- Ble medlem
- 24.10.2005
- Innlegg
- 7.597
- Antall liker
- 10
Greit å ha kontroll på objektetet.
A
Akle
Gjest
Mvh
Atle K
- Ble medlem
- 18.08.2005
- Innlegg
- 7.081
- Antall liker
- 6
Ensom? Overhodet ikke. Men jeg tror jeg bærer over med deg, regner med du har fått litt kjeft av konemor, så da får man vel behov for å ta igjen på en eller annen måte... ;D
:-*Og her ser hun deg vel ikke, så da er det vel trygt... ;D ;D ;D
G
Gjestemedlem
Gjest
Israels forsvarsminister Amir Peretz inspiserer sine styrker. Ikke rart han ser svart på situasjonen...
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2007/02/24/493136.html
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2007/02/24/493136.html
All ære til Affa for å gje seg medan leiken er god. Det er verre med oss som meir eller mindre er oss sjølve, vi kan ikkje godt endre så mykje karakter.....Nå når det går mot helg kan vi kanskje være litt vågale?
Det virker vel for øvrig som om Affa har gått lei av hele figuren. Han har nok forlatt oss for godt ? Alderen tatt i betraktning er det kanskje ikke så rart ? ;D
Pytt pytt, figuren var litt på kanten, også når det gjeld historisk samanheng. Han bomma stadig på å vere i god form og yrkesaktiv, trass i at figuren skulle ha ein alder på rundt 90 år. Rettskrivingsnormen hans var også "moderne" riksmål, medan vi måtte rekna med ein moderat 1937-utgåve i botnen for skriveria hans. Det er uhyre vanskeleg å unngå anakronismar i ein slik samanheng, iallfall over tid. Og så er det trass alt ein stereotypi, og litt kjedeleg i lengda.
Kva med å innføre ein Kaptein Sorte Bill frå 1514 som erstatning? Hei fadderi fadderullan rei...
Eller kanskje nokon kunne ta på seg fanatisk muslimsk terrorist-rolle? Det hadde sikkert swinga bra her på berget.. ;D
Kompo finn seg sikkert nye bestevennar. I mellomtida får vi trøyste henne og leike så godt vi kan...
- Ble medlem
- 12.09.2006
- Innlegg
- 6.211
- Antall liker
- 926
Som Ole Ivars synger:"En må væra som en er, når`n itte vart som en sku`"
Merhaba - Israel har vel ikke livets rett egentlig. Litt som om Svenskene skulle overta Østfold med makt. Har en god Libanesisk venninde som vet "litt" om mye der nede. Okkupanter som jødene er ikke bra. Mulig de trenger et land, men de er ikke bedre enn nazistene, og fortjener derfor lite respekt...
Uansett - hva man måtte mene...
La meg igjen få være litt uenig. Har ingenting imot jøder, heller ikke muslimer og kristne for den del.
Derimot har staten Israel noen synder å stå til rette for. Uten at det gir noen rett til å bombe sivile som oppholder seg i Israel. Er prinsippielt skeptisk til dødstraff, og ganske spesifikt motstander av dødstraff på et så spinkelt grunnlag !!
Sionister er for meg ganske like forkastelige som islamister og nasister. De misbruker religionen til å oppnå ( forkastelige ) politiske mål på en avskyelig måte.
Hva angår etnisitet er vel Israelere i bunn og grunn arabere de også ? Er ikke hele hurven der nede etterkommere av Abraham ?
Svenskene overta Østfold ? Tja.... ??? Nå har ikke Sverige så veldig god statistikk fra krigføring mot Norge da. Grunnen til at vi har gitt fra oss Jämtland, Härjedalen og Båhuslen var vel mest fordi danskene ikke klarte sin del av oppgaven. Danmark er ingen god unionspartner i krig ! ;D På den annen side, ville vi savne Østfold da ? Mange ville jo få kortere vei til Harryhandel også ! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Dessuten skal vi være veldig forsiktige her da det går sterke rykter om at Sverige vil erklære krig for så nesten umiddelbart å overgi seg. De satser på at vi som seierherre vil bruke våre oljepenger til en slags Marshal hjelp til taperen slik USA gjorde med Tyskland. ;D ;D ;D
edit: tyrkleif
- Ble medlem
- 18.08.2005
- Innlegg
- 7.081
- Antall liker
- 6
Hvorfor har ikke Israel livets rett, og hvem har mer rett på landet enn israelerne??
Det er mange som vet "litt" om hva som skjer der nede, og det er motstridende meninger og fakta om det meste.
Å påstå at de ikke er bedre enn nazistene er vel det dummeste jeg har hørt på lenge.. såpass dumt at det ikke fortjener noen kommentarer egentlig.
Når det gjelder Affa så dukker han nok opp igjen. Han har kommet og gått før. Når det gjelder alderen hans så er jeg ikke så bekymret, han er ikke død av alderdom i alle fall.
Kaptein Sortebill og muslimsk terrorist kunne jo spritet opp litt her, enig i det. I mellomtiden har vi jo han der John Bender... har vel til gode å lese et saklig innlegg fra han...
K
knutinh
Gjest
Såvidt jeg vet er de semitter hele gjengen. Det som skiller dem er vel primært ansiktshår, tro og kultur.
Det gir et litt rart skinn til anklager om at venstre-sida er anti-semitter.
-k
Tja. Genetisk sett varierer jøder svært. Tror islendinger fremstår som en gjeng søsken i forhold. Jøder kan ha blonde trekk og komme fra hele Europa, være svart og komme fra Etiopia, komme fra Jemen eller Iran. Hadde man møtt dem der lokalt, er det slett ikke sikkert man hadde klart å se forskjell på dem og de øvrige innbyggerne. SÅ dette med begrepet "folk" eller "nasjon" i sammenheng med jøder, henger sammen med deres religiøse kultur(er) og felles oppfatninger av tilhørighet på et kulturelt grunnlag.
Klart at jødene som folk har plukket opp i seg gener fra det meste av verden så spredt for alle vinder som de har vært. Men jødene har ikke drevet misjonering slik at de sammenlignet med mange andre religiøse grupper har holdt på sitt genetiske opphav i større grad. Kristne er slik sett en mye mer mangfoldig gruppe. Det vi ( og muslimer ) har felles er, satt på spissen, at vi tillhører en jødisk utbrytermenighet !
- Ble medlem
- 23.03.2006
- Innlegg
- 20.873
- Antall liker
- 11.539
Pisspreik.
"Hvorfor har ikke Israel livets rett, og hvem har mer rett på landet enn israelerne?? " - Araberne ;-)
"Å påstå at de ikke er bedre enn nazistene er vel det dummeste jeg har hørt på lenge.. såpass dumt at det ikke fortjener noen kommentarer egentlig."- Har innledningsvis nevnte historiker rett er således ikke Israelerne noe bedre enn f.eks Nazistene, man ville fjerne noe som ble anset som et problem. I mitt hode er de således ikke - satt på spissen - en tøddel bedre. Hadde Darwinismen fått råde ville Israel ikke vært noen stat - massiv våpen og pengestøtte fra bl.a. USA (jødisk-lobby) er den eneste årsaken til landets eksistens, og har det da livets rett...
Uten andre verdenskrig og jødeforfølgelsen ville "noen" brydd seg om å opprette staten?
Noe satt på spissen og forenklet
Vet at jeg tror du helt feil ! Hadde Darwinismen fått råde uten innblanding ville Israel ha vært mye større enn det er i dag. De fleste nabolandene ville ha vært provinser i Israel, palestinere og arabere generelt ville ha vært en minoritet i området. Og det ville nok ha vært fred.
Samtidig ville historikere ha kunnet forske på etnisk resing og fokemord i stor skala ! OG jeg vil ikke på noen måte si at Israel ville være den eneste skyldige selv om nok Israel ville ha vært en katalysator. Vi skal ikke glemme at stort sett det eneste den arabiske befolkning i midtøsten er enige om er at de hater Israel, deretter har de ingen skrupler med å skjære over strupene til hverandre !
Hadde ikke araberstatene hatt Israel å være forbannet på ville de ha ligget i krig med hverandre i slik en grad at det i dag ville ha vært ganske tynt befolket i dette området !
- Ble medlem
- 18.08.2005
- Innlegg
- 7.081
- Antall liker
- 6
http://www.miff.no/nyheter/2001/10/12WillochOgEtniskRensing.htm"Hvorfor har ikke Israel livets rett, og hvem har mer rett på landet enn israelerne?? " - Araberne ;-)
"Å påstå at de ikke er bedre enn nazistene er vel det dummeste jeg har hørt på lenge.. såpass dumt at det ikke fortjener noen kommentarer egentlig."- Har innledningsvis nevnte historiker rett er således ikke Israelerne noe bedre enn f.eks Nazistene, man ville fjerne noe som ble anset som et problem. I mitt hode er de således ikke - satt på spissen - en tøddel bedre. Hadde Darwinismen fått råde ville Israel ikke vært noen stat - massiv våpen og pengestøtte fra bl.a. USA (jødisk-lobby) er den eneste årsaken til landets eksistens, og har det da livets rett...
Uten andre verdenskrig og jødeforfølgelsen ville "noen" brydd seg om å opprette staten?
Noe satt på spissen og forenklet
http://www.miff.no/nyheter/2006/12/23KaareWillochOgBennyMorris.htm
Araberne, javel, og hvor hadde du tenkt at de skulle gjøre av alle jødene i området da? Tror nok FN sitt vedtak om å dele området blant de to gruppene som levde i området var det mest fornuftige tross alt, at ikke palestinerne ønsker å leve i fred med Israel er ikke Israels feil.
Du synes at verden trenger flere muslimske diktaturer som undertrykker sin befolkning? Eller tror du at det i dette området mot alle odds ville ha vokst frem et muslimsk demokrati ?
Om den sterkeste i dette området hadde benyttet seg av de er sterkest, hadde de hatt mulighet til å knuse sine naboer for lenge siden. Om deres naboer hadde vært sterkest så hadde ikke Israel eksistert i dag.
Det var planer om å opprette denne staten før jødeforfølgelsen og andre verdenskrig.
Du tar som alltid feil. Jøder har større genetisk homogenitet enn de fleste andre folkegrupper, kfr Luigi Cavalli-Sforzas bok "The great human diasporas: The history of diversity and evolution". Forfatteren er professor i genetikk ved Stanford.
Cavalli-Sforza, L ; Cavalli-Sforza, F. Add-on-Wesley, 1995. Amazon har boka.
Jeg vil be deg om å lese dette, som er et utdrag fra side 9-11: "Is the Concept of Race Illegitimate?" av Max H Ocutt, som er professor of philosophy emeritus ved University of Alabama. Artikkelen er refleksjoner hvor vidt konseptet, eller begrepet "rase" er legitimt (meningsfylt, hensiktsmessig).
Jeg har gjort noen edits, slik som gjort en redigering av avsnittene (det brukes KUN innrykk i originalen) i tillegg har jeg satt inn fotnoter der de inntraff i artikkelen (du finner fotnotene som uthevede tall, 6-8) og gjort rede inne i artikkelen for hva et begrep betyr.
Noen har omfavnet idéene til far og sønn Cavalli-Sforza. Dog, er deres presentasjon også kritisert sterkt. Deres bidrag til debatten i akademiske kretser er forsøk på å stille spørsmålstegn ved om det finnes et biologisk grunnlag for å snakke om "rase" blant mennesker, annet enn som kulturelt konstruerte fenomener. Et utdrag av artikkelen jeg linket til følger her:
Cavalli-Sforza
Nearly a quarter century passed between the publication of the three essays in physical
anthropology that I have just criticized and the publication of The Great Human Dias-
poras by the population biologist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and his son Francesco
(1995). Yet this recent book offers few new arguments. Instead, it repeats the old ones.
The authors begin the chapter "Race and Racism" by mentioning the evil of
racism and by condemning research that they regard as racist.6 They observe that race is often confused with nation or culture and complain that, given the looseness of the
concept, no one can say how many races exist. They attribute the difficulty of making
a count to the fact that many genetically related features of human beings vary con-
tinuously, leaving no breaks that provide clear demarcations between races.
After making these now familiar points, the Cavalli-Sforzas dilate on the difficul-
ties that confront attempts to distinguish one race from another. They illustrate these
difficulties by explaining, with a map, how interbreeding has obliterated once-obvious
differences between the Etruscans who settled northern Italy and the Greek peoples
who colonized the southern half of the boot. This blending of two formerly distin-
guishable races into one, the authors claim, shows that it never makes sense to talk of
distinguishable races. Yet they also note that various European "peoples," such as the
Basques of Spain and the Celts from Breton, differ not only culturally but also genetically (like races!). In this same "I can say breakfast" fashion, the Cavalli-Sforzas go on to aver (fastslå, EDIT: bjornh) that because Jews are a heterogeneous people from many parts of the world, there is no Jewish race. They admit, however, that "endogamy (marriage between individuals from the same group) was sufficiently widespread among the forebears of todays Jews for them to continue to have a not insignificant level of genes in common and a certain resemblance" (236) (like members of the same race!).
Showing no awareness that they are giving back with one hand what they took
with the other, the Cavalli-Sforzas go on to conclude, "The idea of race in the human
species serves no purpose" (237). With the usual reflex, they attribute belief in race to
the Nazi myth of racial purity and to an irrational but innate tribalism.7 They then cite
the mistreatment of Pygmies by their larger and more aggressive neighbors as a
regrettable example of our human tendency to divide the world up into them and us.
Clearly, there is nothing new here, just the now-familiar arguments: that a belief
in racial distinctions is wrong because it encourages racism; that no distinctions exist
between races because the distinctions that do exist are not sharp and clear; that
although racial differences may be real, it would be better to describe them as differ-
ences between "peoples"; that there are no races because there are no pure races; and
so on. Having already refuted these arguments -or, rather, having shown how they
refute themselves -I will not go over them again.
Instead, I will examine the only new argument to be found in the Cavalli-Sforza
book. In the preface, the authors casually remark that racial distinctions are unimpor-
tant because they are limited to such trivial matters as skin color and bodily confor-
mation. They return to this theme in chapter 8, claiming that although physical dif-
ferences can be explained in genetic terms, no mental differences can be explained in
this way. They declare, "The biological differences [between Pygmies and othergroups] are obviously striking, and equally obviously superficial. . . . [T]he explana-
tion [of the Pygmy economy] must lie in a radically different cultural legacy" (204);
"[n]othing, however, is truly or solely innate in child or adult intelligence. On the
contrary, intelligence is the product of personal experience, which is complex and dif-
fers from person to person" (219).
Here we have one more example of faulty reasoning. Reduced to its essence, the
argument is: racial distinctions are unreal because they are unimportant.8
For the sake of discussion, let us grant for the moment the premise that racial differences are super-ficial and inconsequential because they are physical. Still, the conclusion -that racial
differences are fictitious, imaginary, or mythical -does not follow. On the contrary,
what follows is that racial differences must be real, for how else can they be trivial or
superficial? The Cavalli-Sforzas have shot themselves in the foot.
Nor is that the worst of it: the gun was illegally obtained. That a certain differ-
ence between persons is unimportant is not a scientific judgment; it is an evaluation.
The Cavalli-Sforzas are speaking here as moralists who seek cover for their egalitarian
political views by presenting them as well-established science. Furthermore, whether
any differences of temperament and intellect are related to genes cannot be settled a
priori (forut for erfaring, jfr. Emmanuel Kant, EDIT: bjornh). The question is an empirical one still very much in dispute (Herrnstein and Murray 1994; Levin 1997; Rushton 1995). Hence, as the Cavalli-Sforzas are forced to admit when they get down to particulars, "We cannot exclude the possibility that there is a genetic component to behavioral characteristics" (1995, 205), and "[t]his [environmental influence on IQ] does not mean that heredity has no bearing on intel-ligence quotient" (221). Here, at last, they speak in the voice of science.
As moralists, the Cavalli-Sforzas have no authority. It is as scientists that they
must appeal to us, but when we examine their science, we find little support for their
unguarded dicta about race. On the contrary, we find evidence to refute those dicta.
The first chapter of The Great Human Diasporas has to do with Pygmies. This mate-
rial is significant because it seems beyond dispute that the Pygmies constitute a dis-
tinctive race that differs from others in both genotype and phenotype. If you were
looking for a prototype of the sort of breeding group that is meant by the word race,
it would be difficult to find a better one than the Pygmies. How can a man who has
spent much of his life studying this unique group of people, as the elder Cavalli-
Sforza has, deny the reality of racial distinctions? Only, I suspect, by letting his feel-
ings color his scientific judgment.
Fotnoter
6. Characteristically, Cavalli-Sforza uses the term loosely, describing as racist all research that draws attention to racial differences, even if its authors endorse no declaration of superiority and inferiority. Thus, Arthur Jensens work on IQ counts as racist by Cavalli-Sforza&s tendentious definition -a slick but not an admirable way to poison the wells of scientific research and to beg the question of whether its conclusions are sound.
7. With consummate wit, a friend of mine calls this pseudoreasoning the argumentum ad nazium.
8. I am aware that what is important for purposes of biology might be unimportant for other purposes, but the Cavalli-Sforzas neither make nor observe this distinction. Instead, they blur it by running the two kinds of importance together.
Resten av artikkelen finner man her: http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_07_1_hocutt.pdf -jeg beklager at det i publiseringen her på "Off-topic" ble en del rot, men dette er nå rettet opp.
Jeg har gjort noen edits, slik som gjort en redigering av avsnittene (det brukes KUN innrykk i originalen) i tillegg har jeg satt inn fotnoter der de inntraff i artikkelen (du finner fotnotene som uthevede tall, 6-8) og gjort rede inne i artikkelen for hva et begrep betyr.
Noen har omfavnet idéene til far og sønn Cavalli-Sforza. Dog, er deres presentasjon også kritisert sterkt. Deres bidrag til debatten i akademiske kretser er forsøk på å stille spørsmålstegn ved om det finnes et biologisk grunnlag for å snakke om "rase" blant mennesker, annet enn som kulturelt konstruerte fenomener. Et utdrag av artikkelen jeg linket til følger her:
Cavalli-Sforza
Nearly a quarter century passed between the publication of the three essays in physical
anthropology that I have just criticized and the publication of The Great Human Dias-
poras by the population biologist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and his son Francesco
(1995). Yet this recent book offers few new arguments. Instead, it repeats the old ones.
The authors begin the chapter "Race and Racism" by mentioning the evil of
racism and by condemning research that they regard as racist.6 They observe that race is often confused with nation or culture and complain that, given the looseness of the
concept, no one can say how many races exist. They attribute the difficulty of making
a count to the fact that many genetically related features of human beings vary con-
tinuously, leaving no breaks that provide clear demarcations between races.
After making these now familiar points, the Cavalli-Sforzas dilate on the difficul-
ties that confront attempts to distinguish one race from another. They illustrate these
difficulties by explaining, with a map, how interbreeding has obliterated once-obvious
differences between the Etruscans who settled northern Italy and the Greek peoples
who colonized the southern half of the boot. This blending of two formerly distin-
guishable races into one, the authors claim, shows that it never makes sense to talk of
distinguishable races. Yet they also note that various European "peoples," such as the
Basques of Spain and the Celts from Breton, differ not only culturally but also genetically (like races!). In this same "I can say breakfast" fashion, the Cavalli-Sforzas go on to aver (fastslå, EDIT: bjornh) that because Jews are a heterogeneous people from many parts of the world, there is no Jewish race. They admit, however, that "endogamy (marriage between individuals from the same group) was sufficiently widespread among the forebears of todays Jews for them to continue to have a not insignificant level of genes in common and a certain resemblance" (236) (like members of the same race!).
Showing no awareness that they are giving back with one hand what they took
with the other, the Cavalli-Sforzas go on to conclude, "The idea of race in the human
species serves no purpose" (237). With the usual reflex, they attribute belief in race to
the Nazi myth of racial purity and to an irrational but innate tribalism.7 They then cite
the mistreatment of Pygmies by their larger and more aggressive neighbors as a
regrettable example of our human tendency to divide the world up into them and us.
Clearly, there is nothing new here, just the now-familiar arguments: that a belief
in racial distinctions is wrong because it encourages racism; that no distinctions exist
between races because the distinctions that do exist are not sharp and clear; that
although racial differences may be real, it would be better to describe them as differ-
ences between "peoples"; that there are no races because there are no pure races; and
so on. Having already refuted these arguments -or, rather, having shown how they
refute themselves -I will not go over them again.
Instead, I will examine the only new argument to be found in the Cavalli-Sforza
book. In the preface, the authors casually remark that racial distinctions are unimpor-
tant because they are limited to such trivial matters as skin color and bodily confor-
mation. They return to this theme in chapter 8, claiming that although physical dif-
ferences can be explained in genetic terms, no mental differences can be explained in
this way. They declare, "The biological differences [between Pygmies and othergroups] are obviously striking, and equally obviously superficial. . . . [T]he explana-
tion [of the Pygmy economy] must lie in a radically different cultural legacy" (204);
"[n]othing, however, is truly or solely innate in child or adult intelligence. On the
contrary, intelligence is the product of personal experience, which is complex and dif-
fers from person to person" (219).
Here we have one more example of faulty reasoning. Reduced to its essence, the
argument is: racial distinctions are unreal because they are unimportant.8
For the sake of discussion, let us grant for the moment the premise that racial differences are super-ficial and inconsequential because they are physical. Still, the conclusion -that racial
differences are fictitious, imaginary, or mythical -does not follow. On the contrary,
what follows is that racial differences must be real, for how else can they be trivial or
superficial? The Cavalli-Sforzas have shot themselves in the foot.
Nor is that the worst of it: the gun was illegally obtained. That a certain differ-
ence between persons is unimportant is not a scientific judgment; it is an evaluation.
The Cavalli-Sforzas are speaking here as moralists who seek cover for their egalitarian
political views by presenting them as well-established science. Furthermore, whether
any differences of temperament and intellect are related to genes cannot be settled a
priori (forut for erfaring, jfr. Emmanuel Kant, EDIT: bjornh). The question is an empirical one still very much in dispute (Herrnstein and Murray 1994; Levin 1997; Rushton 1995). Hence, as the Cavalli-Sforzas are forced to admit when they get down to particulars, "We cannot exclude the possibility that there is a genetic component to behavioral characteristics" (1995, 205), and "[t]his [environmental influence on IQ] does not mean that heredity has no bearing on intel-ligence quotient" (221). Here, at last, they speak in the voice of science.
As moralists, the Cavalli-Sforzas have no authority. It is as scientists that they
must appeal to us, but when we examine their science, we find little support for their
unguarded dicta about race. On the contrary, we find evidence to refute those dicta.
The first chapter of The Great Human Diasporas has to do with Pygmies. This mate-
rial is significant because it seems beyond dispute that the Pygmies constitute a dis-
tinctive race that differs from others in both genotype and phenotype. If you were
looking for a prototype of the sort of breeding group that is meant by the word race,
it would be difficult to find a better one than the Pygmies. How can a man who has
spent much of his life studying this unique group of people, as the elder Cavalli-
Sforza has, deny the reality of racial distinctions? Only, I suspect, by letting his feel-
ings color his scientific judgment.
Fotnoter
6. Characteristically, Cavalli-Sforza uses the term loosely, describing as racist all research that draws attention to racial differences, even if its authors endorse no declaration of superiority and inferiority. Thus, Arthur Jensens work on IQ counts as racist by Cavalli-Sforza&s tendentious definition -a slick but not an admirable way to poison the wells of scientific research and to beg the question of whether its conclusions are sound.
7. With consummate wit, a friend of mine calls this pseudoreasoning the argumentum ad nazium.
8. I am aware that what is important for purposes of biology might be unimportant for other purposes, but the Cavalli-Sforzas neither make nor observe this distinction. Instead, they blur it by running the two kinds of importance together.
Resten av artikkelen finner man her: http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_07_1_hocutt.pdf -jeg beklager at det i publiseringen her på "Off-topic" ble en del rot, men dette er nå rettet opp.
Detter er palestinsk terror,
Detter er palestinsk terror, hver dag, året rundt. Ingen militær betydning, kun sivile rammes:
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article1664628.ece
Detter er palestinsk terror, hver dag, året rundt. Ingen militær betydning, kun sivile rammes:
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article1664628.ece
G
Gjestemedlem
Gjest
Re: Detter er palestinsk terror,
Selv om de er undetrykket har de jo en viss stolthet de også. Selv om det forventes at de skal ta et godt tak rundt anklene og håpe på varsomhet...
Siden palestinerene ikke har noe militære styrker, regnes jo all mostand som terrorisme. Det være seg alt fra steinkasting og tagging til å ofre seg selv i kampen.
Selv om de er undetrykket har de jo en viss stolthet de også. Selv om det forventes at de skal ta et godt tak rundt anklene og håpe på varsomhet...
Poenget er ganske enkelt: du trekker frem er at jøder er genetisk homogene, hvilket kan gjøre dem til et "folk" i genetisk forstand, og søker støtte i Cavalli-Sforzas argumentasjoner. Cavalli-Sforza er far og sønn, bare for å ha det sagt, og deres forskning grenser svært ofte over i moralisering, og driver på den ene siden benektelser av at det finnes "nasjoner" eller raser, samtidig som de i andre sammenhenger støtter genetiske fellesnevnere for ulike folkegrupper. "I can say Breakfast".
At jøder kan være bærere av bestemte gener som forekommer hos dem, gjør dem ikke nødvendigvis mindre genetisk varierte. Det er snakk om bestemte gener de kan være bærere av. Islendingene er sannsynligvis mer genetisk homogene pga. av den isolasjonen deres samfunn har levd under, men det er min påstand. Dersom noen har konkret bevisførsel for at jøder er mindre genetisk varierte enn islendingene, så skal jeg legge meg flat.
Du misforstår meg kraftig, dessverre.
"Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora."
(M.F. Hammer, Proc. Nat'l Academy of Science, May 9, 2000)
Tja. Dette er interessant, og du finner artikkelen her http://www.prometheism.net/articles/jewish.html:
Studies of Jewish Genetics and the Racial Double Standard: Is There a Hidden Agenda ?
BY PAUL GRUBACH
In an attempt to determine how the Jewish people differ from the non-Jewish world, Israeli scientists have conducted studies which show that Jews as a group differ significantly from non-Jews in a genetic-biological sense. 1 As we shall soon see, this information is apparently going to be used to discriminate against non-Jews.
What is even more interesting about these research projects is that they highlight the hypocritical double standard that is so deeply ingrained in certain segments of society. It's socially and morally acceptable for Jews to conduct such research projects. Anthropologist Roselle Tekiner suggested that queries into Jewish genetics may be motivated by a desire to "justify" and bolster Zionist nationalism; the idea of a "Jewish race" with a special set of "Jewish genes" could serve to unite world Jewry. 2 There is no highly visible, widespread public condemnation of these inquiries, which there would be if others were to conduct similar studies. Indeed, Jewish Zionists and their Gentile supporters would probably be the most vocal of all protestors if, for example, it were found that German or British scientists were attempting to determine how Nordics differ from Jews and Blacks in a genetic-biological sense, and this information would be used to implement racially discriminatory policies.
Dr. Jared Diamond Enter Dr. Jared Diamond, a prominent Jewish scientist and columnist for NATURAL HISTORY. He recently hailed GENES, PEOPLES, AND LANGUAGES, the new book by Professor Luigi Cavalli-Sfoza, a population geneticist, for allegedly dismantling the idea of race.
In his books, Cavalli-Sforza himself promotes the following beliefs. The classification of humans into races has proved to be a futile exercise, and his research will lead to the elimination of alleged "racism," because he has discredited the popular assumption that there are clearly defined races. 3
In the NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, Diamond salutes Cavalli-Sforza for "demolishing scientists' attempts to classify human populations into races in the same way that they classify birds and other species into races." 4 Apparently, Jewish scientist Diamond operates with a hypocritical double standard.
In an article that appeared in NATURAL HISTORY, Diamond discussed the genetic studies on how Jews differ from non-Jews. He made this astounding statement: "There are also practical reasons for interest in Jewish genes. The state of Israel has been going to much expense to support immigration and job retraining of Jews who were persecuted minorities in other countries. That immediately poses the problem of defining who is a Jew." 5
The implication here is obvious. The Zionist elite is planning to refuse a person the right to settle in Israel if they do not have "Jewish genes." With this in mind, consider point #4 of the Nazi Party program of May 25, 1920. It reads: "None but members of the nationality may be citizens of the state. None but those of German blood, irrespective of religion, may be members of the nationality." 6 In contemporary terms, only those with "German genes" could be citizens of Nazi Germany. I can't emphasize enough that this is similar to the type of Israeli policy that Diamond describes.
Diamond opposes classifying human populations into races--except of course populations of Jews and non-Jews. He apparently has given his silent assent to the proposed Israeli-Zionist policy of defining and classifying Jews and non-Jews on the basis of whether or not they possess "Jewish genes."
But just as importantly, the reader should note how Diamond's double standard in regard to racial classifications serves the interests of organized Jewry; it tends to undermine a sense of racial awareness and racial unity among Blacks, Arabs, Orientals, and especially non-Jewish Europeans, while simultaneously, it fosters Jewish national sentiment and consciousness.
Jewish Genetic Superiority? New DNA-based research suggests a genetic link between Jews and Middle Eastern people. Jews largely retained their genetic identity, one that was formed in the Middle East, according to a recent study published in the PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 7
Even after centuries of exile, Diaspora Jews remained closer to each other and more similar to Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese, in terms of measured genetic characteristics, than to people in their host countries such as the European nations, the study says. 8
Based upon this DNA-based research, the study found that despite the many centuries their ancestors had spent in exile in different parts of the world, the Israeli Jews in the sample had the closest genetic links. Next in genetic affinity to Jews were Palestinians and Syrians, followed by other Middle Eastern ethnic groups. Jews of European descent living in Israel have closer genetic affinity to Syrians than to the non-Jews of the countries they came from. 9
We live in a society in which any manifestation or hint of racism brings forth numerous and high profile condemnations --except of course when the racialist ideas and practices serve the interests of organized Jewry and its Zionist ideology.
Once again, the reader should note how the new study's findings dovetail so nicely with the ideology of Zionism. One of its standard tenets is that Jews, for 2,000 years were dispersed among the nations of the world, and then decided to return to the land of their ancestors in the Middle East. Jews have a religious attachment to the land of Israel, which finds its roots in Biblical tradition.
Lo and behold! Here are new genetic findings which may be used to "justify" and "legitimize" these standard tenets of Zionist ideology. Zionist functionaries might now say: "Jews are not alien invaders on Palestinian territory. Genetic studies show that modern day Jews can trace their ancestry back to the land of Israel. Jews have a right to return to the land of their genetic ancestors."
One of the premises upon which Israel was built is that the Jews are a people--one people. 10 Jews throughout the world are more united with each other than they are with their non-Jewish countryman they may live with. 11 Lo and behold again! Notice how the findings of this new study could be used to bolster these beliefs. Supposedly, Jews from various parts of the world have a closer genetic affinity to each other than to the non-Jews of the countries they came from.
Of course, just because these studies of Jewish genetics may be politically motivated and their findings may dovetail with Zionist ideology, this in no way invalidates the findings. That is to say, maybe Jewry did originate in the MIddle East and maybe contemporary Jews do in fact share a greater genetic affinity with each other than to the Gentiles they reside next to. Nor am I condemning such genetic studies. Quite the contrary. Scientists should perform more of these racial studies--without the hypocritical double standard that surrounds them.
But if this be the case, let no one complain when these same findings can be used to bolster a white nationalist agenda. Indeed, one of the implications of these Jewish genetic studies is that Jewish people are somewhat different in a genetic sense from the Europeans they reside next to. In other words, not only is organized Jewry an alien cultural entity within Western civilization, they are also somewhat alien in a biological sense.
Let the Western intelligentsia rid themselves of this hypocritical racial double standard and seriously consider the idea that genetic differences between Jews and non-Jews have significant sociopolitical consequences.
FOOTNOTES
1. NATURE, March 21, 1985, p.208.
2. Roselle Tekiner, Samir Abed-Rabbo, Norton Mezvinsky, eds., ANTI-ZIONISM: ANALYTICAL REFLECTIONS (Amana Books, 1988), pp.63-89.
3. L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, P.Menozzi, A. Piazza, THE HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY OF HUMAN GENES (Princeton University Press, 1994).
4. See NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, April 13, 2000, p.61.
5. NATURAL HISTORY, November 1993, p.12.
6. See Robert Vexler's GERMANY: A CHRONOLOGY AND FACT BOOK: 1415-1972.
7. THE PLAIN DEALER (Cleveland), May 10, 2000, p.6-A.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. See Rabbi Elmer Berger's discussion in Tekiner, Abed-Rabbo, Mezvinsky, pp.11-14.
11. See Anthropologist Tekiner's discussion of this in Tekiner, Abed-Rabbo, Mezvinsky, p.77.
Studies of Jewish Genetics and the Racial Double Standard: Is There a Hidden Agenda ?
BY PAUL GRUBACH
In an attempt to determine how the Jewish people differ from the non-Jewish world, Israeli scientists have conducted studies which show that Jews as a group differ significantly from non-Jews in a genetic-biological sense. 1 As we shall soon see, this information is apparently going to be used to discriminate against non-Jews.
What is even more interesting about these research projects is that they highlight the hypocritical double standard that is so deeply ingrained in certain segments of society. It's socially and morally acceptable for Jews to conduct such research projects. Anthropologist Roselle Tekiner suggested that queries into Jewish genetics may be motivated by a desire to "justify" and bolster Zionist nationalism; the idea of a "Jewish race" with a special set of "Jewish genes" could serve to unite world Jewry. 2 There is no highly visible, widespread public condemnation of these inquiries, which there would be if others were to conduct similar studies. Indeed, Jewish Zionists and their Gentile supporters would probably be the most vocal of all protestors if, for example, it were found that German or British scientists were attempting to determine how Nordics differ from Jews and Blacks in a genetic-biological sense, and this information would be used to implement racially discriminatory policies.
Dr. Jared Diamond Enter Dr. Jared Diamond, a prominent Jewish scientist and columnist for NATURAL HISTORY. He recently hailed GENES, PEOPLES, AND LANGUAGES, the new book by Professor Luigi Cavalli-Sfoza, a population geneticist, for allegedly dismantling the idea of race.
In his books, Cavalli-Sforza himself promotes the following beliefs. The classification of humans into races has proved to be a futile exercise, and his research will lead to the elimination of alleged "racism," because he has discredited the popular assumption that there are clearly defined races. 3
In the NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, Diamond salutes Cavalli-Sforza for "demolishing scientists' attempts to classify human populations into races in the same way that they classify birds and other species into races." 4 Apparently, Jewish scientist Diamond operates with a hypocritical double standard.
In an article that appeared in NATURAL HISTORY, Diamond discussed the genetic studies on how Jews differ from non-Jews. He made this astounding statement: "There are also practical reasons for interest in Jewish genes. The state of Israel has been going to much expense to support immigration and job retraining of Jews who were persecuted minorities in other countries. That immediately poses the problem of defining who is a Jew." 5
The implication here is obvious. The Zionist elite is planning to refuse a person the right to settle in Israel if they do not have "Jewish genes." With this in mind, consider point #4 of the Nazi Party program of May 25, 1920. It reads: "None but members of the nationality may be citizens of the state. None but those of German blood, irrespective of religion, may be members of the nationality." 6 In contemporary terms, only those with "German genes" could be citizens of Nazi Germany. I can't emphasize enough that this is similar to the type of Israeli policy that Diamond describes.
Diamond opposes classifying human populations into races--except of course populations of Jews and non-Jews. He apparently has given his silent assent to the proposed Israeli-Zionist policy of defining and classifying Jews and non-Jews on the basis of whether or not they possess "Jewish genes."
But just as importantly, the reader should note how Diamond's double standard in regard to racial classifications serves the interests of organized Jewry; it tends to undermine a sense of racial awareness and racial unity among Blacks, Arabs, Orientals, and especially non-Jewish Europeans, while simultaneously, it fosters Jewish national sentiment and consciousness.
Jewish Genetic Superiority? New DNA-based research suggests a genetic link between Jews and Middle Eastern people. Jews largely retained their genetic identity, one that was formed in the Middle East, according to a recent study published in the PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 7
Even after centuries of exile, Diaspora Jews remained closer to each other and more similar to Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese, in terms of measured genetic characteristics, than to people in their host countries such as the European nations, the study says. 8
Based upon this DNA-based research, the study found that despite the many centuries their ancestors had spent in exile in different parts of the world, the Israeli Jews in the sample had the closest genetic links. Next in genetic affinity to Jews were Palestinians and Syrians, followed by other Middle Eastern ethnic groups. Jews of European descent living in Israel have closer genetic affinity to Syrians than to the non-Jews of the countries they came from. 9
We live in a society in which any manifestation or hint of racism brings forth numerous and high profile condemnations --except of course when the racialist ideas and practices serve the interests of organized Jewry and its Zionist ideology.
Once again, the reader should note how the new study's findings dovetail so nicely with the ideology of Zionism. One of its standard tenets is that Jews, for 2,000 years were dispersed among the nations of the world, and then decided to return to the land of their ancestors in the Middle East. Jews have a religious attachment to the land of Israel, which finds its roots in Biblical tradition.
Lo and behold! Here are new genetic findings which may be used to "justify" and "legitimize" these standard tenets of Zionist ideology. Zionist functionaries might now say: "Jews are not alien invaders on Palestinian territory. Genetic studies show that modern day Jews can trace their ancestry back to the land of Israel. Jews have a right to return to the land of their genetic ancestors."
One of the premises upon which Israel was built is that the Jews are a people--one people. 10 Jews throughout the world are more united with each other than they are with their non-Jewish countryman they may live with. 11 Lo and behold again! Notice how the findings of this new study could be used to bolster these beliefs. Supposedly, Jews from various parts of the world have a closer genetic affinity to each other than to the non-Jews of the countries they came from.
Of course, just because these studies of Jewish genetics may be politically motivated and their findings may dovetail with Zionist ideology, this in no way invalidates the findings. That is to say, maybe Jewry did originate in the MIddle East and maybe contemporary Jews do in fact share a greater genetic affinity with each other than to the Gentiles they reside next to. Nor am I condemning such genetic studies. Quite the contrary. Scientists should perform more of these racial studies--without the hypocritical double standard that surrounds them.
But if this be the case, let no one complain when these same findings can be used to bolster a white nationalist agenda. Indeed, one of the implications of these Jewish genetic studies is that Jewish people are somewhat different in a genetic sense from the Europeans they reside next to. In other words, not only is organized Jewry an alien cultural entity within Western civilization, they are also somewhat alien in a biological sense.
Let the Western intelligentsia rid themselves of this hypocritical racial double standard and seriously consider the idea that genetic differences between Jews and non-Jews have significant sociopolitical consequences.
FOOTNOTES
1. NATURE, March 21, 1985, p.208.
2. Roselle Tekiner, Samir Abed-Rabbo, Norton Mezvinsky, eds., ANTI-ZIONISM: ANALYTICAL REFLECTIONS (Amana Books, 1988), pp.63-89.
3. L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, P.Menozzi, A. Piazza, THE HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY OF HUMAN GENES (Princeton University Press, 1994).
4. See NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, April 13, 2000, p.61.
5. NATURAL HISTORY, November 1993, p.12.
6. See Robert Vexler's GERMANY: A CHRONOLOGY AND FACT BOOK: 1415-1972.
7. THE PLAIN DEALER (Cleveland), May 10, 2000, p.6-A.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. See Rabbi Elmer Berger's discussion in Tekiner, Abed-Rabbo, Mezvinsky, pp.11-14.
11. See Anthropologist Tekiner's discussion of this in Tekiner, Abed-Rabbo, Mezvinsky, p.77.
Zionistiske konspirasjoner står som vanlig bak! At jeg ikke tenkte på det.
Foreslår at du går over til en noe mer kritisk kildebruk. Disse lange sitatene av totalt ukjente personer du klipper og limer inn, gavner overhodet ikke debattnivået her på forumet.
At du helt ukritisk og uten evne til å vite hva du støtter, overrasker meg ikke BB. Og det er faktisk interessant at det er såpass viktig for en gruppe vitenskapsmenn å påvise denne sammenhengen. Genetiske fellestrekk er interessant nok, det, i sin sammenheng. Men de kan like fullt ikke brukes som ARGUMENT som legitimerer å "Landsforvise" mennesker som har bodd i et område i generasjoner bare fordi de har feil tilhørighet (etnisk, kulturelt).
Du begynner å minne meg mer og mer om mennesker som bruker "rase" eller "folk" som argument for hva som gir rett, BB. Det er nivået ditt. Det minner om enkelte personers argumentasjon her i Norge om at "samene var her først, ergo har samer eiendomsrett, alle rettigheter" mm. (andre samer får ha meg unnskyldt eksempelbruken her).
Dette er en form for nasjonalisme, der det argumenteres for nasjon+grenser=staten utbredelse. I dette regnestykket plusses gjerne på områder det hevdes sedvanerett på, man i en eller annen grad evner å vise dokumentasjon på.
Det forrige innlegget mitt, slo meg egentlig som noe som gir et meget kritisk blikk på hva slags motivasjon og koblinger som brukes. Vitenskap+politikk er svært eksplosivt og i mange tilfeller heller tvilsomt. At du er Israel-vennlig er ikke kritikkverdig, BB, men at du helt ukritisk er såpass negativt innstilt mot muslimer generelt og gir israelske myndigheter sine handlinger så mye legitimitet, er mildt sagt skremmende. Skremmende fordi du overhode ikke har kritisk sans til israelske myndigheters handlemåter i mange tilfeller, men bare durer på om hvor legitimt det er. Det gavner ikke debattnivået her.
Mvh.
Du begynner å minne meg mer og mer om mennesker som bruker "rase" eller "folk" som argument for hva som gir rett, BB. Det er nivået ditt. Det minner om enkelte personers argumentasjon her i Norge om at "samene var her først, ergo har samer eiendomsrett, alle rettigheter" mm. (andre samer får ha meg unnskyldt eksempelbruken her).
Dette er en form for nasjonalisme, der det argumenteres for nasjon+grenser=staten utbredelse. I dette regnestykket plusses gjerne på områder det hevdes sedvanerett på, man i en eller annen grad evner å vise dokumentasjon på.
Det forrige innlegget mitt, slo meg egentlig som noe som gir et meget kritisk blikk på hva slags motivasjon og koblinger som brukes. Vitenskap+politikk er svært eksplosivt og i mange tilfeller heller tvilsomt. At du er Israel-vennlig er ikke kritikkverdig, BB, men at du helt ukritisk er såpass negativt innstilt mot muslimer generelt og gir israelske myndigheter sine handlinger så mye legitimitet, er mildt sagt skremmende. Skremmende fordi du overhode ikke har kritisk sans til israelske myndigheters handlemåter i mange tilfeller, men bare durer på om hvor legitimt det er. Det gavner ikke debattnivået her.
Mvh.
Forresten er plata "Lullabyes from the Axis of Evil" av kirkelig Kulturverksted svartelistet av Bush-adm. -det er vel passelig nivå, BB? "I can say breakfast". http://www.nrk.no/musikk/1.858831
I følge NRK1 nyhetene 19.00 så, av Bus-adm. (adm. = forkortelse for administrasjonen, hvilket vuil si regjering).
Fikk plata anmeldelse i et tidligere Fidelity? -husker ikke helt nå. Plata består av vuggesanger man synger for barn, fra land som bla. Iran. "Axis-of-Evil" er en term brukt av Pres. Bush, og minner litt om den morsomme retorikken Ronald Reagan brukte om Sovjet Unionen: Det ondes imperium. Det funker bra i politisk retorikk, men jeg tror Reagan hadde et størrre poeng, enn Bush klarte å demonstrere....
Plata er sikkert veldig bra. Barnesanger, kan tross alt formidles med sjel. Bare lytt på Byssan Lull med Kari, ja hun Bremnesch som er fra en by bare 3,5 timers kjøretur sør for her jeg bor. Der skulle jeg hatt rein...
Uansett, her finner du et opptak fra NRK: http://www1.nrk.no/nyhetsspiller
Fikk plata anmeldelse i et tidligere Fidelity? -husker ikke helt nå. Plata består av vuggesanger man synger for barn, fra land som bla. Iran. "Axis-of-Evil" er en term brukt av Pres. Bush, og minner litt om den morsomme retorikken Ronald Reagan brukte om Sovjet Unionen: Det ondes imperium. Det funker bra i politisk retorikk, men jeg tror Reagan hadde et størrre poeng, enn Bush klarte å demonstrere....
Plata er sikkert veldig bra. Barnesanger, kan tross alt formidles med sjel. Bare lytt på Byssan Lull med Kari, ja hun Bremnesch som er fra en by bare 3,5 timers kjøretur sør for her jeg bor. Der skulle jeg hatt rein...
Uansett, her finner du et opptak fra NRK: http://www1.nrk.no/nyhetsspiller