Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

ATL thinks people caring about ethnicity or race is what is strange

He lives in a world where such things should not be noticed or cared about. (Very lightly held identifications)

Of course in the real world it's something lots of people in lots of countries care about.

But to him that is "racialist historicity"

So he will developed utopian ideas in his head (like a One-State solution where Arabs and Jews are forced into a single country) and then act shocked with the whole thing turns into a bloodbath or a dysfunctional failed State.

---

Some of us don't live in a world prism of racial conflict like you. You want it because you believe in it. I just keep exposing you for it..

---

I guess I'm confused by your line of argument….

Are you arguing ethnic-racial conflict does not in fact exist?

Or is your beef just when people point out it exists on earth?

(I'm certainly not arguing it's the source of all problems but I am not denying it exists either)

Wiki seems to have a pretty long list of current ethnic conflicts on earth.

Are these inaccurate? Are they not real?

Does someone need to let wiki know that the Yugoslav wars were not ethnic conflicts and that the conflict in Rwanda was not ethnic in nature?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_conflict

---

Of course ethnic conflict occurs. I've been around some of the worst ones. That's not what your racialism projects on your topics. You believe/support/argue separation along ethno-racial lines in so many of these discussion. You love pulling history into it because societies were much more segmented along those lines centuries ago.

---

Like usual…you are making assumptions about my beliefs.

I do not "believe/support/argue" for forced separation along ethnic-racial lines.

But I do believe nations/peoples/ethnic groups have every right to determine who they give citizenship to and who they invite into their communities.

Do you believe/support/argue for forced integration along ethno-racial lines?

You certainly seem to…and you really seem to hate the past where societies were more segmented on these lines.

Are you looking forward to a magic utopian future where such distinctions will be obliterated? Maybe by force….

---

Stop dodging and just come out and say what you believe. You're not being coy or fooling anyone with your volley of questions. At least barbearian has the guts to admit his angle.

---

Please buddy... you have dodged on here more than anyone.

I have come out and said many times what I actually believe....including in the post above that you apparently did not read.

So I will re-post what I said verbatim

"I do not 'believe/support/argue' for forced separation along ethnic-racial lines.

But I do believe nations/peoples/ethnic groups have every right to determine who they give citizenship to and who they invite into their communities"

I have said it many times....but you continue to not like the answer

---

How can you even say the above when you have argued ad nauseum in the Ukraine thread about how Russia should be able (or has a right/claim) to take back Crimea and the East under historical ethnic auspices.

This has nothing to do with citizenship or border policies. You do actually believe in forced, enforced, or even passive ethno racial segregation.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

That's what Red doesn't understand. A muslim's worldview is framed by the Koran, which defines "the islamic world" as the area where sharia is law of the land,

---

Oh I think I have been clear that ethnic-cultural groups can have wildly different values and beliefs and that those can be the source of conflict. (especially when forced to share a Nation-State or particular piece of territory)

I think its guys like ATL who fail to understand that...or just dislike it when people point it out.

I don't think Gaddafi and ATL's One-State solution to the Jewish-Arab conflict in the Middle East is a workable idea.

(I just doubt all Arabs hate all Jews)

---

Whiterock is correct on Muslim sentiment. But Israel worked it out for their current state. If given the same level of control as a federal state over the two added regions, I'm confident they would work it out as well. It might be ugly for an initial period, but let's not pretend it hasn't been ugly for decades.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

ATL thinks people caring about ethnicity or race is what is strange

He lives in a world where such things should not be noticed or cared about. (Very lightly held identifications)

Of course in the real world it's something lots of people in lots of countries care about.

But to him that is "racialist historicity"

So he will developed utopian ideas in his head (like a One-State solution where Arabs and Jews are forced into a single country) and then act shocked with the whole thing turns into a bloodbath or a dysfunctional failed State.

---

Some of us don't live in a world prism of racial conflict like you. You want it because you believe in it. I just keep exposing you for it..

---

I guess I'm confused by your line of argument….

Are you arguing ethnic-racial conflict does not in fact exist?

Or is your beef just when people point out it exists on earth?

(I'm certainly not arguing it's the source of all problems but I am not denying it exists either)

Wiki seems to have a pretty long list of current ethnic conflicts on earth.

Are these inaccurate? Are they not real?

Does someone need to let wiki know that the Yugoslav wars were not ethnic conflicts and that the conflict in Rwanda was not ethnic in nature?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_conflict

---

Of course ethnic conflict occurs. I've been around some of the worst ones. That's not what your racialism projects on your topics. You believe/support/argue separation along ethno-racial lines in so many of these discussion. You love pulling history into it because societies were much more segmented along those lines centuries ago.

---

Like usual…you are making assumptions about my beliefs.

I do not "believe/support/argue" for forced separation along ethnic-racial lines.

But I do believe nations/peoples/ethnic groups have every right to determine who they give citizenship to and who they invite into their communities.

Do you believe/support/argue for forced integration along ethno-racial lines?

You certainly seem to…and you really seem to hate the past where societies were more segmented on these lines.

Are you looking forward to a magic utopian future where such distinctions will be obliterated? Maybe by force….

---

Stop dodging and just come out and say what you believe. You're not being coy or fooling anyone with your volley of questions. At least barbearian has the guts to admit his angle.

---

Please buddy... you have dodged on here more than anyone.

I have come out and said many times what I actually believe....including in the post above that you apparently did not read.

So I will re-post what I said verbatim

"I do not 'believe/support/argue' for forced separation along ethnic-racial lines.

But I do believe nations/peoples/ethnic groups have every right to determine who they give citizenship to and who they invite into their communities"

I have said it many times....but you continue to not like the answer

---

How can you even say the above when you have argued ad nauseum in the Ukraine thread about how Russia should be able (or has a right/claim) to take back Crimea and the East under historical ethnic auspices.

---

I actually didn't

What I specifically said is that the people of the Donbas and Crimea (who happen to be ethnic Russians) have a right to break off a form their own State or join Russia if they want.

That is called the freedom of self determination…

Why do you continue to believe in using force to keep people inside an artificial political union?

(PS I have also said the Ukrainians have every right to break off from Russia)

But again your biggest problem seems to be with the idea there are ethnic groups out there in the world and that those same groups just might not want to be in political unions with other peoples.

That idea really burns you up and triggers you

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

That's what Red doesn't understand. A muslim's worldview is framed by the Koran, which defines "the islamic world" as the area where sharia is law of the land,

---

Oh I think I have been clear that ethnic-cultural groups can have wildly different values and beliefs and that those can be the source of conflict. (especially when forced to share a Nation-State or particular piece of territory)

I think its guys like ATL who fail to understand that...or just dislike it when people point it out.

I don't think Gaddafi and ATL's One-State solution to the Jewish-Arab conflict in the Middle East is a workable idea.

(I just doubt all Arabs hate all Jews)

---

Whiterock is correct on Muslim sentiment. But Israel worked it out for their current state. If given the same level of control as a federal state over the two added regions, I'm confident they would work it out as well. It might be ugly for an initial period, but let's not pretend it hasn't been ugly for decades.

---

Kind of like how Bosnia was supposed to be a success story of multi-ethnic and multi-religious federal State?

Didn't turn out that way…

And Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs have larger fault lines and more of an antagonistic history than Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs

But I'm sure your plan will work great

Former Soviet satellites with common corruption, weak legal structures, and a weak economy. Don't compare an apple and an orange. Israel actually has an upside and a track record.

I think you just don't want the Jews to get a dub.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

ATL thinks people caring about ethnicity or race is what is strange

He lives in a world where such things should not be noticed or cared about. (Very lightly held identifications)

Of course in the real world it's something lots of people in lots of countries care about.

But to him that is "racialist historicity"

So he will developed utopian ideas in his head (like a One-State solution where Arabs and Jews are forced into a single country) and then act shocked with the whole thing turns into a bloodbath or a dysfunctional failed State.

---

Some of us don't live in a world prism of racial conflict like you. You want it because you believe in it. I just keep exposing you for it..

---

I guess I'm confused by your line of argument….

Are you arguing ethnic-racial conflict does not in fact exist?

Or is your beef just when people point out it exists on earth?

(I'm certainly not arguing it's the source of all problems but I am not denying it exists either)

Wiki seems to have a pretty long list of current ethnic conflicts on earth.

Are these inaccurate? Are they not real?

Does someone need to let wiki know that the Yugoslav wars were not ethnic conflicts and that the conflict in Rwanda was not ethnic in nature?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_conflict

---

Of course ethnic conflict occurs. I've been around some of the worst ones. That's not what your racialism projects on your topics. You believe/support/argue separation along ethno-racial lines in so many of these discussion. You love pulling history into it because societies were much more segmented along those lines centuries ago.

---

Like usual…you are making assumptions about my beliefs.

I do not "believe/support/argue" for forced separation along ethnic-racial lines.

But I do believe nations/peoples/ethnic groups have every right to determine who they give citizenship to and who they invite into their communities.

Do you believe/support/argue for forced integration along ethno-racial lines?

You certainly seem to…and you really seem to hate the past where societies were more segmented on these lines.

Are you looking forward to a magic utopian future where such distinctions will be obliterated? Maybe by force….

---

Stop dodging and just come out and say what you believe. You're not being coy or fooling anyone with your volley of questions. At least barbearian has the guts to admit his angle.

---

Please buddy... you have dodged on here more than anyone.

I have come out and said many times what I actually believe....including in the post above that you apparently did not read.

So I will re-post what I said verbatim

"I do not 'believe/support/argue' for forced separation along ethnic-racial lines.

But I do believe nations/peoples/ethnic groups have every right to determine who they give citizenship to and who they invite into their communities"

I have said it many times....but you continue to not like the answer

---

How can you even say the above when you have argued ad nauseum in the Ukraine thread about how Russia should be able (or has a right/claim) to take back Crimea and the East under historical ethnic auspices.

---

I actually didn't

What I specifically said is that the people of the Donbas and Crimea (who happen to be ethnic Russians) have a right to break off a form their own State or join Russia if they want.

That is called the freedom of self determination…

Why do you continue to believe in using force to keep people inside an artificial political union?

(PS I have also said the Ukrainians have every right to break off from Russia)

But again your biggest problem seems to be with the idea there are ethnic groups out there in the world and that those same groups just might not want to be in political unions with other peoples.

That idea really burns you up and triggers you

---

Actually, you're the triggered one who believes diverse ethnic groups can't live together in peace. You're also the big fan of secession and never bringing the Union back together. Own it.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

ATL thinks people caring about ethnicity or race is what is strange

He lives in a world where such things should not be noticed or cared about. (Very lightly held identifications)

Of course in the real world it's something lots of people in lots of countries care about.

But to him that is "racialist historicity"

So he will developed utopian ideas in his head (like a One-State solution where Arabs and Jews are forced into a single country) and then act shocked with the whole thing turns into a bloodbath or a dysfunctional failed State.

---

Some of us don't live in a world prism of racial conflict like you. You want it because you believe in it. I just keep exposing you for it..

---

I guess I'm confused by your line of argument….

Are you arguing ethnic-racial conflict does not in fact exist?

Or is your beef just when people point out it exists on earth?

(I'm certainly not arguing it's the source of all problems but I am not denying it exists either)

Wiki seems to have a pretty long list of current ethnic conflicts on earth.

Are these inaccurate? Are they not real?

Does someone need to let wiki know that the Yugoslav wars were not ethnic conflicts and that the conflict in Rwanda was not ethnic in nature?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_conflict

---

Of course ethnic conflict occurs. I've been around some of the worst ones. That's not what your racialism projects on your topics. You believe/support/argue separation along ethno-racial lines in so many of these discussion. You love pulling history into it because societies were much more segmented along those lines centuries ago.

---

Like usual…you are making assumptions about my beliefs.

I do not "believe/support/argue" for forced separation along ethnic-racial lines.

But I do believe nations/peoples/ethnic groups have every right to determine who they give citizenship to and who they invite into their communities.

Do you believe/support/argue for forced integration along ethno-racial lines?

You certainly seem to…and you really seem to hate the past where societies were more segmented on these lines.

Are you looking forward to a magic utopian future where such distinctions will be obliterated? Maybe by force….

---

Stop dodging and just come out and say what you believe. You're not being coy or fooling anyone with your volley of questions. At least barbearian has the guts to admit his angle.

---

Please buddy... you have dodged on here more than anyone.

I have come out and said many times what I actually believe....including in the post above that you apparently did not read.

So I will re-post what I said verbatim

"I do not 'believe/support/argue' for forced separation along ethnic-racial lines.

But I do believe nations/peoples/ethnic groups have every right to determine who they give citizenship to and who they invite into their communities"

I have said it many times....but you continue to not like the answer

---

How can you even say the above when you have argued ad nauseum in the Ukraine thread about how Russia should be able (or has a right/claim) to take back Crimea and the East under historical ethnic auspices.

---

I actually didn't

What I specifically said is that the people of the Donbas and Crimea (who happen to be ethnic Russians) have a right to break off a form their own State or join Russia if they want.

That is called the freedom of self determination…

Why do you continue to believe in using force to keep people inside an artificial political union?

(PS I have also said the Ukrainians have every right to break off from Russia)

But again your biggest problem seems to be with the idea there are ethnic groups out there in the world and that those same groups just might not want to be in political unions with other peoples.

That idea really burns you up and triggers you

---

Actually, you're the triggered one who believes diverse ethnic groups can't live together in peace…

---

Did I ever say that? Of course not

Why do you feel like you have to lie?

Is it because you feel like you need to lie to bolster your weak case & poor argument skills? Sad

Many ethnic groups can and do live together in peace…and many times history, as well as the present, tells us that is not the case (but you hate admitting that since it runs up against your liberal sensibilities)

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

ATL thinks people caring about ethnicity or race is what is strange

He lives in a world where such things should not be noticed or cared about. (Very lightly held identifications)

Of course in the real world it's something lots of people in lots of countries care about.

But to him that is "racialist historicity"

So he will developed utopian ideas in his head (like a One-State solution where Arabs and Jews are forced into a single country) and then act shocked with the whole thing turns into a bloodbath or a dysfunctional failed State.

---

Some of us don't live in a world prism of racial conflict like you. You want it because you believe in it. I just keep exposing you for it..

---

I guess I'm confused by your line of argument….

Are you arguing ethnic-racial conflict does not in fact exist?

Or is your beef just when people point out it exists on earth?

(I'm certainly not arguing it's the source of all problems but I am not denying it exists either)

Wiki seems to have a pretty long list of current ethnic conflicts on earth.

Are these inaccurate? Are they not real?

Does someone need to let wiki know that the Yugoslav wars were not ethnic conflicts and that the conflict in Rwanda was not ethnic in nature?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_conflict

---

Of course ethnic conflict occurs. I've been around some of the worst ones. That's not what your racialism projects on your topics. You believe/support/argue separation along ethno-racial lines in so many of these discussion. You love pulling history into it because societies were much more segmented along those lines centuries ago.

---

Like usual…you are making assumptions about my beliefs.

I do not "believe/support/argue" for forced separation along ethnic-racial lines.

But I do believe nations/peoples/ethnic groups have every right to determine who they give citizenship to and who they invite into their communities.

Do you believe/support/argue for forced integration along ethno-racial lines?

You certainly seem to…and you really seem to hate the past where societies were more segmented on these lines.

Are you looking forward to a magic utopian future where such distinctions will be obliterated? Maybe by force….

---

Stop dodging and just come out and say what you believe. You're not being coy or fooling anyone with your volley of questions. At least barbearian has the guts to admit his angle.

---

Please buddy... you have dodged on here more than anyone.

I have come out and said many times what I actually believe....including in the post above that you apparently did not read.

So I will re-post what I said verbatim

"I do not 'believe/support/argue' for forced separation along ethnic-racial lines.

But I do believe nations/peoples/ethnic groups have every right to determine who they give citizenship to and who they invite into their communities"

I have said it many times....but you continue to not like the answer

---

How can you even say the above when you have argued ad nauseum in the Ukraine thread about how Russia should be able (or has a right/claim) to take back Crimea and the East under historical ethnic auspices.

---

I actually didn't

What I specifically said is that the people of the Donbas and Crimea (who happen to be ethnic Russians) have a right to break off a form their own State or join Russia if they want.

That is called the freedom of self determination…

Why do you continue to believe in using force to keep people inside an artificial political union?

(PS I have also said the Ukrainians have every right to break off from Russia)

But again your biggest problem seems to be with the idea there are ethnic groups out there in the world and that those same groups just might not want to be in political unions with other peoples.

That idea really burns you up and triggers you

---

You're also the big fan of secession and never bringing the Union back together. Own it.

---

I'm happy to have a civil war discussion with you anytime (on an actual thread dedicated to that topic)

Of course you do realize that the USA and Texas were created via secession right?

I mean I know you hate history and are illiterate on those topics….but still I would be happy to take time to educate you.

ATL Bear said:

---

Former Soviet satellites with common corruption, weak legal structures, and a weak economy. Don't compare an apple and an orange. Israel actually has an upside and a track record. .

---

Palestine does not have a weak economy, weak legal structures, and corruption?

Merging the two States I doubt would be a "dub" for the Jews who overwhelmingly reject your utopian fantasy.

(Ps….dont use slang ATL…you're far to old for that and it sounds lame)

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

yesterday's attack by Israel was beyond the pale. How can the live with themselves bombing schools (I do understand that Hezbollah inhabits theses places). However that POS Bibi is a thug. Cut those mffers off 100%. We sent those savages $3B yesterday. Hope you good tax payers are ok with that.

---

If legitimate military targets are infesting a building; why is it ' beyond the pale' to bomb the building ?

---

Because of Jew hatred ... duh.

---

Yeah right, clown. My partner is Jewish. So, that prolly aint it. I have made the distinction here many a time. I have no beef with the people of Israel , but I do have an issue with the govt. Bibi is a thug. I have no issue going after military targets, but it cannot be indiscriminate involving kids and innocent civilian. Just barbaric. Again. cut them off.

---

The irony of the "hatred" comment is lost on Red.

The hatred driving this war is that of the Arab for the Jew

---

In any such land-national-ethnic conflict like this there is plenty of hate on both sides.

You think all the hate just comes from the Arabs?

---

The kind of institutional, widespread, and deep hatred that generates multiple mass invasions/attacks against a neighbor in the 20th and 21st Centuries? Yes, all Arab hate.

---

Well things can also change... not all their Arab neighbors hate them.

As of right now they have peace treaties with both Egypt (the big dog in the region) and Jordan.

Lebanon's arab Christians (a sizeable part of the population) are not enemies of Israel

The UAE now had diplomatic relations with them.

And even Saudi Arabia has move to have closer ties to Israel..."Recently, Saudi Arabia has made the shift to limit the threats it faces to no more than two enemies: Iran and Sunni Islamist political opposition. These happen to be seen as the two threats facing Israel as well. This has brought both countries to an unlikely alliance. In the words of an influential member of the Al Saud ruling family, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, 'For the first time, Saudi Arabian interests and Israel are almost parallel"

Their big opponents are the Palestinians (who they are currently occupying the West Bank from) and Iran and Syria...the militant groups they support.

---

The hate is Arab. Much different than all Arabs hate.

Your response proves my point further. Israel has proven it is willing to make peace with anyone, including Arabs, and including Arabs who not too long ago invaded/attacked them.

The problem is Palestine, Iran, and like-minded terrorists. (Oh, and American university students . . . .)

---

Israeli politicians and journalists defend the rape and killing of Palestinian prisoners, but sure…all the hate is on one side.

Tonight has been one of the Quietest Nights for Israel, Gaza, and Southern Lebanon in quite awhile, let’s see if it lasts.

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) August 16, 2024

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

yesterday's attack by Israel was beyond the pale. How can the live with themselves bombing schools (I do understand that Hezbollah inhabits theses places). However that POS Bibi is a thug. Cut those mffers off 100%. We sent those savages $3B yesterday. Hope you good tax payers are ok with that.

---

If legitimate military targets are infesting a building; why is it ' beyond the pale' to bomb the building ?

---

Because of Jew hatred ... duh.

---

Yeah right, clown. My partner is Jewish. So, that prolly aint it. I have made the distinction here many a time. I have no beef with the people of Israel , but I do have an issue with the govt. Bibi is a thug. I have no issue going after military targets, but it cannot be indiscriminate involving kids and innocent civilian. Just barbaric. Again. cut them off.

---

The irony of the "hatred" comment is lost on Red.

The hatred driving this war is that of the Arab for the Jew

---

In any such land-national-ethnic conflict like this there is plenty of hate on both sides.

You think all the hate just comes from the Arabs?

---

The kind of institutional, widespread, and deep hatred that generates multiple mass invasions/attacks against a neighbor in the 20th and 21st Centuries? Yes, all Arab hate.

---

Well things can also change... not all their Arab neighbors hate them.

As of right now they have peace treaties with both Egypt (the big dog in the region) and Jordan.

Lebanon's arab Christians (a sizeable part of the population) are not enemies of Israel

The UAE now had diplomatic relations with them.

And even Saudi Arabia has move to have closer ties to Israel..."Recently, Saudi Arabia has made the shift to limit the threats it faces to no more than two enemies: Iran and Sunni Islamist political opposition. These happen to be seen as the two threats facing Israel as well. This has brought both countries to an unlikely alliance. In the words of an influential member of the Al Saud ruling family, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, 'For the first time, Saudi Arabian interests and Israel are almost parallel"

Their big opponents are the Palestinians (who they are currently occupying the West Bank from) and Iran and Syria...the militant groups they support.

---

The hate is Arab. Much different than all Arabs hate.

Your response proves my point further. Israel has proven it is willing to make peace with anyone, including Arabs, and including Arabs who not too long ago invaded/attacked them.

The problem is Palestine, Iran, and like-minded terrorists. (Oh, and American university students . . . .)

---

Israeli politicians and journalists defend the rape and killing of Palestinian prisoners, but sure…all the hate is on one side.

---

Do you have a link or reference where Palestinian prisoners have been raped? or killed?

Guy Noir said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

yesterday's attack by Israel was beyond the pale. How can the live with themselves bombing schools (I do understand that Hezbollah inhabits theses places). However that POS Bibi is a thug. Cut those mffers off 100%. We sent those savages $3B yesterday. Hope you good tax payers are ok with that.

---

If legitimate military targets are infesting a building; why is it ' beyond the pale' to bomb the building ?

---

Because of Jew hatred ... duh.

---

Yeah right, clown. My partner is Jewish. So, that prolly aint it. I have made the distinction here many a time. I have no beef with the people of Israel , but I do have an issue with the govt. Bibi is a thug. I have no issue going after military targets, but it cannot be indiscriminate involving kids and innocent civilian. Just barbaric. Again. cut them off.

---

The irony of the "hatred" comment is lost on Red.

The hatred driving this war is that of the Arab for the Jew

---

In any such land-national-ethnic conflict like this there is plenty of hate on both sides.

You think all the hate just comes from the Arabs?

---

The kind of institutional, widespread, and deep hatred that generates multiple mass invasions/attacks against a neighbor in the 20th and 21st Centuries? Yes, all Arab hate.

---

Well things can also change... not all their Arab neighbors hate them.

As of right now they have peace treaties with both Egypt (the big dog in the region) and Jordan.

Lebanon's arab Christians (a sizeable part of the population) are not enemies of Israel

The UAE now had diplomatic relations with them.

And even Saudi Arabia has move to have closer ties to Israel..."Recently, Saudi Arabia has made the shift to limit the threats it faces to no more than two enemies: Iran and Sunni Islamist political opposition. These happen to be seen as the two threats facing Israel as well. This has brought both countries to an unlikely alliance. In the words of an influential member of the Al Saud ruling family, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, 'For the first time, Saudi Arabian interests and Israel are almost parallel"

Their big opponents are the Palestinians (who they are currently occupying the West Bank from) and Iran and Syria...the militant groups they support.

---

The hate is Arab. Much different than all Arabs hate.

Your response proves my point further. Israel has proven it is willing to make peace with anyone, including Arabs, and including Arabs who not too long ago invaded/attacked them.

The problem is Palestine, Iran, and like-minded terrorists. (Oh, and American university students . . . .)

---

Israeli politicians and journalists defend the rape and killing of Palestinian prisoners, but sure…all the hate is on one side.

---

Do you have a link or reference where Palestinian prisoners have been raped? or killed?

---

I posted one with video a week ago. Have yet to see a single response.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

yesterday's attack by Israel was beyond the pale. How can the live with themselves bombing schools (I do understand that Hezbollah inhabits theses places). However that POS Bibi is a thug. Cut those mffers off 100%. We sent those savages $3B yesterday. Hope you good tax payers are ok with that.

---

If legitimate military targets are infesting a building; why is it ' beyond the pale' to bomb the building ?

---

Because of Jew hatred ... duh.

---

Yeah right, clown. My partner is Jewish. So, that prolly aint it. I have made the distinction here many a time. I have no beef with the people of Israel , but I do have an issue with the govt. Bibi is a thug. I have no issue going after military targets, but it cannot be indiscriminate involving kids and innocent civilian. Just barbaric. Again. cut them off.

---

The irony of the "hatred" comment is lost on Red.

The hatred driving this war is that of the Arab for the Jew

---

In any such land-national-ethnic conflict like this there is plenty of hate on both sides.

You think all the hate just comes from the Arabs?

---

The kind of institutional, widespread, and deep hatred that generates multiple mass invasions/attacks against a neighbor in the 20th and 21st Centuries? Yes, all Arab hate.

---

Well things can also change... not all their Arab neighbors hate them.

As of right now they have peace treaties with both Egypt (the big dog in the region) and Jordan.

Lebanon's arab Christians (a sizeable part of the population) are not enemies of Israel

The UAE now had diplomatic relations with them.

And even Saudi Arabia has move to have closer ties to Israel..."Recently, Saudi Arabia has made the shift to limit the threats it faces to no more than two enemies: Iran and Sunni Islamist political opposition. These happen to be seen as the two threats facing Israel as well. This has brought both countries to an unlikely alliance. In the words of an influential member of the Al Saud ruling family, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, 'For the first time, Saudi Arabian interests and Israel are almost parallel"

Their big opponents are the Palestinians (who they are currently occupying the West Bank from) and Iran and Syria...the militant groups they support.

---

The hate is Arab. Much different than all Arabs hate.

Your response proves my point further. Israel has proven it is willing to make peace with anyone, including Arabs, and including Arabs who not too long ago invaded/attacked them.

The problem is Palestine, Iran, and like-minded terrorists. (Oh, and American university students . . . .)

---

Israeli politicians and journalists defend the rape and killing of Palestinian prisoners, but sure…all the hate is on one side.

---

You obviously missed my definition of hate.

Do a lot of Israelis hate a lot of Palestinians? Of course, and so do I. I hate terrorists.

I also hate the small minority of Israeli radicals who also are terrorists.

But there simply is no comparison from historical or systemic perspectives. It is night and day.

And anti-Christian, anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist, etc. Theirs is a false religion and they are completely intolerant of all others to the point of jihad: the desire for global conquest. The desire for a new, global caliphate is very real, particularly amongst the fanatics. For example, the leaders of Iran.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Former Soviet satellites with common corruption, weak legal structures, and a weak economy. Don't compare an apple and an orange. Israel actually has an upside and a track record. .

---

Palestine does not have a weak economy, weak legal structures, and corruption?

Merging the two States I doubt would be a "dub" for the Jews who overwhelmingly reject your utopian fantasy.

(Ps….dont use slang ATL…you're far too old for that and it sounds lame)

---

Your responses are becoming more incoherent and childish. You can't even gather your thoughts enough to respond once with something cogent, as if your stream of inanity warranted a second or third comment.

---

Please....lol

You are using stupid slang terms on here like "dub"

You are bringing up things from other threads about the Civil War or the Ukraine war. (for no apparent reason)

Lets be honest...you are the one acting childish with no clear logical thought process.

For some really strange reason you got mad and triggered about a topic involving demographics and you have been spinning ever since on here.

Maybe its time for you to take a break from the internet ATL and have a cool down time?

Osodecentx said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

I just dont understand why people say Israel is our "#1 ally" when Jews(ADL, SPLC, ACLU, Pro-Israel Lobby, etc) fight against and demonize Whites when we talk about protecting our citizens and mass deportations of illegals who are murdering and raping the native citizens of European and North American countries.

---

. Who is our #1 ally in the ME?

---

NO ONE

---

Wrong

Israel

---

we pretend , but they would slit our throats in minutes . That govt is so corrupt.

ATL Bear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

yesterday's attack by Israel was beyond the pale. How can the live with themselves bombing schools (I do understand that Hezbollah inhabits theses places). However that POS Bibi is a thug. Cut those mffers off 100%. We sent those savages $3B yesterday. Hope you good tax payers are ok with that.

---

If legitimate military targets are infesting a building; why is it ' beyond the pale' to bomb the building ?

---

Because of Jew hatred ... duh.

---

Yeah right, clown. My partner is Jewish. So, that prolly aint it. I have made the distinction here many a time. I have no beef with the people of Israel , but I do have an issue with the govt. Bibi is a thug. I have no issue going after military targets, but it cannot be indiscriminate involving kids and innocent civilian. Just barbaric. Again. cut them off.

---

Not sure you're processing the events correctly. Hate on Bibi all you want, but I have high certainty any replacement of his would conduct the situation without much variance.

---

don't disagree with that. that is the problem.

historian said:

---

And anti-Christian, anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist, etc. Theirs is a false religion and they are completely intolerant of all others to the point of jihad: the desire for global conquest. The desire for a new, global caliphate is very real, particularly amongst the fanatics. For example, the leaders of Iran.

---

And just how do you know that? How do you know their religion is false. Maybe, cuz you were taught that in Sunday school

While you guys are shilling for Israel or Palestine…

I'm over here shilling for Marionite Lebanon

“We do not speak Arabic: We speak Lebanese. Everyone says that we speak Arabic, but that’s not true. Arabic is literary Arabic, but the language we speak in Lebanon is a Lebanese language which comes from Syriac. Syriac comes from Aramaic, the language of Christ.”

Abu Arz in… pic.twitter.com/HquxwnzJgJ

— Ⲙ ☧❤️‍🔥 (@reecexq) August 16, 2024

A Christian wedding during the Lebanese civil war, Beirut, Lebanon, 1986 🇱🇧 pic.twitter.com/GThaKZdqn8

— MENA Visuals (@menavisualss) March 11, 2024

Christian militia in East Beirut, Lebanese Civil War, 1978.

📷Raymond Depardon pic.twitter.com/jAZsWN6Ea8

— MENA Visuals (@menavisualss) November 22, 2022

Redbrickbear said:

---

While you guys are shilling for Israel or Palestine…

I'm over here shilling for Marionite Lebanon

“We do not speak Arabic: We speak Lebanese. Everyone says that we speak Arabic, but that’s not true. Arabic is literary Arabic, but the language we speak in Lebanon is a Lebanese language which comes from Syriac. Syriac comes from Aramaic, the language of Christ.”

Abu Arz in… pic.twitter.com/HquxwnzJgJ

— Ⲙ ☧❤️‍🔥 (@reecexq) August 16, 2024

A Christian wedding during the Lebanese civil war, Beirut, Lebanon, 1986 🇱🇧 pic.twitter.com/GThaKZdqn8

— MENA Visuals (@menavisualss) March 11, 2024

Christian militia in East Beirut, Lebanese Civil War, 1978.

📷Raymond Depardon pic.twitter.com/jAZsWN6Ea8

— MENA Visuals (@menavisualss) November 22, 2022

---

all my friends in Lebanon, speak French (they all went to French Schools) Arabic and English.

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

I just dont understand why people say Israel is our "#1 ally" when Jews(ADL, SPLC, ACLU, Pro-Israel Lobby, etc) fight against and demonize Whites when we talk about protecting our citizens and mass deportations of illegals who are murdering and raping the native citizens of European and North American countries.

---

. Who is our #1 ally in the ME?

---

NO ONE

---

LOL

Buddy, you should take a poll from your assorted girlfriends.

Suspect they would tell you the correct answer.


Israel

---

My assorted girlfriends ? Now that is funny. I have one and she is Jewish. I have 2 amazing friends who are Muslim and Hindu respectively. I have had those conversations . It really depends on the person and their backgroud. Muslim friend (Muslim lite as she call herself) is one of the best humans on the planet. She was born in Pakistan, but grew up in Calgary and Singapore. She thinks it is certainly genocide. My other friend who is Hindu (Indian), grew up in Jersey is hard right. It all depends. They both are very assimilated. Muslim is a C suite Exec and Hindu is probably the best in her field in the country. (pediatric dermatology ) Not much is monolithic.

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

I just dont understand why people say Israel is our "#1 ally" when Jews(ADL, SPLC, ACLU, Pro-Israel Lobby, etc) fight against and demonize Whites when we talk about protecting our citizens and mass deportations of illegals who are murdering and raping the native citizens of European and North American countries.

---

. Who is our #1 ally in the ME?

---

NO ONE

---

LOL

Buddy, you should take a poll from your assorted girlfriends.

Suspect they would tell you the correct answer.


Israel

---

My assorted girlfriends ? Now that is funny. I have one and she is Jewish. I have 2 amazing friends who are Muslim and Hindu respectively. I have had those conversations . It really depends on the person and their backgroud. Muslim friend (Muslim lite as she call herself) is one of the best humans on the planet. She was born in Pakistan, but grew up in Calgary and Singapore. She thinks it is certainly genocide. My other friend who is Hindu (Indian), grew up in Jersey is hard right. It all depends. They both are very assimilated. Muslim is a C suite Exec and Hindu is probably the best in her field in the country. (pediatric dermatology ) Not much is monolithic.

---

"muslim lite"

The problem most westerners have in understanding islamic culture is that virtually all of their interactions with it are "muslim lite" (i.e. 1%'ers of the larger demographic).

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

I just dont understand why people say Israel is our "#1 ally" when Jews(ADL, SPLC, ACLU, Pro-Israel Lobby, etc) fight against and demonize Whites when we talk about protecting our citizens and mass deportations of illegals who are murdering and raping the native citizens of European and North American countries.

---

. Who is our #1 ally in the ME?

---

NO ONE

---

LOL

Buddy, you should take a poll from your assorted girlfriends.

Suspect they would tell you the correct answer.


Israel

---

My assorted girlfriends ? Now that is funny. I have one and she is Jewish. I have 2 amazing friends who are Muslim and Hindu respectively. I have had those conversations . It really depends on the person and their backgroud. Muslim friend (Muslim lite as she call herself) is one of the best humans on the planet. She was born in Pakistan, but grew up in Calgary and Singapore. She thinks it is certainly genocide. My other friend who is Hindu (Indian), grew up in Jersey is hard right. It all depends. They both are very assimilated. Muslim is a C suite Exec and Hindu is probably the best in her field in the country. (pediatric dermatology ) Not much is monolithic.

---

"muslim lite"

The problem most westerners have in understanding islamic culture is that virtually all of their interactions with it are "muslim lite" (i.e. 1%'ers of the larger demographic).

---

Intriguing point.

Never thought about it previously; but you are probably correct.

J.R. said:

---

historian said:

---

And anti-Christian, anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist, etc. Theirs is a false religion and they are completely intolerant of all others to the point of jihad: the desire for global conquest. The desire for a new, global caliphate is very real, particularly amongst the fanatics. For example, the leaders of Iran.

---

And just how do you know that? How do you know their religion is false. Maybe, cuz you were taught that in Sunday school

---

Because they deny Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" John 14:6

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

I just dont understand why people say Israel is our "#1 ally" when Jews(ADL, SPLC, ACLU, Pro-Israel Lobby, etc) fight against and demonize Whites when we talk about protecting our citizens and mass deportations of illegals who are murdering and raping the native citizens of European and North American countries.

---

. Who is our #1 ally in the ME?

---

NO ONE

---

LOL

Buddy, you should take a poll from your assorted girlfriends.

Suspect they would tell you the correct answer.


Israel

---

My assorted girlfriends ? Now that is funny. I have one and she is Jewish. I have 2 amazing friends who are Muslim and Hindu respectively. I have had those conversations . It really depends on the person and their backgroud. Muslim friend (Muslim lite as she call herself) is one of the best humans on the planet. She was born in Pakistan, but grew up in Calgary and Singapore. She thinks it is certainly genocide. My other friend who is Hindu (Indian), grew up in Jersey is hard right. It all depends. They both are very assimilated. Muslim is a C suite Exec and Hindu is probably the best in her field in the country. (pediatric dermatology ) Not much is monolithic.

---

"muslim lite"

The problem most westerners have in understanding islamic culture is that virtually all of their interactions with it are "muslim lite" (i.e. 1%'ers of the larger demographic).

---

yes, Muslim lite. She was married to a Frenchman, so she likes her some Bordeaux

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

I just dont understand why people say Israel is our "#1 ally" when Jews(ADL, SPLC, ACLU, Pro-Israel Lobby, etc) fight against and demonize Whites when we talk about protecting our citizens and mass deportations of illegals who are murdering and raping the native citizens of European and North American countries.

---

. Who is our #1 ally in the ME?

---

NO ONE

---

LOL

Buddy, you should take a poll from your assorted girlfriends.

Suspect they would tell you the correct answer.


Israel

---

My assorted girlfriends ? Now that is funny. I have one and she is Jewish. I have 2 amazing friends who are Muslim and Hindu respectively. I have had those conversations . It really depends on the person and their backgroud. Muslim friend (Muslim lite as she call herself) is one of the best humans on the planet. She was born in Pakistan, but grew up in Calgary and Singapore. She thinks it is certainly genocide. My other friend who is Hindu (Indian), grew up in Jersey is hard right. It all depends. They both are very assimilated. Muslim is a C suite Exec and Hindu is probably the best in her field in the country. (pediatric dermatology ) Not much is monolithic.

---

"muslim lite"

The problem most westerners have in understanding islamic culture is that virtually all of their interactions with it are "muslim lite" (i.e. 1%'ers of the larger demographic).

---

yes, Muslim lite. She was married to a Frenchman, so she likes her some Bordeaux

---

I buy Lebanese wine from a French lady married to a Lebanese Christian who rebuilt a vineyard in Mt. Bamdoun

I spent time in West Africa, which has large Lebanese expat communities, most of diverse complexion - Sunnis, Shia, Druze, Christian. They abide by the "no politics here" rule. During the civil war, the MEA flight would arrive every week and disgorge young men who only the day before had been shooting at each other.

Lebanese basically run the import/export sector as well as the key grocery and restraint and banking sectors in many places there.

Dan Bilzerian on how Jewish supremacy is rooted in Jewish religious texts:

"If you read the Talmud... if you're not Jewish you're basically not human, you're like cattle"

Good on him @DanBilzerianpic.twitter.com/naknXYy9AW

— Keith Woods (@KeithWoodsYT) August 16, 2024

Dan BIlzerian bringing the hard truths.

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

I just dont understand why people say Israel is our "#1 ally" when Jews(ADL, SPLC, ACLU, Pro-Israel Lobby, etc) fight against and demonize Whites when we talk about protecting our citizens and mass deportations of illegals who are murdering and raping the native citizens of European and North American countries.

---

. Who is our #1 ally in the ME?

---

NO ONE

---

LOL

Buddy, you should take a poll from your assorted girlfriends.

Suspect they would tell you the correct answer.


Israel

---

My assorted girlfriends ? Now that is funny. I have one and she is Jewish. I have 2 amazing friends who are Muslim and Hindu respectively. I have had those conversations . It really depends on the person and their backgroud. Muslim friend (Muslim lite as she call herself) is one of the best humans on the planet. She was born in Pakistan, but grew up in Calgary and Singapore. She thinks it is certainly genocide. My other friend who is Hindu (Indian), grew up in Jersey is hard right. It all depends. They both are very assimilated. Muslim is a C suite Exec and Hindu is probably the best in her field in the country. (pediatric dermatology ) Not much is monolithic.

---

"muslim lite"

The problem most westerners have in understanding islamic culture is that virtually all of their interactions with it are "muslim lite" (i.e. 1%'ers of the larger demographics)

---

Yes, not to mention "Muslim lite" would be considered Kafirs in most Islamist nations.

historian said:

---

Trump made his fair share of mistakes, with covid and the economy especially, but the economy was a whole lot better in 2020 than it is now, despite the pandemic. We also didn't have the prospect of WWIII, partly caused by the incompetence of our governing elites. Add to that the wide open border, the Dem crime wave (including numerous violent crimes committed by illegals), the energy mess, and everything else and we have plenty of reasons to vote for Trump and even more reasons to vote against Biden or anyone connected to him, particularly his border czar.

---

I'm doubting your historian handle. Despite inflation (which is a problem and trumps and Biden both to blame), but to say the economy was better under Trumps is just not true. Lowest unemployment , stock market through the roof. I deal in facts, Mr. History. I don't support Biden or trumps, but facts are facts.

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

It was also White Anglo Saxon Protestants that were oppressing us, fought against us, executed us, and pillaged our country. They fought us again later on as well multiple times. So I ask, why does WASP matter?

---

1. Well those WASPy Brits were just trying to put down a rebellious secessionist movement that was illegal under British law

I think you have told us several times how you don't like secessionists and rebels.

So you can't really hate on them for that right?

2. I think you know well that it matters in terms of replacing the historic population of a country with another.

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right?

You guys who want closed borders for Israel and open borders for the West are some strange cats

---

Weird take since those aren't my opinions, and your racialist historicity is irrelevant.

---

What exactly is "racalist historicity"....how would define that...and how exactly is that something you attribute to me

And you dodged the question...

If Israel opened its borders to mass migration from Africa or the Islamic world then it would no longer be Israel right? Is that an accurate or inaccurate statement?

---

Your racialist historicity is your constant posting of historical demographics that get brought unnecessarily into conversations.

And Israel would be Israel regardless of what their immigration policy is because it's a nation. It might be different culturally or otherwise, but it would still be Israel.

---

1. Demographics are often relevant to the topic…wars, economics, etc….not sure of the specific situation you think was unwarranted or unnecessary.

2. You think "Israel would be Israel" with replacing the Jews of Israel with Somali Muslims…and would by magic not be completely transformed? That is a very interesting take

I think are confusing the continuance of a State with the continuance of a Nation.

PS

You still did not give me a definition of what "racialist historicity" is…..

---

1. In certain contexts, yes, but not in every one.

You constantly bring your ethno-race angles into conversations that have no relevance. For example, what is the relevance of your Israel immigration question? Some coy way of proving Israel would cease to be a Jewish driven culture if they overwhelmed the population with non Jewish foreigners? Well duh! Maybe you can pull up one of the umpteen posts you've made about the population make up of the Israel/Palestine region pre-1900 showing how Israel was Muslim and not Jewish before. You know, that racialist historicity stuff.

---

1. Simply being honest I don't bring up ethno-race angles in every conversation.

2. You still not define what "racialist historicity" is....and I have asked you several times. I am starting to think you just made up the term and don't even have a definition of it.

3. That is not a coy way of asking the question...in this case I am asking the question straight up. How can you be a Jewish State but have a population made up of say super majority Somali Muslims? How does that work?

Israel is defined by law as a Jewish State.

[JERUSALEM Israel passed a new "nation-state law" last week that's sparking both celebration and fierce debate over the very nature of Israel itself.

The law does three big things:
[ol]

It states that "the right to exercise national self-determination" in Israel is "unique to the Jewish people."]

[/ol]

---

I've answered it, you just don't like the answer or inference.

---

Honeslty bud…you know you haven't

What is "racialist historicity"

If you can spend the time to type out things on this forum you can spend the time to give us a definition…

And you keep dogging the question about how Israel can be Israel without Jews as a majority people

---

The ethno-racial make up of regions/states/nations throughout their history. Something you interject often, and now answered for the third f-ing time.

What do I need to say other than Israel can be Israel with Jews as a minority. Heck, I've advocated for something that could likely do that as a resolution of the Palestinian issue. Have Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and just have a greater Israel.

---

Israel annex a group of people who are launching rockets at your citizens and celebrating a murderous foray that killed over 1,000 citizens. Gaza's want Jews eradicated from the world arth. I just don't understand how a 2 state solution works if 1 state wants Jews dead & won't control their radical elements

---

I just dont understand why people say Israel is our "#1 ally" when Jews(ADL, SPLC, ACLU, Pro-Israel Lobby, etc) fight against and demonize Whites when we talk about protecting our citizens and mass deportations of illegals who are murdering and raping the native citizens of European and North American countries.

---

. Who is our #1 ally in the ME?

---

NO ONE

---

LOL

Buddy, you should take a poll from your assorted girlfriends.

Suspect they would tell you the correct answer.


Israel

---

My assorted girlfriends ? Now that is funny. I have one and she is Jewish. I have 2 amazing friends who are Muslim and Hindu respectively. I have had those conversations . It really depends on the person and their backgroud. Muslim friend (Muslim lite as she call herself) is one of the best humans on the planet. She was born in Pakistan, but grew up in Calgary and Singapore. She thinks it is certainly genocide. My other friend who is Hindu (Indian), grew up in Jersey is hard right. It all depends. They both are very assimilated. Muslim is a C suite Exec and Hindu is probably the best in her field in the country. (pediatric dermatology ) Not much is monolithic.

---

"muslim lite"

The problem most westerners have in understanding islamic culture is that virtually all of their interactions with it are "muslim lite" (i.e. 1%'ers of the larger demographic).

---

yes, Muslim lite. She was married to a Frenchman, so she likes her some Bordeaux

---

I buy Lebanese wine from a French lady married to a Lebanese Christian who rebuilt a vineyard in Mt. Bamdoun

I spent time in West Africa, which has large Lebanese expat communities, most of diverse complexion - Sunnis, Shia, Druze, Christian. They abide by the "no politics here" rule. During the civil war, the MEA flight would arrive every week and disgorge young men who only the day before had been shooting at each other.

Lebanese basically run the import/export sector as well as the key grocery and restraint and banking sectors in many places there.

---

do not disagree. Try wines from Ixsir. A good friend of mine owns it in collaboration with Hubert de Bouard who owns Chateau Angelus.

J.R. said:

---

historian said:

---

Trump made his fair share of mistakes, with covid and the economy especially, but the economy was a whole lot better in 2020 than it is now, despite the pandemic. We also didn't have the prospect of WWIII, partly caused by the incompetence of our governing elites. Add to that the wide open border, the Dem crime wave (including numerous violent crimes committed by illegals), the energy mess, and everything else and we have plenty of reasons to vote for Trump and even more reasons to vote against Biden or anyone connected to him, particularly his border czar.

---

I'm doubting your historian handle. Despite inflation (which is a problem and trumps and Biden both to blame), but to say the economy was better under Trumps is just not true. Lowest unemployment , stock market through the roof. I deal in facts, Mr. History. I don't support Biden or trumps, but facts are facts.

---

You may be correct on the numbers, but the business environment was better. You had more options and the mechanisms were in place to let you follow them.

In my opinion, freedom is about options. Mobility Options, Finance Options, Housing Options, Health Options, and so on. The issues I see is that we are losing options in the name of "profit bonuses" and liberal ideological zealots. They are 180 degrees opposed but creating the same outcome, no options. Limited choices equals limited freedom. We are "profit merging" combined with zealot liberalism into no freedom.

Question is will it be to conglomerate corporations or huge Governments? That is where the US and the World is going and no one seems to want to stop it. Guys like Bezos, Gates, Musk, and a bunch nobody really knows are accumulating such wealth that they are rivaling Nations. Last time this happened, Anti-Trust came to be with Roosevelt as its Champion. Do you see such a situation occurring again? I don't...