Man, are Halfway some bona fide wankers

I'm so banned I can't even link to the thread. That blows chunks - bastards.

Anyway - I posted here and got banned - for writing this:

I would like to draw attention to the articles posted here and in the original thread that's central to this post - "does anti-zionism = anti-semitism?" - I would simply ask the reader to take a closer look at the nature of the arguments in that thread, the content and style of the articles posted, and the history of the posters involved.

I would ask you to note:

1) Rogue and plain *wrong* definitions of anti-semitism are accepted as true. (So the entire question, and hence the thread, is misguided. But no-one cares..... Did you notice? Nevermind that it's easy to prove an equivalence between things when one's entire definitions are based on a tacit and circular equivalence of the very things under discussion? And no matter that the basic definitions are plain wrong. Doesn't it matter?)

2) Only a single perspective is considered. Opposing views are not represented. There is an obvious inability to understand opposing views at all - let alone to recognise them as remotely reasonable even if obviously conflicting.

3) Extremist, far-right and anti-semitic sources are quoted - and endorsed. (Why even ask crypto-nazis about "da joooos"? Does anyone really need telling what opinion a crypto-nazi has about joooos? Who takes the opinion of nazis as validation? Why should I? Why is this the dominant viewpoint presented?)

4) The only voice of jews present is that of jewish critics of Israel. Otherwise jewish voices are entirely absent. Like how the far-right employ Benjamin Freedman - the only use made of jewish opinion is that of the supposedly "honest" jews.......you know, the jewish critics of jews. They're the honest jews - all the others are the jew liars.....the cockroaches.....the cancer etc etc.

5) The commenters at the website in question, Halfway.con, have a history of associating with and endorsing the ideas, themes, organisations and goals of organised fascism.

6) Overlying it all, the thread betrays an obvious inabilty to recognise genuine antisemitism. Without this ability to distinguish, one really must consider the "question" to be specious, dissembling, anti-semitic bullshit. Which it certainly is, IMO.
-----

I ask you - consider what the thread was seeking to do?

The thread superficially appears to be saying criticism of israel/zionism is *not* necessarily anti-semitic. Fair enough, perhaps. There's an argument to be had there, for sure.

But the thread goes much further than that - it clearly seeks to claim that the term "anti-semitism" is used only to silence critics of .........what? Well.......look at the terms used? "the jewish mafia", "the zionist mafia", "zionism", israel. And go look at the sources? Look at their general use of "joooos"? We know what they mean, and they don't have to say it..........and definitions aren't important in a thread about definitions are they?

If this is an argument about definitions then surely the protagonists might at least themselves be careful about their defintions?

But are they?

No - clearly not.

Go read the definitions? Go read the "skill" with which they distinguish?

How can you ask the question if you can't even distinguish?


Anti-semitism is a prejudice against jews.

Go see if you can find a decent definition of anti-semitism in that thread?

Go see if you can find any recognition in that Halfway thread of what genuine anti-semitism is?

It isn't there. SO what are they asking, really?

I would ask you to note the context:

The people on the thread - at Halfway - support Arthur Topham's freedom of speech: they endorse and condone publications presenting extreme anti-semitism; they promote and condone white nationalism, fascism and even nazism.

That is "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" apparently.

And yet, whilst they argue this, they are busy censoring critics of their opinion.

They are censoring critics of their anti-semitism.

They're censoring critics of their far-right sources, censoring critics of the Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion........Topham......Curt Maynard...Stormfront.

That's what their "free speech" commitment consists of ----- opening avenues for the racist far-right.......

You've gotta be free to hate, to be really free, right?

No - I don't think so. I don't think you earn it like that.

Being intolerant of intolerance is no paradox - in the real world. Not at all.

What's the choice? To be so tolerant of intolerance that tolerance is obliterated? Oh great! Thanks for the wisdom.

It got deleted. says it all.

For that outrageous diatribe I got this:



They did say:

Dear Marx and Spencer,

Thanks for registering at Personal Development for Smart People Forums! We are glad you have chosen to be a part of our community and we hope you enjoy your stay.

All the best,
Personal Development for Smart People Forums

But then they banned me.

Freedom of speech ------ gotta love it? Fuck you, wankers.

And that includes you too, Sweejack.