Just because we're White Nationalists doesn't mean we can't play nice

Quote :

Yeeeaaaah. Actually, in most places Jews were
restricted in what jobs they were allowed to hold, money lender being
one of them. To live off money lending, you have to ask interest.
Asking interest from someone who's in enough trouble to need to borrow
money does not make you popular.

So obviously, Jews were already
unpopular, or their job options would not have been so restrictive. I
don't know, but my money is on them being the only other religion of
note in the area. People who did things in a fundamentally different
way and ignored half the things Christians had presented to them as the
ultimate truth. HOW IGNORANT IS THAT FFS

Plus charging interest was considered "usury" and thus a sin when comitted by a Good Christian. So moneylending was one of the "dirty" jobs the Jews were allowed to do.

I understand being Jewish is a whole sort of racial identy for a lot of people but it doesn't technically mean that ethnically you aren't 'white' does it? So it basically boils down to

Penguin wrote:

3.) Just 'cause.

which is why I get confused, it seems so arbitrary.
I suppose I shouldn't try and apply logic to the views of White Supremacists though.

I think it comes down to few reasons. Doing some quick reading on it, the Christians seem to hate Jewish people because of the "they killed Christ" thing. (Which, as Penguin said, they never let the truth interrupt a good hate-on). They were the money-lenders and whatnot, again, as people have pointed out here before which I suppose if you're feeling ripped off, that would be a spark to bring the violence.

However, nothing really addresses the reason of why. Not adequately to me at any rate. If I had to put a guess on it, I would say it's for the simple reason of "they are different". Even though they lived in the bigger community, the Jewish people were, and are, strong in faith and in a sense of community among themselves. Long quote incoming:

Quote :

According to the famous Jewish historian, Salo Wittmayer Baron, a number of mechanisms of Jewish survival evolved during these crucial centuries between the fall of Israel and the fall of Rome. He describes at least eight factors that strengthened Judaism and Jewish society.^[164]

1. Messianic faith. Belief in an ultimately positive outcome and restoration of Israel.
   
2. Doctrine of the Hereafter was increasingly elaborated. Belief in an afterlife had been largely ignored during Biblical times. Now it was discussed more by the sages. It reconciled Jews with suffering in this world and helped them resist outside temptations to convert.
   
3. Suffering was given meaning through interpretation of Jewish history and destiny.
   
4. Doctrine of martyrdom and inescapability of persecution transformed both into a source of communal solidarity.
   
5. Jewish daily life was very satisfying. Although living throughout the Roman empire and Persian empire and beyond, Jews lived among Jews. In practice, in a lifetime, most Jews encountered overt persecution only on a few dramatic occasions. They mostly lived under discrimination that affected everyone, and to which they were habituated. Daily life was governed by a multiplicity of ritual requirements, so that Jews were constantly aware of their relationship with God throughout the day. "For the most part, he found this all-encompassing Jewish way of life so eminently satisfactory that he was prepared to sacrifice himself ... for the preservation of its fundamentals."^[165] Those commandments for which Jews had sacrificed their lives, such as defying idolatry, not eating pork, observing circumcision, were the ones most strictly adhered to.
   
6. The corporate development and segregationist policies of late Roman empire and Persian empire, helped keep Jewish community organization strong.
   
7. The Talmud provided an extremely effective force to sustain Jewish ethics, law and culture, a benevolent judicial and social welfare system, universal education, to develop and sustain a strong, loving and sexually satisfying family life, and a satisfying religious life from birth to death.
   
8. The concentration of Jewish masses within "the lower middle class"^[166] sustained middle class virtues of sexual self-control. Jews, unlike the cultures around them, followed a moderate path between ascetism and licentiousness. For Jews, marriage formed a strong foundation of ethnic, and ethical, life.
   

In further reading, during the various Roman empires and later on the Arabic/Islamic expansion, when the Jewish folk were given the choice of "convert or die" or something similar, they chose to either move (if they could--it was mentioned in the Islamic section of anti-Semitism that the eastern part of the empire was more forgiving of the Jewish faith than the western, so the Jews often moved east) or die.

They were, in other words, good scapegoats because while they might be IN the community, they weren't PART of the community, per se. Sartre gives an example in a book he wrote on the subject:

Quote :

Sartre tells of a classmate of his who complained that he had failed the agrégation exam while a Jew, the son of eastern immigrants, had passed. There was – said Sartre’s classmate – no way that that Jew could understand French poetry as well as a true Frenchman. But Sartre’s classmate admitted that he disdained the agrégation and had not studied for it. ‘Thus to explain his failure, he made use of two systems of interpretation… His thoughts moved on two planes without his being in the least bit embarrassed by it.’ (Ibid. p.12.) Sartre’s classmate had adopted in advance a view of Jews and of their role in society. ‘Far from experience producing his idea of the Jew, it was the latter that explained his experience. If the Jew did not exist, the anti-Semite would invent him.’ (Ibid.) Anti-Semitism is a view that arises not from experience or historical fact, but from itself. It lends new perspective to experience and historical fact. The anti-Semite convinces himself of beliefs that he knows to be spurious at best.

All this reading never did really give me a good reason of "why" though. I can't understand it myself.

grmblfjx wrote:

So obviously, Jews were already unpopular, or their job options would not have been so restrictive. I don't know, but my money is on them being the only other religion of note in the area. People who did things in a fundamentally different way and ignored half the things Christians had presented to them as the ultimate truth. HOW IGNORANT IS THAT FFS

Yeah, the general refusal to settle down, get baptized, tithe like good Christians and generally grovel at the feet of the Catholic Church meant they were excellent targets for hatemongers. (Drive off or kill people who fail to respect your authority _and_ drive the masses into an easily controllable frothing mob? Two birds with one stone!)

Quote :

Penguin wrote:
2.) They were the early European bankers, so any economic downturn was naturally blamed on them. This was a self-fulfilling bit of paranoia whenever a country tried to expel the Jews; they inevitably kicked out the most competent money handlers, which resulted in further economic woes.


Yeeeaaaah. Actually, in most places Jews were restricted in what jobs they were allowed to hold, money lender being one of them. To live off money lending, you have to ask interest. Asking interest from someone who's in enough trouble to need to borrow money does not make you popular.

So obviously, Jews were already unpopular, or their job options would not have been so restrictive. I don't know, but my money is on them being the only other religion of note in the area. People who did things in a fundamentally different way and ignored half the things Christians had presented to them as the ultimate truth. HOW IGNORANT IS THAT FFS

Trufax.

And also (and I could be rusty with my history, so step in and correct me should you need to), Jews and other 'outsiders' have proven essential in the past to (at least) Europe's economy (not just because they were Jews, but because they could get interest and had an outside perspective). Our AP Euro teacher expanded on the Columbus rhyme and put it succinctly: "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue, Spain kicked out the Moor, kicked out the Jew, and sent the economy down the loo." Getting rid of the only people who are allowed religiously to collect interest, as well as other minorities who bring variety and new goods to the markets is generally a BAD idea economically (especially in an early mercantilist or system)(not that we're living in one right now, but yeah). If the members of Stormfront got there way and were to build an idealistically and culturally homogenous nation, it would more likely fail than not, if not just for the sheer level of stupid.

There is nothing inherently wrong with people wanting to protect their own culture from invasion via mass immigration. If other cultures are allowed to exist, then British culture has a right to exist. That said, the BNP are likely to take things to the kind of extremes that nobody wants.

They do raise a few valid points that other political parties are ignoring:

1. Immigration must be stopped completely for a while in order for the country to be able to sort out it's damaged economy. If there isn't enough jobs for everyone already here, it is lunacy to allow more people into the country just for them to claim dole or take a job that could be filled by a native unemployed Brit. The fewer people needing to claim dole, the more money there is free to begin paying back the huge national debt that Labour has run up. Once the economy is back on it's feet, the borders may be re-opened, but not to all and sundry, only to those who would benefit the country.

2. Islamic immigration is perhaps the gravest threat to our culture and society. Islam is incompatible with Western Democracy and many Muslims are hostile to our way of life. Since they are hostile to democracy, why come to a democratic country and why not go back to live in an Islamic paradise where Sharia reigns supreme, like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Recent demographics suggest that Europe will be Islamic by 2050, I for one don't want to be forced into a Burka, or for my testimony to be worth half that of a man thank you very much. If we don't do something then we will lose our culture, our society and our freedom. It won't matter if you're black or white, or what religion you belong to if any, we will all be oppressed under and Islamic regime together. For a start we can slow down the demographic change by encouraging people to have families of three or more children. Tax breaks for people with bigger families.

3. Recent immigrants should be encouraged to go back home unless they are here for a valid reason that is beneficial for our country... for instance doctors should be allowed to stay. 'Sales assistant' or 'taxi driver' should not be sufficient as those jobs should rightfully go to working class people who were born here.

4. Asylum claims from people coming from places other than our closest neighbours are entirely bogus. International law states that asylum seekers should seek asylum in the closest safe country. For instance an Afghan could seek refuge in Pakistan, and an Irish or French person may legitimately seek asylum in England if ever shit kicked off enough to render those countries unsafe.

5. Many British people want to remain seperate from the EU, into which the UK pays a lot of money and gets very little in return. It's another layer of bureaucracy and taxation that is creeping into tyranny. There was no vote on the Lisbon treaty and many of us are angry about that. By all means we should trade with other countries where it is mutually beneficial, but being governed remotely by a superpower for which nobody voted is undemocratic. The EU should not have any legal presidence in dictating what laws our elected political parties may or may not pass... democracy should mean democracy. Getting out of the EU will legally allow us to get control of our borders again, see point 2.

6. There should be longer prison sentences for people who have committed serious violent crimes. What is the point in releasing a violent thug halfway through his already inadequate sentence only for him to re-offend shortly after release. The longer the sentence, the greater the deterant. Murderers should face the death penalty. They would think twice about killing if it meant they would lose their life if found guilty. Might be politically incorrect, but the whole purpose of prison is to keep the public safe from dangerous and violent thugs. Yes, rehabilitate where possible, but repeat offenders do need keeping seperate.

Really all of this is common sense, and if the Tories were to recognize that this is what many people are thinking and are concerned about, and act accordingly then their ratings would go through the roof and nobody would even bother listening to the BNP. In essence, they could take the best parts of the BNPs policies without being racist about it. Unfortunately David Cameron is probably not up to the task because he is also way too politically correct to see the problems this nation is facing.

As for me, I might vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party, a vote for 'none of the above'.

DEY TUK ARR JUBS

...I'm leaning towards the ignore list

Can someone translate? I don't speak Derp.
Actually, nevermind, it'd still be tl;dr.

Ezri Drax confirmed for B^Uckley.

Ezri, can I copypaste your rant and use it in my HP fic? I have a scene in which Uncle Vernon is discussing politics and you just wrote all his lines for me.
Of course I'll give you credit.

Buckley?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The Unoriginal wrote:

Ezri, can I copypaste your rant and use it in my HP fic? I have a scene in which Uncle Vernon is discussing politics and you just wrote all his lines for me.
Of course I'll give you credit.

Yes, you can if you want to.

I still can't work out if Ezri Dax is a troll who has based his/her persona on the screeching from the Daily Mail comments (if so, I doff my cap, very convincing), or if he/she is one of the screeching retards who comments on Daily Mail articles.

god fucking damnit ezra you are all that is haraam

MUZLIMZ R AN THRET DURR HURR DERP DERP DURR

ffs get your head out of your bigot ass

ZoZo wrote:

I still can't work out if Ezri Dax is a troll who has based his/her persona on the screeching from the Daily Mail comments (if so, I doff my cap, very convincing), or if he/she is one of the screeching retards who comments on Daily Mail articles.

Best three newspapers (in order of preference): Daily Express, Daily Mail, The Sun. I don't tend to send in my comments, although I have on occasion.

SirDixonDongs, You may not think that they are a serious threat now, but wind forwards 20 or so years when they begin to outnumber us, and they demand the Sharia. No matter what your current religious beliefs, you will lose your freedom. Freedom and Islam are diametrically opposed.

Hear some common sense from a Syrian lady called Wafa Sultan, who knows what she is talking about:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Ezri Dax wrote:

You may not think that they are a serious threat now, but wind forwards 20 or so years when they begin to outnumber us

Bolding mine.
You do realise that you're having issues with the fundamental tenet of democracy, right?

There is no 'us' and there is no 'them' and if you think there is, you need to get over your tribal in-grouping and out-grouping.

Feedin' the troll. Feedin' the troll.

OM NOM NOM NOM

And here I'd thought all your incredible bullshit about THEM BROWN PEOPLES was a part of you failtrolling as Hellfire.

Ignore list +1.

The Express is crap (my parents have it delivered, don't start). It was okay ten years ago, but recently they've even started putting Sun-style paragraph titles in for people who don't know what they're supposed to be taking away from the article, the poor lambs. At least Beachcomber is interesting, and they run Calvin and Hobbes. C&H is always cool.

On election day I think I'll bring a red marker, put a giant cross through the whole sheet, and write WANKERS on it. Let's see somebody take that for voter apathy.

Sutremaine wrote:

On election day I think I'll bring a red marker, put a giant cross through the whole sheet, and write WANKERS on it. Let's see somebody take that for voter apathy.

You know, I do volunteer work at elections- I'm one of those people that count the ballots. I can assure you, people do that, and nobody but the six or eight of us ever sees it.
They get counted, re-counted, put in envelopes and sealed. We just have an envelope that says "invalid"; gets sealed like the rest of'em.


Sorry, but you'll have to take to defacing public buildings or something

grmblfjx wrote:

Sorry, but you'll have to take to defacing public buildings or something

I wasn't expecting the thing to be delivered to Parliament and waved around the front door in front of the cameras, don't worry about that. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] It's just that if someone stays away from the ballots altogether, there's no way of knowing if they're motivated by apathy about the process or disgust at the choices.

Just out of interest, what's the normal ratio of accidentally invalidated ballots to deliberately invalidated ballots? If it's about equal, I'll just vote Monster Raving Loony or something.