Sign into an existing account

Because theres little ROI arguing with you joe. But I just made several points that you wont address.

You’ll just say Im a fed or a foul mouthed new york feminist, which is the same sort of cop out you are attributing to him.

Pot meet kettle.

Certainly it doesn't. But you've been here long enough and probably have been exposed to enough of the content at this site to have encountered arguments that do point toward the Jews having a staggering part of the 'seats of power'. There is a broader theory here that I'm assuming you have some familiarity with, and that you can be charitable enough to 'pull in' some of those data points that you know about, without my having to state them explicitly.

Of course a universal hatred of the Jew doesn't prove the 'rules the world' claim. You should also recognize that I used that as one data point to counter your claim that the hatred was essentially Christian. If we are to have any kind of useful debate about these issues, we have to expect that each of us approaches with some charity and honesty.

What we can assume is that there is a reason for this hatred. A phenomenon of hatred on this scale, covering this much of history, stands out in need of explanation. We can also think that there is a distinction in the hatred demonstrated toward gypsies and that demonstrated toward Jews. Hardly anyone is saying that Jews are hated for the same reasons as gypsies. Gypsies are hated for some reasons that are the same, i.e. generally dishonesty, cunning and lack of care for 'fair play' competitively. But the gypsies are hated, on the whole, because they are common thieves and because they introduce a 'hygienic' blight on communities. Jews are hated because the traits they share in common with gypsies are matched with other traits that cause them to systematically infiltrate key political, economic and financial power centers within non-Jewish societies, in order to effectively take control of them, to protect the in-group (of Jews), facilitate ongoing parasitic behaviors, with control over power centers acting simultaneously as a visual and legal shield for this (until the strategy implodes and they are pushed out like a splinter from one's finger).

There is a difference. To say there is no self-evident difference between Jews and gypsies is just being obtuse to the degree I'd call intellectual dishonesty.

Additionally, nobody is saying that 'it is only the Jews'. We can have the maturity of worldview to recognize that no single activity of the Jews is somehow precluded from being done by any other group. 'Evil' is a potential in all humans and human groups. Of course there are other competitors for, not just the world stage, but at every 'level' in the hierarchy of power. If people are acting in self-interested ways at every level (and in all compartments) of the hierarchy, we can expect that some partiality and some victories will be demonstrated for non-Jews here and there. As you say, some powerful politician in the US, at one time or another, might make a deal with Saudi Arabia that is generally regarded as corrupt. Jews may have nothing to do with that particular deal. But neither is that datum evidence against the claim called 'The Jewish Problem'. We can also assume that human corruption has been with us at all times in history, in all forms of politics. Again, we don't have a historical phenomenon where some other race was recognized a global-epochal problem, despite the fact everyone has been recognized as corrupt at one time or another. The world, it seems, has picked out the Jew as some especial exemplar of something bad, and whatever theory you espouse has to explain this.

You can't just ignore that phenomenon, it is an elephant in the room. So what explains it? An innate, universal Jew-hatred that we can't explain. It 'just is'? It has always been that way?

Now, I'll tell you an argument that favors you, which I'm a little sympathetic toward. Suppose that by 'historical' I mean any set of activities that causes geopolitical shifts with long-lasting impacts and which history takes as its most memorable features.

The argument would go something like this: wealth is a factor that amplifies the relative frequency of 'historical' activities in any group, since it represents a means to doing more things politically and economically. Now, that means that any group which gains more wealth gains an ability to be more 'historical'.

So if we combine that with certain innate tendencies (collective personality traits), it might explain how some groups are more historical than others. For example, if it just is an innate feature of Jews to be 'ballsier' (bolder), more rabidly ethnocentric and tribal and nepotistic, and to have a greater aversion to perceived out-groups, then if for whatever reason this group's behaviors made them disproportionately wealthier, they'd be even likelier to be more historical.

It's summing the tendency for bold competitive action with wealth. If Jews have some special attribute, generally, that makes them culturally more brutish toward out-groups, then the fact they gained a disproportionate amount of the world's wealth would become the explanation for why they are such a historical phenomenon. It's even possible that there are interactions between 'historical' behaviors and increases in wealth - for example, to cause a war is both historical and wealth-generating. If you cause more wars, you become wealthier and more historical simultaneously.

This might seem speciously satisfying, like explanation should stop there. But it doesn't. We can ask why countervailing facts, like the fact the Jews are such an absolute minority (quantitatively) among the world's people hasn't counteracted their 'rise' to their current station. Or why such a historical 'upstart' like this wasn't just squashed like so many others were.

There is something particular to the Jewish strategy that explains the universal hatred they've earned for themselves.

Regarding the 11% figure. It may be that in terms of sheer count, Jews make up 11% of whatever class is deemed 'elite'. But their presence in that count doesn't tell us anything about how disproportionately skewed the wealth distribution is within that class. It could be that 11% of elites (Jews, who make up 2% of the population overall) control 50% of the wealth in that class. This paints an entirely different picture.

I do agree that idiots at this site look for any problem in the world, with literally any group, and find a way to say 'da Jews'. I also think this is stupid, when there is no good reason to infer a Jewish connection.

But two other things you are ignoring, when you say that evidence of Jewish hatred is not evidence of Jewish rule, are (a) the facts, which are matters of public record, about actual Jewish figures in seats of power, and (b) what Jews are claiming for themselves or about themselves.

Concerning (a), a large part of Jewish over-representation in the commercial sector and the financial sector (and the legal sector) is a matter of public record. Lists of names and faces and roles are routinely posted at this site and elsewhere, showcasing the dramatic dominance of Jews in the highest levels of both public and private entities, hell, the whole Fortune 500. This ignores the also public data about the Jewish influence in the last several Presidential administrations.

In order to make a claim that Jews run the world, does not require that we show they 'run' every country. This is a non sequitur. They only require capturing the power centers, and not even all of them. We are not making the claim that Jews have literally all of the world's power. Part of our theory assumes that many regions of the middle east have been directly opposed to Israel, and a good explanation for the western powers' wars in the middle east has been the neocon partnership with Israeli powers. The U.S. is used like a military ball bat agaisnt Israel's enemies in the middle east. We are not assuming the Jew has control (yet) equivalent with having 'zero enemies'. That's just a straw man of the case we're making.

The Jew has a sufficient grip on a sufficient number and kind of power centers in the world to be shifting global politics (and economics, and world history) with an absurdly greater-than-expected degree of efficiency. This can't be explained by, "Man, everybody is corrupt." Fine. Call everyone corrupt. That wouldn't help the case that 'it's not the Jews' at all; if there is no innocence in the world relatively, then the Jews should have been squelched a long time ago. We'd have an even bigger surprise that the Jew is as dominant today as he is. Not a good theory.

Concerning (b), the Jews in many cases have not been shy at all about professing their own self-consciousness of their role as global directors. Consider the oft-posted confession of Barbara L. Spectre (an influential Jewish philosopher and political figure in Europe), in which she declares that the Jews are going to end white hegemony in Europe. She makes no bones about saying Jews are going to restructure the whole planet, and it's basically an inevitability. She is not the only Jew to speak this way.

Furthermore, a longstanding tradition in Jewish worldviews is that Jews have a literal destiny to do this. This notion of 'being chosen' is still very much a living principle and ethics even in atheistic Jews, although in atheists/secularists it will amount to a general view of self-superiority of the Jewish race. But Jewish eschatology has long held that Jews will dominate the world and will subjugate all other races/nations (goyim).

This isn't a boogeyman. These are things real people believe, and which real people are saying, and you can't simply cover your ears and pretend this isn't the case.