Poll: Why is the Black Man Still Down?/"Race Together"

[passer...@gmail.com]

Poll: Why is the Black Man Still Down?/"Race Together"

All ethnic groups in America have prospered to varying degrees, regardless of their ethnicity or when the arrived, except Black Americans.

Why is that? It's the essential question. Solve it and we've solved the problem. Let's take a vote...

?

[Robert Camp]

On 3/25/15 9:16 AM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> Poll: Why is the Black Man Still Down?/"Race Together"
>
> All ethnic groups in America have prospered to varying degrees, regardless of their ethnicity or when the arrived, except Black Americans.

Black Americans haven't prospered to some varying degree? Do you bother
to think before you type?

> Why is that? It's the essential question. Solve it and we've solved the problem. Let's take a vote...

Okay, I cast one vote in favor of - you're a self-important nutbar.

[Mitchell Coffey]

Actually, statistics show that African-Americans have prospered
significantly since, for instance, before the civil rights advances of
the '60s. You mean they haven't prospered as much as most other ethnic
groups. This is due to the effects of current and past racism.


Mitchell Coffey

[Öö Tiib]

What you mean? What problem? Do Blacks tend to fail, collapse or
crash economically compared to others? That does not look so, all
ethnic groups of United States seem to share the general economic
trends. Perhaps blacks do care about other things more than about
money so their average income is under total average.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_real_median_household_income_1967_-_2011.PNG

If I misunderstood what you mean then please post the link to the
site/paper from what you pull your information.

[Bill]

Blacks identify with their culture more than whites. If
their culture, or some subset of the culture encourages or
excuses failure, then it's the culture that has failed.
Their race is irrelevant.

Other groups are has bound to their culture (American
Indians, Hispanics, Hindus, Muslims, etc. And the same
applies: the culture will determine it's members behavior.

Calling the failure of some culture racist just avoids
confronting the harder questions.

Bill

[Robert Camp]

On 3/25/15 12:36 PM, Bill wrote:
> Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>
>> On 3/25/2015 12:16 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Poll: Why is the Black Man Still Down?/"Race Together"
>>>
>>> All ethnic groups in America have prospered to varying
>>> degrees, regardless of their ethnicity or when the
>>> arrived, except Black Americans.
>>>
>>> Why is that? It's the essential question. Solve it and
>>> we've solved the problem. Let's take a vote...
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> Actually, statistics show that African-Americans have
>> prospered significantly since, for instance, before the
>> civil rights advances of the '60s. You mean they haven't
>> prospered as much as most other ethnic groups. This is due
>> to the effects of current and past racism.
>
> Blacks identify with their culture more than whites.

Document this with evidence, please.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Ok, the vote so far...

1 - The effects of past and current racism

1 - The Black man isn't down, the prosper as much as anyone in America

1 - Blacks identify with their culture and it excuses failure

Ok, my opinion is the thing that makes blacks different is past slavery and segregation. How does something in the past cause the problem in the future where it doesn't go away? Family values, their family values are garbage. Slavery and segregation destroyed their family values. All groups with strong family values prosper a lot. All you have to do to prosper in America is to have strong family values.

In the present any racism is well balanced by affirmative action and the general good will of the American people.

1 - Garbage family values, from slavery and segregation.

[William Morse]

While I also think that blacks have made significant progress, I don't
think they prosper as much as anyone. Racism is clearly still a problem
- have you ever been arrested for DWB? It happens all the time to
blacks. Drug use by blacks is not much different than by whites, but
drug arrests are disproportionately high for blacks. There are also of
course the ways that our culture systematically exploits poor people
(look at the NPR report on the bail system), and blacks for historical
reasons tend to be poorer. Some of this seems to be recent, making it
harder for blacks and latinos to overcome the traditional barriers to
immigrants that so many other immigrant groups have been able to overcome.

I do think family is a problem for poor people in general. This is based
largely on economics. If you are middle or upper middle class, it makes
sense to avoid having children until you are in your mid to late 20's,
when you can afford them. If you are lower class, you won't be able to
afford to have children until you are in your 40's to 50's - and then it
is too late. So you have children at a young age and count on your
parents to take care of them. But this leads to a lot of problems with
the standard "family values", including a much lower likelihood of
having a stable father.

My two cents.

[Robert Camp]

On 3/25/15 5:36 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ok, the vote so far...
>
> 1 - The effects of past and current racism
>
> 1 - The Black man isn't down, the prosper as much as anyone in America

Who argued this?

> 1 - Blacks identify with their culture and it excuses failure

Who argued this?

Are you sure you can read?

> Ok, my opinion is the thing that makes blacks different is past slavery and segregation. How does something in the past cause the problem in the future where it doesn't go away? Family values, their family values are garbage. Slavery and segregation destroyed their family values. All groups with strong family values prosper a lot. All you have to do to prosper in America is to have strong family values.

Ah, so slavery and segregation have caused the loss of African-American
family values, which (who knew?) can apparently be "destroyed." Would
you say the same thing about other races?

First, substantiate your assumption that "their family values are
garbage." You can do this by causally linking evidence of "garbage
values" directly to skin-color, rather than economic and social conditions.

> In the present any racism is well balanced by affirmative action and the general good will of the American people.

This is a fascinating game of blame the victim you're playing here. You
will, of course, resist this charge by protesting that you said the
cause was "slavery and segregation," ignoring the fact that your
contention places modern African-Americans in the position of having
ample opportunity ("...well balanced by affirmative action and the
general good will...") yet not the fortitude to have taken advantage.

> 1 - Garbage family values, from slavery and segregation.

Easy answers are often seized upon by small minds.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

Let us talk about who are those on the upper social and economic
rank in a society? Those who have most of the money are whites.
They are also dispensing jobs and salaries to people according to
the color of their skin. This is easier to do with people of dark
skin, but in other times, in small towns, the Irish was playing the
role of today's black people. Mostly because they were Catholics
the Irish were the lower class of any normal village. They were
the sub-proletarians of early white America. It is also easy to
detect Latinos, Muslims and other by the color of their faces. If
you are an immigrant from Mexico, or from Pakistan, there is little
you can do to disguise the color of your skin.

In the case of early America, when Irish become common, there were
such little cities that everybody knew who were catholic or protestant.
Of course, being a sub-proletarian creates many reasons to be depressive
and drink a lot beer. They become famous for a few depressive individuals
that were treating their depression by drinking beer. While the children
of great landowner, or the children of any industrialist, or the children
of a protestants pastor have not many reasons to become depressed.
Jumping a bit in time, we can contemplate the case of G. Bush that was
drinkaholic. Being the son of some rich person, who could be the reason
of drinking so much? Perhaps, many people were reminding him how moron
he was. Then, he get depressed and got drunk. While an Irish immigrant
could become depressed because he was often unemployed, or for he has too
many children and could not provide to feed them properly.

Then, even those that triumph is mostly due the fact that they had inherited
their triumph. It is rather rare, for not saying close to impossible to
go from poor to riches. A found a case about one, but I am not sure it
can apply. It was Bernie Maddof, eh weas a Jew without money, that went
from poverty to the riches, but only for a short period of time. He ended
in prison so far as I know. Perhaps he is still there. But he had not
a proper license to deceive and rob investors, for he was not a CIO or COB
of any investment firm. James Bond had a license to kill, and many CIOs
and chairmen in some companies have a license to ruin investors and to
reward themselves with millionaire bonuses for their good deeds.

Eri

[Öö Tiib]

On Monday, 30 March 2015 13:58:49 UTC+3, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
>
> Let us talk about who are those on the upper social and economic
> rank in a society? Those who have most of the money are whites.

Most of the money have Jews. If to leverage it down by merging
statistics with other Asians then ... Asians have most of the
money.

[Greg Guarino]

On 3/25/2015 12:16 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> Poll:

It's

Why

obviously

is

due

the

to

Black

seg-

Man

men-

Still

ted

Down?

posts.

[deadrat]

On 3/25/15 4:33 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 3/25/15 12:36 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/25/2015 12:16 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Poll: Why is the Black Man Still Down?/"Race Together"
>>>>
>>>> All ethnic groups in America have prospered to varying
>>>> degrees, regardless of their ethnicity or when the
>>>> arrived, except Black Americans.
>>>>
>>>> Why is that? It's the essential question. Solve it and
>>>> we've solved the problem. Let's take a vote...
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> Actually, statistics show that African-Americans have
>>> prospered significantly since, for instance, before the
>>> civil rights advances of the '60s. You mean they haven't
>>> prospered as much as most other ethnic groups. This is due
>>> to the effects of current and past racism.
>>
>> Blacks identify with their culture more than whites.
>
> Document this with evidence, please.
>

Can we vote on this clown as well?

[deadrat]

On 3/25/15 7:36 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ok, the vote so far...
>

I don't believe you've tallied the votes for your being
a self-important nutbar.

[deadrat]

On 3/30/15 9:23 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Monday, 30 March 2015 13:58:49 UTC+3, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
>>
>> Let us talk about who are those on the upper social and economic
>> rank in a society? Those who have most of the money are whites.
>
> Most of the money have Jews.

Not my money. None of my money has Jews.

Have I mentioned recently that you're an antisemite and a moral idiot?

Just checking.

<snip/>

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 00:58:47 UTC+3, deadrat wrote:

I do not understand what you wanted to write, deadrat. I told how
money is distributed. If you disagree with what I wrote then tell
how it really is.

Do you want to insult me because you were hurt somehow by me? How?
Why? What rocks did I throw in sense that "If you throw a rock into
a pack of dogs, the one that yelps the loudest is the one that was
hit." How did I insult anyone by saying that Jews have lot of money?
How you were hit? By being a Jew but not having lot of money? By
being non-Jew but having lot of money? Are you just bored and
want a silly slap-fight? Won't get it from me, sorry.

[deadrat]

On 3/31/15 3:45 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 00:58:47 UTC+3, deadrat wrote:

>> On 3/30/15 9:23 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>> On Monday, 30 March 2015 13:58:49 UTC+3, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Let us talk about who are those on the upper social and economic
>>>> rank in a society? Those who have most of the money are whites.
>>>
>>> Most of the money have Jews.
>>
>> Not my money. None of my money has Jews.
>>
>> Have I mentioned recently that you're an antisemite and a moral idiot?
>>
>> Just checking.
>>
>> <snip/>
>
> I do not understand what you wanted to write, deadrat. I told how
> money is distributed.

No, you told me how you think money is distributed. But that's different.

> If you disagree with what I wrote then tell how it really is.

Not my job, Sparky. You made a claim, it's up to you to support it.
It's not up to me to demonstrate your error.

> Do you want to insult me because you were hurt somehow by me?

There are people who can hurt me. Trust me, Sparky, when I tell you
that none of them posts to newsgroups, including this one.

> How?
> Why? What rocks did I throw in sense that "If you throw a rock into
> a pack of dogs, the one that yelps the loudest is the one that was
> hit."

> How did I insult anyone by saying that Jews have lot of money?

You've obviously got access to the internet, so why not spend some time
on the google and find out what it means to say "Jews have lot of money."

Then find out how much money Jews actually have and get back to us with
that figure. Be sure to have a comparison to say, Russian oligarchs or
drug cartel bosses.

> How you were hit? By being a Jew but not having lot of money? By
> being non-Jew but having lot of money?

You couldn't hit the ocean if you were on a cruise. But this isn't
about me. It's about you.

> Are you just bored and want a silly slap-fight? Won't get it from me, sorry.

I don't really expect anything from you, Sparky. I just think that it's
important to confront antisemites and moral idiots when they make
bigoted statements. If you'd said "Black people not have lot of IQ."
I'd have confronted you about that too.

Qui tacet consentire videtur. And I don't want to be seen anywhere near
you, figuratively speaking.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

He has accepted the dogma that the Jews are rich, even since the times
of Hitler and the ascent of Nazis.
He explained the case of the Nazis exterminating Jews because they had
ruined Germany with all their money.
Then, a dogma is something written in the brain and it is very difficult
to erase.
Eri

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 14:45:25 UTC+3, deadrat wrote:
> On 3/31/15 3:45 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 00:58:47 UTC+3, deadrat wrote:
> >> On 3/30/15 9:23 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 30 March 2015 13:58:49 UTC+3, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Let us talk about who are those on the upper social and economic
> >>>> rank in a society? Those who have most of the money are whites.
> >>>
> >>> Most of the money have Jews.
> >>
> >> Not my money. None of my money has Jews.
> >>
> >> Have I mentioned recently that you're an antisemite and a moral idiot?
> >>
> >> Just checking.
> >>
> >> <snip/>
> >
> > I do not understand what you wanted to write, deadrat. I told how
> > money is distributed.
>
> No, you told me how you think money is distributed. But that's different.
>
> > If you disagree with what I wrote then tell how it really is.
>
> Not my job, Sparky. You made a claim, it's up to you to support it.
> It's not up to me to demonstrate your error.

You are in difficulties using internet? Statistics are there, Dampie.
Jews make up only 2% of US population. Half earn $100K or more/year.
There are about 100 Jew billionares, so over 25% of top 400
wealthiest Americans are Jews. etc. No other ethnic or religious group
can get near so Jews are mile above others.

> > Do you want to insult me because you were hurt somehow by me?
>
> There are people who can hurt me. Trust me, Sparky, when I tell you
> that none of them posts to newsgroups, including this one.

So I did not hurt you. Good. Why you want to insult me, Dampie?

> > How?
> > Why? What rocks did I throw in sense that "If you throw a rock into
> > a pack of dogs, the one that yelps the loudest is the one that was
> > hit."
>
> > How did I insult anyone by saying that Jews have lot of money?
>
> You've obviously got access to the internet, so why not spend some time
> on the google and find out what it means to say "Jews have lot of money."

No. You claimed that it means something, Dampie, and you demonstrate what.
Anyone can search "jews" and "money" from net and majority that is found
agrees that it is not anyhow "unfair stereotype". If it has some special meaning somewhere then I do not see it in internet.

> Then find out how much money Jews actually have and get back to us with
> that figure. Be sure to have a comparison to say, Russian oligarchs or
> drug cartel bosses.

You are moving goalposts here. IOW 混水摸鱼 The OP was about ethnic groups
in USA. Particularly that Blacks do not prosper. Arab Oil Sheikhs nor
Russian Oligarchs nor Criminal Bosses of whatever nations have nothing
to do with anything of it.

> > How you were hit? By being a Jew but not having lot of money? By
> > being non-Jew but having lot of money?
>
> You couldn't hit the ocean if you were on a cruise. But this isn't
> about me. It's about you.
>
> > Are you just bored and want a silly slap-fight? Won't get it from me, sorry.
>
> I don't really expect anything from you, Sparky. I just think that it's
> important to confront antisemites and moral idiots when they make
> bigoted statements. If you'd said "Black people not have lot of IQ."
> I'd have confronted you about that too.

Why you accuse me in antisemitism? What did I do to Jews?
I did say nothing detrimental nor wrong ( does "bigoted" mean that?)
about anyone. Being rich is considered positive state of affairs,
Dampie. Anything negative is produced inside your head, not written
by me.

> Qui tacet consentire videtur. And I don't want to be seen anywhere near
> you, figuratively speaking.

Why should I want someone like you near me? Your groundless insults
and empty posts get boring after a while and so people just likely
yawn and killfile you. Then you think that they are silent so agree
with you.

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 18:03:50 UTC+3, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
>
> He has accepted the dogma that the Jews are rich, even since the times
> of Hitler and the ascent of Nazis.
> He explained the case of the Nazis exterminating Jews because they had

> ruined Germany with all their money.`

Where? I have always had position that German economy was ruined
by hyperinflation because of World War I reparations. Reparations were
put upon Germany by Allies (mostly by the French Republic and the
British Empire), not Jews. Jews did not ruin German economy. Instead
Jews gained significant control over what was left of it. Nazis then
accused Jews in ruining the economy. It was simple to paint such
"internal enemy", that's why and all nationalist/racist regimes
use such template.

It is less likely that similar scenarios will start in Russia right
now since Russia isn't in so desperately crap situation that Germany
was. However lets push it bit harder and again millions of people
will die.

> Then, a dogma is something written in the brain and it is very difficult
> to erase.

What dogma? That Jews are rich? Where they aren't?

[Mitchell Coffey]

Data, please.

Mitchell Coffey

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

a lot of lies can be told with statistics.
We are not negating that a number of Jews are rich or very rich.
But it is very difficult to sort out statistics about earning in a
truthful manner. The real statistics are mostly hidden from the eyes
of the people. Most of the social statistics are bogus, to promote some
ideology. I can accept that on average, Jews that are a minority can
have higher earnings, than ordinary whites. But this is due mostly
to their culture of acquiring a superior education. But how much are
their earnings over the average white non Jew? This is difficult to
settle. In fact is that exist a lot Jews with little education, more
or less like any white of European origin. It is also true that many
Asiatics, mostly of Chinese and Japanese ancestry are doing very well
in academia. But these are not all the Asiatics, or all those of
Chinese origins. To work well in school is some attitude instilled
or "conditioned" at home. While most of the white people believe the
intelligence is genetic gift, a minority of Jews and Chinese, believe
the intelligence is the result of some peculiar domestication of the
brain. No domestication and you are a sort of calamity in school.
But the problem in general with the school is that most people believe
the intelligence is genetic gift. The intelligence is an acquired
gift no different to learn playing piano or chess. If you do not
learn to play the piano, you will never have this gift. The same with
playing chess or learning to speak Chinese Mandarin. Nobody is born
with a gift to speak Chinese Mandarin; he had to learn the language. And
it would take years. A little more years than to speak your mother
tongue. Everybody can speak their mother tongue because he had learned
it. Of course, to learn a language is much better if you are not deaf,
and/or your brain is not mental retarded or had not another problem.
Sometimes a couple goes to China and brings back a girl from there. This
girl would not learn to speak Chinese unless the mother or father speak
this language. The most probably result is the girl would learn the
language of the foster parents. This is considering the girl had not
acquired some mental retardation that is so common in hospices.

Eri

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 19:38:49 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

> On 3/30/2015 10:23 AM, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> > On Monday, 30 March 2015 13:58:49 UTC+3, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
> >>
> >> Let us talk about who are those on the upper social and economic
> >> rank in a society? Those who have most of the money are whites.
> >
> > Most of the money have Jews. If to leverage it down by merging
> > statistics with other Asians then ... Asians have most of the
> > money.
>
> Data, please.

http://www.forbes.co.il/rating/list.aspx?en6v0tVq=FK

Most of them are Americans so about quarter of US billionaires
are Jews.

[deadrat]

On 3/31/15 11:09 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 18:03:50 UTC+3, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
>>
>> He has accepted the dogma that the Jews are rich, even since the times
>> of Hitler and the ascent of Nazis.
>> He explained the case of the Nazis exterminating Jews because they had
>> ruined Germany with all their money.`
>
> Where? I have always had position that German economy was ruined
> by hyperinflation because of World War I reparations. Reparations were
> put upon Germany by Allies (mostly by the French Republic and the
> British Empire), not Jews. Jews did not ruin German economy. Instead
> Jews gained significant control over what was left of it. Nazis then
> accused Jews in ruining the economy. It was simple to paint such
> "internal enemy", that's why and all nationalist/racist regimes
> use such template.

The question is why do you.

> It is less likely that similar scenarios will start in Russia right
> now since Russia isn't in so desperately crap situation that Germany
> was. However lets push it bit harder and again millions of people
> will die.
>
>> Then, a dogma is something written in the brain and it is very difficult
>> to erase.
>
> What dogma? That Jews are rich? Where they aren't?

You're an antisemite and a moral idiot. Why you are?

[deadrat]

Indeed. And antisemitism is one of the most difficult to erase and one
of the most virulent. It's entrenched when there are actually Jews
around, but it lives even in their absence, e.g., in Poland today. That
is should thrive when one group has actual grievances with Jews (e.g, in
the West Bank and Gaza) is no surprise, but it thrives as well when
grievances must be invented. I call it jewfever, and sadly enough it
seem to have no cure.


> Eri
>

[Ymir]

In article <f3555e8f-8d37-4a19...@googlegroups.com>,

That's a list of the world's richest Jews. If most of them are American,
we can infer that more rich Jews live in the US than elsewhere (not
terribly surprising given that more Jews live in the US than elsewhere).
We can't infer anything about how the wealth of Jews compares with that
of Gentiles.

(the list claims that 11% of billionaires are Jewish worldwide, but
doesn't give supporting data).

Andre

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 3/31/2015 2:02 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 19:38:49 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

>> On 3/30/2015 10:23 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>> On Monday, 30 March 2015 13:58:49 UTC+3, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Let us talk about who are those on the upper social and economic
>>>> rank in a society? Those who have most of the money are whites.
>>>
>>> Most of the money have Jews. If to leverage it down by merging
>>> statistics with other Asians then ... Asians have most of the
>>> money.
>>
>> Data, please.
>
> http://www.forbes.co.il/rating/list.aspx?en6v0tVq=FK
>
> Most of them are Americans so about quarter of US billionaires
> are Jews.

So you were wrong when you said Jews have most of the money.

Mitchell Coffey

[Earle Jones27]

*
Blacks make very good mathematicians.

They have a natural sense of logarithm.

earle
*

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 21:28:45 UTC+3, deadrat wrote:

> On 3/31/15 11:09 AM, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 18:03:50 UTC+3, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
> >>
> >> He has accepted the dogma that the Jews are rich, even since the times
> >> of Hitler and the ascent of Nazis.
> >> He explained the case of the Nazis exterminating Jews because they had
> >> ruined Germany with all their money.`
> >
> > Where? I have always had position that German economy was ruined
> > by hyperinflation because of World War I reparations. Reparations were
> > put upon Germany by Allies (mostly by the French Republic and the
> > British Empire), not Jews. Jews did not ruin German economy. Instead
> > Jews gained significant control over what was left of it. Nazis then
> > accused Jews in ruining the economy. It was simple to paint such
> > "internal enemy", that's why and all nationalist/racist regimes
> > use such template.
>
> The question is why do you.

Do what? Accuse anyone ruining any economies? Where I did that? For
me the too greed-based economies are simply doomed to collapse now
or then themselves.

> > It is less likely that similar scenarios will start in Russia right
> > now since Russia isn't in so desperately crap situation that Germany
> > was. However lets push it bit harder and again millions of people
> > will die.
> >
> >> Then, a dogma is something written in the brain and it is very difficult
> >> to erase.
> >
> > What dogma? That Jews are rich? Where they aren't?
>
> You're an antisemite and a moral idiot. Why you are?

I can't explain it because it is not reality. It is something
inside of your brains among lot of other odd things. Most people
are in same situation so do not worry.

[deadrat]

On 3/31/15 10:12 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 14:45:25 UTC+3, deadrat wrote:
>> On 3/31/15 3:45 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 00:58:47 UTC+3, deadrat wrote:
>>>> On 3/30/15 9:23 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 30 March 2015 13:58:49 UTC+3, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let us talk about who are those on the upper social and economic
>>>>>> rank in a society? Those who have most of the money are whites.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the money have Jews.
>>>>
>>>> Not my money. None of my money has Jews.
>>>>
>>>> Have I mentioned recently that you're an antisemite and a moral idiot?
>>>>
>>>> Just checking.
>>>>
>>>> <snip/>
>>>
>>> I do not understand what you wanted to write, deadrat. I told how
>>> money is distributed.
>>
>> No, you told me how you think money is distributed. But that's different.
>>
>>> If you disagree with what I wrote then tell how it really is.
>>
>> Not my job, Sparky. You made a claim, it's up to you to support it.
>> It's not up to me to demonstrate your error.
>
> You are in difficulties using internet? Statistics are there, Dampie.
> Jews make up only 2% of US population. Half earn $100K or more/year.
> There are about 100 Jew billionares, so over 25% of top 400
> wealthiest Americans are Jews. etc. No other ethnic or religious group
> can get near so Jews are mile above others.

Nobody doubts that there are wealthy Jews or that Jews in the United
States as a group are on average high up on the economic scale. That's
not what you were asked to document. You were asked to back up your
claim that "Most of the money have Jews."

>>> Do you want to insult me because you were hurt somehow by me?
>>
>> There are people who can hurt me. Trust me, Sparky, when I tell you
>> that none of them posts to newsgroups, including this one.
>
> So I did not hurt you. Good. Why you want to insult me, Dampie?

You have been told the truth about your behavior, and you have found it
distasteful. That's different from being insulted. My intent isn't to
insult you. I just don't care whether you take insult from my
statements or not. I've told you why I do it.

>>> How?
>>> Why? What rocks did I throw in sense that "If you throw a rock into
>>> a pack of dogs, the one that yelps the loudest is the one that was
>>> hit."
>>
>>> How did I insult anyone by saying that Jews have lot of money?
>>
>> You've obviously got access to the internet, so why not spend some time
>> on the google and find out what it means to say "Jews have lot of money."
>
> No. You claimed that it means something, Dampie, and you demonstrate what.

"Most of the money have Jews." That's you, not me.

> Anyone can search "jews" and "money" from net and majority that is found

Here's what you read when you "seach 'jews' and 'money':

www.realjewnews.com/?p=978

Here's what you see when you "seach 'jews' and 'money':

https://archive.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1385/73/1385739052727.png

> agrees that it is not anyhow "unfair stereotype". If it has some special meaning somewhere then I do not see it in internet.


>> Then find out how much money Jews actually have and get back to us with
>> that figure. Be sure to have a comparison to say, Russian oligarchs or
>> drug cartel bosses.
>
> You are moving goalposts here. IOW 混水摸鱼 The OP was about ethnic groups
> in USA. Particularly that Blacks do not prosper. Arab Oil Sheikhs nor
> Russian Oligarchs nor Criminal Bosses of whatever nations have nothing
> to do with anything of it.

This illustrates the idiot part.

>>> How you were hit? By being a Jew but not having lot of money? By
>>> being non-Jew but having lot of money?
>>
>> You couldn't hit the ocean if you were on a cruise. But this isn't
>> about me. It's about you.
>>
>>> Are you just bored and want a silly slap-fight? Won't get it from me, sorry.
>>
>> I don't really expect anything from you, Sparky. I just think that it's
>> important to confront antisemites and moral idiots when they make
>> bigoted statements. If you'd said "Black people not have lot of IQ."
>> I'd have confronted you about that too.
>
> Why you accuse me in antisemitism?

Why do you think?

> What did I do to Jews?
> I did say nothing detrimental nor wrong ( does "bigoted" mean that?)

Except that you did. If you can't see it and refuse to understand, then
so be it. It's a fool's errand to educate antisemites and moral idiots.
I just think it's important not to let their bigotry and idiocy pass
unnoticed.

> about anyone. Being rich is considered positive state of affairs,
> Dampie. Anything negative is produced inside your head, not written
> by me.

What an ignoramus you are.

>> Qui tacet consentire videtur. And I don't want to be seen anywhere near
>> you, figuratively speaking.
>
> Why should I want someone like you near me?

I see the metaphor has escaped you. Oh, well.

As for your literal-minded question, I don't know. Why would I care
what an antisemite and moral idiot wants?

> Your groundless insults
> and empty posts get boring after a while and so people just likely
> yawn and killfile you. Then you think that they are silent so agree
> with you.

Other people may and will do as they wish. I think it's important to
point out antisemitism and moral idiocy when it occurs.

Congratulations, you're the poster boy.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

it is difficult to believe that Forbes knows this.

On the other hand, the word rich is a relative concept. We need to see
a true graphic (that do not exists) with the standard distribution of
this riches. How many people has so much money etc. What is the average
of fortunes, and the standard deviation. For money above some range.
Then, there is the need to define what is a fortune, for a fortune based
on stocks can suddenly be almost zero. A fortune based on real state can
be worth also nothing, if there is not anyone with money to buy the
real state. Just figure that all rich people has already all they need
in question of real state. Would any of them have real money to buy
a piece of real state he do not need? Then money is valid so far that
it is spread among the people thus that some with less money are earning
a little fortune, so you can sell them a palace or a piece of state you
do not need. This in the case that if you are rich... well, if you are
rich what damn need you have to sell a property? It does not make any
sense. The charm of a society with a lot of money it mus based in
probability you have as a rich man to ruin all those little bastards
with a little less money than you. More or less.
If you ruin them, and they are unable to ruin you, you win at the game.

But once a society is in ruin all the fun is lost. It takes a lot of
effort and intelligence to ruin those that had not been ruined yet.
It is possible, by crashing farther the stock exchange, but then, all
the charm of having stocks is lost. Your own stocks are also worthless.
Then, if you are rich there is a limit for you to ruin farther the
society. A society is utterly ruined if the government has not money
to pay the police and the army, and to buy fuel for the machines, the
planes, helicopters, the cars of the police, etc. You cannot ruin
a nation so much, that they system has not any allies left, or the system
has not money to pay those allies, I mean. For the government and thus
the rich people would be defended so far there is enough money and food
to pay for the expenses of the defense against those that are outside
the system. Thus, there is moment, in which you need like the Nazis,
to pay for an extra army to threaten the people enough so they could not
rebel against the system. This analysis is valid for all.

Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

Ool said he read it in Forbes. A newspaper can print any shit he fancies
on condition of not mentioning any names, that could cause them a lawsuit.

Eri

[Öö Tiib]

If you put all ethnic groups side by side and see wealth per capita then
Blacks have least and Jews have most. What is there to back up?

> >>> Do you want to insult me because you were hurt somehow by me?
> >>
> >> There are people who can hurt me. Trust me, Sparky, when I tell you
> >> that none of them posts to newsgroups, including this one.
> >
> > So I did not hurt you. Good. Why you want to insult me, Dampie?
>
> You have been told the truth about your behavior, and you have found it
> distasteful. That's different from being insulted. My intent isn't to
> insult you. I just don't care whether you take insult from my
> statements or not. I've told you why I do it.

So you just throw random garbage around like usually? Fine then.

> >>> How?
> >>> Why? What rocks did I throw in sense that "If you throw a rock into
> >>> a pack of dogs, the one that yelps the loudest is the one that was
> >>> hit."
> >>
> >>> How did I insult anyone by saying that Jews have lot of money?
> >>
> >> You've obviously got access to the internet, so why not spend some time
> >> on the google and find out what it means to say "Jews have lot of money."
> >
> > No. You claimed that it means something, Dampie, and you demonstrate what.
>
> "Most of the money have Jews." That's you, not me.

It was response to "Those who have most of the money are whites." of Eridanus.

> > Anyone can search "jews" and "money" from net and majority that is found
>
> Here's what you read when you "seach 'jews' and 'money':
>
> www.realjewnews.com/?p=978
>
> Here's what you see when you "seach 'jews' and 'money':
>
> https://archive.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1385/73/1385739052727.png

Did I post such garbage pictures? It does not look even envious. I would
expect such things from someone similar to you. Because garbage.
However now I at least see that I did perhaps draw that trash and
so deserve your bile as well.

> > agrees that it is not anyhow "unfair stereotype". If it has some special
> > meaning somewhere then I do not see it in internet.
>
>
> >> Then find out how much money Jews actually have and get back to us with
> >> that figure. Be sure to have a comparison to say, Russian oligarchs or
> >> drug cartel bosses.
> >
> > You are moving goalposts here. IOW 混水摸鱼 The OP was about ethnic groups
> > in USA. Particularly that Blacks do not prosper. Arab Oil Sheikhs nor
> > Russian Oligarchs nor Criminal Bosses of whatever nations have nothing
> > to do with anything of it.
>
> This illustrates the idiot part.

Good that you are wise.

> >>> How you were hit? By being a Jew but not having lot of money? By
> >>> being non-Jew but having lot of money?
> >>
> >> You couldn't hit the ocean if you were on a cruise. But this isn't
> >> about me. It's about you.
> >>
> >>> Are you just bored and want a silly slap-fight? Won't get it from me, sorry.
> >>
> >> I don't really expect anything from you, Sparky. I just think that it's
> >> important to confront antisemites and moral idiots when they make
> >> bigoted statements. If you'd said "Black people not have lot of IQ."
> >> I'd have confronted you about that too.
> >
> > Why you accuse me in antisemitism?
>
> Why do you think?

I think I know now. Because I did draw the pictures on antisemitic
sites. You now deliver justice by throwing garbage like usually.
Perhaps you have nothing more fruitful to do. Or want but may not
do or can not do. About like me today.

> > What did I do to Jews?
> > I did say nothing detrimental nor wrong ( does "bigoted" mean that?)
>
> Except that you did. If you can't see it and refuse to understand, then
> so be it. It's a fool's errand to educate antisemites and moral idiots.
> I just think it's important not to let their bigotry and idiocy pass
> unnoticed.

Good. So at least you are so internationalist and tolerant and did deliver
the justice. Snip rest of the bile ... no variance there.

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 21:54:07 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

> On 3/31/2015 2:02 PM, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 19:38:49 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

> >> On 3/30/2015 10:23 AM, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 30 March 2015 13:58:49 UTC+3, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Let us talk about who are those on the upper social and economic
> >>>> rank in a society? Those who have most of the money are whites.
> >>>
> >>> Most of the money have Jews. If to leverage it down by merging
> >>> statistics with other Asians then ... Asians have most of the
> >>> money.
> >>
> >> Data, please.
> >
> > http://www.forbes.co.il/rating/list.aspx?en6v0tVq=FK
> >
> > Most of them are Americans so about quarter of US billionaires
> > are Jews.
>
> So you were wrong when you said Jews have most of the money.

In comparison with other nations separately, I was correct, Jews have
most money in business (and so have biggest affect to salary/income of
others). If to put everybody else to one big pile then I was wrong
since there are 75% "Gentile" billionaires in US.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

The dominant class is white people. It is not only because they have the
money, but because they have some degree of power, without being plainly
rich. The rich among the whites is a very small minority. But you can be
accepted or rejected for a job by common white people that only have a
little wealth; they are not bankers, but have some power to accept you
as a waiter in a fine restaurant, or as broker in a firm, by example.
Or to work in a factory, or in an office, etc. They are not super-rich
the ones that would refuse you a job for being black, or Latino, or
Pakistani.
They really do not like you by your aspect, of not looking white. And I
can understand this. For the average white, the concept of meritocracy
only applies if you are also white. But not if you are of another race
whatever. The exceptions can be a little in academia, not 100% but rather
30 or 40 % racist; it is a supposition I am making. The guys in academia
are mostly believers in meritocracy and can accept other races. I am not
so sure, but it seems you can see some Chinese and Japanese names in some
scientific papers. If they were there because it was a study paid by
a government agency... is understandable. I am not sure in other cases.

If I were a student of 20 years in the US in any college or university I
would had been working very very hard to succeed. For being not a native
my prospects of getting through were not optimistic. I would had been in
the verge of quiting quite often. But I do not think it would be better
my experience in France or in Germany. Not because I am not white, but
because I am a sort of alien; not a proper native. This is not exactly
racism, but a cousin of racism.
Eri




On the other hand, sometimes a Jew looks rather white, if he is Ashkenazi.
In this case, it probably can easily be accepted for a job, simply because
it looks white. But as some lady of Louisiana once said, "I am not racist!
My cook is a black woman and had been working for me during 40 years!"
Then, if you have a big garden, and you are not a racist, you can have
a Chicano gardener, if you not pretend to have a very nice and extraordinary garden. But think about the case you need a pretentious and extraordinary
garden. Then, you would not contract a Filipino, a black or a Pakistani.
You would import a gardener from some rural background in UK, that would
not how to tend an aristocratic garden. Also, instead of having Latino
or black servants, you would import servants from the UK that is suffering
a severe economic crisis. It is advisable also to import a certified
British butler or a steward to rule your servants. In case you were a new
rich. For if you are an old-rich, you have already British servants with
the best pedigree. So, you only could need a simple replacement if someone
dies, or gets too old.
I remember reading some about the life of Feynman. He tried to get a summer
job in the Laboratories Bell when he was studying in Princeton. He was rejected. The editor made a comment that at that time, in the Laboratories
Bell was not accepted any Jew whatever. Not even in the Laboratories Bell
In Princeton existed a serious resistance to accept Jews. They had at the
times when Feynman entered there. But it took a lot of insistence on the
part of the MIT pressing the Dean or president, or whatever boss they had
there, to accept him, for he was exceptional. You have to be good to be
accepted in Princeton, if you are of good family. But if you are poor, or
a Jew, you had to be exceptional to enter in such a place. Things were
changing in America at the times when Feynman entered in Princeton. Some
50 or 100 years before not any Jew or Irish would had entered in Princeton,
I suppose.
Eri


Eri

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 01:53:44 UTC+3, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
> El martes, 31 de marzo de 2015, 22:14:42 (UTC+1), Öö Tiib escribió:
> > On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 21:58:48 UTC+3, deadrat wrote:
> > >
> > > "Most of the money have Jews." That's you, not me.
> >
> > It was response to "Those who have most of the money are whites." of Eridanus.
>
> The dominant class is white people. It is not only because they have the
> money, but because they have some degree of power, without being plainly
> rich. The rich among the whites is a very small minority. But you can be
> accepted or rejected for a job by common white people that only have a
> little wealth; they are not bankers, but have some power to accept you
> as a waiter in a fine restaurant, or as broker in a firm, by example.
> Or to work in a factory, or in an office, etc. They are not super-rich
> the ones that would refuse you a job for being black, or Latino, or
> Pakistani.

I have no much experience with it because here live too few people of
other nations. It might be we are too Nordic, too cold, too unfriendly.
The some foreigners we have in our company are all well respected
specialists. Different origins give ability to sometimes see things
from vital different angle.

> They really do not like you by your aspect, of not looking white. And I
> can understand this. For the average white, the concept of meritocracy
> only applies if you are also white. But not if you are of another race
> whatever. The exceptions can be a little in academia, not 100% but rather
> 30 or 40 % racist; it is a supposition I am making. The guys in academia
> are mostly believers in meritocracy and can accept other races. I am not
> so sure, but it seems you can see some Chinese and Japanese names in some
> scientific papers. If they were there because it was a study paid by
> a government agency... is understandable. I am not sure in other cases.

Science projects are ofter cooperative between different institutions of different countries. It aids to better double-check and review the results.

> If I were a student of 20 years in the US in any college or university I
> would had been working very very hard to succeed. For being not a native
> my prospects of getting through were not optimistic. I would had been in
> the verge of quiting quite often. But I do not think it would be better
> my experience in France or in Germany. Not because I am not white, but
> because I am a sort of alien; not a proper native. This is not exactly
> racism, but a cousin of racism.

It is normal to expect that it takes some labor to adapt with people
from different country.

> On the other hand, sometimes a Jew looks rather white, if he is Ashkenazi.
> In this case, it probably can easily be accepted for a job, simply because
> it looks white. But as some lady of Louisiana once said, "I am not racist!
> My cook is a black woman and had been working for me during 40 years!"
> Then, if you have a big garden, and you are not a racist, you can have
> a Chicano gardener, if you not pretend to have a very nice and extraordinary garden. But think about the case you need a pretentious and extraordinary
> garden. Then, you would not contract a Filipino, a black or a Pakistani.
> You would import a gardener from some rural background in UK, that would
> not how to tend an aristocratic garden. Also, instead of having Latino
> or black servants, you would import servants from the UK that is suffering
> a severe economic crisis. It is advisable also to import a certified
> British butler or a steward to rule your servants. In case you were a new
> rich. For if you are an old-rich, you have already British servants with
> the best pedigree. So, you only could need a simple replacement if someone
> dies, or gets too old.

The households that use number of permanent servants are too few so that
can not affect employment in any region by noteworthy margin.

> I remember reading some about the life of Feynman. He tried to get a summer
> job in the Laboratories Bell when he was studying in Princeton. He was rejected. The editor made a comment that at that time, in the Laboratories
> Bell was not accepted any Jew whatever. Not even in the Laboratories Bell
> In Princeton existed a serious resistance to accept Jews. They had at the
> times when Feynman entered there. But it took a lot of insistence on the
> part of the MIT pressing the Dean or president, or whatever boss they had
> there, to accept him, for he was exceptional. You have to be good to be
> accepted in Princeton, if you are of good family. But if you are poor, or
> a Jew, you had to be exceptional to enter in such a place. Things were
> changing in America at the times when Feynman entered in Princeton. Some
> 50 or 100 years before not any Jew or Irish would had entered in Princeton,
> I suppose.

You talk about world 80 years ago? Things have evolved, world has globalized
and internationalized. Might be even too much too fast. Rich countries
have issues to assimilate immigrants. Less rich have unexpected outbursts
of exotic illnesses or pests from other continent.

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/31/15 2:29 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 21:54:07 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

>> On 3/31/2015 2:02 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 19:38:49 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

>>>> On 3/30/2015 10:23 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 30 March 2015 13:58:49 UTC+3, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let us talk about who are those on the upper social and economic
>>>>>> rank in a society? Those who have most of the money are whites.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the money have Jews. If to leverage it down by merging
>>>>> statistics with other Asians then ... Asians have most of the
>>>>> money.
>>>>
>>>> Data, please.
>>>
>>> http://www.forbes.co.il/rating/list.aspx?en6v0tVq=FK
>>>
>>> Most of them are Americans so about quarter of US billionaires
>>> are Jews.
>>
>> So you were wrong when you said Jews have most of the money.
>
> In comparison with other nations separately, I was correct, Jews have
> most money in business (and so have biggest affect to salary/income of
> others). If to put everybody else to one big pile then I was wrong
> since there are 75% "Gentile" billionaires in US.

First, the US is a nation, so you need to include it in your comparison.
If, for inexplicable reasons, you choose not to consider the US, then
China has 12% of the world's billionaires, or probably more, since that
does not count the Asian billionaires living in the US.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[deadrat]

He's counted over "100 Jew billionaires." I wonder how many Chink
billionaires he thinks there are.

[deadrat]

Did I say you did?

> It does not look even envious. I would
> expect such things from someone similar to you. Because garbage.

And I expect such things from someone similar to you. Because
antisemite. Also moral idiot.

> However now I at least see that I did perhaps draw that trash and
> so deserve your bile as well.

You seem to be annoyed with me because you didn't draw the pictures.
But I'm not accusing you of drawing them. I'm showing you where your
mindless prejudice leads. You appear to know nothing about it, and you
blithely assume that you have nothing to do with it.

>>> agrees that it is not anyhow "unfair stereotype". If it has some special
>>> meaning somewhere then I do not see it in internet.
>>
>>
>>>> Then find out how much money Jews actually have and get back to us with
>>>> that figure. Be sure to have a comparison to say, Russian oligarchs or
>>>> drug cartel bosses.
>>>
>>> You are moving goalposts here. IOW 混水摸鱼 The OP was about ethnic groups
>>> in USA. Particularly that Blacks do not prosper. Arab Oil Sheikhs nor
>>> Russian Oligarchs nor Criminal Bosses of whatever nations have nothing
>>> to do with anything of it.
>>
>> This illustrates the idiot part.
>
> Good that you are wise.

Bad that you are an antisemite. Also moral idiot.

>>>>> How you were hit? By being a Jew but not having lot of money? By
>>>>> being non-Jew but having lot of money?
>>>>
>>>> You couldn't hit the ocean if you were on a cruise. But this isn't
>>>> about me. It's about you.
>>>>
>>>>> Are you just bored and want a silly slap-fight? Won't get it from me, sorry.
>>>>
>>>> I don't really expect anything from you, Sparky. I just think that it's
>>>> important to confront antisemites and moral idiots when they make
>>>> bigoted statements. If you'd said "Black people not have lot of IQ."
>>>> I'd have confronted you about that too.
>>>
>>> Why you accuse me in antisemitism?
>>
>> Why do you think?
>
> I think I know now. Because I did draw the pictures on antisemitic
> sites. You now deliver justice by throwing garbage like usually.

I'm not the one throwing the garbage. You are. And I don't mean the
pictures.

> Perhaps you have nothing more fruitful to do.

History doesn't say that what I'm doing is fruitful. It says not doing
it is poison.

> Or want but may not
> do or can not do. About like me today.
>
>>> What did I do to Jews?
>>> I did say nothing detrimental nor wrong ( does "bigoted" mean that?)
>>
>> Except that you did. If you can't see it and refuse to understand, then
>> so be it. It's a fool's errand to educate antisemites and moral idiots.
>> I just think it's important not to let their bigotry and idiocy pass
>> unnoticed.
>
> Good. So at least you are so internationalist and tolerant

I don't know what "internationalist" means here. But I'm not tolerant
of antisemites or any other bigots for that matter. Also not moral idiots.

> and did deliver
> the justice. Snip rest of the bile ... no variance there.

You should learn some history (not to mention some statistics).

But you won't. No variance there either.

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 04:38:44 UTC+3, Mark Isaak wrote:

> On 3/31/15 2:29 PM, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 21:54:07 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

> >> On 3/31/2015 2:02 PM, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 19:38:49 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

> >>>> On 3/30/2015 10:23 AM, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 30 March 2015 13:58:49 UTC+3, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Let us talk about who are those on the upper social and economic
> >>>>>> rank in a society? Those who have most of the money are whites.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Most of the money have Jews. If to leverage it down by merging
> >>>>> statistics with other Asians then ... Asians have most of the
> >>>>> money.
> >>>>
> >>>> Data, please.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.forbes.co.il/rating/list.aspx?en6v0tVq=FK
> >>>
> >>> Most of them are Americans so about quarter of US billionaires
> >>> are Jews.
> >>
> >> So you were wrong when you said Jews have most of the money.
> >
> > In comparison with other nations separately, I was correct, Jews have
> > most money in business (and so have biggest affect to salary/income of
> > others). If to put everybody else to one big pile then I was wrong
> > since there are 75% "Gentile" billionaires in US.
>
> First, the US is a nation, so you need to include it in your comparison.

I now understand what it is all about. The OP was why do not blacks
prosper in US. US is a "nation" with tension between different ethnic
groups. There are even ghettos for to keep them separate. I did not
discuss that.

Eridanus proposed that the economic success of Blacks in US is
related to that tension. That is easy to see being wrong only if
to compare economic success of different ethnic groups in US. We
*immediately* see that tension *clearly* exists between Jews and
others despite any success of Jews or even *thanks* to it. Even
mentioning it made deadrat to explode into pile of bile. That was
what I did.

You all assume me *not* to discuss what I discuss. You want me to
discuss some sort of antisemitic shit about "project of Jews to
destroy the humankind on planet". I did not discuss planet, nor
such idiocies. I do not even want to discuss the reasonable risks
of further collapsing of US. It is impossible to discuss such
things with you guys since you are skewed in your imagination
what I want to write or what I did write. Probably what I wrote
here is also meaningless since it is an "example of me simply
being insincere". How can I prove that I am not a camel?

> If, for inexplicable reasons, you choose not to consider the US, then
> China has 12% of the world's billionaires, or probably more, since that
> does not count the Asian billionaires living in the US.

I did *not* discuss China. Chinese have thousands of years of
experience being reasonable. There live not many Black people in China.

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 08:58:43 UTC+3, deadrat wrote:
> On 3/31/15 8:34 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:

> > On 3/31/15 2:29 PM, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 21:54:07 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

> >>> On 3/31/2015 2:02 PM, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 19:38:49 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

> >>>>> On 3/30/2015 10:23 AM, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, 30 March 2015 13:58:49 UTC+3, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Let us talk about who are those on the upper social and economic
> >>>>>>> rank in a society? Those who have most of the money are whites.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Most of the money have Jews. If to leverage it down by merging
> >>>>>> statistics with other Asians then ... Asians have most of the
> >>>>>> money.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Data, please.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.forbes.co.il/rating/list.aspx?en6v0tVq=FK
> >>>>
> >>>> Most of them are Americans so about quarter of US billionaires
> >>>> are Jews.
> >>>
> >>> So you were wrong when you said Jews have most of the money.
> >>
> >> In comparison with other nations separately, I was correct, Jews have
> >> most money in business (and so have biggest affect to salary/income of
> >> others). If to put everybody else to one big pile then I was wrong
> >> since there are 75% "Gentile" billionaires in US.
> >
> > First, the US is a nation, so you need to include it in your comparison.
> > If, for inexplicable reasons, you choose not to consider the US, then
> > China has 12% of the world's billionaires, or probably more, since that
> > does not count the Asian billionaires living in the US.
>
> He's counted over "100 Jew billionaires." I wonder how many Chink
> billionaires he thinks there are.

Please do not post your racist slur terms here. I don't use such.
It was you who used it so you may go now to mirror and tell to yourself
your justice.

[deadrat]

On 4/1/15 4:19 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 04:38:44 UTC+3, Mark Isaak wrote:

>> On 3/31/15 2:29 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 21:54:07 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

>>>> On 3/31/2015 2:02 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 19:38:49 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

What do you know about the tensions between Jews and others in the
United States? I'm guessing about as much as you know about the history
of European Jewry.

There are neighborhoods in cities in New York where there is friction
between ultraorthodox Jews and others. In Crown Heights, its with the
African-American community. But there's little "tension" between
assimilated Jews and others in the US.

> Even mentioning it made deadrat to explode into pile of bile. That was
> what I did.

The explosion of bile is entirely in your own mind. All I did was stand
witness to your antisemitism and moral idiocy.

> You all assume me *not* to discuss what I discuss. You want me to
> discuss some sort of antisemitic shit

No. I, for one, would like you to learn something and stop posting
antisemitic shit. Failing that, I intend to point out that you post
antisemitic shit. And that you're a moral idiot.

> about "project of Jews to
> destroy the humankind on planet". I did not discuss planet, nor
> such idiocies. I do not even want to discuss the reasonable risks
> of further collapsing of US. It is impossible to discuss such
> things with you guys since you are skewed in your imagination
> what I want to write or what I did write. Probably what I wrote
> here is also meaningless since it is an "example of me simply
> being insincere". How can I prove that I am not a camel?

How did we get from your antisemitism and moral idiocy to the impending
collapse of the United States and your sincerity?

I don't plan to worry about your projections about the collapse of the
United States, and I'm willing to stipulate to your sincerity.

>> If, for inexplicable reasons, you choose not to consider the US, then
>> China has 12% of the world's billionaires, or probably more, since that
>> does not count the Asian billionaires living in the US.
>
> I did *not* discuss China. Chinese have thousands of years of
> experience being reasonable.

Missed the Cultural Revolution, eh?

> There live not many Black people in China.

That must be the reason.

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 12:38:43 UTC+3, deadrat wrote:

> On 4/1/15 4:19 AM, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 04:38:44 UTC+3, Mark Isaak wrote:

> >> On 3/31/15 2:29 PM, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 21:54:07 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

> >>>> On 3/31/2015 2:02 PM, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 19:38:49 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

So there are frictions or there aren't? Are there or aren't or whatever
you claim there it has nothing to do with me. Your garbage demonstrates
that there is some sort of tension so you are not sincere.

> > Even mentioning it made deadrat to explode into pile of bile. That was
> > what I did.
>
> The explosion of bile is entirely in your own mind. All I did was stand
> witness to your antisemitism and moral idiocy.

That is easy to read above, here. You are witness of nothing so you
are just leaking clear garbage of your own tension from each hole.

> > You all assume me *not* to discuss what I discuss. You want me to
> > discuss some sort of antisemitic shit
>
> No. I, for one, would like you to learn something and stop posting
> antisemitic shit. Failing that, I intend to point out that you post
> antisemitic shit. And that you're a moral idiot.

I won't learn anything from you leaking shit from all holes. You have
demonstrated it plentifully. It is amusing sort of ... but gets
boring too since your posts contain no other information. Just usual
mindless deadrattery. Note that when I am anything (be it antisemite,
racist, homophobe, sadist or what not) then I am proud about what I
am and what views I have. I don't have anything against Jews. If I
had then I would not deny I have. Why should I? That is why I do
not care about your shit, only thing that such alleged insincerity
of me demonstrates is your own insincerity (why else would you
assume it from others) and deficiencies in your own thinking.

> > about "project of Jews to
> > destroy the humankind on planet". I did not discuss planet, nor
> > such idiocies. I do not even want to discuss the reasonable risks
> > of further collapsing of US. It is impossible to discuss such
> > things with you guys since you are skewed in your imagination
> > what I want to write or what I did write. Probably what I wrote
> > here is also meaningless since it is an "example of me simply
> > being insincere". How can I prove that I am not a camel?
>
> How did we get from your antisemitism and moral idiocy to the impending
> collapse of the United States and your sincerity?

What I did claim above was that there are no antisemitism, nor
global conspiracy theories nor local to US conspiracy theories
alleged in my claim that Jews are ultra rich group in US. They
are and that is good. Is wealth some sort of curse of king Midas
in your religion? To me it isn't. They can affect economy,
elections, education and external affairs of country with their
money if they only want to and so should not worry. Period.
Sincerely. So trying to argue with anything of it is mental
flaw of the one who tries.

> I don't plan to worry about your projections about the collapse of the
> United States, and I'm willing to stipulate to your sincerity.

Good.

> >> If, for inexplicable reasons, you choose not to consider the US, then
> >> China has 12% of the world's billionaires, or probably more, since that
> >> does not count the Asian billionaires living in the US.
> >
> > I did *not* discuss China. Chinese have thousands of years of
> > experience being reasonable.
>
> Missed the Cultural Revolution, eh?

When new leaders take control over large country after collapse and
anarchy then they do have some physical power and weapons and
significant force of assholes eager to beat up or to kill someone
but no much other resources. The infrastructure is in ruins, means
of production are damaged, productive structures destroyed and
robbed and the money is worth less than the paper it is printed on.
The collectives of laborers have also often ran away. So they need
fear to calm down the anarchy and slave/prisoner labor to rebuild
destroyed infrastructure and economy. Elementary. What else can
they use, you, wise historian? For some reason no one has *ever*
used anything else for rebuilding a big country.

> > There live not many Black people in China.
>
> That must be the reason.

Yes, the Blacks are in US since US needed slave labor for the very
same reasons Chinese needed Cultural Revolution.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

It seems you do not understood the reasons behind the Cultural Revolution
in China. Why it started, and what forces were behind it.

Some communist leaders were in favor of some economic rationalism and
wanted some changes to bring it up. They put Mao out of the political
power by nominating him "President of the Republic". An honorific tittle
with not power. Then, some partisans of Mao wanted to derail those plans
of making changes in the economic politics. This how the Cultural
Revolution started. This information can be false, of course. If you
have better information it would be good that you share it with me.

Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El miércoles, 1 de abril de 2015, 12:03:43 (UTC+1), Öö Tiib escribió:

the question of the importation of black slaves it was some acts from
particulars, not by the government itself. The government simple
accepted those facts, under pressures from the persons interested.
It is not different to the case of accepting other white immigrants
that played the same role of slaves as the blacks. But with a white
skin. During many decades, Scandinavian people migrated to the
US was considered a third class person in the states of the north.
Some jokes were made that presented them as mental retarded, etc.
A little similar were the jokes about the laziness and drunkenness
of the Irish immigrants. They needed mostly in the seasons of
harvesting, and the rest of the year they were unemployed. In other
places the Irish had an employment in times of abundance of money
and were unemployed in times of crisis or scarce money.

Once I read, perhaps it is true, that the children of slaves that
were given freedom they continued being looked upon as slaves for
many generations, even if they were in fact free men.
Only by enrolling in a legion, and if surviving they could stay
far away from their place of birth, could they hide the former
slavery of they ancestors. But in this case, I am assuming that
most of those slaves had more or less a white face. A very dark
face would had continue being considered an slave a thousand
years or more after his ancestors was given freedom.

The main border that separates the social classes into former
slaves and free men is education. I remember to have read that
some time, the politics of the BBC and other government offices
were to detect if the lips of a new candidate for a governmental
job had uttered a few lower class vowels or diphthongs. If he
had any of those slips it was not appropriate for the new job.

This politics had changed sometime in the middle of the 20th century.

Perhaps in the 60's or 70's. I am not sure.

I read about Sweden an epitome of balance between rich and poor for
such a long time. This is particularly true for the 20th century
with the aid of some socialist education. But I had read about
past times, during the 19th century and before. This were a lot more
harsh then. Since the times the Vikings imported a number of slaves
into the country, south of Sweden and Norway, those "former slaves"
were taken in contempt till well into the 20th century. Those were
probably the main voters for the social democrat party. The Swedish
conservatives are somewhat bitter of this nasty aspect of their politics;
to have a social democrat party.
Perhaps I am wrong also into this. It would not be any surprise for me;
I am sure I must be wrong in everything I think or say. I recall the
words of the Hittite to Sinuhe. Our philosophy is not different to yours.
With us, the true is the words of our supreme leader, and the thinking
of the soldiers and poor farmers are lies. In Egypt the words of the rich
people are the truth, and those of the poor are lies.

Eri




eri

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 3/31/2015 5:29 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 21:54:07 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

>> On 3/31/2015 2:02 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 19:38:49 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

>>>> On 3/30/2015 10:23 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 30 March 2015 13:58:49 UTC+3, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let us talk about who are those on the upper social and economic
>>>>>> rank in a society? Those who have most of the money are whites.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the money have Jews. If to leverage it down by merging
>>>>> statistics with other Asians then ... Asians have most of the
>>>>> money.
>>>>
>>>> Data, please.
>>>
>>> http://www.forbes.co.il/rating/list.aspx?en6v0tVq=FK
>>>
>>> Most of them are Americans so about quarter of US billionaires
>>> are Jews.
>>
>> So you were wrong when you said Jews have most of the money.
>
> In comparison with other nations separately, I was correct, Jews have
> most money in business (and so have biggest affect to salary/income of
> others).

No, you've just shown that Jewish billionaires have less money than
non-Jewish billionaires.

> If to put everybody else to one big pile then I was wrong
> since there are 75% "Gentile" billionaires in US.

Mitchell Coffey

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

dear, Oo Tiib.
If the Jew had any small or median enterprise, or industry, it had been
wrecked up by the politics of importing cheap products from China.
So, if most of the light industry of the US is sunken and disappeared is
due to the high salaries of workers in the US, and to the reclamation
of people with money, mostly heavy weight importers, to bring goods from
China and not paying any import tariffs.
In other times, a way to pull down salaries was by importing poor famelic
immigrants from Europe, and much later from Latin American countries.
In the times when they were building the continental railway they even
imported Chineses and Irish for that job. They needed to pay very low
salaries. Once these poor were in the US they were like mice trapped in
a cage. They had not any way or means to flee.

Eri

[Öö Tiib]

Mao ruined the existing economy mostly by himself trying to reorganize
the system without slavery first.

After World War II (mainly with Japan) the unrest in China continued
and was more or less in hands of communists at 1949. The communist
government first did "collectivize" the peasants gradually into
cooperatives of 100-300 families by 1958. It was unpopular and
resulted with famines. Then Mao started "Great Leap Forward" to
reorganize everything even further until 1961. It resulted with
real food deficit. Tens of millions starved to death. Mao was
criticized by moderates and removed from real power.

So at 1966 he started "Cultural Revolution". Killed all those
moderates as "revisionists" who "try to restore capitalism",
formed armed "Red Guard" groups and started real Stalin-style
slavery and repressions and removal of any private properties
and witch hunt on carriers or supporters of whatever "bourgeois"
ideologies. People were technically slaves of state. Fear and
slavery. That lasted ten years until Mao's death. It sort of
worked. In sum under rule of Mao 1949-1976 population of China
did grow by 350 millions.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

Any economic system is based in slavery. If not de jure slavery it is
a de facto slavery. It is not different to any army. A army is made
of armed slaves, kept in line an aversive control system. The soldiers
are fed for the same reason ordinary slaves are fed. No any slave last
very long performing their task if you do not feed them.

People had to work, because it needs to eat; and all the food is under
the control of the dominant class. The same with the troops. They are
slaves of the state or the slaves of some rebel commander that is waging
a war on his own free enterprise. The troops cannot desert and abandon
the service but in very rare occasions. The troops like the people in
general is under constant observation by a net of spies. This is specially
critical in an army. You can send some spies to preach some sedition and
watch the results. The spy then inform his superior of the results of
his teasing to read the state of the morale. Are the soldiers happy enough
or are they in the verge of rebelling?

This control is very specially important in an army, where the troops could
easily rebel if the situation gets nasty. Then, the spies that exist among
the troops (some are voluntary informers) tell the officer of the state of
the moral among the troop, so they can in time blow the brain of anyone preaching a sedition.

>
> After World War II (mainly with Japan) the unrest in China continued
> and was more or less in hands of communists at 1949. The communist
> government first did "collectivize" the peasants gradually into
> cooperatives of 100-300 families by 1958. It was unpopular and
> resulted with famines. Then Mao started "Great Leap Forward" to
> reorganize everything even further until 1961. It resulted with
> real food deficit. Tens of millions starved to death. Mao was
> criticized by moderates and removed from real power.

There are several reasons for China to have periodic crisis of
food, like in Russia, for climatic reasons.
Another story told about the food shortages that cause 65 million people
starving in China it is explained by this you said about the Great Leap
forward of Mao. It cost me a lot to believe this fable, as the only
explanation for the notorious famine. I can accept that leaders can be
rather moron, even more moron than George W Bush, if this is possible.
But in general, only in rare cases a moron leader works alone in being
an idiot. There must exist a whole bunch of idiots around, like they
existed among the leaders of Germany and Austria, to start the WWI. But
a similar case occurred in Germany with the ascent of the Nazis to the
power and the start the WWII. I can accept that Hitler was a moron 100
times more moron the Bush, but the generals and political officers
around Hitler were not more intelligent either.
Then, I think that most part of the failure of the harvest during the
times of a Great Leap Forward were not caused by the mental retardation
of Mao and his assistants and officers. Perhaps, the Great Leap forward
contributed just a 30% to the food crisis. Many of the starving people
were the farmers, that were taken a lot of grain for the cities, and thus
they were condemned to die of starvation.
I can just imagine a similar case with the agribusiness in the US. If
a very severe change in weather cause a failure of 60% of the harvest,
because of some weather upsetting... the capitalist would not pay their
job to the workers of the machines, and could not pay the bankers, and
could not buy food for it is very expensive and have not money... and
they put a lawsuit against the agribusiness but there are so long delays
that the poor workers not only loose the machines to the bankers, but
also die of starvation as well for lack of money to buy food.
Then, we can accuse those capitalists of doing a Great Leap Forward as well.

The classic explanation from a "capitalist POV" is that the cooperatives
are not the best system to extract surpluses of food from the farmers.
This is what the cooperatives were for. To extract surpluses of food
from them. This is not different to a capitalist system of ownership.

Let me now consider the producers of corn in the US.
Most of the corn produced are the property of some capitalist companies
that used "rented workers with machines" to perform the labors
of sawing, harvesting, and even to spread insecticides, and herbicides.

Those people are not ordinary laborers of those companies, but laborers
called for those task and paid for them. Basically those "agribusiness",
have almost zero employers. They rent free workers for some concrete
tasks on each moment or season. Those workers are forced to accept those
jobs and they had been indebted to the banks to pay the machines they
are using. So, in general they are living also in a very tight budget.
They had not finished to pay a machine and they have to buy a new one
already, or some very expensive replacements.

This is the perfect business. A business that is done basically done by
machines and have almost zero employers. It is more or less like the
modern industry today. Most of the work is done by machines. They do not
even need to pay much for guards with all the cameras and diverse means
of alarm they put in place.

Those shitty revolutionaries, Bolsheviks or Maoists, had not much machinery
at their disposal, even they had scarcity of stores and trucks and
even tractors. For the perishable food they had not enough refrigerated
stores, etc. Most of the work had to be done by people that were badly paid, and had a minimal interest for the job.

The slaves always have a minimal interest for the job. And those workers
of the socialist system were the facto slaves, with the aggravating that
they were told they were living in a proletarian paradise. They had
added a rhetorical insult to their situation.
It can look ironic, but I do not think any of the Soviet workers ever
believed such bullshit of living in a workers paradise. I would had not
believe this if I were had been there.

> So at 1966 he started "Cultural Revolution". Killed all those
> moderates as "revisionists" who "try to restore capitalism",
> formed armed "Red Guard" groups and started real Stalin-style
> slavery and repressions and removal of any private properties

This is false. It do not existed any private properties, and
the planes of those that took out the power of Mao had not started
any changes yet. It was simply a mild civil war among communists.
Mild civil war for had not been many dead and it was not used the
army for this situation. It was mostly a case of harassment and
insulting those that had some social rank by some young people that
were subordinates or students. It seem there were not enough jobs
for so many young people living in cities. Young people anywhere
have not many bright prospects of jobs well paid. This is also true
or even worse in a Chinese society. The distance between the older
people and the young are rather great. It can look like an abyss.

> and witch hunt on carriers or supporters of whatever "bourgeois"
> ideologies. People were technically slaves of state. Fear and
> slavery. That lasted ten years until Mao's death. It sort of
> worked. In sum under rule of Mao 1949-1976 population of China
> did grow by 350 millions.

This had not changed now. There are some capitalists, but they are
not so free as one would think. Most entrepreneurs are indebted to
the bankers and with the prices paid by buyers that go there, they
barely can pay their debts. The last I read in a economic magazine
was telling those entrepreneurs had to take more credits to buy more
machines to make more profitable their business. This is a mere theory.
By the time they had paid almost 50 or 60% of their debts, the bankers
had lend money to other entrepreneurs that would compete with them.
In the end, all they would end indebted to the bankers and could not
earn a buck. By them, the international crisis would get much deeper than
now, and all they would own would be a mountain of debts with the bankers.

Eri

[William Morse]

His native language is Finnish, so he can be excused for using "Jew" to
refer to "Jewish". You have no excuse for using "Chink". I am sure your
use was intended to be ironic, but this in itself is an insult to a
poster who is not writing in his native language.

Sorry, but I think you need to respond in a civil manner to the content
of his posts.

[deadrat]

I'm sorry, but I know of no Finnish exemptions for antisemitism and
moral idiocy. He has had these things explained to him carefully and
politely before. It is incumbent upon him to have educated himself, and
if he'd taken the least steps in this direction he would have understood
the significance of using the word "Jew" as an adjective.

This isn't the first time around on this topic for this clown. I spent
many fruitless posts trying to explain things to him because I thought,
like you, "Hey! The guy's first language isn't English. It must be a
miscommunication." It's not. He's an antisemite and a moral idiot.

And since by my calculations there's one Jewish Finn for every 100
square miles of Finland, he's an illustration of my point that you don't
have to have even met a Jew to come down with jewfever.

> You have no excuse for using "Chink". I am sure your
> use was intended to be ironic,

If you're sure it's ironic, then you have no excuse for making this
statement. And if you think you do, then I encourage you to don your
own idiot's cap and sit in the corner with Suey Park (she of
CancelColbert fame) and the people who want to rename Mark Twain's
character Ni**er Jim.

Now perhaps I'd have made myself clearer if I'd said that it's too bad
70K Finns had to die in the Winter War, but fuck 'em, they brought it on
themselves by being Finnish. Not that there was anything wrong with that.

But I doubt it would have been effective.

> but this in itself is an insult to a poster

Why, yes it is. Imagine that.

> who is not writing in his native language.

ESL is not an excuse for willful ignorance.

> Sorry, but I think you need to respond in a civil manner to the content
> of his posts.

No, no, I don't. I understand that you think I need to, but I don't.
And I'm not going to insult your intelligence by issuing the
transparently-insincere non-apology that I'm sorry that you're offended.

Some content deserves no respect, and some posters deserve all the rude
contempt that can be heaped upon their heads.

[deadrat]

On 4/1/15 4:31 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 08:58:43 UTC+3, deadrat wrote:
>> On 3/31/15 8:34 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:

>>> On 3/31/15 2:29 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 21:54:07 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

>>>>> On 3/31/2015 2:02 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 19:38:49 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

>>>>>>> On 3/30/2015 10:23 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, 30 March 2015 13:58:49 UTC+3, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let us talk about who are those on the upper social and economic
>>>>>>>>> rank in a society? Those who have most of the money are whites.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most of the money have Jews. If to leverage it down by merging
>>>>>>>> statistics with other Asians then ... Asians have most of the
>>>>>>>> money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Data, please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.forbes.co.il/rating/list.aspx?en6v0tVq=FK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most of them are Americans so about quarter of US billionaires
>>>>>> are Jews.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you were wrong when you said Jews have most of the money.
>>>>
>>>> In comparison with other nations separately, I was correct, Jews have
>>>> most money in business (and so have biggest affect to salary/income of
>>>> others). If to put everybody else to one big pile then I was wrong
>>>> since there are 75% "Gentile" billionaires in US.
>>>
>>> First, the US is a nation, so you need to include it in your comparison.
>>> If, for inexplicable reasons, you choose not to consider the US, then
>>> China has 12% of the world's billionaires, or probably more, since that
>>> does not count the Asian billionaires living in the US.
>>
>> He's counted over "100 Jew billionaires." I wonder how many Chink
>> billionaires he thinks there are.
>
> Please do not post your racist slur terms here.

But it's OK for you.

> I don't use such.

You do that and worse.

> It was you who used it so you may go now to mirror and tell to yourself
> your justice.

Since English is not your first language, you may be excused for missing
the irony in the message and the message in the irony.

But that's about it.

[deadrat]

On 4/1/15 5:59 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 12:38:43 UTC+3, deadrat wrote:

>> On 4/1/15 4:19 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 04:38:44 UTC+3, Mark Isaak wrote:

>>>> On 3/31/15 2:29 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 21:54:07 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

>>>>>> On 3/31/2015 2:02 PM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 19:38:49 UTC+3, Mitchell Coffey wrote:

Do I need to type more slowly so you can follow what I post?

> Are there or aren't or whatever
> you claim there it has nothing to do with me. Your garbage demonstrates
> that there is some sort of tension so you are not sincere.

I sincerely think you're an antisemite and a moral idiot. Trust me on that.

>>> Even mentioning it made deadrat to explode into pile of bile. That was
>>> what I did.
>>
>> The explosion of bile is entirely in your own mind. All I did was stand
>> witness to your antisemitism and moral idiocy.
>
> That is easy to read above, here. You are witness of nothing so you
> are just leaking clear garbage of your own tension from each hole.

>>> You all assume me *not* to discuss what I discuss. You want me to
>>> discuss some sort of antisemitic shit
>>
>> No. I, for one, would like you to learn something and stop posting
>> antisemitic shit. Failing that, I intend to point out that you post
>> antisemitic shit. And that you're a moral idiot.
>
> I won't learn anything

Ya had me right here, Sparky. Everything else is just talking past the
close.

> from you leaking shit from all holes. You have
> demonstrated it plentifully. It is amusing sort of ... but gets
> boring too since your posts contain no other information. Just usual
> mindless deadrattery. Note that when I am anything (be it antisemite,
> racist, homophobe, sadist or what not) then I am proud about what I
> am and what views I have. I don't have anything against Jews.

If you say so, Sparky.

> If I
> had then I would not deny I have. Why should I? That is why I do
> not care about your shit, only thing that such alleged insincerity
> of me demonstrates is your own insincerity (why else would you
> assume it from others) and deficiencies in your own thinking.

I have no idea what this means. I have no reason to believe that you
are anything but sincere.

The communists took over mainland China in 1949. The Cultural
Revolution started in 1966. You don't know what you're talking about.
Again. Still.

>>> There live not many Black people in China.
>>
>> That must be the reason.
>
> Yes, the Blacks are in US since US needed slave labor for the very
> same reasons Chinese needed Cultural Revolution.

Ganz falsch.

[Ernest Major]

If you take his ISP at face value, he's Estonian rather than Finnish.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Mitchell Coffey]

Not even wrong.

Mitchell Coffey

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

he probably has learned that Jews were guilty of some wrong doing for
Germany loosing the war, because they were rich or something.
What he had not assimilated is that Germany lost the war because it was
much bigger than they expected. I mean, the military elite were unable
to calculate the problems involved in starting a war like WWI.
The conservative leaders, mostly the military ranks, were as moron as they
are traditionally supposed to be; perhaps a lot more.
If they would had commissioned a team of mathematicians with the aim of calculating what were the problems involved in the starting of this war,
the mathematicians would had probably told the military, do not start
this stupid war for it was a defeating enterprise.
And the same was the case in Austria. The conservatives and the military
were fearing the rebellion of some nations inside their empire. Then,
not to react against the assassination of the archduke would mean some
sort of weakness.
They military leaders of Austria were as well unable to foresee the
possibilities of being defeated in this war and loosing all those nations
that were not Austrian and somewhat they hated a little the empire.

Then, if someone tries to explain you why Germany lost a war, quite
often they invoke the wrong cause. They are not going to tell, Germany
lost the war for the military were morons and were unable to foresee
their the future of their wars. Instead of that they invoked a traditional
shit like to accuse the Jews of their defeat. There existed in Europe
in many nations a tradition of accusing the Jews when some calamity occurred.
In this case of WWI, the accusation avoided to mention the religion, and
tell it was a punishment of god for hosting Jews among them. Instead of
that they mentioned monetary arguments. So the argument was declared as
"Germany lost the war because the Jews were rich", was some modern argument.
As they were rich, they defeated Germany. They stabbed Germany on the back, was the phrase. Something only a moron can believe as a rational argument.

Then, someone with a lot of charisma had told this stupid idea to poor Tiib.
Then, once inside his brain this idea took root more or less firmly,
and he have had found not reasons to extract this root out till now.
By insulting him, you are not favoring a revision of this "truth": the
"Jews had stabbed Germany on its back".
There is a lot of shit told to people to explain the causes of many
defeats or many crisis. I remember now that poor Tiib mentioned the
cause of the present crisis that "those who had the money", meaning
the Jews that controlled the Industry of the US, sacked all those poor
workers that are now unemployed. This is a variance on the argument
why Germany lost the war. Not that Germany lost the war because he
had started a war they could not win, and they were thus morons. No.
It most be some exotic cause, like the Jews of America or something.
Or the Martians that got involved.

These problems with the dogmas occur because people is rather gullible
and believe any shit that is repeated a sufficient number of times,
or because it had been told as a confidence by someone that was
specially charismatic. If that occurs exists a great probability of
believing this argument, or this truth, or whatever shit.

You must forgive poor Tiib for believing this. He is not unique and
you must be patient. By calling him idiot you would not solve this
problem. You must present him more rational arguments than calling
him idiot. To call someone idiot is not a rational argument.
Please, be more kind to people.
Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

the argument of black slaves has not any relation to the cultural
revolution of Mao followers. Ist ganz falsch.
The cultural revolution was mostly a mild civil war between some
faithful followers of Mao and the general members of the Chinese
communist party. It was a war by proxy, as the followers of Mao rarely
attacked directly members of the ruling party. They attacked
mostly the subordinates of the party in universities, schools and
industries. Some first class industries like the atomic and rocket
centers of research were left untouched for they were protected
by the Army. These revolutionaries never had a chance of entering there.

Then, it was mostly a war made of insults and harassments,
not of firepower. So far as I had read, not firearms were used.

Eri

[deadrat]

If that's true, I apologize to all Finns.

If that's true, then maybe he's actually met a few Jews. They're thick
on the ground there as compared to Finland: one Jewish Estonian for
ever nine square miles of Estonia.

He should also look up Eesti Omakaitse. I did.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Ok, the vote so far...

1 - Garbage family values, from slavery and segregation.

3 - The effects of past and current racism

1 - The Black man isn't down, the prosper as much as anyone in America

1 - Blacks identify with their culture and it excuses failure

-----

But why only the black man? Others have had racism. If their culture, why only their culture? And the difference between family values and culture is?

[Jonathan]

On 7/9/2016 3:07 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ok, the vote so far...
>
> 1 - Garbage family values, from slavery and segregation.
>
> 3 - The effects of past and current racism
>

It's pretty hard to argue in an ng devoted to
evolution that people ARE NOT strongly influenced
by their environment.

Racism brings poverty and lousy schools and hopelessness
and crime and violence and drug addiction and broken
families and profiling and higher incarceration rates
and so on, and so on. And a stressed society that
is highly sensitive and can explode overnight.

> 1 - The Black man isn't down, the prosper as much as anyone in America
>
> 1 - Blacks identify with their culture and it excuses failure
>
> -----
>
> But why only the black man? Others have had racism.

Ya mean like native Americans? Or Asians in Russia, or
Palestinians in Israel, or Jews in Germany, or Aborigines
or Indians in the UK, or Pakistanis in Saudi Arabia?

How have they done?

[passer...@gmail.com]

I said America, and all ethnic groups have done far better than the blacks, and the stronger the family values, the better they do.

[Jonathan]

On 7/9/2016 9:32 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:


> I said America, and all ethnic groups have done far better than the blacks, and the stronger the family values, the better they do.
>

Most blacks still live in the deep south, and trust me
there's plenty of racism still there. And when it comes
to population dynamics, a century and a half (since
slavery ended) is not that long ago.

Did you know the average black woman in the 1860's
had 8 1/2 children? Like printing money! Or that
life expectancy back then for blacks was atrocious
as well as education and health care.

Also, try to imagine how a typical slave owner
with say a dozen or two slaves, but only one
or two slave bosses, would keep their slaves
from escaping or cutting their throats at night?

They did it through shear...terror, any hint of
disobedience would be met with the worst torture
imaginable.

All those stresses and more have lasting effects
that just a few generations doesn't entirely
erase.

Are you trying to say that African Americans are
genetically inferior? If so try make that case with
some science please. Because it won't hold water.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Slavery 150 years ago? I remember segregation. I grew up in the south. My grandfather saw black men burned alive tied to trees. When I was growing up, a black man couldn't look a white man in the eyes had to look at the ground and say sir.

Now, how the hell doesn't that destroy family values when a man can't be a man?

Genetics? You know, when I bring this up on some liberal sites, it's immediately censored because in their racist pig hearts, that is the actual reason. They are being nice like you are nice to a dumb animal.

FAMILY VALUES, the reason is FAMILY VALUES. THAT is what makes the black man special, THAT is how they are different. The destruction of their family values. ALL ethnic groups that have strong family values in America have prospered, the stronger the more they prosper.

And it's not a right wing left wing thing. Both side find something they don't like. The left is degenerate filth that hates family values and the right is greedy pigs and it sounds like someone is reaching for their wallet.

So the Black Man stays down. And he will continue to stay down, and commit 10 times as many crimes, and be shot 10 times as often, until he has family values.

It is the solution to the problem.

[passer...@gmail.com]

I think it's been one interbreeding species, since that ape with the deformed feet. We could breed with Lucy, no problem.

Lots of ignorant hand waving about genetics, but one thing is a fact, if a superman is born on earth, the ultimate human, it will be a very well mixed blend of every part of the planet. Marry someone from the other side of the planet.