Post by *skriptisDiverting here, I've been playing around with the idea that, just as many words have "evolved" from their original meanings in common popular usage--e.g., "phobia" originally meaning "fear of", but now can mean "someone who strongly dislikes", as in "Islamaphobia"--
Yeah, or homophobia and many others.
It's also interesting to note what Jews did here?
They use several words and terms that relate to them, but the terms are often not easily connected. It enables them to weasel out.
E.g. if someone accuses you of islamophobia under current meaning (e.g. you hate Moslems) at least you can pinpoint the fact that e.g. Moslems do some shit and thus you justify yourself.
With Jews it's not so straightforward as they use several terms for them.
Language: Hebrew
Country: Israel
People: Jews
Religion: Judaism
Hatred: anti-Semitism
OK.
I realize that you look at situations involving Jews in the world and
tend to see Jews as a consciously directed threat toward everyone else,
while I see about the same situations and tend to see the motivations
for their behavior somewhat differently.
But I think we both see the same things but attribute these things to
different motivations--e.g., I see Jews as very effective competitors,
well organized, and coalesced around their ethnic mythology, and a big
part of how they operate in the general society is to co-operate in much
the same way that a benevolent society, like the Elks Club, Rotarians,
or the Masons do, but for Jews all this secret handshaking and
favoritism is on steroids, so to speak.
And yet in my dealings with Jews I a) never felt that they targeted me
as a person; and b) they unquestionably favored first their kinship
group, and second their ethnic/religious peers. Since I'm not a Jew, I
would not receive any favors beyond any value I can provide, which is
understandable to me. They do this much more strongly--and without any
sense of guilt--than non-Jews do. They do it reflexively.
So I see them as a group to be wary of, who have no particular reason to
spare me from the effects of their search for advancement/security
beyond any personal attachments--and these will be very limited. I do
not se them as targeting me in the same way that the common left
progressives target me on forums on the basis of my income, my assets,
my skin color, my gender, and where I sent my daughter to school. On
forums like this I've had some of their ilk write that they can't wait
for me to die so that the world will be a better place.
Or, from 1965 to 1970 my own government sought to impress me into their
army, to send to SE Asia to do their bidding, at potentially great risk
to myself.
Now *those* are what I view as a personal and directed threat, with
little chance to cooperate with them (radical woke/draft board) in a
limited and wary fashion, as I would be able to do with Jews here in the US.
So, no, I don't particularly *like* them, any more than I like a French
national or a black professor, unless I can establish a *positive*
personal understanding of some kind, which only extends to that activity
and to that person. But believe me when I say: I'm very quick to
recognize a threat, and very wary and paranoid, and I have yet to
recognize a threat from Jews to me or to my possessions that are aimed
at me. I can avoid threats of all kinds--very good at it--but I haven't
had to with Jews, so far.
Now I also accept that you have a different reality going, and because
of it you've come to different conclusions, and I can respect those
conclusions as appropriate *for you*. I'd argue that by default those
conclusions might not be appropriate if you lived here, but again, it
would be *your* informed choice, so OK by me.
So, you see, you feel enmity towards a group I'm not a part of, and
appear to display no enmity towards me, personally, and as long as it
stays like that, I could give a shit less.
Post by *skriptisCompare that to e.g. Russians who can't escape?
Language: Russian
Country: Russia
People: Russians *
Religion: Russian orthodox Christianity
Hatred: russophobia
So if someone accuses you of russophobia e.g. for removing Dostoyevsky or Tchaikovsky or Medvedev from Wimbledon, you can easily at least justify that by drawing paralels to "bad Russia under Putin".
Russians have not planned escape routes as Jews have done.
Otoh when you point to the fact Israel has killed 40 thousand people in the last year, half of it children, then they, even if they acknowledge it, will likewise say, but don't attack all Jews because of it.
And when you point out to the fact that Jews dominate US politics, and have infiltrated in top echelons there, they will say, Israel has nothing to do with that.
If you think it's related, you're an anti-Semite.
A word that has no true meaning (Arabs are Semites too) and is simply used as a major slur in English language for those whom Jews dislike them.
* Russians actually have two words for themselves, just as Croats and Serbs.
The thing is, our variants are recognised in English, I'm not so sure about Russian.
Here's the thing.
Both you and Djokovic are Serbs, but only Djokovic is Serbian.
For Russia (Rossiya).
Ruskies would be true Slavic Russians.
Rossiyane would be any citizen of Russia.
So russkie is something like a WASP in your case?
This raises an interesting difference between most "old world" polities
(nations) vs new world polities.
In Europe, e.g., the names of most nations are derived from the ethnic
group that has occupied much of it and dominated it enough to name the
territory after themselves. France for the French (Franks), Germany for
the Germans, Poland for Poles, etc.
But over here, being settled by European immigrants who quickly either
killed off, or otherwise dominated the native populations, the *names*
of territories were not named after ethnicities: the main exception
being Mexico--and even that is stretching the reality of who actually
lived in what is now the territory of Mexico. There were for a while a
few temporary exceptions: New Spain, Nova Scotia, etc. but these became
meaningless since the entire population was ethnically diverse. E.g., my
own grandparents soon considered themselves as "Americans" in the sense
that you mention "Rossiyene" and no one bothered with us so far as
private cultural practices. Certainly it helped that we were both white
and willing to work, but yep, we feel that first and foremost, due to
the fact of our residence, and the "skin" we've got in the game, we're
Americans, for sure.
And the US is so mixed, both ethnically and racially, that it's
sometimes a conversation starter is to ask about *ethnicity*, but not
race--although most east Asians don't care about that, unless they've
gone to a progressive school and have absorbed a degree of fashionable
victimhood.
But ultimately, it's very simple how to succeed in the US: you observe
and you figure out what you've got to do to get what you want, and try
your best to do it. If, for some reason, you can't do this, you can live
under a highway overpass, sleeping on a piece of cardboard that you took
away from a stray dog, enjoying a fentanyl haze.
I suspect, but cannot know, that this way to get along is similar to
Whisper's experience in Australia.
Post by *skriptisYou can see all this coming around again, and it looks like the US, at ~250 years of a republican form of government, is about ready to drift toward monarchy to combat oligarchy.
It's normal and natural.
That's what Machiavelli says, too.
Post by *skriptisNobles are scum. They enjoy luxury and easy life without no responsibility.
Only a patriotic leader can fight for the people and crush the nobility.
This sort of leader would be termed a benevolent populist. Gracchi,
Marius, Caesar (to a fair degree).
Sulla the opposite.
Post by *skriptisWe all cheer for one true leader and king to dominate his rivals and subjugate his enemies to help the peasants.
Yes, ideally this is how it works. Castro is a good example, but it's
very hard to pull it off in the longer term *unless* the nation is very
resource rich and powerful.
Post by *skriptisYou can see it in tennis too.
We the tennis fans (peasants) all enjoyed and wanted to see (insert any of the big 3 depending on your taste) dominating the pretenders, the nobles, guys like Berdych, Ferrer, Tsonga, Dimitrov, Raonic, Tsitsipas, etc.
Peasants rely on powerful king.
Whom history has shown to be trustworthy only rarely, like the Five Good
emperors of the Pax Romana. So far as I can recall, none of these held
power thru inheritance, and in fact an inherited monarchy may be real
trouble, since merit is unnecessary to obtain power.
Post by *skriptisChinese have Xi.
Slavs have Putin.
Hindus have Modi.
Persians have Ayatollah.
Anglos, Germanics have Soros and the Jews.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. But give a man a boat,
a case of beer, and a few sticks of dynamite..." -- Sawfish