Jump to content

RICHARD DAWKINS ❤ CANCEL CULTURE (or not)


Gian

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Gian said:

Discuss Dawky's comments.

8 hours ago, Gian said:

That's why Dawky

8 hours ago, Gian said:

Dawky and people like him

8 hours ago, Gian said:

Dawky's too dumb to realise

8 hours ago, Gian said:

Dawky should cut out the rabble rousing

6 hours ago, Gian said:

Honey it's not disrespect to disagree

Listen, Gyno. You e been suspended at least once already here for arguing in bad faith and  this isn’t kindergarten where you win extra points by intentionally using dismissive names. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Gian said:

Yes I am suggesting that Dawky's encouragement to disrespect other's opinions at the 2002 Ted talk has contributed to intolerance. I mean what other effect could it have?

"Stop Being damned Respectful" means stop being damned respectful

GIAN🙂XXX

 

 

That's an interesting take on "cancel culture", that I've never come across before.  I'm not aware of instances of speakers being denied a platform because they wanted to speak against religion. Normally it is because the speaker want to air views considered abnormally reactionary by the students. Has Dawkins, or anyone else to your knowledge, been refused an invitation to speak against religion?  

Ciao love and kisses 😆

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2024 at 3:42 PM, Gian said:

Yes I am suggesting that Dawky's encouragement to disrespect other's opinions at the 2002 Ted talk has contributed to intolerance. I mean what other effect could it have?

This is an extremely poor argument, especially in the context of racism. Are you arguing that if folks respected racist opinion more, folks would somehow be less racist? We see how well that works under Trump and other reactionaries.

Also it seems that you have no idea what happened in the 2000s. The issue around that time was a massive effort by evangelists to influence science teaching in the US by trying to put creationist view next to evolutionary science. At that point folks atheists, including Dawkins became fairly vocal to resist such influence to diminish science teachings and putting belief over facts. 

Still no idea how the various thoughts on Dawkins, cancel culture, racism and whatever has been brought up by OP connect, though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/4/2024 at 11:17 PM, CharonY said:

This is an extremely poor argument, especially in the context of racism. Are you arguing that if folks respected racist opinion more, folks would somehow be less racist? We see how well that works under Trump and other reactionaries.

Also it seems that you have no idea what happened in the 2000s. The issue around that time was a massive effort by evangelists to influence science teaching in the US by trying to put creationist view next to evolutionary science. At that point folks atheists, including Dawkins became fairly vocal to resist such influence to diminish science teachings and putting belief over facts. 

Still no idea how the various thoughts on Dawkins, cancel culture, racism and whatever has been brought up by OP connect, though.

 

The only connection I can think of is, Dawkins wanted to cancel Jesus... 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

He comes over as a little cross...

Dawkins or @Gian😁

Dawkins has I think mellowed somewhat with age and may even realise that throwing coconuts at the Aunt Sally caricature of religion he has spent years attacking is a is bit counterproductive. The Four Horsemen of New Atheism have at times come across as evangelical preachers!

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Posted (edited)
On 4/4/2024 at 11:17 PM, CharonY said:

This is an extremely poor argument, especially in the context of racism. Are you arguing that if folks respected racist opinion more, folks would somehow be less racist? We see how well that works under Trump and other reactionaries.

Also it seems that you have no idea what happened in the 2000s. The issue around that time was a massive effort by evangelists to influence science teaching in the US by trying to put creationist view next to evolutionary science. At that point folks atheists, including Dawkins became fairly vocal to resist such influence to diminish science teachings and putting belief over facts. 

Still no idea how the various thoughts on Dawkins, cancel culture, racism and whatever has been brought up by OP connect, though.

 

The word Dawky used in "2002" was "disrespect." I'm not aware that disrespecting racists or anyone else's opinions actually changed those opinions.
What Dawk should have said was something like "We need to sharpen our arguments and counter-argue religion even more strongly."

There is no argument inside "disrespect" of other people's perspectives, any more than there there's a valid argument inside some men's disrespect of women. Disrespect is an act of violence, not reason. 

So yes, Dawky was actively encouraging cancel culture, and if he doesn't like it now he's only himself to blame.

Plus of course, Dawky's critique of religion is especially useless, becasue he's critiquing something which really is not there. What constitutes religion is something else entirely from what he's concocted in his ridiculous God Delusion book, for the sole purpose of having something he can then not believe in. Extraordinary.

And putting creationist beliefs to children alongside science is an exceptionally good idea. Argument with counterargument is the most important thing children need to learn, they enjoy argument and they're always very good at it.

In other words, if you've been able to work out Creationsim is nonsense, shouldn't you want to give children the equipment they need to do the same? Becasue if schoolteachers don't... someone else will won't they? If creationsism were taught alonside science in school, you'd probably find there'd be alot less creationsim and not more of it.

Cheerz

GIAN😊XXX



 

Edited by Gian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s all well and good lil’Gaga Gigi, but we can all acknowledge you’re trying to dismiss him and frame him as small and unworthy. You sound childish when you do, and it makes you easy to ignore as a petulant trollish waste of bandwidth (like I just did here to you)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/4/2024 at 2:38 AM, iNow said:

Listen, Gyno. You e been suspended at least once already here for arguing in bad faith and  this isn’t kindergarten where you win extra points by intentionally using dismissive names. 

Apologies Hun, I meant no disrespect ❤GIAN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Gian said:

In other words, if you've been able to work out Creationsim is nonsense, shouldn't you want to give children the equipment they need to do the same?

There is an infinite amount of nonsense and a finite amount of sense. If you give both the same amount of time, you are elevating nonsense. It only makes sense if nonsense has already been elevated in public consciousness so that it has to be addressed.

For example, if you wanted to teach history, you would focus on things that happened rather spending time explaining that cowboys did not, in fact fight aliens.

1 hour ago, Gian said:

So yes, Dawky was actively encouraging cancel culture, and if he doesn't like it now he's only himself to blame.

Cancel culture did not need encouraging, it was always there. It only appeared more broadly due to social media. In the past, the groups shaping what was cancelled were just smaller. Carlin had a famous routine regarding the seven dirty words.

As such, I think complaints regarding cancel culture (from Dawkins and others) often miss the mark and I really wished that it would be replaced by a more meaningful discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It only makes sense if nonsense has already been elevated in public consciousness so that it has to be addressed.

For example, if you wanted to teach history, you would focus on things that happened rather spending time explaining that cowboys did not, in fact fight aliens.

Cancel culture did not need encouraging, it was always there. It only appeared more broadly due to social media. In the past, the groups shaping what was cancelled were just smaller. Carlin had a famous routine regarding the seven dirty words.

Cancel Culture has certainly not always been there or not on the scale it is now; I don't recall anyone before about 2005 losing his job because of opinion. Debate was always sacred at university and the phrase "He's entitled to his opinion" was widely used and went without saying. Richard Dawkins has been cancelled for simply expressing a point of view several times, and even if his ideas are stupid, cancelling him is even more so.


The whole point of argument and debate is to overthrow not elevate nonsense; it's difficult to debate it without mentioning it. In order for you to decide that cowboys and aliens is nonsense, the concept had to be there for you to disagree with it. I repeat, if you don't teach the children to discern that Cowboys and aliens is bs, someone else will. And as for Creationism, that is already very much there in the public consciousness. So if you don't give the children proper critical skills they're sunk.

Why do you think all these conspiracy theories are so popular? Why do you think people are so susceptible to any old  bs on the internet?

It's because children are not being taught proper critical analysis. What they're being pumped full of are other people's agendas. And inevitably - you can see this for yourself - Noam Chomsky is so right that the people most "educated" are those who are most willing to accept damned stupid ideas. The reason is that more "education" in our society = more brainwashing

You won't find many construction workers on a building site who believe in Q-anon.

cheerz

GIAN😊XXX


PS On your point about teaching creationsim and religion alongside science, one can state that it is true the Earth was formed about 4.5billion y ago, while also stating it is true that Sherlock Holmes lives at 221B Baker Street. They're both true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Gian said:

Cancel Culture has certainly not always been there or not on the scale it is now; I don't recall anyone before about 2005 losing his job because of opinion.

Be serious. Joan of arc was burned at the stake because of her opinion. Muslims and Christians have killed each other since they've existed due to having opposing opinions. People have been losing their jobs and their lives over their opinions since opinions have existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Be serious. Joan of arc was burned at the stake because of her opinion. Muslims and Christians have killed each other since they've existed due to having opposing opinions. People have been losing their jobs and their lives over their opinions since opinions have existed.

And do you want to go back to a time when people were burned at the stake for their opinions?

And at least Joan of Arc was given a hearing, and both sides were able to express their opinion and hear the other's. There was no "We feel physically intimidated by being in the same building as Joan of Arc so we're not even going to let her speak" which is similar to what happened at Manchester "University" recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gian said:

The word Dawky used in "2002" was "disrespect." I'm not aware that disrespecting racists or anyone else's opinions actually changed those opinions.
What Dawk should have said was something like "We need to sharpen our arguments and counter-argue religion even more strongly."

There is no argument inside "disrespect" of other people's perspectives, any more than there there's a valid argument inside some men's disrespect of women. Disrespect is an act of violence, not reason. 

So yes, Dawky was actively encouraging cancel culture, and if he doesn't like it now he's only himself to blame.

Plus of course, Dawky's critique of religion is especially useless, becasue he's critiquing something which really is not there. What constitutes religion is something else entirely from what he's concocted in his ridiculous God Delusion book, for the sole purpose of having something he can then not believe in. Extraordinary.

And putting creationist beliefs to children alongside science is an exceptionally good idea. Argument with counterargument is the most important thing children need to learn, they enjoy argument and they're always very good at it.

In other words, if you've been able to work out Creationsim is nonsense, shouldn't you want to give children the equipment they need to do the same? Becasue if schoolteachers don't... someone else will won't they? If creationsism were taught alonside science in school, you'd probably find there'd be alot less creationsim and not more of it.

Cheerz

GIAN😊XXX



 

That very much depends on the age of the children. In the 6th form, yes, in a class on religion or philosophy it can be instructive to expose the students to the issue, seeing as by then they will be alert to the philosophical distinction between religious and scientific ideas - and will most likely be aware of the politics lurking behind the issue.

However it makes no sense whatever to confuse younger children with rival models, one of which is known to be false, and most certainly not in a science class. After all, we don't teach them the caloric theory of heat, the phlogiston theory of combustion, or the geocentric model of the solar system. (Such things might be taught in a history of science class, later on, to show how ideas have developed through time.) 

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gian said:

Noam Chomsky is so right that the people most "educated" are those who are most willing to accept damned stupid ideas. The reason is that more "education" in our society = more brainwashing

You won't find many construction workers on a building site who believe in Q-anon.

Citation for Chomsky, please.

And look up brainwashing in a dictionary, please.

As for your last sentence, some survey data to support that would be welcome.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, exchemist said:

That very much depends on the age of the children. In the 6th form, yes, in a class on religion or philosophy it can be instructive to expose the students to the issue, seeing as by then they will be alert to the philosophical distinction between religious and scientific ideas - and will most likely be aware of the politics lurking behind the issue.

However it makes no sense whatever to confuse younger children with rival models, one of which is known to be false, and most certainly not in a science class. After all, we don't teach them the caloric theory of heat, the phlogiston theory of combustion, or the geocentric model of the solar system. (Such things might be taught in a history of science class, later on, to show how ideas have developed through time.) 

You can start off with science basics with children as soon as they start primary school. You can also start them off with the basics of theology.
Schools should also start primary school children with Latin and classical Greek, which help to extend IQ. All the 5yo's I've ever met have their own developed opinions before they even start school.
Cheerz

GIAN 🙂XXX

Edited by Gian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gian said:

You can start off with science basics with children as soon as they start primary school. You can also start them off with the basics of theology.

True, if your school syllabus includes teaching religion, which is however excluded in some countries, e.g. the USA and France. You do not teach religion in science lessons, though. You teach it, if you teach it at all, in classes on religion.

Creationism is not basic theology however. It is one of the beliefs of certain Protestant denominations - and possibly some versions of Islam, I think.  

Ciao, love and kisses.

 

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gian said:

And do you want to go back to a time when people were burned at the stake for their opinions?

No, I want you to admit you were wrong and not pretend you were saying all along that this was an issue prior to 2005.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gian said:

Cancel Culture has certainly not always been there or not on the scale it is now; I don't recall anyone before about 2005 losing his job because of opinion.

Isn’t this a function of the reach of social media? Facebook had ~1 million users in 2004. Twitter didn’t exist in 2005.

If you can’t advertise your opinion and make your employer look bad, what’s to cancel?

On 4/3/2024 at 1:44 PM, Gian said:

Antisemitism is 1800y old. Racism was invented in the 19th century.

Citation needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, swansont said:

Isn’t this a function of the reach of social media? Facebook had ~1 million users in 2004. Twitter didn’t exist in 2005.

If you can’t advertise your opinion and make your employer look bad, what’s to cancel?

Antisemitism is 1800y old. Racism was invented in the 19th century

Citation needed

It's been aided by social media and other communications technology, but the act of doing so is man-made, social media and tech not being a person.

So Dawky and several of his unpleasant "new atheist" friends definitely did encourage it with their vile bile about religion in the early 2000s.

(Incidentally, there was no "new atheism" during the Cold War, which is in itself quite telling, but that's another story.) 

What has happened I think is one of Richard Dawkins' "memes."

Someone somewhere thought of cancelling someone because they can't actually mount a counter-argument, and now everyone's doing it.
 

"'Antisemitism is 1800y old. Racism was invented in the 19th century.' Citation needed."

Here's a citation for you. Hannah Arendt, who was jewish and living in pre-war National Socialist Germany, states in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) that racist ideology developed in the 19th century as a way of justifying imperial conquest. It was aided by scientific racism, or Social Darwinism.

Racist ideas disseminated in the 19th century on scientific hypotheses were combined with unilineal theories of social progress, which asserted the superiority of the European civilization over the rest of the world. The term "survival of the fittest" is a term coined by Herbert Spencer in 1864, and is associated with ideas of competition, which were named Social Darwinism in the 1940s. This was of course later applied to Jews by the National Socialists.

The antismeitism prior to the 19th century as proposed by the Christian Churches began I would say with St John Chrysostom in the 4th Century AD. However it must be emphasised that The Catholic Church's resentment was down to judaism as a religion and jews as its followers, there being no concept of "race" at that time.

Jews frequently converted to Christianity in the middle ages, after which the Church had no further problem with them. This is of course radically different to what happened to the jews in the 20th century.

 

Prof Noam Chomsky on "new atheists" Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens:

“Well I think that they [Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens] are religious fanatics. They happen to believe in the state religion which is much more dangerous than other religions for the most part.


“So they both of them happen to be defenders of the state religion namely the religion that says we have to support the violence and atrocities of our own state because it's being done for all sorts of wonderful reasons…. That’s just another religion like the religion that markets know best.


“I mean it doesn't happen to be a religion that you pray to every once a week, but it's just another religion and it's very destructive.”

NOAM CHOMSKY
Speaking at the University of Toronto Scarborough April 2011

https://youtu.be/ql7wgqmtSv4?si=A_3dNCRXfvn28GcI

 

Edited by Gian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gian said:

It's been aided by social media and other communications technology, but the act of doing so is man-made, social media and tech not being a person.

So Dawky and several of his unpleasant "new atheist" friends definitely did encourage it with their vile bile about religion in the early 2000s.

(Incidentally, there was no "new atheism" during the Cold War, which is in itself quite telling, but that's another story.) 

What has happened I think is one of Richard Dawkins' "memes."

Someone somewhere thought of cancelling someone because they can't actually mount a counter-argument, and now everyone's doing it.
 

"'Antisemitism is 1800y old. Racism was invented in the 19th century.' Citation needed."

Here's a citation for you. Hannah Arendt, who was jewish and living in pre-war National Socialist Germany, states in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) that racist ideology developed in the 19th century as a way of justifying imperial conquest. It was aided by scientific racism, or Social Darwinism.

Racist ideas disseminated in the 19th century on scientific hypotheses were combined with unilineal theories of social progress, which asserted the superiority of the European civilization over the rest of the world. The term "survival of the fittest" is a term coined by Herbert Spencer in 1864, and is associated with ideas of competition, which were named Social Darwinism in the 1940s. This was of course later applied to Jews by the National Socialists.

The antismeitism prior to the 19th century as proposed by the Christian Churches began I would say with St John Chrysostom in the 4th Century AD. However it must be emphasised that The Catholic Church's resentment was down to judaism as a religion and jews as its followers, there being no concept of "race" at that time.

Jews frequently converted to Christianity in the middle ages, after which the Church had no further problem with them. This is of course radically different to what happened to the jews in the 20th century.

 

Prof Noam Chomsky on "new atheists" Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens:

“Well I think that they [Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens] are religious fanatics. They happen to believe in the state religion which is much more dangerous than other religions for the most part.


“So they both of them happen to be defenders of the state religion namely the religion that says we have to support the violence and atrocities of our own state because it's being done for all sorts of wonderful reasons…. That’s just another religion like the religion that markets know best.


“I mean it doesn't happen to be a religion that you pray to every once a week, but it's just another religion and it's very destructive.”

NOAM CHOMSKY
Speaking at the University of Toronto Scarborough April 2011

https://youtu.be/ql7wgqmtSv4?si=A_3dNCRXfvn28GcI

 

Yes I think it's the case that racism was certainly elevated to an ideological, moral, pseudoscientific footing in the c.19th. It helped to justify the competitive colonialism of the period.  But before that time there seems little doubt people tended to have what we would now see as a racist outlook. After all, the slave trade was predicated on the notion that black Africans could be treated as subhuman.

I also think the Four Horsemen of New Atheism indeed tried, for a while, a kind of evangelical promotion of atheism as a replacement for religion. I've even come across a film they produced, designed to inspire awe in the grandeur of nature and to ridicule traditional religion (silly cartoon animation of hell, with little devils with pitchforks). I think the idea was to appeal to that part of human nature that is satisfied by religious feeling, but it was hopelessly cack-handed and crude. This idea was never progressed, thank goodness.

But your attempt to connect this to so-called "cancel culture" strikes me as unpersuasive. In universities there have always been controversies over what speakers to invite and protests over it. I remember this from Oxford in the 1970s. The irony is that this term, invented by the far-Right as a stick to beat the Left with, describes a practice that is now used as much by the Right as  the Left, for example in the banning of various books from American school libraries.

But this is not generally about religion (though some Right wing US school boards ban Romeo and Juliet because there is too much sexual language). I asked you earlier on this thread for examples of religious speakers being "cancelled" and got no response. I've never come across this and doubt it is really a thing.           

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Yes I think it's the case that racism was certainly elevated to an ideological, moral, pseudoscientific footing in the c.19th. It helped to justify the competitive colonialism of the period.  But before that time there seems little doubt people tended to have what we would now see as a racist outlook. After all, the slave trade was predicated on the notion that black Africans could be treated as subhuman.

The slave trade was not about treating an ethnic group as subhuman, ethnicity had not been invented at that time. It was simply based on the idea that some people are less important than others, and some people more so. The idea of "all men are created equal" is a very recent one. It was more about social and economic class.

When the Titanic was sinking, it just went without saying that First Class passengers got into the lifeboats first, Second clas second, and as for the Third class well they themselves did not expect to get into the lifeboats at all, simply becasue they were Third Class.

I gather that black African kings, kingdoms and black slave traders sold black slaves to European slavers, and made a helluva lot of money doing so, so it's nowhere near the later definition of racism.

 

"I asked you earlier on this thread for examples of religious speakers being "cancelled" and got no response. I've never come across this and doubt it is really a thing." 

Religious speakers can be cancelled, but usually (not always) by other religious people and institutions. The Rev Calvin Robinson in the UK was dismissed from GB.News, a vulgar right-wing news channel, effectively for being too right-wing even for GB.News. His ordination to the priesthood was blocked by the Church of England for the same reason.

However, clergy are generally not cancelled by academic institutions in the UK (I don't know about the US) I guess because they tend to adopt more balanced stances. If "the cancelled" have one thing in common it's that they are usually secularists.

Sure there's always been controversial speakers and ideas, but pre-c2000 I don't recall people actually losing their jobs because of it. My point is that "new wave" cancellation culture seems to have originated in the early 2000s.



On the issue of mindless prejudice, I recall an especially nasty attack on Roman Catholicism by the loathsome Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens at an Intelligence Squared debate in 2009, in which they deployed the same methods against Catholicism as the National Socialists did against judaism; unsubstantiated groundless bigotry.

They easily won the debate and were salivatingly pleased with themselves, but I thought at the time they were going to rue the day they did so. They foolishly believed, or more likely never considered, that if you encourage bigotry in one area, is never stops there.

Predictably, Stephen Fry was on TV a few months ago bleating about the rise in antisemitism.

 

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science

A few months ago I cancelled my membership of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science, because in the online general discussion forum I was shocked to receive alot of unreasoning antisemitic and anti-zionist bigotry and sheer freaking racism. Even more shocking was the fact that the moderators were completely unconcerned by it. So much for "Reason & Science"
 

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

 

 

Edited by Gian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gian said:

It's been aided by social media and other communications technology, but the act of doing so is man-made, social media and tech not being a person.

So Dawky and several of his unpleasant "new atheist" friends definitely did encourage it with their vile bile about religion in the early 2000s.

(Incidentally, there was no "new atheism" during the Cold War, which is in itself quite telling, but that's another story.) 

What has happened I think is one of Richard Dawkins' "memes."

Someone somewhere thought of cancelling someone because they can't actually mount a counter-argument, and now everyone's doing it.
 

"'Antisemitism is 1800y old. Racism was invented in the 19th century.' Citation needed."

Here's a citation for you. Hannah Arendt, who was jewish and living in pre-war National Socialist Germany, states in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) that racist ideology developed in the 19th century as a way of justifying imperial conquest. It was aided by scientific racism, or Social Darwinism.

Racist ideas disseminated in the 19th century on scientific hypotheses were combined with unilineal theories of social progress, which asserted the superiority of the European civilization over the rest of the world. The term "survival of the fittest" is a term coined by Herbert Spencer in 1864, and is associated with ideas of competition, which were named Social Darwinism in the 1940s. This was of course later applied to Jews by the National Socialists.

The antismeitism prior to the 19th century as proposed by the Christian Churches began I would say with St John Chrysostom in the 4th Century AD. However it must be emphasised that The Catholic Church's resentment was down to judaism as a religion and jews as its followers, there being no concept of "race" at that time.

Jews frequently converted to Christianity in the middle ages, after which the Church had no further problem with them. This is of course radically different to what happened to the jews in the 20th century.

 

Prof Noam Chomsky on "new atheists" Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens:

“Well I think that they [Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens] are religious fanatics. They happen to believe in the state religion which is much more dangerous than other religions for the most part.


“So they both of them happen to be defenders of the state religion namely the religion that says we have to support the violence and atrocities of our own state because it's being done for all sorts of wonderful reasons…. That’s just another religion like the religion that markets know best.


“I mean it doesn't happen to be a religion that you pray to every once a week, but it's just another religion and it's very destructive.”

NOAM CHOMSKY
Speaking at the University of Toronto Scarborough April 2011

https://youtu.be/ql7wgqmtSv4?si=A_3dNCRXfvn28GcI

 

Anti-Semitism, as a concept, was invented by Zionists around the late 19th century.

Prior to that, native Palestinians, which includes Jews and other denominations, got on just fine as a collective. It was necessary for the Zionist-aspirants to create ethnic/religious conflicts in order to achieve their mono-cultural, exclusionary, fascist goals.  

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Anti-Semitism, as a concept, was invented by Zionists around the late 19th century.

Prior to that, native Palestinians, which includes Jews and other denominations, got on just fine as a collective. It was necessary for the Zionist-aspirants to create ethnic/religious conflicts in order to achieve their mono-cultural, fascist goals. 

Now they, should have been cancelled, too late now though... 😉

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.