Do you agree that a people have a right to own land?

Frame Game even explained the whole AIPAC thing. Like, it's kind of a meme, and most people who look into it see only a small amount of money being pledged from AIPAC itself, and assume you're just blowing hot air. But that's not what AIPAC's function is. It's basically a *vetting* system, to network candidates with wealthy donors. You don't actually get much of a contribution *from* AIPAC, but from people who *pay attention* to AIPAC's evaluations of candidates, and the grades they issue on their report cards.

I agree people have a right to own land. Yes.

Ok so, I'll try to to get to my point quickly. The Jews have been persecuted for a long time, and still are technically speaking. They didn't have a homeland, now they have it. However, they had to be welcomed as guests in order to get it, and they had to fight a bloody war (as the majority) after mass migrating to Israel. So now this is their homeland, and their actions dictate that they would be in favor of open borders, otherwise they can't lay legitimate claim to that land today.

So they would have to be in favor of open borders, violent conquest, or else they would have to condemn their past, despite being the oppressed prior to their conquest.

Do you see the dilemma?

They can't condemn their past, this is about survival for them.

Yeah, that's where survival factors in, at least to an extent.

The funny thing about moral values, is that they tend to be easiest to practice when they don't come at a personal cost.

Correct, moral values must be tested, otherwise they're virtue signalling

Like, Free Speech, for instance.

Lots of people talk big about Free Speech, but the instant that ensuring it would disadvantage them sufficiently, they tend to be much less eager.

Well, yes and no, but that's a complicated issue

Either way, the moral dilemma of the Jews is what forces them into this type of behavior culturally speaking

Culture of Critique actually explores a lot of it. Basically, the theory is it's a set of adaptive behaviors which were useful mostly in the context of their diaspora, but led to a lot of conflict and antagonism with host cultures, resulting in frequent exiles. Ironically, perpetuating the very state which led to the behavior.

Yep, we're seeing the same thing again now in the USA with the whole "native population" narrative and whatnot

Cause people don't want to accept the fact that conquest is a part of history

Exactly. The thing that would probably defuse that whole situation, is just a recognition of the specific bad actors, and a reasonably sincere attempt to resolve the corruption. But this probably won't happen. The more "anti-semetic" people become, the more fiercely the Jews will tend to band together, because of the heightened sense of danger. Which will further exacerbate the issue.

Yep

This is another reason why I really don't like the (((them))) meme

I actually once promoted an op, inspired by "It's Okay to be White"

"It's Okay to be Jewish"

The reason I believe this is an effective strategy, is because, the Jews generally aren't, and at least *shouldn't* be targeted based on the fact they're Jewish. The mission needs to be clear that criticism should be directed at specific bad actors. And that, insofar as the general Jewish population isn't involved with this, there should be no animosity.

But to outsiders it looks like the meme is attacking all Jews

Also, it's effective because it will likely uncover the degree of neuroticism in the whole "shapeshifting" deal, and cause confusion and alarm among the peddlers of hysteria.

But why would we want that? It's not helping our cause from what I can see

Why would it look like it's attacking all Jews? The meme is explicitly "It's Okay to be Jewish"

No I mean the (((them)))

I thought you also meant that, my bad

I use that even when referencing people who I *don't* believe are part of some conspiracy or agenda. Because I think noticing is important. The crypsis is dangerous to facilitate. And I want to apply this consistently, instead of selectively.

Crypsis?

The whole "Hello fellow white people" strategy

basically, Jews pretending to not be Jews.

Yeah but, again

Outsiders see it as an attack on all Jews, not as a selective strategy

Identifying someone as a Jew shouldn't be an attack. Just an acknowledgement of reality.

It doesn't matter, the common man doesn't think like that

They need to learn.

How are they supposed to learn it if they're immediately repulsed?

Most who are immediately repulsed are pretty far gone anyway.

I'm very open to just about everything political, and even I just don't care to engage with people who do triple brackets

Also, I suspect it's a bit of a vent.