Criticism of Jews as a Collective (Not Just as Individuals) is Ethical and Warranted

[Numar Patru]

Your non-answer is noted.

Regarding genocide, the very first part of the genocide is clearly killing. But which of the non-killing forms are white people experiencing. Is it causing serious bodily harm? It is preventing births? Is it being exposed to conditions of life designed to cause the group’s destruction? Is it transferring white children to non-whites? If so, can you provide a couple examples?

You’re making a claim here. You should provide some evidence. Like any at all.

[Numar Patru]

See what a Brazilian author and Jewish critic said about them

Who cares what some nobody thinks?

[Stubble]

https://www.bitchute.com/video/T7vMzfULtCef

[Numar Patru]

Do you have any ability to think for yourself?

[Stubble]

Do you have any ability to think for yourself?

Nope, I'm just a wind up toy nazi. I just go with the current talking points.

You know, because I'm literally Hitler and all.

That all you got?

[TlsMS93]

See what a Brazilian author and Jewish critic said about them

Who cares what some nobody thinks?

You care, otherwise you wouldn't be here.

[Numar Patru]

Do you have any ability to think for yourself?

Nope, I'm just a wind up toy nazi. I just go with the current talking points.

You know, because I'm literally Hitler and all.

That all you got?

If you refuse to make an argument of your own, then yes, that’s all I got.

[Numar Patru]

See what a Brazilian author and Jewish critic said about them

Who cares what some nobody thinks?

You care, otherwise you wouldn't be here.

Cool, another Nazibot for me to ignore.

[Callafangers]

Cool, another Nazibot for me to ignore.

Once again, Numar, your response adds nothing substantive to the discussion, here. I am pretty sure your last straw has all but passed. I hate seeing a contributor (whatever your position on these matters) be silenced for any reason but you need to make some effort to remain civil. If you prioritize the truth at all and sincerely understand and believe in your position, this should not be so difficult.

Regarding genocide, the very first part of the genocide is clearly killing. But which of the non-killing forms are white people experiencing. Is it causing serious bodily harm? It is preventing births? Is it being exposed to conditions of life designed to cause the group’s destruction? Is it transferring white children to non-whites? If so, can you provide a couple examples?

Aside from the obvious propaganda and culture driven assault on white birth rates (promoting interracial relationships congruent with mass immigration, white feminism and anti-family values; other factors might include health and food toxicity), Stubble shared with you a video link which clearly shows 100+ examples of abuses against whites by non-whites (good luck finding even 10 similar white-on-black abuses in the same period), and also has a section which discusses the data (on interracial aggravated assault, which occurs at a per capita rate of some 200x black-on-white, compared to white-on-black). That answers your "serious bodily harm" question. The issue of interracial rape is just as shocking, with black-on-white rapes occurring at a rate of about 20,000 per year (according to last recorded data), with white-on-black rapes being an average of zero (0) per year.

I am certain you will challenge this, so I have brought the receipts, from one of my posts at RODOH:

[...] I think I'll just try to briefly share the observations which I found most important, early on. First, consider some of the official FBI crime statistics data from a recent year, 2019 (I have not checked more recent years but worry the political agendas of late could entail an effort to skew the data, so 2019 seemed like a fair starting point): https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 ... able-6.xls

Within the data linked, there are a couple key observations:

For 2019, there were a total of 3,218 black-offender homicides; note that blacks are about 12% of the US population.

For the same year, there were 2,948 white-offender homicides; whites are about 60% of the US population.

Since the population sizes are different, this adds an extra step to calculate the per capita homicide rate for either group. The simplest way to do this is to multiply the black category by five, to see what these black-offender figures would look like if the black population were as large as the white population. In other words, if blacks were 60% of the population (instead of 12%), we would see 3,218 x 5 = 16,090 black-offender homicides for 2019. Dividing that number by the white-offender total, we have 16,090 / 2948 = 5.5x. Blacks are, therefore, 5.5x as likely per capita to commit murder in 2019.

[Even with the actual population sizes,] blacks are also more than twice as likely to kill whites (566), compared to likelihood of whites killing blacks (246). When factoring in the population size difference, blacks kill whites at a per capita rate of 11.5x (566 x 5 = 2830 versus 246) that of whites killing blacks.

In other words, in the USA, a random white person encountering a random black person is 11.5 times as likely to be killed by that black person, compared to the other way around.

To illustrate: if a white person is walking home from a concert in a sketchy neighborhood and can choose to go down the alleyway on the left (which has a white guy standing in it) versus the alleyway on the right (which has a black guy standing in it), all other variables remaining constant, that white person is 11.5 times as likely to be murdered going down the alleyway on the right.

Which alleyway should a white parent advise their kid(s) to travel down? Or should they say, "it doesn't matter", just to avoid being labeled a "racist"?

Even a black person is much, much safer going down the alleyway on the left (the white one). It's not even close.

Going a bit further back in time (to 2017), the numbers are even higher:

2017: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 ... d-homicide

"When the race of the offender was known, 54.2 percent were Black or African American, 43.1 percent were White, and 2.6 percent were of other races. The race was unknown for 5,368 offenders."

54.2 / 12 = 4.52

43.1 / 60 = 0.72

4.52 / 0.72 = 6.3x as much black-offender murder per capita (compared to 5.5x for 2019)

There is only so much "explaining away" that can be done here. This is not a 20% or even 50% difference in levels of murder and violent crime (which would already be staggering and demanding change). There is so much more murder, violence, rape, etc., being committed by blacks that it is almost unbelievable and I seldom encounter anyone who can even believe these statistics until I lay them out as done above.

I mentioned rape so I suppose I have to justify that one as well. Unfortunately, as I recall, the FBI/DOJ stopped collecting interracial data for rapes as of 2007-8, but the latest data is still on the DOJ website, right here, Table 42: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf

Here is a relevant screenshot:

020f5ec2ae2625ca.jpg (161.37 KiB) Viewed 641 times

Notice that there are 117,640 white rape victims each year. Of those, 16.4% are black offenders. With a simple calculation, it's about 19,293 white victims (overwhelmingly women) who are raped by blacks each year. Meanwhile, it appears zero (0) out of 46,580 black victims were raped by whites.

It can be noted that there is an 'unknown perpetrator' allocation (far right column) but these categories tend to reflect the same composition of what is in the "known" category given the crimes generally take place within the same or similar communities and context. The number of 'unknown' is also generally higher for crime in black communities as blacks are known for infrequent reporting of crimes ("snitches get stitches"), which is a well-documented trend. Altogether, it is probable that all of the 'unknown' within this category are also non-white.

Note that the only reason the overall number of rape incidents is higher in the "white" category (117,640 vs 46,580) is because whites are 60% of the population but blacks are just 12%. But with this in mind, blacks are still committing far, far more rape (even against their own) per capita.

In a nutshell: blacks per capita commit far more rape overall, and infinitely more interracial rape (black/white) than whites do.

As heavy/shocking/unbelievable as this sounds, this is the best available data, showing the actual state of affairs in America.

Beyond murder and rape, there are similar figures for non-fatal violent crime (2018), consistently showing blacks as at least double, triple, or several-fold higher incidents per capita compared to whites: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/revcoa18.pdf

So, what does this all mean? It means there is a problem that pertains to blacks and black communities, themselves, that cannot rationally -- not remotely -- be blamed upon whites.

[...]

---

https://rodoh.info/post/15561/thread

EDIT: I modified the quote as I do not want to delve too much into discussions of race, as stated in my original post. This is just enough to help illustrate the point that whites have, indeed, been subjected to what can be considered "genocide", in some context.

[Archie]

Nathan Cofnas is a calipers-wielding racist jackass.

What’s the objection to an “anti-revisionist” moderator? They had them at RODOH.

Interesting that you still seem to be at the "deny the data" stage. Uh, you do realize that nowadays with the internet it takes about ten minutes of research to confirm massive Jewish overrepresentation in X, Y, Z? And you must know everyone reading this site has already checked, so I don't see why you are even bothering with this stillborn talking point.

Since it sounds like you are a liberal, let me put this in liberal terms. The logic of affirmative action is that groups should be "represented" at around population weight in centers of power. For example, if blacks are 13% of the population, they should be around 13% of Harvard, etc. If they are only 1% at Harvard, this is thought to be a problem. However if underrepresentation of minorities is a valid concern, why wouldn't massive underrepresentation of the Gentile majority also be a concern? For example, if Gentiles are 98% of the population but are only say 50% of top Hollywood executives or something like that, then there is a potential representational issue there.

As of April 2024, here was the list of university presidents at the top ranked schools.

Princeton - Christopher Eisgruber (Jewish)
MIT - Sally Kornbluth (Jewish)
Harvard - Alan Garber, Interim (Jewish)
Stanford - Jonathan Levin (Jewish)
Yale - Peter Salovey (Jewish)
Penn - J. Larry Jameson , Interim (Goy)
Cal Tech - Thomas Rosenbaum (Jewish)
Duke - Vincent Price (Goy)
Brown - Christina Paxson (Jewish - she converted!)
Johns Hopkins - Ronald J. Daniels (Jewish)
Northwestern - Michael Schill (Jewish)
Columbia - Minouche Shafik (Egyptian)
Cornell - Martha Pollack (Jewish)
Chicago - Paul Alivisatos (Greek)
UC Berkeley - Carol Christ, Chancellor (Goy)
UCLA - Gene Block, Chancellor (Jewish)

Top 5: 5/5 (100% Jewish)
Top 10: 8/10 (80% Jewish)
Top 16: 11/16 (69% Jewish)

Usually if you present these sorts of numbers, the standard response is "OMG how dare you notice that!!" but the reason they get so hysterical is because they can't explain it in any reasonable way. We are supposed to not notice or just shrug and assume it's an amazing coincidence.

Once the data is acknowledged, the only way to defend it is to say it's all meritocratic (the opposite of what is claimed with black/white differences). You will pretty much unavoidably come up with something like what Cofnas says. Jews are just really smart, blah, blah, blah. Needless to say such an explanation is pretty awkward since it contradicts the idea that major group differences are due to discrimination.

If you are denying the data, or saying we shouldn't look at the data, then to me you just aren't being serious.

[Numar Patru]

The “logic” you use regarding Jewish/Gentile representation presumes there’s a meaningful distinction to be made there.

Maybe there is. If we went back 75 years, we’d find most positions of power and influence were held by WASPs. Was there a meaningful distinction to be made between WASPs and non-WASPs? If so, what was it? How is whatever separates Jews and Gentiles different?

That Jews predominate in certain fields is certainly true. I’m unsure what you think the reason for this is. I’d argue that Jews have traditionally put a heavy emphasis on education. Moreover, when it was necessary for the first postwar generation of Jews to become educated, the NYC college system was free, which provided a tremendous leg up for that generation.

(Christopher Eisberger isn’t Jewish, btw. The first name is the giveaway there.)

Are Jews smarter? I’m not a big believer in that idea. Other explanations seem more likely to me.

[Archie]

The “logic” you use regarding Jewish/Gentile representation presumes there’s a meaningful distinction to be made there.

Maybe there is. If we went back 75 years, we’d find most positions of power and influence were held by WASPs. Was there a meaningful distinction to be made between WASPs and non-WASPs? If so, what was it? How is whatever separates Jews and Gentiles different?

That Jews predominate in certain fields is certainly true. I’m unsure what you think the reason for this is. I’d argue that Jews have traditionally put a heavy emphasis on education. Moreover, when it was necessary for the first postwar generation of Jews to become educated, the NYC college system was free, which provided a tremendous leg up for that generation.

(Christopher Eisberger isn’t Jewish, btw. The first name is the giveaway there.)

Are Jews smarter? I’m not a big believer in that idea. Other explanations seem more likely to me.

Eisberger is a borderline case (whether it's 11/16 or "only" 10/16 is not material to my point in any case). He's genetically half-Jewish on his mother's side and he apparently has embraced the identity to some extent. From his Wiki page,

Eisgruber was raised Catholic and married his wife in an Episcopal church. While helping his son, then in the fourth grade, with a school project, he discovered that his Berlin-born mother, who had arrived in New York as an eight-year-old refugee, was Jewish. Today, Eisgruber identifies as a nontheist Jew.[23] His wife is Episcopalian.[24] In 2009, a Holocaust claims tribunal awarded Eisgruber and his three sisters 162,500 Swiss francs, representing the value of the bank account of their maternal great-grandfather, Salomon Kalisch.[2]

With university presidents, I suspect Jewish money was the dominant factor. A big part of the job is fundraising and there are a lot of Jews on the donor lists.

At the elite university president level, as things stand currently, it probably is the case that the Jew/Gentile distinction is not of much practical importance within that pool, but that doesn't explain why the pool is so Jewish to begin with. If there were no distinction at all, then what we observe would be statistically impossible. It has to be something about "Jewishness" (which is the "anti-Semtic" explanation) or it has to be factors correlated with being Jewish (Cofnas-style apologetics).

[Numar Patru]

If there were no distinction at all, then what we observe would be statistically impossible. It has to be something about "Jewishness" (which is the "anti-Semtic" explanation) or it has to be factors correlated with being Jewish (Cofnas-style apologetics).

As I said, it’s possible that Jews are overrepresented in academia for reasons that are “Jewish,” i.e., the traditional Jewish emphasis on education. Certainly, the large Jewish presence in the legal profession is even more related to specifically Jewish causes, mainly the very high value that the study of law has had within Jewish culture for centuries. This is something even someone as wrongheaded (IMO) as KMac understands.

This strikes me as neither antisemitic nor reliant upon a belief that Jews are inherently intellectually exceptional for whatever reason, genetic or otherwise.

My larger point, however, remains, which is that you wouldn’t see Jewish overrepresentation in certain fields had Jews not accomplished/obtained/whatever “whiteness” first. That’s particularly true about academia, since even places like Harvard used to have a numerus clasus.

My mother’s family is Italian American. She has two first cousins who were vice presidents at Exxon Mobil — highly successful, very wealthy execs. That doesn’t happen if their parents hadn’t been made white at some point.

My father, who’s half Jewish, is a PhD and has two first cousins who are also PhDs. This is on the Jewish side of his family, where there were only eight grandchildren overall. I can’t explain why that happened but that those PhD are all half Jewish (lot of intermarriage in my grandmother’s family — they were very Germanized Jews) and that none were raised Jewish or particularly identified as Jewish (one non-PhD cousin on that side is a Methodist clergyman) would seem to indicate that the Jewish half of their ancestry wasn’t particularly decisive. Rather, that my father and one of his PhD cousins don’t have Jewish surnames and that none of the three was raised Jewish was probably an advantage for them at the time (all were born in the 1940s).

[Callafangers]

If there were no distinction at all, then what we observe would be statistically impossible. It has to be something about "Jewishness" (which is the "anti-Semtic" explanation) or it has to be factors correlated with being Jewish (Cofnas-style apologetics).

As I said, it’s possible that Jews are overrepresented in academia for reasons that are “Jewish,” i.e., the traditional Jewish emphasis on education. Certainly, the large Jewish presence in the legal profession is even more related to specifically Jewish causes, mainly the very high value that the study of law has had within Jewish culture for centuries. This is something even someone as wrongheaded (IMO) as KMac understands.

This strikes me as neither antisemitic nor reliant upon a belief that Jews are inherently intellectually exceptional for whatever reason, genetic or otherwise.

Are you going to leave out nepotism, ethnocentrism, and ideology completely? Duly noted. Your position might have some weight to it if it weren't for the evidence of Jewish collective ambitions, which is absolutely overwhelming.

My larger point, however, remains, which is that you wouldn’t see Jewish overrepresentation in certain fields had Jews not accomplished/obtained/whatever “whiteness” first. That’s particularly true about academia, since even places like Harvard used to have a numerus clasus.

Jews sought to obtain 'whiteness' in order to subvert white society. It's that simple.

My mother’s family is Italian American. She has two first cousins who were vice presidents at Exxon Mobil — highly successful, very wealthy execs. That doesn’t happen if their parents hadn’t been made white at some point.

My father, who’s half Jewish, is a PhD and has two first cousins who are also PhDs. This is on the Jewish side of his family, where there were only eight grandchildren overall. I can’t explain why that happened but that those PhD are all half Jewish (lot of intermarriage in my grandmother’s family — they were very Germanized Jews) and that none were raised Jewish or particularly identified as Jewish (one non-PhD cousin on that side is a Methodist clergyman) would seem to indicate that the Jewish half of their ancestry wasn’t particularly decisive. Rather, that my father and one of his cousins don’t have Jewish surnames and that none of the three was raised Jewish was probably an advantage for them at the time (all were born in the 1940s).

Thank you for explaining why you have a subjective bias on this matter. The data and history speaks to much more than your own anecdotal experiences do. We agree Jews do not have some inherent, genetic superiority over anyone and I would even agree they are raised to emphasize certain practices which can be beneficial in areas like law (given their practices in argumentation, including deceptive practices like 'pilpul'). What you leave out is their collective power-driven ambitions which motivate them to gravitate to not just law but to every major institution in society which can be leveraged to subvert the best interests of that nation (in favor of exclusively-Jewish interests).

If Jews simply acquired power then used it to improve the lives of the other people of that host nation, people would fucking love the Jews (myself included). But we know through thousands of instances throughout history (well-documented, indisputable), that this is 100% not the case at all. Jews have always used their power exclusively for Jewish interests and in ways that cause immense harm to the host population - certainly on a macro scale. The isolated exceptions are so isolated and exceptional as to be meaningless, when discussing the Jewish collective as a whole.

Jews run the media - our media lies. Jews run finance - inflation explodes. Jews run foreign policy - we kill and die for Israel. The list goes on and on, wherever they rule.

[Hektor]

The “logic” you use regarding Jewish/Gentile representation presumes there’s a meaningful distinction to be made there.

Maybe there is. If we went back 75 years, we’d find most positions of power and influence were held by WASPs. Was there a meaningful distinction to be made between WASPs and non-WASPs? If so, what was it? How is whatever separates Jews and Gentiles different?
...

Half-Jews can also benefit from Jewish Privilege..... They will be supported by Jews rather than them supporting a non-Jew. And they are more prone to go against critics of such a person. So in the competition around key positions this can be a big advantage to have at least some 'Jewish relatives'... From the strategic perspective it can even be seen as a advantage, since the person may not be perceived as Jewish and those White-Knighting for Jews will point out that he isn't fully Jewish, so there is no real Jewish influence on the culture (bla, bla, etc.).