Bob, you said that it is not OK to hate Jews because of their faith (which they can choose) but because of the lizard-like brains of their insane leaders (from their genetics, which they cannot choose).

Therefore it is not too great a leap of faith to say that you are advocating hate of people by genetics, not action.

Which would make a racist.

Rick Reuben wrote:

big_dave wrote:Bob, you said that it is not OK to hate Jews because of their faith (which they cannot choose) but because of the lizard-like brains of their insane leaders.

You have sunk to a new low, troll. Bring quotes, with the links.

All from the "Question for Rick Reuben" thread:

You repeatedly used the term:

Bloodlines

I don't know what that could mean rather than racial genetics. Use of the term 'bloodline' on its own is racist enough to warrant a firm smack in the mouth as far as I am concerned.

Maybe you should start considering the possibility that there is something genetically aberrant about some of these people.

I'm very clear when I speak about Jews. The Rothschild empire started from a Jewish family... I call them scum of the earth whenever I feel the urge.

Zionism is a psychotically violent Jewish supremacist cult that promotes genocide

. If there is any validity to the 'Satanic bloodlines' theories, then it's likely that actual descendents of crossbreeding between humans and 'fallen angels' make up a very thin percentage of those involved in elite control.

Finally you state that there is a genetic reason to keep the "elite" or "luciferian" bloodline aside from the "normal" blood line.

There is nothing controversial about the study of genetic aberrations. Genetic aberrations are believed responsible for many diseases, like cancer. They're a reality. My reference to genetic aberrants was specifically to the amygdala, or the 'lizard brain'. We all have them. Maybe some bloodlines have different amygdalae. It's a really interesting subject.

The Wonderful Jewish Elites Have Lizard Brains Post, Presented Here For The Enjoyment of All

I don't have to quote you as saying that it is wrong to hate Jews because of the Hebrew faith and language, because you have said this over and over. One of the few decent things that you have repeated ad naseam.

This post took me 12 minutes exactly. Enough to have ruined at least 12 of your puny hours, perhaps? You may start your drafting now.

Rick Reuben wrote:Keep reading what you think you find in my posts. Your insanity is my entertainment.

Mr Pot and Mr Kettle to thread, please ...

Rick Reuben wrote:If there is any validity[/b] to the 'Satanic bloodlines' theories, then it's likely that actual descendents of crossbreeding between humans and 'fallen angels' make up a very thin percentage of those involved in elite control.

Bob, you can't seriously be pinning a flag on this one? Simple answer, yes or no please.

See if you can avoid avoiding the question by attacking me, dare ya!

Rick Reuben wrote:Bloodlines *are* genetics, troll.

Yes. Of course, this was my point. Therefore the possibility that someone's racial/family genetics makes them more predisposed to crime is inescapably racist. Which was my point also. The whole concept of "bloodlines" is fascist pseudo-science, I wish there was someone there to deliver a smack in your lonely ole gob whenever you use the term.

Even you pad the notion out with "maybe" and "small percentage" qualifiers, you are still in the territory of racism and eugenics. We both know exactly what you mean, independent of the qualifiers.

It doesn't matter how small a percentage of people you think this race is, or how improbable it is that someone is a member, if you think that they are worse people or socially destructive merely because of their family genetics then you are a racist.

Also remember that all the comments I quoted were made specifically about wealthy Jewish families. Who are descended from "fallen angels".

Apparently.

Everyone knows that the elites breed very carefully, controlling the bloodlines of their descendents. That's not conspiracy theory.

Laugh out fucking loud.

Rick Reuben wrote:

big dave wrote:Therefore the possibility that someone's racial/family genetics makes them more predisposed to crime is inescapably racist.

Why? Can someone's bloodline make them more likely to have sickle cell anemia? Or Grave's disease? Glaucoma? Clogged arteries? What about sociopathy? There's no chance that sociopathic tendencies are concentrated in genes? You've heard of hereditary heart conditions, right? Passed on from parents.

I just heard that someone saved a bunch of the racehorse Barbaro's sperm. They're going to sell it. I wonder who would buy it? Whoever heard of a racehorse's speed being passed on to his descendents genetically? It's preposterous, according to Gramsci and big_troll.

I thought it was all about choices Rick, but now you are saying that propensity to good and bad is all about genetic determinism.

Which is it?

And if it is deterministic, how can we hold the Jews to account? If they only become Elite because of a genetic predisposition to hoard an accumulate wealth?

Rick Reuben wrote:

Cranius wrote:And if it is deterministic, how can we hold the Jews to account?

I don't hold the Jews to account, you idiot. That's you and your babbling gang of crybabies saying that. The elites are all shapes and sizes, faiths, colors. There are certainly extremely wealthy elite Jews, and they must take blame for the ills of society along with all other elites, and not throw accusations of anti-semitism at their critics. You can't even admit that there are elites, so you are totally disqualified from discussing who is part of the elites. Either you're totally clueless about the power structure and possibly brain damaged, or you think you will gain personal wealth from new world order success, so you betray your fellow humans by shilling for their globalist agenda.

But you and your fellow libertarians are always crowing about the individual and the importance of individual choice (especially when it comes to moralising about the 'lifestyles' of others). Yet you are theorising about the influence of 'bloodlines' on determining how a person behaves. Your argument is falling between two stools here. On the one hand it seems strictly determined, on the other it is a matter of free will.

Which is it?

But which way is it Rick? It is genetically determined or a question of free will?

Rick Reuben wrote:

Cranius wrote:But which way is it Rick? It is genetically determined or a question of free will?

Which way is it about whom? Who are we talking about?

The elite bloodlines that you are theorizing about on this page, in this and several other threads. What else would we be talking about? Anyone who has followed the thread can see that.

I'm asking the question of you, as you are the one that believes it.

Are they the result of genetic determination or the free choices of individuals?

It's your elites/bloodlines theory, not mine. I don't believe in it, so why should I illustrate it for you?

The question still stands though Rick, which is it to be: genetics or free will?