate the jewelry industry, pawn shops, and payday loan shops; they were the pioneers in porn; when one used to hear the expression, "slum landlord" the person in question was invariably a Jew. (I think with the advent of federal housing subsidies, that expression is passe). As magazines, television, and film have gotten more and more depraved over the years, the "pioneers" (publishers, producers) in the depravity have mainly been Jews.

That's ridiculous and now we're kinda crossing the line.
Jews, again, are over-represented in most areas of intellect and business, including Large legitimate landlords too.
As well as over-represented in Legitimate publishing/media.
Too many to name.
Most prominently/recently Bloomberg. A real villain!

The influence that "the Jewish lobby" has in Washington is disgusting, and the U.S.' policy toward Israel and the Palestinians - totally driven by Jewish money - is a national disgrace. While not taking sides on the specific issues of that whole situation, it is nauseating in the extreme to see all of our national politicians paying obiesance to Netanyahu out of fear of upsetting the "fictitious" Jewish lobby.

This is in large part Not due to Jews, but Tens of millions of Evangelical Christian Zionists who are more fervent than most Jews on the issue.
The Saudis don't even need an AIPAC, they just call their buddy Bush/State Dept and it's done. Who else could fly on 9/12.

They almost unanimously support Democrat politicians and liberal causes, even though their Economic Demographics are more in line with Conservatism.

So now you are Unwittingly saying Jews are acting altruistically Rather than in their own financial/$ interest!
Contrary to much of what you've posted.
(Milton Himmelfarb: "American Jews earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans")

Of course, the founder of the Conservative movement was Barry Goldwater.
So you do indeed see Jews pushing the limits (of intellect/possibilities) in all directions.

Nobody has any ill feelings about Jews because of their religious beliefs, or because their religious forbears reputedly saw to it that Christ was crucified. In this day and age, nobody gives a shit what you believe or why you believe it. Hell, most Christians think that Judaism is pretty cool, theologically speaking.
But individual Jews are responsible in large part for a lot of what is wrong with our society The explosion of pornography (both formal and informal), skyrocketing malpractice rates, criminals getting off on "technicalities," the "war on Christmas,"...you could even lay a bit of the antagonism of the Arab/Muslim world toward the U.S. at the doorstep of Jews; maybe it would not be so bad if we were able to take a more even-handed stance with Israel and its actions w/r/t "Palestine."

Leaders/Pioneers in Porn Publishing?
Big Three:
Hefner - Mayflower WASP; Flynt - WASP; Guccione - Roman Catholic.
Considering Jews prominence in legitimate publishing, its perhaps remarkable/telling they didn't make the big time there.

What separates Jews from "everyone else"? My own theory is that Jews do not formally recognize or believe in "the Pie in the Sky." To put it another way, they have no formal belief that a moral life will be rewarded or that a life of immoral activity will be punished in the afterlife. Therefore, morality and ethics have to be intrinsically justifiable. Also, Talmudic thinking questions everything, thus inviting rationalization of behavior that people from other traditions would simply shun because they are distasteful or go against "Natural Law." A Jewish pawn shop owner sees himself as doing a public service, while the "Christian" sees owning and running a pawn shop as exploiting people who are already in poor circumstances.
Just my view.

Yup, JUST your view and a bit over the top.
BTW, Jews ended up in banking and it's little cousin pawnbroking for historical reasons you may be familiar with.
They were prohibited from owning land etc.
So we see Jews over-represented in ALL other constructive professions [too]
Academia, Music, the Sciences, Medicine, Economics, Media, Finance, Publishing, Banking, etc.
It's those who see this over-representation Selectively and nefariously who have issues.
`

 

[Indeependent]

You're a Jew! You're not hired!

Jew...No problem. I'll start my own business.
And when the Jew becomes successful and helps other people he's called...A Commie!

 

[DGS49]

"...all other constructive professions..."

Hard sciences, engineering, construction, manufacturing...

I would really like to see your data on that.

Yes, in case you hadn't noticed, the ACLU is un-American, and its run and supported almost exclusively by Jewish lawyers. These are the people who removed the Lord's Prayer from public schools, removed creches from municipal buildings, removed the Ten Commandments from courthouses, defended pornographers claiming that their right to peddle smut was protected by the First Amendment (which America didn't apparently notice for the first 180 years of its existence), created a cornucopia of what are commonly called "technicalities" in criminal law that had the effect of freeing tens of thousands of known felons.

And on and on and on.

for those who want to spend 5 minutes looking at a fine example of a "Classic Jew Lawyer," search the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette website for the obit on Jim Ecker, who died a few days ago. He was a brilliant lawyer who made his name defending the indefensible, while working for several worthy causes in his off hours and providing (from time to time) pro bono representation for some who couldn't afford a competent lawyer. He was a much-admired public figure locally for several decades, and defended some of the most despicable characters to come into the System during his career.

 

[Viktor]

The claim that Jews are wealthy is a baseless stereotype.

 

[Iceman]

The claim that Jews are wealthy is a baseless stereotype.

Living in Southern California, you ought to know, all the those poor Jews in Hollywood...