Full Thread: The Rules
View Single Post
Old August 16th, 2010 #41
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Originally Posted by andy View Post
I suspect the rule originally came about to deter the many Americans and others in "the movement" who have never knowingly met a single jew.It is quite common in "the movement" to label anyone you do not agree with as a jew.For example a moron friend of yours on the UK section claimed I posted like a nigger and was immediately amen ed by another of your buddies.
Now I maintain that collett has the classic physical features of a sephardic jew,further he has the nature and the behaviour of a typical yid.To my experienced eye and i use that term in the context of regularly dealing with and observing jews up close and personal unlike "the movement" generally and VNN UK in particular.
So far so good. As long as you label it your opinion, I have no problem.

But the fact is, you have no actual evidence that he is a jew.

In a populist context the crypto jew collett is as an obvious example physically of jew as the self acknowledged jew David Beckham is not an obvious example physically of a jew.
This violates the rule. Calling him a crypto jew is calling him a jew. You have not produced one bit of evidence that he is a jew. Your opinion is not evidence. You could say, Karl Marx was a jew. He was baptized into some kind of protestantism, but he came from a long line of rabbis, and his father converted for social reasons. That's proof, if it's true, as it is, and it justifies calling him a jew. But you have provided no similiar evidence for Collett. So you have no basis for calling him a jew, at least not here where it's against the rules.

My understanding of the rule at VNN and other US forums is to deter your comrades from labelling anyone from Pierce via covington to Duke as a jew simply because they do not recognise that 3 kikes in a basement are running the world.Come to think of it thats exactly what Duke thinks,ah well
The bottom line here is that you have precisely zero proof that Collett is a jew. You have only your opinion, which is presented as evidence, and which others are expected to take on your authority. Which is precisely what the rule is designed to prevent. The rule is don't call anyone a jew unless you can prove they actually are a jew.

Do you even understand that whether or not someone is a jew is a matter of fact, not opinion?

Do you understand the difference between opinion and evidence?

I don't care if you speculate about who might be a jew, but if you call Collett a jew one more time, I'm going to ban you. You can only call him a jew if you can prove he's a jew, and you can't. I'm not sure you even realize that there is a difference between opinion and evidence.

The amount of faith you people have in your own opinions is astonishing given how little they're based on.

You who think you're expert jew spotters would be troubled to pinpoint a kike in a Last Supper painting, i have my suspicion.