Tässä se on:
Professor Jesse H. Holmes, writing in, “The American Hebrew,”
expressed the following similar sentiments,
“It can hardly be an accident that antagonism directed against the
Jews is to be found pretty much everywhere in the world where Jews and
non-Jews are associated. And as the Jews are the common element of the
situation it would seem probable, on the face of it, that the cause
will be found in them, rather than in the widely varying groups which
feel this antagonism.”
http://kalki666.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/lesser-known-highlights-of-jewish-international-relations-in-the-common-era/
Professor Jesse H. Holmes, writing in, “The American Hebrew,”
expressed the following similar sentiments,
“It can hardly be an accident that antagonism directed against the
Jews is to be found pretty much everywhere in the world where Jews and
non-Jews are associated. And as the Jews are the common element of the
situation it would seem probable, on the face of it, that the cause
will be found in them, rather than in the widely varying groups which
feel this antagonism.”
http://kalki666.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/lesser-known-highlights-of-jewish-international-relations-in-the-common-era/
Vastaukset 5
Vanhimmat
Ainakin monta luonnontieteen nobelia ovat keränneet, joten onko se lopullinen totuus se että juutalaiset ovat keskimäärin fiksumpia kuin muut? Ylivertaisuus herättää kateutta vähempilahjaisissa luusereissa.
Juu, siinä se!
Miljoona 1930-luvun natsia ja miljardi nykyistä muslimia eivät voi olla väärässä!
Mutta mikä se syy oli?
nii se syy. Onko ne rasisteja vai neekéreitä vai molempia.
haukkua väärää puuta kun puhutaan monikultturismista, sillä sen ideologinen tausta löytyy juutalaisten think-tankeista kuten Frankfurtin koulukunnasta. Kyse ei ole mistään juutalaisten, proselyyttien ja muiden filosemiittien vakioselityksestä eli "kateudesta" vaan evolutiivisesta kilpailusta rajallisista resursseista. Toisin sanoen juutalaisilla on kollektiivisena ryhmänä oma etu, joka on lähes poikkeuksetta ei-juutalaisten intressiä vastaan. Juuri siksi he ovat ajaneet länsimaihin innokkaasti monikultturismia: http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/books-Preface.html
Suosittelen tutustumaan professori Kevin Macdonaldin kirjaan "The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements"
Macdonaldin kirjasta Culture of the Critique (CofC):
"CofC describes how Jewish intellectuals initiated and advanced a number of important intellectual and political movements during the 20th century. I argue that these movements are attempts to alter Western societies in a manner that would neutralize or end anti-Semitism and enhance the prospects for Jewish group continuity either in an overt or in a semi-cryptic manner. Several of these Jewish movements (e.g., the shift in immigration policy favoring non-European peoples) have attempted to weaken the power of their perceived competitors — the European peoples who early in the 20th century had assumed a dominant position not only in their traditional homelands in Europe, but also in the United States, Canada, and Australia. At a theoretical level, these movements are viewed as the outcome of conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews in the construction of culture and in various public policy issues. Ultimately, these movements are viewed as the expression of a group evolutionary strategy by Jews in their competition for social, political and cultural dominance with non-Jews.
Here I attempt to answer some typical criticisms that have been leveled against CofC. (See also my website: www.csulb.edu/~kmacd). I also discuss issues raised by several books that have appeared since the publication of CofC.
There have been complaints that I am viewing Judaism in a monolithic manner. This is definitely not the case. Rather, in each movement that I discuss, my methodology has been:
(1.) Find influential movements dominated by Jews, with no implication that all or most Jews are involved in these movements and no restrictions on what the movements are. For example, I touch on Jewish neo-conservatism which is a departure in some ways from the other movements I discuss. In general, relatively few Jews were involved in most of these movements and significant numbers of Jews may have been unaware of their existence. Even Jewish leftist radicalism — surely the most widespread and influential Jewish subculture of the 20th century — may have been a minority movement within Jewish communities in the United States and other Western societies for most periods. As a result, when I criticize these movements I am not necessarily criticizing most Jews. Nevertheless, these movements were influential and they were Jewishly motivated.
(2.) Determine whether the Jewish participants in those movements identified as Jews AND thought of their involvement in the movement as advancing specific Jewish interests. Involvement may be unconscious or involve self-deception, but for the most part it was quite easy and straightforward to find evidence for these propositions. If I thought that self-deception was important (as in the case of many Jewish radicals), I provided evidence that in fact they did identify as Jews and were deeply concerned about Jewish issues despite surface appearances to the contrary. (See also Ch. 1 of CofC.)
(3.) Try to gauge the influence of these movements on non-Jewish society. Keep in mind that the influence of an intellectual or political movement dominated by Jews is independent of the percentage of the Jewish community that is involved in the movement or supports the movement.
(4.) Try to show how non-Jews responded to these movements — for example, were they a source of anti-Semitism?"