RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh?

RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

NorthernGent -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 12:46:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy I had a class in the history of anti-Semitism, and we were urged to watch Life of Brian, because that movie had it down, regarding Roman attitudes towards the Jews. They were regarded as primitive, uncouth country bumpkins who did weird things in their temples (like worship a donkey's. head). Persecution of minorities seems to be a constant - some instances more extreme than others. But you'd think countries would grow out of it - sort of like a child grows up. To be fair the Germans weren't bad at all - they had a high rate of inter-marriage between German Jews and German non Jews. German Jews had assimiliated quite well and were prominent in various industries such as film and the arts. A far better situation that Eastern Europe where pogroms were the order of the day. But then the semi-educated came along with their ideas of blood and German stock (deep rooted ideas in Germany by the way - even now it would take a German citizen of Turkish origin longer to get a passport than some bloke called Muller living in Outer Mongolia who had never set foot in Germany - a departure from the English way of doing it - if you can make chips you're in) with the usual conservative half-witted farce - and before you know it you have a lot of people taking orders from a gang of thugs and petty criminals (I suppose the German penchant for order was simply too strong a pull to resist - and very easily impressed with appearances). Justice served though because Germany is the most under-achieving country I know - the wealth of scientists/philosophers/psychologists/musicians they had at their disposal in the 19th century was second to none - but act like idiots and there's only one possible outcome.

Moonhead -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 1:15:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Justice served though because Germany is the most under-achieving country I know - the wealth of scientists/philosophers/psychologists/musicians they had at their disposal in the 19th century was second to none - but act like idiots and there's only one possible outcome. Not necessarily true. There's always been a big German presence in pop music (Kraftwerk more or less invented synthpop and you wouldn't have had postpunk without Can and Faust, for a start), and there's a huge number of excellent twentieth century German novellists who the bulk of the British and American audiences don't know from a hole in the ground because most of their work hasn't been translated. You can widen that field even further by including American writers of German descent like Thomas Mann and Fritz Leiber, which strikes me as fair enough given the way that the Irish normally insist on claiming anybody born in Belfast for Irish rather than British literature. On that note, if we can count Austrians, the Germans also have Einstein and Freud, so they're definitely winning on points. They've done very well for physicists since a lot of stuff got thrown out for being "jewish science"* in the '30s and '40s, and there's a fair few excellent German biologists. Even during the war they had a lot of very good physicists. Werner Von Braun ring any bells? And that's without even mentioning twentieth century architecture and design... *(Which is just as well: they wouldn't have had any trouble getting hold of uranium if they had been willing to look into that.)

Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 1:23:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy I had a class in the history of anti-Semitism, and we were urged to watch Life of Brian, because that movie had it down, regarding Roman attitudes towards the Jews. They were regarded as primitive, uncouth country bumpkins who did weird things in their temples (like worship a donkey's. head). Why would that be anti-Semitic? Simply because it is not politically correct to say that an elephant has a trunk? "Do not say that the emperor has no clothes on, little boy! It is not politically correct." I have never read that Romans stoned a raped woman to death and let the rapist go scot free. Instead I do have read that a Roman raped noble woman took her own life while her male relatives hunted down the rapist and killed him. What if the Romans were entirely correct in their perception of the Jews? I do not doubt for an instant that one Roman bishop in the early centuries of the first millennium commented on a slave market about a blond German slave something like: "He has the hair of an angel, though he clearly is a slave". There was no doubt in his mind that the German was not as evolved as the Romans. In any case, having studied the matter a bit, I do affirm that the god of the Jews was a donkey and that early Christian women fornicated with that donkey (them Christian women in those days were all married to the pagan god of the Jews, not to Jesus as nuns are today - and if you are married to someone, perforce one fornicates with that someone: in this case the god of the Jews (who incidentally had been murdered - and thus dethroned - many centuries before Jesus was born)). I still have no idea why that particular pagan god had an ass as an animal totem, but perhaps Frank L. Baum did have some clue about that. I do wonder what the Latin or Greek word for an ass was.

kittinSol -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 1:24:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I do wonder what the Latin or Greek word for an ass was. Rule.

Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 1:26:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I do wonder what the Latin or Greek word for an ass was. Rule. Ah! Finally someone recognizes my divinity. [8D][:D] Edited to add: However, the donkey is not my animal totem.

Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 1:39:06 PM)
The Italian word for ass / donkey is 'asino'. It might be argued that this word equates to 'God', which supports my conclusion that in this linguistic, punnish (spelling?) sense the donkey was an animal totem of that particular pagan god.

Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 2:00:01 PM)
DomKen is offline. Perhaps he is dealing generation hands with the stacks of cards as I suggested.

DomKen -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 2:39:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule DomKen is offline. Perhaps he is dealing generation hands with the stacks of cards as I suggested. I've answered you 3 times and you've simply claimed the truth wasn't true and ignored everything else and declared victory. You're wrong both in general and in specifics. I've shown you exactly where you are wrong and you simply claim to be right and keep on blathering your crap. This is standard procedure for you. You make grand claims which are absolutely wrong and then spend pages denying the wrongness of your prejudices while dancing around the facts and pretending to some sort of superior knowledge. I suggest you try growing up and joining the rest of us in reality.

mnottertail -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 2:42:50 PM)
I doubt he would waste his time with that since it would have no bearing on genetics, but he might do it to practice his texas hold 'em. depending on how you define the cards you got a 4 x 4 x 13 matrix at best, but those mutations are totally random, in the real world, you are not going to make a monkey out of two human beings copulating, I dont care if they fuck and drop a baby every hour till the end of time, the sequences of genome are a little more invariable then that... Also why you aint going to ever see a penis with two eyes and a nose on it unless you go look for a possom penis. Ron

Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 2:52:17 PM)
I have no prejudices. Please do not project your own characteristics onto me. I do have superior knowledge as I do am a supergenius. You have answered none of my questions. You have merely repeated what I said earlier and pretended that I did not say it. You have not shown to have any original thought. You have not had the courtesy of acknowledging that everything that I have said is true. You do have shown that you have no idea what you are talking about. You do not even know what an allele frequency is. I think that you have not ever calculated any gene frequencies in your life, Cliff Clavin.

pahunkboy -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 3:00:47 PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es9UYPHvNY4

thornhappy -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 4:14:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Well, they were. They also have six times as many children born with lethal inherited diseases as European Christians. It is what you get when a population circumcises their male offspring. Rule, several of us have been over this with you before. It's got nothing to do with circumcision. It has to do with marrying within a small population - the Amish and Mennonites have the same issues. Muslim countries in the Middle East have a lot of inherited disease because of marriage between first cousins. see this paper.

thornhappy -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 4:17:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule In any case, having studied the matter a bit, I do affirm that the god of the Jews was a donkey and that early Christian women fornicated with that donkey (them Christian women in those days were all married to the pagan god of the Jews, not to Jesus as nuns are today - and if you are married to someone, perforce one fornicates with that someone: in this case the god of the Jews (who incidentally had been murdered - and thus dethroned - many centuries before Jesus was born)). I'm sincerely hoping that you're joking.

thornhappy -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 4:19:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule You have not had the courtesy of acknowledging that everything that I have said is true. Rule, you've said plenty on this site that isn't true, and your stated supergenius doesn't mean you have superior knowledge.

dreamerdreaming -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 4:20:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff "I fell into a burning Ring of Power" Johnny Rothschilds-Cash ROFLMAO!!! Priceless. [:)]

DomKen -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 4:26:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I have no prejudices. Please do not project your own characteristics onto me. I do have superior knowledge as I do am a supergenius. You have answered none of my questions. You have merely repeated what I said earlier and pretended that I did not say it. You have not shown to have any original thought. You have not had the courtesy of acknowledging that everything that I have said is true. You do have shown that you have no idea what you are talking about. You do not even know what an allele frequency is. I think that you have not ever calculated any gene frequencies in your life, Cliff Clavin. I clearly know more about gene frequency than you do. You have twice claimed that gene frequency is decoupled from population size. That is only true for ancient genes with no selective advantage or disadvantage. All muations occur in an individual and then must spread. Therefore when a mutation occurs in a small population it is already at much higher frequency than it would be in a larger population and is more likely to be expressed in subsequent generations. Anyone who knew anything about genetics would have known that fact and not tried to handwave it away. This is why different small closely bred populations have different genetic diseases than other groups. It is simply the quirks of fate of which ones were present in the founders and which new mutations have occured.

Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 5:20:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy Muslim countries in the Middle East have a lot of inherited disease because of marriage between first cousins. see this paper. Thank you, thornhappy. I knew that such research articles exist, but they are hard to find. As yet I have read only the summary. I do not understand all of it (statistics) but this was their conclusion: "The study showed that in a population with a high rate of consanguinity, there is a significant increase in the prevalence of common adult diseases like cancer, mental disorders, heart diseases, gastro-intestinal disorders, hypertension and hearing deficit". As usual, these run of the mill scientists err in their perception of reality, putting the cart before the horse. As I have argued before, the evolution algorithm requires: That any behaviour that is reproductively disadvantageous, is strongly selected against. I expect that any clear minded person will agree that considering the consequences of high frequencies of progeny homozygous for various deleterious alleles, that marriage between first cousins in this population is just about the most disadvantageous reproductive strategy imaginable. Yet these people for a thousand years have committed to precisely this apparently extremely disadvantageous reproductive strategy, in direct violation of the evolution algorithm. Does this indicate that the evolution algorithm is worthless? No. As I argued in a previous post this population and these families derive a huge benefit from these apparently disadvantageous marriages: they thereby remove half of the deleterious alleles from their family's (and population's) gene pool. Unfortunately, that is not sufficient to completely solve their problem of being carriers of inherited diseases, as genetic drift may increase the frequency of deleterious alleles in their gene pool, and as new mutations accumulate with each generation. Though no doubt for a large part this behaviour is culturally ingrained, it is likely that it also in part is genetically, instinctively ingrained. It is unlikely that they are consciously aware of the genetic reason for their inbreeding, though doubtlessly they have various other cultural justifications or rationalizations for their inbreeding. I have noticed that the authors of the article noted a higher frequency of first cousin marriages in the latest generation. I speculate that this may be because this latest population is more prosperous than the previous one and therefore better able to finance the misfortune of having offspring with homozygous deleterious alleles.

Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 5:41:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy quote: ORIGINAL: Rule In any case, having studied the matter a bit, I do affirm that the god of the Jews was a donkey and that early Christian women fornicated with that donkey (them Christian women in those days were all married to the pagan god of the Jews, not to Jesus as nuns are today - and if you are married to someone, perforce one fornicates with that someone: in this case the god of the Jews (who incidentally had been murdered - and thus dethroned - many centuries before Jesus was born)). I'm sincerely hoping that you're joking. About what? Apuleius knew that the donkey was a totem animal of the god of the Jews. Tertullian knew it, as did the Romans and the Jew that Tertullian saw dressed up as a donkey in order to make fun of the Christians (apparently by that time the Jews had forgotten that their god was a donkey), Frank L. Baum appears to have known it, as perchance did the Dutch author Gerard Kornelis van het Reve who was prosecuted for blasphemy in 1966 when he wrote (I quote wikipedia): "In de allereerste aflevering van "Dialoog, tijdschrift voor homofilie en maatschappij" had Gerard Kornelis van het Reve (zoals hij toen nog heette) een 'Brief aan mijn Bank' opgenomen. Daarin vertelde de schrijver hoe hij zich de Wederkomst voorstelde: ’Als God zich opnieuw in Levende Stof gevangen geeft, zal hij als ezel terugkeren, hoogstens in staat een paar lettergrepen te formuleren, miskend en verguisd en geranseld, maar ik zal hem begrijpen en meteen met hem naar bed gaan, maar ik doe zwachtels om zijn hoefjes, dat ik niet te veel schrammen krijg als hij spartelt bij het klaarkomen.´") (In the first issue of 'Dialogue, magazine for homosexuality and society' Gerard Kornelis van het Reve (as his name then was) had included a 'Letter to my Bank'. In this letter the author told how he imagined the Return: 'When God again lets himself be imprisoned in Living Matter, he will return as an ass, barely able to formulate a few syllables, denied and denounced and beaten, but I will understand him and immediately sleep with him, but I will put clothing around his small hoofs, so that I do not get too many scratches when he struggles when he cums." Van het Reve was absolved by the court from the accusation of blasphemy. Also I have concluded independently from the above people that the pagan god of the Jews had a donkey as a linguistically punnish animal totem.

Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 5:45:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy quote: ORIGINAL: Rule You have not had the courtesy of acknowledging that everything that I have said is true. Rule, you've said plenty on this site that isn't true Like what? In any case I was specifically referring to this thread (see an earlier post). But if you are of the opinion that I have also said other things that are not true outside of this thread, feel free to name them as well.

Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 6:09:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I clearly know more about gene frequency than you do. You do? [:-] quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You have twice claimed that gene frequency is decoupled from population size. I have no idea what you are talking about. I have several times asserted "Spontaneous deleterious mutations occur in all populations at the same frequency". You have in no way responded to that statement, indicating that you do not comprehend it. My quoted statement is in no way identical to your above assertion. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen That is only true for ancient genes with no selective advantage or disadvantage. Surely you mean allele frequencies. Allele frequencies differ between populations. If they did not differ, then they would not be different populations, but the same population. Again you demonstrate that you haven't got a clue what genetics is about. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen All mutations occur in an individual and then must spread. Therefore when a mutation occurs in a small population it is already at much higher frequency than it would be in a larger population and is more likely to be expressed in subsequent generations. Anyone who knew anything about genetics would have known that fact and not tried to handwave it away. As it happens, I have studied biology and genetics and evolution theory and you are plain wrong. You erroneously assume that deleterious mutations are one time events occurring in only one individual. They are not. They occur again and again. The DNA synthesizing proteins are inherently and necessarily error prone. In every human there is a finite chance X that they will make an identical mistake when copying codon Y of gen Z. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This is why different small closely bred populations have different genetic diseases than other groups. It is simply the quirks of fate of which ones were present in the founders and which new mutations have occurred. No it is not. This is caused by an entirely different process totally unrelated to any reproductive strategy, namely to genetic drift - your 'quirks of fate' - which is far stronger in island populations (inbred populations are island populations) than in mainland populations.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125