Talk:International Jewish conspiracy/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 8 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Adding pictures

Someone should find a copyright-free picture, which shows a politican (eg. George Bush) handshaking (and sometimes wearing a kippah) with some rabbis as a claimed proof. ZILtoid1991 (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Zionism

Zionism matches the definition of Conspiracy: known goal + plan not open to the public. Its members are international. I can't figure out a reasonable denial, and the article simply denies it is.-- Brasov 10:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It says a secret plan to get some goal. The goal and plans of Zionism are well known. That only Jews and their supporters are allowed in on the meetings, and that it is an international ideology is irrelevant.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That the plans of Zionism are well known is a positive claim and should be provable. What's the best you have? -- Brasov 17:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? Israel. They wanted Israel. This isn't a fucking mystery.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"Wanted" is past form. "Had it" is past too. They got Israel in 1948 but Zionism continues. You've got no clue on Zionism's plans today, so we're back into the Conspiracy definition again. -- Brasov 17:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, the evil kikes kept an ideology about creating a state around after the state was created! What could they possibly be up to, other then the ideology now being about the preservation of that state! Quick, someone kill all the Jews before they do anything evil!--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

So you now another guy goal-shifts to "preservation". What that entails is anybody's guess, but these two characters know all the plans and therefore claim Zionism is not an international Conspiracy. It does match RationalWiki's definition, so this is an "antisemitic" site and your whines are totally justified. -- Brasov 11:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The banhammer comes slightly nearer... Osaka Sun (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yo! Ad baculum won't take you any far up in the truth table.-- Brasov 11:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. ^theist 15:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me guess -- you're anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me guess -- you have no clue of what "semitic" means? Before yelling anti-some-population learn which ethnicity forms the bulk of that population. -- Brasov 13:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me guess -- you're going to be a pedantic whiner about using a specialized meaning of a word as opposed to the everyday meaning that most people understand. Before yelling some pseudo-intellectual nonsense, learn something about how language works. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 13:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if person who is accusing others of not knowing what semitism is actually knows what semitism is. Or if he has the gall to define it for people who are actually semetic rather than let jews define themselves. Because of course he is an expert on a diaspora more than the people actually within it. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 15:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"accusing others of not knowing what semitism is". The word is "Semitic", which is to "semitism" like "pacific" is to "pacifism". You're choking in your own concept soup. -- Brasov 15:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"using a specialized meaning of a word". Well, I guess a partisan restrictions of a word's meaning qualifies as "specialized use", but such "specialisation" still remains partisan, political and a prostitution of language for the benefit of a sectarian subgroup. -- Brasov 15:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 15:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You're both right. Anti-Semitism is always (as far as I can see) used to refer to the Jews, but a Semite is part of a far larger ethnic group. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

What I was taught was that the term 'anti-semitic' was actually made by europeans to replace an older term 'jew-hatred' to make it seem more objective or biological in order to codify it as as somehow not purely racist/anti-cultural. You'd think that it refers to a single ethnic group, but it actually has implications for jews the whole world over. It's an attack on a cultural identity and diaspora, not a single ethnic group. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{yeah, well you fight like a cow!} 15:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

*gives Brasov the #1 Teacher's Pet For Spelling Error Catching Award* GOOD JOB, GOLD STAR! Who's the best student in grade school? You are! Here, have a sticker for your great accomplishment that contributed to this discussion! I guess it's true what they say, if your idea's wrong, best wrap that shit up in tons of impenetrable indecipherable language so no one even knows what the hell you're babbling about anyway. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{yeah, well you fight like a cow!} 15:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"Spelling Error". Lame attempt at face-saving. Changing "semiti-c" into "semit-ism" requires skipping one letter AND mistyping three additional letters in a row. Spelling error my backside. Poor schooling and little reading, very likely. -- Brasov 15:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I say, good chap! Please do curb your ad hominems in this conversation. Certainly it would not do to come across with a tone of elitism and entitlement whilst speaking as if you know more about the social divisions and diaspora of a ethno-cultural group that you do not even belong to than those who actually do belong to it. Additionally, cultural superiority is somewhat frowned upon here, but considering the antisemitic views you have thus far displayed it might be moot that you hardly concern yourself with worrying about such matters. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 16:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You said: "'anti-semitic' was actually made.... to make it seem more objective" ... Well, the term "semitic" adds 500 million arabs to the mix, so now it means 'arab-hatred' and rightly so, because arabs replace the jews today as the object of racist hatred from the Western World. The hatred accompanied by the delivery of a proportional tonnage of explosive ordinance door-to-door. So cry me a river and subvert the meaning of words all our like, still reality remains what it is. -- Brasov 16:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

do some etymology research, if you love it so much. Learn the origin of the word you are using. Never mind the fact that this entire discussion is a red herring from the fact that you think that Zionism is some kind of international jewish conspiracy, when it is not.±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 16:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Amusing! now you turn to pontificating on the etymology of a word you can't even spell. You're powned again by your own link, as it explains the word was coined by Steinschneider to characterize Ernest Renan's ideas about how "Semitic races" were inferior to "Aryan races". So, obviously the etymology embraces arabs, it doesn't exclude them as zionists pretend. The fact hat you subscribe the zionist revisionism of this broader concept is evidence that the IJC exists. -- Brasov 16:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

(last comment, was edit-conflicted) You really shouldn't use your oh-so-smug spelling error superiority as a red herring when it's clear you hardly even read the material and understand the context. The word 'anti-semitic' has referred to Jews. It was used by the Nazis to refer to jews in a way that fit into their eugenics-mongering idea set in which social groups could be reduced to racial groups. It still refers to hatred of jews in the present. You seriously didn't even read anything on this page, or if you did, you somehow bleeped out everything that doesn't fit your worldview. Also, the personal attacks really are not winning you any credibility. For the record, I am not a 'Zionist' or whatever the hell you want to define THAT term as. I just don't want you to call my relatives that are jews that have nothing to do with zionism or want any part of said philosophy as part of some kind of a conspiracy that makes them out to be some kind of shadowy bad guys, when they obviously are not.±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 17:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Putting this conversation back on track

Nebby said: "Let me guess -- you're anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic?" and you didn't answer his question, instead you went off on a distracting etymological track. so let's re-phrase the actual question on the table: Let me guess -- you're anti-Zionist, but it's not like you have a problem with the Jews or anything, right? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 16:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've got no problem with most persons that consider themselves "jew", as most don't subscribe nor support the crimes of a minority that pretends to speak for them, rob and kill in their behalf. Now, that minority has fabricated myths in support of their own ends, myths they propagate through large ownership of financial houses, politicians on payroll and opinion-creating media outlets. -- Brasov 17:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

So, yeah, you're pretty much the classic Jew-baiter. Okay, thanks. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 17:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And you're the classic Jew Taliban, like jewish farts don't stink and such. And by extension, perhaps even a pedophile. -- Brasov 17:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 18:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

International Jewish conspiracy? Yes, and it has a name: YHWH.

"and to the apparently disproportionate numbers of Jews involved in the movie industry in Hollywood. If it is even true that Jews are disproportionately represented in business, one must be careful to note that correlation does not equal causation."

The idea here being that it is just some guy's theory that the Jews are overrepresented in Hollywood and in business, rather than an easily verifiable fact.

"the largely Christian populations obeyed a religiously motivated prohibition on charging interest on loans, with the role of banker historically falling on Jewish businessmen who were sometimes even specifically licensed by sovereigns to charge interest. To assume that the disproportionate number of Jews involved in finance proves they're engaging in a Zionist conspiracy through manipulation of capitalism is to ignore the historic role of Jews in banking due to the Christian prohibition against usury."

Ah the legacy of banking argument.

This makes no sense unless you mention higher average Ashkenazi IQ. ^{— Unsigned, by: Clawclaw / talk / contribs}

Just to make it clear, the only place the word Semitic has any concrete meaning is as a subfamily of Afro-Asiatic languages. Arabic is very closely related to Hebrew which makes them „Semites“ as well. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

i talk because this category names "talk"

I won't read this, i don't believe in jew's conspiracy etc but how can i know that this page tells the truth? this page even shows a clearly not neutral point of view in some parts.

It's very probable that many of the info of the page is biased and also i almost secure that it contains disinformation.

„Almost secure“ does smell of personal beliefs. Which disinformation? Also, do sign your contributions. Anonymous contributions are fishy. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Putting it that way is almost an insult to fish, though ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)