muddybrazos said:
Mothra said:
muddybrazos said:
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
muddybrazos said:
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Mothra said:
HuMcK said:
And you're basing that on what, exactly? His father is Jewish, so that would seemingly make him Jewish as well by default. Not to mention the fact that he is known to donate money to Jewish/Israeli organizations and causes.
He might not be a religious practicing jew, but he is ethnically Jewish and very involved with Israeli organizations. Hell, here's the Jerusalem Post talking about him being jewish:
https://www.jpost.com/influencers-25/50jews-25/article-867931
I base it on fact. David's mother is not Jewish. Members of the Jewish culture consider Jewish heritage to be passed down only through the mother. So if your father is Jewish and your mom's not, you're not Jewish.
That is the case with David. His mom is not Jewish and they do not practice Judaism. It would be in accurate to call him Jewish.
I'm surprised that you Jew haters are so glib on Jewish culture
false, they care about bloodlines via the mother or father, it's about ancestry. And yes, in the real world, the vast majority of jews believe that it is ancestry and not religion that determines if you are a jew. Even the state of Israel recognized ancestry is more important than religion. Last, a huge percent of Jews are atheist in America, likely similar in Israel.
The atheist liberal ones still support Tikun Olam. Go look it up if you dont know what it means but they feel its their duty as "Gods Chosen" to repair the worlld. So their visiion of the perfect world is flooding europe and America with 3rd worlders, bringing abortion and LGBTism to everyone.
I don't know what it means, but there is no "publicly explainable" reason why the entirety of the West would willingly displace its own culture.
The problem is that the Jews depise the west and see it as Rome. They have been against us (Christianity) since they killed Christ. They see Rome as the temple destroyers.
What is the basis for this position?
Here is one example but there is 2000 years of history as well. The bolsheviks were primarily jewish when they overthrew the Tsar Nicholas and they saw that as overthrowing the Christian caesar. Then the Bolsheviks killed 50 million Christians and burned 30,000 orhtodox Christian churches.
What you're doing here is taking a handful of historical examples - spanning thousands of years - and using them to make claims about an entire group of people today. That's collective guilt.
A modern politician referencing a book about ancient Rome doesn't mean Jews today 'see themselves at war with the West.' That's a pretty big leap.
Same with the Bolsheviks - complex political movements don't become 'about a religion' just because some individuals involved happened to come from that background. That's not how serious history works. And just to be clear, Lenin - the leader of the Bolsheviks - wasn't Jewish, but was raised Russian Orthodox, only to later become Atheist. Bolshevism was explicitly anti-religion - including Judaism.
In short, you're taking unrelated events, stripping away context, and turning them into a single narrative about millions of people. That's generalization.
When arguments start assigning motives or blame to an entire group like this, it often says more about the assumptions we're bringing into the discussion than about reality. That kind of reasoning can easily drift into bias, including antisemitism, whether that's the intent or not.