Churchill looks like BabyRage

None of the people you list gave a shit about jews. Most of them weren't even raised as jews. Lenin was given a christian name, raised as a christian, and believed in a christian god until his father died. Marx wasn't raised as a jew, wasn't part of any jewish community, his friends were german, his wife was german, he married in a protestant church, his children were german, his philosophical influences were german, and his economic influences were anglos.

>Communism is a Jewish invention
False. Both because it didn't start with marx and because there's nothing jewish about it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#History
Communism is the logical conclusions of following the premises of the enlightenment to their end.

>I actually didn't type a single thing in the original post. You are projecting your own assumptions of what you think I believed in, simply from the natural conclusion of his statement. You are guilty of what you accused me of. How fitting.

Except you linked a Wiki about Lenin's background in order to clearly make a point.

Nice try, buddy, I've already got your IP Address and have linked it to a multitude of Anti-Semite posts throughout this board. Better luck next time!

>Except you linked a Wiki about Lenin's background in order to clearly make a point.
Because Churchill was incorrect about Lenin's ancestry, we now know he had a Jewish grandfather.
Karl Marx, Lev Bronstein, Ilya Ehrenberg, Lazar Kaganovich, Grigory Zinoviev, Nikolai Yezhov, Yakov Yurovsky, Adolf Joffe, George Blake, and Lev Kamenev were all Jews, to name a few. Your own link cites Marx within the first paragraph. Click on that, follow up to his early life, we get the following: Marx was ancestrally Jewish; his maternal grandfather was a Dutch rabbi, while his paternal line had supplied Trier's rabbis since 1723, a role taken by his grandfather Meier Halevi Marx.
Simply because they do not follow Judaism does not make them any less of a Jew. You know Ashkenazi Jews aren't bound to their ethnic group by religion, right? They are within their religion precisely because of their racial composition, not the other way around.

They arose from Jewish heritage and culture, with traditions and families going back hundreds of years; that very thing that's pissed off the world around them and separated them from the rest of society.

Stop being obtuse

fuck off anti-Semite, hating jews is the real obtuseness

>Simply because they do not follow Judaism does not make them any less of a Jew.
Never change /pol/

>Karl Marx, Lev Bronstein, Ilya Ehrenberg, Lazar Kaganovich, Grigory Zinoviev, Nikolai Yezhov, Yakov Yurovsky, Adolf Joffe, George Blake, and Lev Kamenev were all Jews, to name a few.
So? None of them invented communism and there's nothing jewish about communism itself, so you are objectively wrong in claiming that it is a jewish invention. Listing a dozen communists from any ethnicity/religion isn't very hard.

>Marx was ancestrally Jewish; his maternal grandfather was a Dutch rabbi, while his paternal line had supplied Trier's rabbis since 1723, a role taken by his grandfather Meier Halevi Marx.
I don't see your point. Marx had nothing to do with jews in his entire life and none of his influences are jews, how do his work reflect judaism? Did the jewishness in his genes get magically transfused into his work despite having no jewish influences? His philosophy derives from hegel, his history derives from feuerbach, his economics derives from smith, his politics are influences by european utopian socialists.

>Simply because they do not follow Judaism does not make them any less of a Jew. You know Ashkenazi Jews aren't bound to their ethnic group by religion, right? They are within their religion precisely because of their racial composition, not the other way around.
So is the conspiracy transmitted genetically? Because people that don't give a fuck about jews and weren't raised as jews are apparently magically part of it.

>a WASP mad that Jews are taking his place

Define Jews, then define Judaism. You know Jewishness is a race, right? There are Sephardi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Ashkenazi Jews.

>Jewishness is a race

Nice English there, Hans.

>None of them invented communism and there's nothing jewish about communism itself
Except for the fact that Marx was Jewish, the author of the Communist Manifesto. The people who introduced Communism in Eastern Europe were Jews, at least disproportionately Jewish with respect to their global population. That changed when gentiles removed the Jews, but kept the tradition of Jewish Communism in play.
>Listing a dozen communists from any ethnicity/religion isn't very hard.
With respect to their global population, Jews were over-represented in early Communist revolts. The leader/founder of the Red Army was Lev Bronstein, or Trotsky.
>Marx had nothing to do with jews
Association with your racial grouping does nothing to alter your genetic composition. He did not adhere to the tenets of Judaism, but he was still Jewish.
>Did the jewishness in his genes get magically transfused into his work despite having no jewish influences?
Strawman, nowhere do I claim that he infuses his pen with a Jewish elixir or something. I claimed that Communism was founded, pushed for, and led (in its early stages in Eastern Europe, specifically Russia) by Jews. Yakov Mikhailovich Yurovsky was the chief executioner behind the death of the Czar.
He, himself, was a Jew. How does this not constitute Jewish influence? Your only rebuttal is that he did not follow the tenets of Judaism, ergo he wasn't Jewish. In faith, but not by blood.
The inspiration for his work was derived from Hegel, but this does nothing to address the composition of his ancestry, and that of Trotsky, or Kaganovich, or all the others Jews in power during the Bolshevik uprising/events thereafter. That was the original point Churchill was trying to make, pointing out the Jews pushing for these movements.
>Because people that don't give a fuck about jews and weren't raised as jews are apparently magically part of it.
That "it" is not dependent upon association...

... I cannot say to myself: I do not want to be Chinese/perceived to be Chinese, so I will no longer associate myself with Taoism, therefore I am no longer ethnically Chinese. That isn't how it works, I will still be Chinese, through and through.

dictionary.com/browse/jewishness
Very obviously a word in the English language. Just let me know if you have no argument and want to assume my identity so you can make genetic fallacies.

>Very obviously a word in the English language.

Potato is a word in the English language. That doesn't mean any word with potato in it is good English.

The sentence was "You know Jewishness is a race, right?"
In the context of the conversation, it means that the definition of being Jewish is not dependent upon religion, but on racial composition. So the quality of being a Jew, or Jewishness, is racial, not religious.

>Except for the fact that Marx was Jewish, the author of the Communist Manifesto.
Communism predates the communist manifesto. Again, you are objectively wrong but don't want to admit it.

>With respect to their global population, Jews were over-represented in early Communist revolts. The leader/founder of the Red Army was Lev Bronstein, or Trotsky.
Sure.

>Strawman, nowhere do I claim that he infuses his pen with a Jewish elixir or something.
>Association with your racial grouping does nothing to alter your genetic composition. He did not adhere to the tenets of Judaism, but he was still Jewish.
Not in any sense but genetic. This implies that your conspiracy is genetic, since it's the only thing they have in common.

>I claimed that Communism was founded, pushed for, and led (in its early stages in Eastern Europe, specifically Russia) by Jews.
That's an overstatement. On the other hand, i still want you to explain how is their jewishness relevant (aka how it is reflected in the ideology itself, or how it mattered to people that weren't jewish in any sense but genetic).

>The inspiration for his work was derived from Hegel, but this does nothing to address the composition of his ancestry
What is the relevance of his ancestry? How is it specifically reflected on his work? Did the ghosts of marx's ancestors wisper to his ears? How come everything in marx's philosophy was already written by non jews?

>That "it" is not dependent upon association...
So it is transmitted magically via genes, got it.

So because a concept has take inspiration from another concept, the date of its origin doesn't count? What a weak argument. We don't associate the theory of relativity with Aristotle merely because Einstein read of him and was inspired by him, they had nothing to do with the genesis of concepts they did not create. We say they inspired it, but not created it. I stated that Jews created it.
>Again, you are objectively wrong but don't want to admit it.
At least try and structure your argument logically, instead off displaying snark and having that be your "gotcha" point.
>Sure.
I mean, look it up yourself: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army
"Trotsky founded the Red Army with an initial Red Guard organization, and a core soldiery of Red Guard militiamen and Chekist secret police."
Literally all those figures I stated are hugely influential persons. From killing the royals, to managing the Army, to staging the revolt, leading it, and operating the killing squads.
>Not in any sense but genetic.
That is the point.
>This implies that your conspiracy is genetic, since it's the only thing they have in common.
That is still the point. They are genetic Jews, just as they could have been genetically Han Chinese. Also, putting conspiracy at the beginning of something does not constitute an argument. Can you disprove my claim beyond "sure" when I tell you that Lev Bronstein was the chair/founder of the Red Army? There is no "conspiracy" that he and many other figures were Jews, it is historical fact open for all to see.
>That's an overstatement
Not really, the author of the Communist Manifesto was Jewish. Therefore, the founder of Communism was Jewish.
>i still want you to explain how is their jewishness relevant
Because they were all Jews in a majority non-Jewish nation. The following years wouldn't end up so well, for those people who liked to eat food. Other than that, it is historical fact, one that you seem to be inclined to label as "conspiracy".

>What is the relevance of his ancestry?
We can say that he is Jewish because of it.
>How is it specifically reflected on his work?
It isn't, I am describing the ancestry of the author and the consequences of his creation.
>Did the ghosts of marx's ancestors wisper to his ears?
Strawman, I never claimed this.
>How come everything in marx's philosophy was already written by non jews?
So Communism was already founded before Marx? Can you give me a source on that? I guess the polio vaccine was founded by whoever Louis Pasteur, then.
>So it is transmitted magically via genes, got it.
Well, I continued the sentence, the ellipse was meant to signify that it wasn't finished. I guess if you like to take things out of context to artificially improve your narrative, that is telling of how intellectually honest you are.

>Karl Marx, Lev Bronstein, Ilya Ehrenberg, Lazar Kaganovich, Grigory Zinoviev, Nikolai Yezhov, Yakov Yurovsky, Adolf Joffe, George Blake, and Lev Kamenev were all Jews
kek, what a bizarre list. Philosophers, writers, random bolsheviks, directors of NKVD and spies.
I would say that Felix Dzerzhinsky was way more important than many people on your list, but he wasn't a Jew so it doesn't fit your narrative.

>Karl Marx
>not important to bolsheviks

>So because a concept has take inspiration from another concept, the date of its origin doesn't count?
No, because it already existed.

>I mean, look it up yourself
My "sure" wasn't ironic.

>That is the point.
>That is still the point.
Yes, your point is genetic transmission of a conspiracy.

>Not really, the author of the Communist Manifesto was Jewish. Therefore, the founder of Communism was Jewish.
Communism predates the communist manifesto.

>Because they were all Jews in a majority non-Jewish nation.
As always, vast overstatement.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Committee_elected_by_the_6th_Congress_of_the_Russian_Social_Democratic_Labour_Party_(Bolsheviks)

>The following years wouldn't end up so well, for those people who liked to eat food.
They wouldn't end so well for those "jews" either, since stalin massacred them. Jews must be pretty retarded to put an antisemite as the leader of their conspiracy by the way.

He was fluent in Yiddish, I'm sure he could talk to on behalf of the gentiles he executed.
The purpose of the thread was towards Jewish Bolshevism.
Ilya Ehrenberg was an important author, but not as important as Felix. Marx and Bronstein, and Lenin were just as, if not more important.
Lazar Kaganovich is responsible for the Holodomor: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazar_Kaganovich#Responsibility_for_1932.E2.80.9333_famine
"Kaganovich (together with Vyacheslav Molotov) participated with the All-Ukrainian Party Conference of 1930 and were given the task of implementation of the collectivization policy that caused a catastrophic 1932–33 famine (known as the Holodomor in Ukraine). He also personally oversaw grain confiscations during the same time periods."
Grigory Zinoviev is also important: Zinoviev is best remembered as the longtime head of the Communist International and the architect of several failed attempts to transform Germany into a communist country during the early 1920s.
Same with Nikolai Yezhov:
"He was head of the NKVD from 1936 to 1938, during the most deadly period of Stalin's Great Purge." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Yezhov
Yakov Yurovsky was responsible for the execution of the royals.
Adolf Joffe and George Blake were more low-profile, but Lev Kamenev was the brother-in-law of Trotsky, as well as one of the seven members of the first Politburo.

>No, because it already existed.
And who invented Communism? If not Marx, then who?
>My "sure" wasn't ironic.
So why did I have to spoonfeed you?
>Yes, your point is genetic transmission of a conspiracy.
Refusal to accept historical fact is not a conspiracy, it is a fallacy of personal incredulity. Strawman, I am not claiming genetic transmission, merely pointing out the genetic composition of many Communists.
>Communism predates the communist manifesto.
Who created Communism, then? Define Communism and discuss who the founder is.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Committee_elected_by_the_6th_Congress_of_the_Russian_Social_Democratic_Labour_Party_(Bolsheviks)
So six of the twenty were Jewish, excluding Lenin because I guess having a Jewish grandfather means nothing anymore. With Lenin, that's still 35% of the population. There were Jews at key positions who conducted nefarious actions/enacted sinister policies, too.
>They wouldn't end so well for those "jews" either, since stalin massacred them.
Woe is me.
>Jews must be pretty retarded to put an antisemite as the leader of their conspiracy by the way.
This is the most intellectually dishonest thing about your post. I can get the whole "communism has no real definition, according to my specific origins/definition", that's about as I am young, but to claim that it was "democratic" is pretty dumb. They didn't choose him, he literally killed off the candidates until it was just him.

>Who created Communism, then? Define Communism and discuss who the founder is.
>And who invented Communism? If not Marx, then who?
Communism arose independently in several periods. See the link at the beginning of the discussion. Also among utopian socialists and early anarcho communists.

>So why did I have to spoonfeed you?
?

>Strawman, I am not claiming genetic transmission, merely pointing out the genetic composition of many Communists.
So, why were many communists also genetically (but not culturally or religiously) jewish according to you?

>So six of the twenty were Jewish, excluding Lenin because I guess having a Jewish grandfather means nothing anymore. With Lenin, that's still 35% of the population. There were Jews at key positions who conducted nefarious actions/enacted sinister policies, too.
Lenin isn't jewish neither by jewish laws nor by nuremberg laws, nor was he remotely jewish in any sense. You are counting him to inflate your numbers. Jews were overrepresented among them indeed, as most oppressed minorities usually are, but not remotely to the degree that you are implying.

>There were Jews at key positions who conducted nefarious actions/enacted sinister policies, too.
Sure.

>Woe is me.
?

>This is the most intellectually dishonest thing about your post. I can get the whole "communism has no real definition, according to my specific origins/definition", that's about as I am young, but to claim that it was "democratic" is pretty dumb. They didn't choose him, he literally killed off the candidates until it was just him.
So stalin alone was able to raise to power in a party where "they were all Jews" (sic), against all of them. Quite the conspiracy they had going on.
Stalin allied himself with zinoniev and kamenev to oust trotsky btw. They must have forgotten who their co conspirator was.

>Communism arose independently in several periods.
That is not the same as founding the movement. The Communist Manifesto is the handbook for Communism, simply because people were primitive in the past does not equate to Marx's Communism. Communism, itself, is primitive, doesn't mean all primitive being operated under its umbrella. Marx popularized it, founded it as a major movement.
>So, why were many communists also genetically (but not culturally or religiously) jewish according to you?
That is not the point of this thread, the point was to note their Jewishness, not discuss why they were Jewish/why they existed. I don't know why so many were Jews, it seems they enjoy imposing emotionally appealing, yet infeasible, politics in foreign nations.
>Lenin isn't jewish neither by jewish laws nor by nuremberg laws, nor was he remotely jewish in any sense.
That's cool, but laws do not alter genetics, genetics define genetics. Nothing will ever change the fact that Lenin had a Jewish grandfather.
>nor was he remotely jewish in any sense
Except genetically.
>You are counting him to inflate your numbers.
So 1/4 Jew is not a Jew anymore. I am 1/4 Irish, I guess that disappears because....
>Jews were overrepresented among them indeed
Correct.
>as most oppressed minorities usually are
Prior to Stalin, how were Jews "oppressed" during the Bolshevik era? Seems like they were the ones doing the oppressing. I guess Anastasia was really oppressing those poor Jews, that's why she got murdered. What chance, all groups on Earth have oppressed one another at some point in time, but the most notable case for Jews in recent history was actually not true because it was the Jews who were actually being oppressed!
>So stalin alone was able to raise to power in a party where "they were all Jews"
Yes, he had a murderous spree, nothing could stop him.
>against all of them.
Strawman. they worked alongside one another, up until the power void.

>The Communist Manifesto is the handbook for Communism, simply because people were primitive in the past does not equate to Marx's Communism.
That is one ridiculous assertion if i've ever read one. The communist manifesto is a political pamphlet and is read as such. It's the most irrelevant of marx's works. Not really related to the discussion, but shows how little you know about what you are talking about.

>Marx popularized it, founded it as a major movement.
I'll take this as an admission that he didn't create it.

>I don't know why so many were Jews, it seems they enjoy imposing emotionally appealing, yet infeasible, politics in foreign nations.
Why do so much genetic, but not cultural or religious, jews enjoy those things? Again, this implies genetic transmission.

>That's cool, but laws do not alter genetics, genetics define genetics. Nothing will ever change the fact that Lenin had a Jewish grandfather.
>Except genetically.
>So 1/4 Jew is not a Jew anymore. I am 1/4 Irish, I guess that disappears because...
1/4 jew was never jew, neither by jewish nor by nazi standards. Again, you are just inflating your number, Lenin isn't a jewish by any standards. You'd be sperging if i applied the same standards for non-jews.

>Prior to Stalin, how were Jews "oppressed" during the Bolshevik era?
Prior to it. Pogroms and shit.

>What chance, all groups on Earth have oppressed one another at some point in time, but the most notable case for Jews in recent history was actually not true because it was the Jews who were actually being oppressed!
?

>they worked alongside one another
"They didn't choose him, he literally killed off the candidates until it was just him."
Stalin wasn't chosen democratically but raised to power with the help of other members, both jewish and non jewish. So i'll just quote my "intellectually dishonest" post:
>Jews must be pretty retarded to put an antisemite as the leader of their conspiracy by the way.

>The communist manifesto is a political pamphlet and is read as such.
That acted as foundation for the concept of Communism in the twentieth century.
>It's the most irrelevant of marx's works
Not really.
>As an adult, Marx became stateless and spent much of his life in London, England, where he continued to develop his thought in collaboration with German thinker Friedrich Engels and published various works, the most well-known being the 1848 pamphlet The Communist Manifesto. His work has since influenced subsequent intellectual, economic, and political history.
>Not really related to the discussion, but shows how little you know about what you are talking about.
You're right, it isn't related, it's just an ad-hom to artificially inflate your argument and mask the fact that you just claimed the Communist manifesto was irrelevant.
>I'll take this as an admission that he didn't create it.
You can craft men of straw and extrapolate whatever you please, does nothing to alter historical fact. Marx is the father of Communism, simply because symptoms of the concept predated him does nothing to alter the fact that he was the cause of it gaining traction because he coined everything about it, he created "Communism".
>Why do so much genetic, but not cultural or religious, jews enjoy those things?
Again, not the point of this thread.
>Again, this implies genetic transmission.
Confirmation bias implies many things when you want it to. Keep attacking straw men, though, I'm sure you'll get somewhere.
>1/4 jew was never jew, neither by jewish nor by nazi standards
Godwin's law is usually invoked when the person is losing the argument. We aren't discussing nazis, can you even stay on topic? I don't care what they had to say about anything, genetics is genetics, and having a Chinese grandfather makes you Chinese, it's as simple as that.
>Lenin isn't a jewish by any standards
Except for his Jewish ancestry.
>Prior to it. Pogroms and shit.
During the Bolshevik era.

Not hundreds of years in the past, but during the Bolshevik era. Why do you think pogroms existed, by the way? What was the purpose behind the oppression? Why?
>?
What a well thought out response.
>Stalin wasn't chosen democratically but raised to power with the help of other members, both jewish and non jewish.
Oh yeah, like Zinoviev and Kamenev, right? Let's read how his "allies" were treated:
"While Trotsky remained firm in his opposition to Stalin after his expulsion from the Party and subsequent exile, Zinoviev and Kamenev capitulated almost immediately and called on their supporters to follow suit. They wrote open letters acknowledging their mistakes and were readmitted to the Communist Party after a six-month cooling off period. They never regained their Central Committee seats, but they were given mid-level positions within the Soviet bureaucracy. Bukharin, then at the beginning of his short and ill-fated struggle with Stalin, courted Kamenev and, indirectly, Zinoviev during the summer of 1928. This was soon reported to Stalin and used against Bukharin as proof of his factionalism.

Zinoviev and Kamenev remained politically inactive until October 1932, when they were expelled from the Communist Party for failure to inform on oppositionist party members during the Ryutin Affair. After again admitting their supposed mistakes, they were readmitted to the Party in December 1933. They were forced to make self-flagellating speeches at the XVIIth Party Congress in January 1934, with Stalin parading his erstwhile political opponents, now defeated and outwardly contrite."
>Jews must be pretty retarded to put an antisemite as the leader of their conspiracy by the way.
"Conspiracy" poisons the well, removing any feasibility before the evidence is presented. Not an argument. Again, this is attacking a straw man I never made. They didn't "put" him in, that assumes a vote, some say in the matter. He got in because he was Stalin and ruled with an Iron Fist

>You're right, it isn't related, it's just an ad-hom to artificially inflate your argument and mask the fact that you just claimed the Communist manifesto was irrelevant.
It is. It's literally a political pamphlet. There's no theory inside it, it's a dumbed down political version of his important works. The quote says "his work" by the way, and calls the manifesto a pamphlet.

>he was the cause of it gaining traction
You moved the goalpost. This was not what was discussed, and is contrary to what you were trying to prove. I don't disagree with him helping communism gain traction.

>Again, not the point of this thread.
>Confirmation bias implies many things when you want it to. Keep attacking straw men, though, I'm sure you'll get somewhere.
It's not a straw man if it is the logical conclusion though. And you refuse to give me an alternative explanation because you know it is.

>Godwin's law is usually invoked when the person is losing the argument. We aren't discussing nazis, can you even stay on topic? I don't care what they had to say about anything, genetics is genetics, and having a Chinese grandfather makes you Chinese, it's as simple as that.
Nice non-argument. Your "anymore" implied that 1/4 jews were considered jewish at some point in time, but they weren't, even by the biggest antisemites in history. How come 3/4 russian doesn't make him russian btw?

>During the Bolshevik era.
I never said they were oppressed during the bolshevik era. They did get massacred by stalin though.

>Not hundreds of years in the past, but during the Bolshevik era.
See the answer before

>Oh yeah, like Zinoviev and Kamenev, right? Let's read how his "allies" were treated
I honestly don't see what your point is. You are quoting shit from after stalin got into power.

>"Conspiracy" poisons the well, removing any feasibility before the evidence is presented. Not an argument. Again, this is attacking a straw man I never made. They didn't "put" him in, that assumes a vote, some say in the matter. He got in because he was Stalin and ruled with an Iron Fist
>he got to rule because he ruled
Nice argument. Stalin got to power by allying himself with others, this revisionism is retarded.

>There's no theory inside it, it's a dumbed down political version of his important works. The quote says "his work" by the way, and calls the manifesto a pamphlet.
That's great, but you asserted that it was irrelevant, which it clearly is not. Maybe you like your works to be longer and have a vendetta against pamphlets, but that does not change Marx's creation of Communism as a mainstream movement.
>You moved the goalpost. This was not what was discussed, and is contrary to what you were trying to prove. I don't disagree with him helping communism gain traction.
Right after I asserted that he created Communism, right? I still stick by that statement, and this as consequence. Just because statelessness existed in the past doesn't mean Marx didn't create Communism.
For example: cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2007-08/communism-computing-china/
>Communism was an economic-political philosophy founded by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the second half of the 19th century. Marx and Engels met in 1844, and discovered that they had similar principles. In 1848 they wrote and published "The Communist Manifesto."
>It's not a straw man if it is the logical conclusion though.
You're asking a follow up question not related to the point of my thread. You are more than welcome to start your own thread regarding your personal queries, but this one is not dedicated to your derailments.
>And you refuse to give me an alternative explanation because you know it is.
Wow, I didn't know armchair psychology constituted an argument these days.
>Your "anymore" implied that 1/4 jews were considered jewish at some point in time, but they weren't, even by the biggest antisemites in history
Godwin's law again. You seem to have an affinity for derailment.
People have considered many things to be truth, when they actually weren't. There can be many laws on these topics, it does not make them truth. Jewish ancestry is equivalent to Jewish ancestry.

>How come 3/4 russian doesn't make him russian btw?
It does. I never claimed otherwise, you are putting words in my mouth to make it seem like you have an argument. It makes him Russian-Jewish if it is 3/4 and 1/4.
>I never said they were oppressed during the bolshevik era
I asked how they were oppressed during the Bolshevik era. They were the ones doing the oppressing during that time period.
>I honestly don't see what your point is. You are quoting shit from after stalin got into power.
I am not surprised. The point of the quote was to show how he treated his "allies".
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_Joseph_Stalin
>Lenin recommended Stalin's dismissal. However, after Lenin's death in 1924, Stalin suppressed documentation of Lenin's recommendation. Thereafter, Stalin politically isolated his major enemies, such as arch-rival Leon Trotsky, and had them dismissed from government altogether. This eventually led him to be the sole uncontested leader of the Party and the Soviet Union.
>he got to rule because he ruled
Straw man, that is not what I said. I said he conquered opposition, ruling over them with an Iron Fist.
He nicked off opposition one by one. Zinoviev's wikipedia is entitled: Submission to Stalin (1928–34)
Sure sounds like a legit "allegiance".

>That's great, but you asserted that it was irrelevant, which it clearly is not.
It is.

>For example
Do you expect me to take this seriously?
In any case, it's an appeal to authority (not even an authority, but whatever), i've already proved it predates the manifesto.

>You're asking a follow up question not related to the point of my thread. You are more than welcome to start your own thread regarding your personal queries, but this one is not dedicated to your derailments.
>Wow, I didn't know armchair psychology constituted an argument these days.
It's what you argument logically implies. Feel free to refute that if i'm wrong.

>People have considered many things to be truth, when they actually weren't. There can be many laws on these topics, it does not make them truth. Jewish ancestry is equivalent to Jewish ancestry.
Cool, but your "anymore" implied something that wasn't true. And your logic is self refuting since the same argument can be made to prove lenin's non-jewishness. Russian ancestry is equivalent to russian ancestry.

>It does. I never claimed otherwise, you are putting words in my mouth to make it seem like you have an argument. It makes him Russian-Jewish if it is 3/4 and 1/4.
So the percentages you use to calculate the amount of jews are arbitrary, since he's both in the category of jew and non-jew.

>I asked how they were oppressed during the Bolshevik era. They were the ones doing the oppressing during that time period.
When did i say they were? Unless you mean getting killed by stalin.

>I am not surprised. The point of the quote was to show how he treated his "allies".
How he treated his allies after he got into power is irrelevant in a discussion on his rise to power.

>Lenin recommended Stalin's dismissal. However, after Lenin's death in 1924, Stalin suppressed documentation of Lenin's recommendation. Thereafter, Stalin politically isolated his major enemies, such as arch-rival Leon Trotsky, and had them dismissed from government altogether. This eventually led him to be the sole uncontested leader of the Party and the Soviet Union.
What is your point? He isolated trotsky by allying himself with other members, which is what i said.

>It is.
The Communist Manifesto is not irrelevant. It is what Marx is most well-known for.
>Do you expect me to take this seriously?
Well, you disagree with genetic ancestry when it shows people are Jews, so no.
>In any case, it's an appeal to authority (not even an authority, but whatever)
So how can it be an appeal to authority? Here, this does a better job at explaining it: britannica.com/topic/communism
>Cool, but your "anymore" implied something that wasn't true.
I said: So 1/4 Jew is not a Jew anymore.
That was sarcasm. I am imitating you, in case you didn't get that.
>And your logic is self refuting since the same argument can be made to prove lenin's non-jewishness.
If somebody doesn't have Jewish ancestry, yes. But 1/4 is still 1/4, Jewish ancestry is still Jewish ancestry.
>Russian ancestry is equivalent to russian ancestry.
Russian-Jewish ancestry is still Russian-Jewish ancestry. He is still Jewish, sorry to tell you.

>The Communist Manifesto is not irrelevant. It is what Marx is most well-known for.
Not among communists. Feel free to go to any leftist forum/leftypol or even here and ask if the communist manifesto is irrelevant or not.

>Here, this does a better job at explaining it: britannica.com/topic/communism
Even your source mentions authors that predate marx, like godwin:
britannica.com/topic/communism/Non-Marxian-communism
But yes, it is an appeal to authority since you are avoiding refuting what i said previously by claiming X says something else, even though said X doesn't address the point i made.

>That was sarcasm.
"So 1/4 Jew is not a Jew anymore." implies that 1/4 jew was considered a jew at some point.

>So the percentages you use to calculate the amount of jews are arbitrary, since he's both in the category of jew and non-jew.
Extending your logic, he is also not Russian either, because he is both non-Russian and Russian at the same time. Genetics is easy!
In reality, a rational person will see the case and say that he is both of Jewish and of Russian descent. Just as a half Chinese, half British person is of Chinese and of British descent/ancestry.
>When did i say they were?
I'm saying they did the oppressing.
>Unless you mean getting killed by stalin.
Woe is me, the mass murderers getting killed by mass murderers.
>How he treated his allies after he got into power is irrelevant in a discussion aon his rise to power.
What allies? That infers mutualism. They literally submitted to him. They knew what he would do if they opposed him and he got to power, and he did it to them anyways with his mock trials. Allies means that they worked together, both benefiting, that is not the case. They submitted to him to prop him up out of fear of what he would do to them, and rightfully so.
It is actually best described as a triumvirate, which is defined as: The arrangement can be formal or informal, and though the three are usually equal on paper, in reality this is rarely the case.

Neo nazis are notorious liars

Do you have a trustworthy source fot that article?

>Not among communists. Feel free to go to any leftist forum/leftypol or even here and ask if the communist manifesto is irrelevant or not.
That is excellent, but I don't care what their opinion is on a document, that does nothing to alter the fact that it is the most well-attributed document to Marx's name, whether they agree with its validity as a document or not. In fact, their alleged opposition to the document bolsters its relevancy even more, there is no such thing as bad press. Hating something just pushes it into the limelight that much more.
>britannica.com/topic/communism/Non-Marxian-communism
Was it defined as Communism, did somebody before him create it? If not, then it is correct to state that Marx created Communism.
>But yes, it is an appeal to authority since you are avoiding refuting what i said previously by claiming X says something else, even though said X doesn't address the point i made.
Both sources discuss how Marx created Communism. I am not relying upon their authority to bolster their argument, I am relying on your patience to read through their argument, which is what I am stating.
"X" does relate to the point. You say Marx did not create Communism, I show you something that argues that he did.
>"So 1/4 Jew is not a Jew anymore." implies that 1/4 jew was considered a jew at some point.
That was sarcasm. It is like saying "wow, so I guess this isn't something that it obviously is anymore, el oh el". 1/4 Jew IS considered Jew, because it is literally Jewish ancestry.

>Extending your logic, he is also not Russian either, because he is both non-Russian and Russian at the same time. Genetics is easy!
Ehh no, i'd consider him russian. What percentage of ancestry is necessary to consider someone of some ethnicity is arbitrary anyway. Would an 1/8 jewish be jewish, an 1/16, a 1/512?

>In reality, a rational person will see the case and say that he is both of Jewish and of Russian descent.
Making the percentages you presented arbitrary.

>I'm saying they did the oppressing.
You mean the bolsheviks, the jews, the bolshevik jews or what? If the first, i agree. If the second, you're arbitrarily excluding non-jews. If the third, you're arbitrarily including non-bolsheviks.

>What allies? That infers mutualism. They literally submitted to him. They knew what he would do if they opposed him and he got to power, and he did it to them anyways with his mock trials.
Are you retarded? The political alliances after lenin's death weren't determined by the fear of stalin's purges from a decade later. This backward causality mental juggling is pretty impressive. They allied with stalin because they agreed with his more gradualist economic plans.

>That is excellent, but I don't care what their opinion is on a document, that does nothing to alter the fact that it is the most well-attributed document to Marx's name, whether they agree with its validity as a document or not.
It is certainly not used as "the handbook for Communism" by communists, which is the claim that started this part of the discussion. Your statement is ridiculous.

>Was it defined as Communism, did somebody before him create it? If not, then it is correct to state that Marx created Communism.
Retarded argument. The word predates marx, yes (its origins are not clearly known though), but it wouldn't mean anything if marx had just invented the word anyway. Nice try though.

>"X" does relate to the point. You say Marx did not create Communism, I show you something that argues that he did.
The page has a section for marxist communism and non-marxist communism. If you are arguing that marx invented communism you are objectively wrong. If you are arguing that marx invented marxist communism, then congratulations.

>i'd consider him russian.
You can consider him many things if you wish, nothing is stopping you.
>What percentage of ancestry is necessary to consider someone of some ethnicity is arbitrary anyway. Would an 1/8 jewish be jewish, an 1/16, a 1/512?
It is exponential, you just answered yourself. It becomes irrelevant after great-grandparents, in my opinion. I'm sure there are scholarly articles... I mean, appeals to authority which discuss this further. Perhaps when genetic diseases certain ethnic groups posses become irrelevant? Not sure. But it isn't at 25%.
>Making the percentages you presented arbitrary.
Well, it isn't right down the centre, 50%, 25% every time, that's just for convenience.
You're half British, half Jewish. What now? Do they cancel out because they are both equally important? Or do we just claim that you are a Jewish Brit? Extend that same logic to...well, other ancestry.
>You mean the bolsheviks, the jews, the bolshevik jews or what?
The Jewish Bolsheviks, like the Wolf of Kremlin. It isn't arbitrary if that was the entire point of discussion. How convenient of you to come into my thread and redefine what the original thesis is to arbitrarily inflate your argument.
>Are you retarded?
Ad-homs aren't arguments, sorry.
>The political alliances after lenin's death weren't determined by the fear of stalin's purges from a decade later.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_leaders_of_the_Soviet_Union#List_of_troikas
>When Vladimir Lenin suffered his first stroke a Troika was established to govern the country in his place. The Troika consisted of Lev Kamenev, Joseph Stalin, and Grigory Zinoviev. The Troika was dissolved when Kamenev and Zinoviev decided to break with Stalin in 1925 and joined the faction led by Leon Trotsky. Later, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Trotsky would be murdered at Stalin's orders.
>Triumvirate: The arrangement can be formal or informal, and though the three are usually equal on paper, in reality this is rarely the case.

>all this arguing about what is/is not "jewishness."

For fuck's sake. Drop it. The OP is two quotes by Churchill on Jews.

Churchill was a known dipshit. Here, we see him spouting memes about Jews.

>a fucking Anglo... A. Fucking. Anglo. discussing the ways in which another group of people are engaging in a "world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society..."

What a fat, faggoty hypocrite.

>Well, it isn't right down the centre, 50%, 25% every time, that's just for convenience. You're half British, half Jewish. What now? Do they cancel out because they are both equally important? Or do we just claim that you are a Jewish Brit? Extend that same logic to...well, other ancestry.
If i wanted to be intellectually honest i would count a 25% X 75% Y person as either completely Y or as proportional to the percentages. Of course given Lenin's background i would have not doubt in choosing the first option.

>The Jewish Bolsheviks, like the Wolf of Kremlin. It isn't arbitrary if that was the entire point of discussion. How convenient of you to come into my thread and redefine what the original thesis is to arbitrarily inflate your argument.
How is in not arbitrary?

>Ad-homs aren't arguments, sorry.
Are you seriously arguing that zinoviev and kamenev joined stalin because they feared purges that would happen 10 years later? Are these magical jews capable of seeing the future? They joined stalin because they agreed with him, and they "submitted" later to him once he obtained the power.

>This backward causality mental juggling is pretty impressive
Not an argument.
>They allied with stalin because they agreed with his more gradualist economic plans.
Source?

>It is certainly not used as "the handbook for Communism" by communists
Well, you claim that it is a pamphlet (this is bad somehow), but it literally is one of the most influential pieces of text in the nineteenth century. I'm going to guess that its influence came from people using it as guidance, as a handbook/guide to their lives.
>he word predates marx, yes (its origins are not clearly known though)
>(its origins are not clearly known though)
Who used the phrase Communism prior to Marx? I state that Marx created Communism. Just because symptoms exist before creation does not negate the creation. Aristotle studied zoology and categorized many things, does this negate Linnaeus' creations? Aristotle did it before him. Just because some concept of statelessness and collectivization existed before Marx does not mean that he did not create Communism. Communism is defined as: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
>marxist communism and non-marxist communism
So a Communism prior to Marx? I am interested, please prove me wrong and show me the official creation of Communism prior to Marx. You know, to substantiate empty claims like "If you are arguing that marx invented communism you are objectively wrong". You could source something besides the history of Communism, which, interestingly enough, also proves you wrong.

>focusing on Jews rather than the bourgeoisie

Churchill confirmed for /pol/ rather than Veeky Forums

Proportional to the percentages means that Lenin is Russian-Jewish. He still has Jewish ancestry, just as he has Russian ancestry. That is what I have been saying this entire time, but you are inclined to disavow 25% of his ancestry because you don't want to associate that part of his ancestry with him, Lenin.
>How is in not arbitrary?
It isn't arbitrary because the point of the thread I created was centred around Jewish Bolsheviks.
>Are you seriously arguing that zinoviev and kamenev joined stalin because they feared purges that would happen 10 years later?
Nope, that's the straw man you are attacking, but it is retrospectively correct. I even said "and rightfully so", that is retrospectively speaking. It was a triumvirate, like I have stated three times now. Stalin had the most sway, the most influence. Allies all benefit, Zinoviev and Kamenev both lost, dearly. Allies aren't stepping stones, he manipulated them.
>Are these magical jews capable of seeing the future?
Not an argument.
>They joined stalin because they agreed with him, and they "submitted" later to him once he obtained the power.
And why did they "submit" so easily? Could it have been that it was more of a triumvirate than a beneficial alliance? As far as I know, allies don't kill one another once their goal is accomplished. He used them as stepping stones, nothing more. He was a master of manipulation, he got Trotsky to be absent from Lenin's funeral to create dissent against him.
You are sounding increasingly like Zinoviev. "We agreed with him, yeah that's it. Nah, I'm sure when this all rolls over it will be sunshine and roses". They could have had a claim to leadership, too. It was a four-way competition at its core, but two of them bitched out and acted as stepping stones for Stalin over Trotsky.

>this entire post
lmgtfy.com/?q=when was the word communism first used
lmgtfy.com/?q=etymology communism

>Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin disagreed over how to develop the Soviet economy after the World War and the Civil War. Trotsky, supported by left-wing members of the Communist Party, believed that socialism in Russia would only survive if the state controlled the allocation of all output. Trotsky believed that the state should repossess all output to invest in capital formation. On the other hand, Stalin supported the more conservative members of the Communist Party and advocated for a state-run capitalist economy. Stalin managed to wrestle control of the Communist Party from Trotsky. After defeating the Trotsky faction, Stalin reversed his opinions about economic policy and implemented the First Five-Year Plan.

>en.wiktionary.org/wiki/communism#Etymology
>A calque of the German word Kommunismus (from Marx and Engels's Manifesto of the German Communist Party), in turn a calque of the French word communisme, which was formed from commun (“common”), from Latin communis, and the suffix -isme (“-ism”).

my man, that isn't a source. Oh, and sources are now appeals to authority, that doesn't address what I was saying. Only fair to extend your "logic" to yourself, right?

>Proportional to the percentages means that Lenin is Russian-Jewish. He still has Jewish ancestry, just as he has Russian ancestry. That is what I have been saying this entire time, but you are inclined to disavow 25% of his ancestry because you don't want to associate that part of his ancestry with him, Lenin.
No, you were counting him as a jew in . Even then, and given his background, i don't consider him jewish at all.

>It isn't arbitrary because the point of the thread I created was centred around Jewish Bolsheviks.
That's not really an argument, user.

>And why did they "submit" so easily?
They didn't submit "so easily", he had attained power over them when they did.

>A calque of the German word Kommunismus (from Marx and Engels's Manifesto of the German Communist Party), in turn a calque of the French word communisme, which was formed from commun (“common”), from Latin communis, and the suffix -isme (“-ism”).
Lel, i was sure that you were going to do this. First, other pages mention previous uses of the word, and second, that already implies that the word existed. You are really fucking dishonest.

>Even then, and given his background, i don't consider him jewish at all.
Cool. Your grandfather was Irish, you aren't ancestrally Irish? You can consider whatever you wish, that is not the reality of the situation.
>That's not really an argument, user.
It is defining the parameters of the original discussion. It is prohibiting deviation, which is what you want to do. You can start your own thread and ask why they existed as they did, I don't care. I care about their Jewishness.
>They didn't submit "so easily", he had attained power over them when they did.
Why did they act as stepping stones for his power? He had power over them during this time?
>Lel, i was sure that you were going to do this. First, other pages mention previous uses of the word, and second, that already implies that the word existed. You are really fucking dishonest.
The Communist Party was the first time it was mentioned as a political movement. That is the entire basis behind my point, to show that Marx created Communism. The phrase was never used as a banner until Marx created the fabric for it. Show me one political philosopher prior to Marx who did what he did, and I will agree with you that he invented Communism.

Also
>You are really fucking dishonest.
mmm, what a cool argument you have there.
Surely, the side of reason and logic argues in this manner!

>Cool. Your grandfather was Irish, you aren't ancestrally Irish? You can consider whatever you wish, that is not the reality of the situation.
Already answered.

>It is defining the parameters of the original discussion. It is prohibiting deviation, which is what you want to do. You can start your own thread and ask why they existed as they did, I don't care. I care about their Jewishness.
"It's not arbitrary because i set the thread specifically to be arbitrary" is not an argument. Unless you are admitting that it is and that that's your objective.

>Why did they act as stepping stones for his power? He had power over them during this time?
They allied with him, then broke up and stalin allied himself with bukharin. They didn't purposefully act as stepping stones.

>The Communist Party was the first time it was mentioned as a political movement.
Nope. Goodwyn Barmby. Probably others too. The discussion is absolutely retarded anyway, the word itself is irrelevant.

>calling you dishonest while being dishonest means you are on the side of "reason and logic"
Sure thing m8.

>already
Cool. I'm Irish, though, because grandparents are genetically related to me, and don't disappear when it becomes disadvantageous for them to exist.
>not an argument
It is meant to define terms and direction, it isn't meant to be an argument. When discussing the Jewishness of many Bolsheviks, that doesn't include WHY they existed for them to be Jewish. That is another thread. Go make your own.
>they didn't purposefully act
But why did they act like the wind under his wings to allow him supreme power? genuine question
>Goodwyn
Source? 'Probably others too' also needs a source. If that's true, then they invented Communism.
>irrelevant
It very much isn't, it is the formal introduction of the definition of the ideas that (maybe Goodwyn until source) Marx spearheaded.
>sure thing m8
Saying somebody is dishonest isn't an argument. You didn't source your claims, I don't just whine about dishonesty and leave. That's not an argument.

Oh, and I almost forgot one of the most important pieces of the puzzle: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff
>Schiff was born in 1847 in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, to Moses and Clara (née Niederhofheim) Schiff, members of a distinguished Ashkenazi Jewish rabbinical family that traced its lineage in Frankfurt back to 1370. His father, Moses Schiff, was a broker for the Rothschilds.
Jews also funded the revolution. Without him, most likely none of this would have been possible!

>It is meant to define terms and direction, it isn't meant to be an argument. When discussing the Jewishness of many Bolsheviks, that doesn't include WHY they existed for them to be Jewish.
I'm interested in why you chose such an arbitrary category.

>But why did they act like the wind under his wings to allow him supreme power? genuine question
Obviously up to interpretation, but they seemed to agree with him and didn't expect him to become what he became. And they were probably right in supporting the right wing's NEP over the collectivization of trotsky and late stalin, which was a disaster. In any case, they didn't give a fuck about others being or not jewish when deciding to form alliances or the very real possibility of an ally becoming the leader.

>Source?
Do i need to feed you everything? Can't you google?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Goodwyn_Barmby
But as said, and as the wikipedia article says, the word was probably used since before.
There's a shit ton more info if you fucking use the lmgtfy links above. Of course, you only seem to research as far as something that claims what you care about comes along.

>It very much isn't, it is the formal introduction of the definition of the ideas that (maybe Goodwyn until source) Marx spearheaded.
Don't be retarded, the word used to define an idea doesn't create the idea itself. The idea of communism has existed for a shit ton of time in a shit ton of societies. Do you really believe how it's called is relevant or are you arguing for the sake of winning the argument?

>Saying somebody is dishonest isn't an argument. You didn't source your claims, I don't just whine about dishonesty and leave. That's not an argument.
You were cherrypicking, therefore you're dishonest.

>interested
Still not related to the original topic. The purpose is befaus I am interested in the quote by Churchill.
>NEP
Isn't this also speaking retrospectively, the same way you criticized me?
Do as I say, not as I do, right?
>they didn't give a fuck
Yup, they didn't.
>spoon feed
Google it isn't an argument. You source your claims or you don't.
It seems Marx was not the first to explicitly use the word Communism, so he did not create the movement. Marx used an already created term and propelled the phrase into the mainstream beyond anything anybody had ever seen.
>the word..define
You just sourced it as otherwise. Up until then, it was a series of associated ideas not united under a banner. Marx did not make the banner, but he waved it to catch the attention of more people than anybody before him.
>many societies previously communist
But not properly defined as such. They are associated, but not outright defined as such. Currency predates the concept of capitalism, but people exchanged currency for goods/services long before the definition. But it was not explicitly defined as capitalism, so we can't call it equivalent to capitalism. They are its primitive origins, however.

>Still not related to the original topic. The purpose is befaus I am interested in the quote by Churchill.
May i suggest that perhaps the arbitrary category you chose for your thread is politically motivated, dear thread moderator? Just trying to figure out the point of the thread, see.

>Isn't this also speaking retrospectively, the same way you criticized me?
? The NEP was instituted before lenin's death. How is it retrospective when discussing the motivations behind alliances after lenin's death?
You've been trying to have some gotcha moment with your "do as I say, not as I do" all over the thread and end up just making shit up constantly, stop it. You also show you don't know shit about what you are talking about, again.

>It seems Marx was not the first to explicitly use the word Communism, so he did not create the movement. Marx used an already created term and propelled the phrase into the mainstream beyond anything anybody had ever seen.
Jesus christ, finally.

>You just sourced it as otherwise. Up until then, it was a series of associated ideas not united under a banner. Marx did not make the banner, but he waved it to catch the attention of more people than anybody before him.
>But not properly defined as such.
The same set of ideas existed without the explicit name, the word communism is irrelevant. But i won't get into another endless and pointless linguistic discussion, i'll take your preceding concession.

>May i suggest that perhaps the arbitrary category you chose for your thread is politically motivated, dear thread moderator?
Suggest anything you want. I prefer Solzhenitsyn's deliberately buried truth. I guess you can never say anything bad about Jews. But again, that is besides the point. The issue is not why 2+2=4, but that two and two add to create four. The equation existed and I made a thread about it.
>The NEP was instituted before lenin's death.
Nah, that wasn't my critique and you know it. I said: Isn't this also speaking retrospectively, the same way you criticized me?
In reference to the retrospective statement: And they were probably right in supporting the right wing's NEP over the collectivization of trotsky and late stalin, which was a disaster.
"which was a disaster" is retrospective. You shit on me for that earlier, yet you are allowed to do it here? Holier-than-thou is not an argument.
>stop it. You also show you don't know shit about what you are talking about, again.
Not an argument.
>Jesus christ, finally.
All you had to do was prove it, which you did. Marxist Communism is the most colloquial association with Communism, but the phrase was used prior to his work. His off-shoot is the most widely referred to "flavour", however.
>The same set of ideas existed without the explicit name, the word communism is irrelevant.
So the definition, the final conclusion of the concepts under one banner, is irrelevant? It very much is relevant, otherwise you wouldn't have sourced somebody using the phrase before Marx. It is relevant when discussing the Jewish role in Communism. And Marx, a Jew, was pivotal in creating his own specific "flavour" of Communism (which had predated him) that has become the most relevant form of Communism today.

>You shit on me for that earlier, yet you are allowed to do it here?
No, i shit on you for saying that they joined him because "they knew what he would do if they opposed him and he got to power, and he did it to them anyways with his mock trials" as if they made the choice by predicting the future purges. The debates surrounding the NEP and collectivization are well known. Obviously, claiming that they were right is my personal opinion based on how history followed, but the motivations i ascribe to them don't break causality.

My statements were retrispective in nature, as I followed them up with 'and rightfully so', indicating my concession to the fact that I am looking back with 20/20 vision.
You did the same thing by stating: over the collectivization of trotsky and late stalin, which was a disaster.
This information is asseted using the same 20/20 vision I abused, but you don't want to admit it.
Funny how I am the stubborn one for not ceding Marx and Communism (even though I fully admit I did not have all the information), but you refuse to admit Lenin is of Jewish amcestry, or that you are not holier-than-thou.
I guess logical INconsistency is key.