DML:

"I never said it wasn't "germane", I was asking for examples of "Jewish ownership" that fell into the "world bank" category."

rtav:

"The WTC."

Have you bothered to look into that? Silverstine is a landlord, not a banker. The Lehman Brothers were Jewish, but they recently sold their bank to the British - proof AGAINST a Jewish conspiracy to control the world. The vast majority of the rest of the 40 or so banks, insurance companies and investment firms of the WTC are run by American non-Jews, European non-Jews and Asian non-Jews. Therefore, you claiming the WTC is a Jewish world bank is more made-up BS.

"Shavluk was tarnished in the public eye as an anti-semite. He attempted to clarify but people like you just want to stuff your ears and don't want to hear that part."

I hear that part. I even believe that part.

But that just makes him unclear and not-careful-with-words - not exactly what political parties are looking for in potential candidates.




"It all seems like it's just so you can make a point too. You're disgusting."

I'm "disgusting" for wanting to make the point about BS lies about Jews that led to a genocide attempt 70 years ago?

Whatever. People who refuse to learn from history are disgusting.

I never said he was a banker. I said that a jew owned the WTC and the "World Trade Center" = "World Bank", more or less. I did not say the owner was a banker.

Do you actually read what I post or just look for keywords and then google them?



I claimed that "jewish world bank" is a reasonable synonym for "jewish world trade center", and, since it was owned by a jew at the time, I don't think it's so horrible to say so. You, like most of the authoritarian PC crowd, want to read things in the worst possible way as an excuse for censure. Is it the most carefully chosen string of words? Apparently not 'cause the stupids see "jewish" and think "OMG!!1!One!!! ANTI-SEMITZE!!!!""

What this should show everyone is that Canada is undergoing an Americanization---and thanks for being a doubleplusgood participant in that, David---do you get a nice amsoc bellyfeel out of it?

Consider what it'll be like in 40 years when everyone has been using the internet, facebook, etc. The only people who will be PC-approved for politics will be viciously boring---or dishonest---shitheads. Great world you're helping to manufacture =]

"I said that a jew owned the WTC and the "World Trade Center" = "World Bank", more or less."


Less. Much less. The WTC was a bunch of banks, only one of them Jewish. Calling it a "Jewish World Bank" would be like calling MIT a "Jewish University" just because Chomsky works there and some Jew rents the University the land.

The least people can do when talking about Jews and banks - given the history of previous slander - is to be precise.






"You, like most of the authoritarian PC crowd, want to read things in the worst possible way as an excuse for censure."

PC? As in Put up your evidence or Cut the crap?

You're not being censured, you're being asked to provide evidence that Shavluk is able to be a politician. He's not. He makes it seem like he's unable to make it clear he's quoting - whatever his motivations are, clarity is key to being a representative.


Not every person who says the word "Jewish" is an anti-Jew. But not everyone who points out the whole "Jewish bankers" mythology is part of the great Zionist conspiracy to create a PC big brother state.

Well, if MIT's landlord were jewish, it might be appropriate to call it a jewish university in the sense that the Vatican is a Catholic city---of course there are plenty of people in the Vatican who are not catholics, just as there are shops owned there by non-catholics, but, overall, it's not a mistake, especially in a colloquial discussion, which is what Shavluk was undertaking, to call it a Catholic city. Really, though, I have no interest in giving you further remedial reading lessons, so we'll agree to disagree if you still don't grok this particular matter.



No, the least that people can do is nothing--if you think people ought to do more than nothing, well, who gave you the authority to tell other people what to do? No one is behdolden to your notion of precision---you can wish they were, and you can stomp your feet and post from the Wikipedia to try to make it so, but, verily, it is not so.



No one owes you any evidence, David. Men are allowed to believe whatever they want or happen to believe, and they don't owe you or any other man an explanation. You, like the PC crowd, think that beliefs are somehow like wages---you only get them justly as a sort of quid pro quo with your employer. In this case, the employer is what you consider to be "factual" or "reasonable." Not all of us are on the clock trying to earn things 24/7, David. If you are and it provides you with a meaningful existence, enjoy it, but perhaps if you cannot enjoy it without lecturing others on how they should be more like you, it is not so good. I do not know.



No, I'm engaging in the thankless task of giving you a remedial reading lesson. Shavluk is clearly able to be a politician, and he speaks for himself on that front. If you disagree, that's fine, don't vote for him, but the holier-than-thou attitude that you somehow are in touch with the "fact" that he is unable to be a politician is defamatory to Shavluk and, in my view, makes you look rather childish. You know why the kids should refuse to play with Johnnie, eh, and if they don't agree, well, they're just not in touch with the facts or evidence as well as you are. Ha ha ha.



I think it is very clear. IMO the real problem, as I said above, is that most people are illiterate---or, rather, they are authoritarians when it comes to language; they have a naive, gradeschool inculcated view that a sequence of sounds can mean only one thing and that, ultimately, if we are good little detectives, we can figure out what that thing is. I am skeptical of that.




To your latter point, I very much doubt that even if there is such a conspiracy that most of the PC crowd is in on it. No, they're mostly useful idiots who drank the social justice koolaid and now act as though they're somehow more in touch with the "facts" than people who don't care about their pet causes. Do you believe people can know all of the "facts" that you know and interpret them differently, or is your interpretation essentially correct and anyone who deviates from it is...what?

Again, I ask, what's your epistemology? It sounds to me like it's the same sort of naive epistemology employed by most academic disciplines that aren't philosophy---a pragmatic sort of epistemoloy that most people learn in gradeschool that is heavily based on the authority of certain texts and authors over others. That's all you ever do---you post page after page of citations. Chase down those citations and you'll find they cite more things. Eventually, you get to someone who, in historical matters, "was there"? Eyewitnesses can lie and they can misremember. Perhaps there are a few hundred. They could collude, be mistaken as a group, etc. So, in the end are you going to have the house of cards founded on statistics, e.g., it's impropable that so many people would collude to fabricate a historical event, etc?

In my view, history is irrelevant bullshit unless you want to control people by way of shame/guilt about their supposed history. And that is clearly what you want to do here, "We must avoid any anti-semitism otherwise we risk another holocaust!!!!!111One!" "We must avoid any doubleplusungood thoughtcrime otherwise we risk being taken over by Immanuel Goldstein!"

Now, I think there are good reasons to avoid anti-semitism, but it involves not being rude to the jews that are alive today---it has nothing to do with keeping people from enacting another holocaust. That's an incredibly insulting view that you have of people---if we don't have thought police, they'll enact genocide. Good thing we have you to police what we say and keep us honest, right?

Enjoy your AmSoc bellyfeels, David.

"No one owes you any evidence, David. Men are allowed to believe whatever they want or happen to believe, and they don't owe you or any other man an explanation."

Wrong. The forums are for destroying lies, not for making shit up.

Unlike your imaginary "PC"land, these forums won't censure lies ... but they will point out how fucked up the lies are, and where to find the truth.

It is wrong that people do not owe you evidence?
Is it wrong that men are allowed to believe whatever they want or happen to believe?
It is wrong that they don't owe you or any other man an explanation?

I think it is right that people do not owe you evidence, and I think it is right that men are allowed to believe whatever they want or happen to believe, and I think it is right that they don't owe you or any other man an explanation.

Thankfully I have you to pronounce that this is 'wrong'! If I do not believe in lies, how does this work?



Well, no, the censure is your expression of disapproval. The issue here is that what you call "the truth" is really little more than a house of citations leaning on eachother---you like to quote J.S. Mill, what sort of epistemology do you read?

Saying "come on, guys, these are the facts...Guys! I read it on wikipedia!! Guys, come on, I read it in an Oxford University Press book!!" How would you argue if you could not rely on the authority of citations?

"It is wrong that people do not owe you evidence?"

If you're going to call the WTC a "Jewish World Bank", you better have some evidence.





"Is it wrong that men are allowed to believe whatever they want or happen to believe?"

If you're going to spread your beliefs in a forum, it's wrong to expect you don't have to back those beliefs up.





"It is wrong that they don't owe you or any other man an explanation?"

People who post in forums or who wish to represent people DO owe other people explanations.






"The issue here is that what you call "the truth" is really little more than a house of citations leaning on each other"

Example?




"How would you argue if you could not rely on the authority of citations?"

I guess I wouldn't argue anything under those circumstances.

Thank goodness we're out of the dark ages and can use citations to argue things.

You could probably even cite a comparative analysis of "dark age" philosophy vs. your modernism.

You may use citations, and some may accept your citations, but no one is beholden to accept your citations or even the idea of citationality as a species of proof.

So, to get to the bottom of it, you think that you're out of the "dark"--presumably into the light---and that those who do not do as you do are, somehow less enlightened than you, pun intended? Perhaps the "dark" ages were not really as dark as history paints them to be. Exactly how much climate change went on during the dark ages? Was it even possible to run a surveillance state during the dark ages? Did we have public education foisting literacy upon the masses? Of course, one may think those are all tasty morsels, but, as I am very fond of saying, there is no accounting for taste.

"You may use citations, and some may accept your citations, but no one is beholden to accept your citations or even the idea of citationality as a species of proof."

I people don't have to accept evidence and can continue to believe things despite the evidence - look at most Conservatives on issues like Insite, for example. But in these forums at least, the opinions and the evidence will get a chance to meet and hang out, while all those who view the discussion will be able to judge for themselves - as it should be.


"Let Truth and Falsehood grapple. Who has ever known Truth to be put to the worse in a free and open encounter. Her refuting is her surest suppressing." - Milton, Areopagitica

"The Truth is always the strongest argument." - Sophocles






"So, to get to the bottom of it, you think that you're out of the "dark"--presumably into the light---and that those who do not do as you do are, somehow less enlightened than you, pun intended?"

I believe people who keep themselves ignorant of the best evidence - like Harper on Insite - are doing so for selfish reasons.

"There's no explaining something to people if their job depends upon them not understanding it" to paraphrase Upton Sinclair.




"Exactly how much climate change went on during the dark ages?"

You're right. We should abandon free speech and science because of the hazards of industrialization and monopoly fuel economies.

You're making so much sense my head is hurting.




"Was it even possible to run a surveillance state during the dark ages?"

Yes. It was called "your church is your only sanctioned meeting space" and it resulted in many, many successful witch-hunts.




"Did we have public education foisting literacy upon the masses?"

How do you foist something on a people when they already demand it?