"Jews or Jewish refers to a religion you were Jewish, even in the Old Testement, because you adhered to the God and religious tenets of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."
Actually, I believe it can refer to both ethnicity and/or relgion.
Jews or Jewish refers to a religion you were Jewish, even in the Old Testement, because you adhered to the God and religious tenets of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
I kindly disagree Mo. And so would millions of "Jews". -- "Jew" or "Jewish" generally refers to a race/ethnicity of people . "Judaism" refers to the religion.
To keep discussing DNA has as much value on this topic as declaring that
Christians who come from Africa aren't really Christians because Christians are Protestants whose ancestry comes from the British Isles.
Judaism has it roots within a particular ethnic group. Christianity does not - so your example doesn't apply too well.
In light of what I just shared, DNA is quite relevant to this topic.
I find it rather interesting that you want us to first read your article and deal with the points that it brings up, and yet you summerily dismiss, out of hand, the points (and links) that we bring up supporting that the Holocaust actually occured, not the least of which is the reasoning why the Holocaust is brought up time and again: so something like that never happens again! Thus the so-called 'flood' of specials, articles, and so on. (Which should answer that question that you claim hasn't been answered yet. Ehh, its been answered alright. You just don't want to deal with it.)
This smear is highly typical of detractors who want to push their one-sided Holocost theory. Moreover, it is a smear that is completely at variance with the facts. Even the IHR (Institute for Historical Review) does not deny the Holocost. Every responsible scholar of twentieth century history acknowledges the great catastrophe that befell European Jewry during World War II.
The IHR has devoted considerable attention to this issue mainly because it plays an enormously significant role in the cultural and political life of America and much of the world. As a number of Jewish scholars have acknowledged, the “Holocaust” campaign is a major weapon in the Jewish-Zionist arsenal. It is used to justify otherwise unjustifiable Israeli policies, and to extort enormous sums of money, especially from European countries and companies. Even a few courageous Jewish writers have spoken out against what they call the “Holocaust cult,” the Holocaust “racket,” “Holocaustomania,” and the “Holocaust industry.”
If the skeptical (or revisionist) view of the Holocaust was really as simplistic and indefensible as some insist, it would not have gained the support of university professors such as Arthur Butz and Robert Faurisson, historians such as Roger Garaudy, David Irving and Harry Elmer Barnes, former concentration camp inmates such as Paul Rassinier, and American gas chamber specialist Fred Leuchter. These individuals did not decide to publicly reject the orthodox Holocaust story — thereby risking public censure, and worse — because they are fools, or because their motives are evil, but rather on the basis of a thoughtful evaluation of the evidence.
You don't want to deal with said specials, articles, and so on? Fine. Don't read/see them. Don't want to deal with a 'day of remembrance'? Fine. Don't go. Nobody's making you, and your rights have not been violated one iota. Hell, how many times have non-believers in the Christian religion have to put up with Christmas (the religious Jesus Christ based variaty) over and over again, year after year, ... and yet I know that you have no problem with not only society continuing it, but folks like you even want government supported Christmas, with publically funded displays and all. If the Holocaust (which doesn't even deal with religious specific incidents) even gets a quarter of that kind of public attention, you have a hissy fit and act as tho' "The Jews are taking over! The Jews are taking over!"
Holocaust remembrance is not, as its supporters claim, a noble effort motivated by sincere concern for humanity. It is, rather, a one-sided campaign designed to further Zionist interests. The Holocaust campaign is highly important to the interests of Israel, which owes its existence to massive and continuous support from the United States. Holocaust remembrance helps to justify enormous US support for Israel, and to excuse otherwise inexcusable Israeli policies.
Holocost commemoration strengthens Jewish-Zionist power. Even Jewish scholar, Tony Judt, recently wrote:
“The Shoah [the ‘Holocaust’] is frequently exploited in America and Israel to deflect and forbid any criticism of Israel. Indeed, the Holocaust of Europe's Jews is nowadays exploited thrice over: It gives American Jews in particular a unique, retrospective ‘victim identity’; it allows Israel to trump any other nation's sufferings (and justify its own excesses) with the claim that the Jewish catastrophe was unique and incomparable; and (in contradiction to the first two) it is adduced as an all-purpose metaphor for evil -- anywhere, everywhere and always -- and taught to schoolchildren all over America and Europe without any reference to context or cause. This modern instrumentalization of the Holocaust for political advantage is ethically disreputable and politically imprudent.”
Perhaps it was out of ignorance you made such a response, as I hardly believe your agenda here is to further the Jewish-Zionist agenda, although you (as many others apparently) unknowingly support it. But then again, who knows. Are you a "card-carrying" member of the "Simon Wiesenthal Center?" It's become a bastion of Jewish-Zionist power in America. It presents a relentless version of Jewish-Zionist version of history even though it bills itself as: "an international Jewish human rights organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust fostering tolerance and understanding”, but in reality it is a propaganda agency whose agenda is out to only further Jewish-Zionist interests.
The Center’s annual income in the 2002-2003 fiscal year (the most recent for which detailed data is available) was $30 million, of which some $17 million was from public donations, and $10 million – one-third of the total -- was from taxpayer funds. Of that $10 million in taxpayer money, $6 million was from the state of California, $2.6 million was from the US federal government, $1 million dollars came from New York City, and $328,147 was from New York State.
HOW DARE SOMEONE COME ALONG AND CLAIM THAT THE HOLOCOST CAMPAIGN IS ONLY OUT TO BILK YOU!
I suppose we should just close our eyes to the truth and let all those "Jewish-Christian Zionists" apologists dig even deeper into our pocketbooks then. Right.
You keep on and on about this "Jewish-Zionist Agenda" (with almost as much vitriol as when Ann Coulter talks about Hillary Clinton, complete with spittle flying out of her mouth; which reminds me. How often must you clean your screen every time you type this crap anyways?)
So tell us, (in between screen wipes, that is) what is this ... "Jewish-Zionist Agenda", and the details thereof, that we all need to be aware of?
((hands WTF another bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towel for his monitor))
Garth instead of resorting to personal attacks, why not try to make an intellectual response to the information What the Hey is sharing with us...
The Center’s annual income in the 2002-2003 fiscal year (the most recent for which detailed data is available) was $30 million, of which some $17 million was from public donations, and $10 million – one-third of the total -- was from taxpayer funds. Of that $10 million in taxpayer money, $6 million was from the state of California, $2.6 million was from the US federal government, $1 million dollars came from New York City, and $328,147 was from New York State.
Come on Mo, I thing you know what I meant. Christians from very early on were not identified by ethnicity/race. Jews were.
Yes, Goey i do know what you mean, And I am in respectful disagreement with you :)
Because early Christians were Identified with the Jews -just one more Jewish offshoot--It wasn't until Paul that the Gentiles were even preached to. Christ didn't preach to them --remember the Greek woman in Mark? Heck, remember the parable about the Good Samaritan? Samaritans were descended from Manasseh! There was a serious conflict between Paul and the apostles when he advanced the idea that in order to become Christian one didn't first have to accept Judaism (the circumcision issue)
This whole ethnicity/religious debate is promoted so loudly by the "Holocaust didn't happen", the Holocaust is exaggerated", and neo-Nazis because it absolves them from facing the ugly truth about their stance.
Because if ethnicity isn't an issue but it's about religion, Jesus Christ, the apostles, the disciples, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Paul, Priscilla, Aquila, John the Baptist, Elizabeth, all of them, would have ended up in one of those camps had they been alive during Hitlers Reich.
So they obfuscate the entire picture, by claiming the Jews of 1940 weren't the same Jews as the Jews of 33 AD. By making ethnicity, rather than religion, the central issue.
Lets face it by 1940 there weren't pure anything in Germany, heck, by 1492 there weren't pure anything in that whole region, Germany and the surrounding countries having been the bridge from here to there, and the "lets fight here" spot, for all of Europe for centuries starting with Charlemange.
But that was Hitler's whole focus wasn't it? trying to make "pure" that which inherently wasn't and would never be again.
there is certainly something to using the holocaust for leverage politically, which leads to counter silly claims that it never happened, and so forth .... it was only 5 people, not 5.75 million, all the pics were staged ... blah blah
anyway ... 31 million civilians killed besides the 5.75 million jews ... holy crap
the axis suffered relatively few ... the nature of their war was to eradicate impurities, so civilians were targeted I think ... U.S. WW2 vets don't even like to talk about it ... yet the US came out relatively unscathed ... some countries lost 50 times as many people as we did, percentage wise. Thinking how a little thing like twi warped our minds, think how a thing like that warped theirs.
Unless we we there and directly saw the carnage ... I don't think any of us really have a clue ...
My retorts to CK and the like Nazi apologists is born out of frustration to the dishonest and selectful/distorted information that CK and the like pawn off as 'honest, intelligent debate'. Info that endeavor to justify Adolf Hitler's malvolence towards Jewish individuals, as well as his insane arguments against them.
An example of said info is the one you provide:
The Center’s annual income in the 2002-2003 fiscal year (the most recent for which detailed data is available) was $30 million, of which some $17 million was from public donations, and $10 million – one-third of the total -- was from taxpayer funds. Of that $10 million in taxpayer money, $6 million was from the state of California, $2.6 million was from the US federal government, $1 million dollars came from New York City, and $328,147 was from New York State.
... which proves ... what? That the Simon Wiesenthal Center gets millions in assistance from not only private citizens, but also from government grants? ... And? How many other think tanks, charity foundations, and other organizations get like amount/percentage of funding? And he/you provide that as evidence of this supposed "Jewish-Zionist Corn-spiracy"?
And here's another flawed jewel that further strengthens my argument/attitude.
Even the IHR (Institute for Historical Review) does not deny the Holocost. Every responsible scholar of twentieth century history acknowledges the great catastrophe that befell European Jewry during World War II.
And yet how many times have many, many revisionists deny that the Holocaust actually took place? He quotes various Jewish 'scholars' and like 'authorities' as tho' their testimony totally dismantles the Holocaust story. They don't. And whatever of their evidence/documentation that might, might mind you, put into question some specific detail that the Holocaust supporters convey, that is FAR more than offset by the sheer rank & stupid tirades about "Jewish control of the world banks", "Jewish-Zionist control of Hollywood", "Jews are trying to subjugate us all under Communism", etc., etc., &$*# like that. (Remember what I said about insane arguments against Jews?)
And as far as using the Holocaust for nothing more than a tool to 'control the world' so to speak, that is nothing more than propaganda born by ranting Neo-Nazis and whatever Jewish in-duh-viduals that happen to fall for their reverse guilt trip. Ie., there IS no law nor rule that call for the total non-criticism of jewish people or individuals (except only in the minds of those who whine and moan about Jewish control of our country). Hell, how many people, both Jew and non, have criticized the Isreali government for many trespasses (both real and imagined), and have not been dragged into court for some hate crime charge? PLENTY! Including yours truly.
So Oldies, maybe you should re-direct your 'concern' over civilized, intelligent discussion towards those who have such a rabid distaste and hatred for the Jews, ... even if it does agree with what your 'Father in the Word' says about Jews. Ie., in short, Wierwille was dead wrong. Period!
Like I (and so many other people) said before, all this push for the focus on the Holocaust is so that it never happens again!
Templelady, Goey,
Just a tidbit of information here. The term Jewish/Judaism can be used in a duel fashion. It can be used either in reference to the religion of Judaism, or it can be used in reference to the ethnic group that does have some form of genetic linkage throughout. Sometimes the mesh becomes difficult to discern between, but its there.
And heck, we're all homo sapiens, that is human beings, any way. ... That's all we really need to realize, isn't it? Which helps make Neo-nazi & revisionist arguments null and void.
And heck, we're all homo sapiens, that is human beings, any way. ... That's all we really need to realize, isn't it? Which helps make Neo-nazi & revisionist arguments null and void.
Garth, That's twice, in as many days, that I have whole heartedly agreed with you--We have to stop meeting like this!
Just a tidbit of information here. The term Jewish/Judaism can be used in a duel fashion. It can be used either in reference to the religion of Judaism, or it can be used in reference to the ethnic group that does have some form of genetic linkage throughout. Sometimes the mesh becomes difficult to discern between, but its there.
Thanks for bringing that up again Garth. I am aware of the dual usage.
Mo seems to want to exclude/ignore the more common usage of the term "Jew" in favor of a singular usage where "Jew" ONLY means people identified with the religion of Judaism regardless of their ethnic or ancestral origins. It seems to me that the two are so closely interwoven, that such a narrow definintion muddies the waters in a discussion such as this. Even the Jews themselves struggle and debate as to what consititutes a Jew ... Yet Mo seems to have it settled for everyone now. :)
When Hitler persecuted the "Jews" it was not simply a religious persecution. While religion played a part, the persecution was just as much, if not more for ethnic and political reasons.
As far as the usage of "Jew" in the Bible goes, it seems to me to be used in a multiple sense of nationality, ancestry and religion - all very closely interwined.
When Hitler persecuted the "Jews" it was not simply a religious persecution
Okay I'm ready for more education
That said I need to ask a question -because maybe I have the wrong answer
How did the Third Reich ascertain who was Jewish?? Was it by ethnicity? I know they considered you a Jew if you were 1/4 or more. But was the foundational decision based on ethnicity or was it based on what religion you or said ancestor practiced? I always understood it was from synagogue records , but Lord knows , it won't be the first time I understood wrong So help me out here, any one know the right answer?
Perhaps it was a combination of things, one of which was going by the last name, and how 'Jewish' it sounded. Another was by temple membership I think. Jewish family trees. A whole assortment of different methods. Keep in mind that sometimes folks were nailed for being Jewish, when they would simply be, just Polish for example.
Not that the Nazis would go "Ooops! So sorry! We were wrong for calling you Jewish and sending you to Auschwitz. We'll restore everything to you we took away."
"How did the Third Reich ascertain who was Jewish?? Was it by ethnicity? I know they considered you a Jew if you were 1/4 or more. But was the foundational decision based on ethnicity or was it based on what religion you or said ancestor practiced? I always understood it was from synagogue records , but Lord knows , it won't be the first time I understood wrong So help me out here, any one know the right answer? "
There wasn't just one method, Mo, but a number of them.
Yes synagogue records was a part of that. And if my memory is correct, those records would have included family trees. Also, prior to the killings, Jews were required to register as being Jewish. Where one lived and worked would also have been a huge indicator - in that there would have been "Jewish communities" not unlike we have today with various ethnic groups. Then there would have been things like last names and even did one "look" Jewish.
As Garth pointed out, for the most part, the Nazi's weren't really overly concerned about being correct in their assessment as to whether or not one was really Jewish - if they thought you were, that was good enough for them. They really had no value on human life, so what difference would it make to them if they were wrong?
Here's some places where you argument/logic fails, Mo:
1. "Because early Christians were Identified with the Jews -just one more Jewish offshoot--It wasn't until Paul that the Gentiles were even preached to. Christ didn't preach to them --remember the Greek woman in Mark? Heck, remember the parable about the Good Samaritan? Samaritans were descended from Manasseh! There was a serious conflict between Paul and the apostles when he advanced the idea that in order to become Christian one didn't first have to accept Judaism (the circumcision issue) '
Yes, many early Christians were Jewish, but not all Jews became Christian. As it was while Christ was alive, so it was after his death that many did not believe he was the son of God. In addition, Many people from many ethnic groups converted to Christianity after Paul.
2. "Lets face it by 1940 there weren't pure anything in Germany, heck, by 1492 there weren't pure anything in that whole region, Germany and the surrounding countries having been the bridge from here to there, and the "lets fight here" spot, for all of Europe for centuries starting with Charlemange.
But that was Hitler's whole focus wasn't it? trying to make "pure" that which inherently wasn't and would never be again."
Yes, that was Hitler's whole focus, which is precisely why ethnicity did play a role. In fact, you sort of prove the point you are trying to disprove - because one could be "religously Jewish" but if one were NOT ethnically Jewish (as in did not have a Jewish sounding name or physically look Jewish) one could more easily deny their "faith" and sneak past the Natzis.
and here:
"Because if ethnicity isn't an issue but it's about religion, Jesus Christ, the apostles, the disciples, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Paul, Priscilla, Aquila, John the Baptist, Elizabeth, all of them, would have ended up in one of those camps had they been alive during Hitlers Reich."
I am entirely missing your point. Because had they been alive during WWII they would have been gonners either way - for being ethnically and religously Jewish.
My retorts to CK and the like Nazi apologists is born out of frustration to the dishonest and selectful/distorted information that CK and the like pawn off as 'honest, intelligent debate'. Info that endeavor to justify Adolf Hitler's malvolence towards Jewish individuals, as well as his insane arguments against them.
An example of said info is the one you provide:
... which proves ... what? That the Simon Wiesenthal Center gets millions in assistance from not only private citizens, but also from government grants? ... And? How many other think tanks, charity foundations, and other organizations get like amount/percentage of funding? And he/you provide that as evidence of this supposed "Jewish-Zionist Corn-spiracy"?
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, I would call it continuing use of the holocaust as propaganda to achieve the goals of today's Jewish Lobby in the U.S, which may put Israeli interests ahead of U.S. interests, depending on the circumstances.
So Oldies, maybe you should re-direct your 'concern' over civilized, intelligent discussion towards those who have such a rabid distaste and hatred for the Jews, ... even if it does agree with what your 'Father in the Word' says about Jews. Ie., in short, Wierwille was dead wrong. Period!
I don't know that the people who print counter-arguments to the holocaust, are automatically Jew-haters, or should be blanketly labelled that way.
Some of them are even Jews themselves (accused of being self-hating Jews?).
Maybe it could simply be the revisionists want to get what they believe out there on the table, that they believe the facts they are presenting is the truth, or at least closer to the truth than what we have been continuously fed by some in the establishment media?
When one examines their stuff (and I have been reading some of it) they don't come off to me as Jew Haters.
Here's an article from today's paper from Molly Ivins of Creators Syndicate:
Ivins: Professors have the audacity to examine Israel's lobbying in U.S.
By Molly Ivins
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
AUSTIN, Texas - One of the consistent deformities in American policy debate has been challenged by a couple of professors, and the reaction proves their point so neatly it's almost funny.
A working paper by John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, called ''The Israel Lobby'' was printed in the London Review of Books earlier this month. And all hell broke loose in the more excitable reaches of journalism and academe.
For having the sheer effrontery to point out the painfully obvious - that there is an Israel lobby in the United States - Mearsheimer and Walt have been accused of being anti-Semitic, nutty and guilty of ''kooky academic work.'' Alan Dershowitz, who seems to be easily upset, went totally ballistic over the mild, academic, not to suggest pretty boring article by Mearsheimer and Walt, calling them ''liars'' and ''bigots.''
Of course there is an Israeli lobby in America - its leading working group is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC calls itself ''America's Pro-Israel Lobby,'' and it attempts to influence U.S. legislation and policy.
Several national Jewish organizations lobby from time to time. Big deal - why is anyone pretending this non-news requires falling on the floor and howling? Because of this weird deformity of debate.
In the United States, we do not have full-throated, full-throttle debate about Israel. In Israel, they have it as a matter of course, but the truth is that the accusation of anti-Semi- tism is far too often raised in this country against anyone who criticizes the government of Israel.
Being pro-Israel is no defense, as I long ago learned to my cost. Now I've gotten used to it. Jews who criticize Israel are charmingly labeled ''self-hating Jews.'' As I have often pointed out, that must mean there are a lot of self-hating Israelis, because those folks raise hell over their own government's policies all the time.
I don't know that I've ever felt intimidated by the knee-jerk ''you're anti-Semitic'' charge leveled at anyone who criticizes Israel, but I do know I have certainly heard it often enough to become tired of it.
And I wonder if that doesn't produce the same result: giving up on the discussion.
It's the sheer disproportion, the vehemence of the attacks on anyone perceived as criticizing Israel, that makes them so odious. Mearsheimer and Walt are both widely respected political scientists - comparing their writing to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is just silly.
Several critics have pointed out some flaws in the Mearsheimer-Walt paper, including a too-broad use of the term ''Israel lobby'' - those of us who are pro-Israel differ widely - and having perhaps overemphasized the clout of the Israel lobby by ignoring the energy lobby.
It seems to me the root of the difficulty has been Israel's inability first to admit the Palestinians have been treated unfairly and, second, to figure out what to do about it. Now here goes a big fat generalization, but I think many Jews are so accustomed (by reality) to thinking of themselves as victims, it is especially difficult for them to admit they have victimized others.
But the Mearsheimer-Walt paper is not about the basic conflict, but its effect on American foreign policy, and it appears to me their arguments are unexceptional. Israel is the No. 1 recipient of American foreign aid, and it seems an easy case can be made that the United States has subjugated its own interests to those of Israel in the past.
Whether you agree or not, it is a discussion well worth having and one that should not be shut down before it can start by unfair accusations of ''anti-Semitism.'' In a very equal sense, none of this is academic. The Israel lobby was overwhelmingly in favor of starting the war with Iraq and is now among the leading hawks on Iran.
To the extent that our interests do differ from those of Israel, the matter needs to be discussed calmly and fairly. This is not about conspiracies or plots or fantasies or anti-Semitism - it's about rational discussion of American interests. And, in my case, being pro-Israel. I'm looking forward to hearing from all you nutjobs again.
Holy Crud Oldiesman! We may be close to agreeing or at least semi-agreeing twice in one morning!!!
"It seems to me the root of the difficulty has been Israel's inability first to admit the Palestinians have been treated unfairly and, second, to figure out what to do about it. Now here goes a big fat generalization, but I think many Jews are so accustomed (by reality) to thinking of themselves as victims, it is especially difficult for them to admit they have victimized others. "
I would take this a step further, It isn't just that Israel has treated the Palestinians unfairly, but so has the U.S., England, and the large number of middle eastern countries who refused to take in refugees way back when, when all of this began.
On the other hand, it does beg the question - - why would the middle easterners NOT come to the aide of their own? I have no idea - but in trying very hard to look at this issue objectively, I would say that often the Palestinians are also their own worst enemy.
"But the Mearsheimer-Walt paper is not about the basic conflict, but its effect on American foreign policy, and it appears to me their arguments are unexceptional. Israel is the No. 1 recipient of American foreign aid, and it seems an easy case can be made that the United States has subjugated its own interests to those of Israel in the past."
I don't know if this statement is true or false. But I would point out, because it is a piece of history/logic that I find very interesting - by and large it was the Christian ideology of who the Jews are and what the Bible says with regard to Israel and the future that had brought about this situation, at least back in the days following WWII.
"Whether you agree or not, it is a discussion well worth having and one that should not be shut down before it can start by unfair accusations of ''anti-Semitism.'' In a very equal sense, none of this is academic. The Israel lobby was overwhelmingly in favor of starting the war with Iraq and is now among the leading hawks on Iran. "
Of course they are - because they face the greatest risk of being attacked by these countries. If England were at the greatest risk, for example, then they would be the ones who were overwhelmingly in favor of starting the war - I see this as a no brainer statement that is somewhat misleading. But I would dare say the United States is perhaps a close second. In either case, I guess I feel that because the U.S. played such a HUGE role in creating this mess in the middle east in the first place, we are obligated to try to clean it up in some fashion. Not that I am a proponent of war mind you, as I was opposed to the war on Iraq in the first place.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
43
70
37
40
Popular Days
Apr 25
42
Apr 28
30
May 16
27
May 2
27
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 43 posts
oldiesman 70 posts
GarthP2000 37 posts
Tom Strange 40 posts
Popular Days
Apr 25 2006
42 posts
Apr 28 2006
30 posts
May 16 2006
27 posts
May 2 2006
27 posts
Abigail
"Jews or Jewish refers to a religion you were Jewish, even in the Old Testement, because you adhered to the God and religious tenets of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."
Actually, I believe it can refer to both ethnicity and/or relgion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Does that refer to his mother's religion, or genetics?
or both? :blink:
My friend Irving once told me that in order for a Jew to be a bona-fide Jew, your mother had to be Jewish.
So then Hitler was Jewish?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
I kindly disagree Mo. And so would millions of "Jews". -- "Jew" or "Jewish" generally refers to a race/ethnicity of people . "Judaism" refers to the religion.
Judaism has it roots within a particular ethnic group. Christianity does not - so your example doesn't apply too well.
In light of what I just shared, DNA is quite relevant to this topic.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Actually is does - the Jews
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Holocost commemoration strengthens Jewish-Zionist power. Even Jewish scholar, Tony Judt, recently wrote:
“The Shoah [the ‘Holocaust’] is frequently exploited in America and Israel to deflect and forbid any criticism of Israel. Indeed, the Holocaust of Europe's Jews is nowadays exploited thrice over: It gives American Jews in particular a unique, retrospective ‘victim identity’; it allows Israel to trump any other nation's sufferings (and justify its own excesses) with the claim that the Jewish catastrophe was unique and incomparable; and (in contradiction to the first two) it is adduced as an all-purpose metaphor for evil -- anywhere, everywhere and always -- and taught to schoolchildren all over America and Europe without any reference to context or cause. This modern instrumentalization of the Holocaust for political advantage is ethically disreputable and politically imprudent.”
Perhaps it was out of ignorance you made such a response, as I hardly believe your agenda here is to further the Jewish-Zionist agenda, although you (as many others apparently) unknowingly support it. But then again, who knows. Are you a "card-carrying" member of the "Simon Wiesenthal Center?" It's become a bastion of Jewish-Zionist power in America. It presents a relentless version of Jewish-Zionist version of history even though it bills itself as: "an international Jewish human rights organization dedicated to preserving the memory of the Holocaust fostering tolerance and understanding”, but in reality it is a propaganda agency whose agenda is out to only further Jewish-Zionist interests.
The Center’s annual income in the 2002-2003 fiscal year (the most recent for which detailed data is available) was $30 million, of which some $17 million was from public donations, and $10 million – one-third of the total -- was from taxpayer funds. Of that $10 million in taxpayer money, $6 million was from the state of California, $2.6 million was from the US federal government, $1 million dollars came from New York City, and $328,147 was from New York State.
HOW DARE SOMEONE COME ALONG AND CLAIM THAT THE HOLOCOST CAMPAIGN IS ONLY OUT TO BILK YOU!
I suppose we should just close our eyes to the truth and let all those "Jewish-Christian Zionists" apologists dig even deeper into our pocketbooks then. Right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
You keep on and on about this "Jewish-Zionist Agenda" (with almost as much vitriol as when Ann Coulter talks about Hillary Clinton, complete with spittle flying out of her mouth; which reminds me. How often must you clean your screen every time you type this crap anyways?)
So tell us, (in between screen wipes, that is) what is this ... "Jewish-Zionist Agenda", and the details thereof, that we all need to be aware of?
((hands WTF another bottle of Windex and a roll of paper towel for his monitor))
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Come on Mo, I thing you know what I meant. Christians from very early on were not identified by ethnicity/race. Jews were.
If you want to redefine what "Jew" means to a "Jew" then go right ahead ....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Garth instead of resorting to personal attacks, why not try to make an intellectual response to the information What the Hey is sharing with us...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Yes, Goey i do know what you mean, And I am in respectful disagreement with you :)
Because early Christians were Identified with the Jews -just one more Jewish offshoot--It wasn't until Paul that the Gentiles were even preached to. Christ didn't preach to them --remember the Greek woman in Mark? Heck, remember the parable about the Good Samaritan? Samaritans were descended from Manasseh! There was a serious conflict between Paul and the apostles when he advanced the idea that in order to become Christian one didn't first have to accept Judaism (the circumcision issue)
This whole ethnicity/religious debate is promoted so loudly by the "Holocaust didn't happen", the Holocaust is exaggerated", and neo-Nazis because it absolves them from facing the ugly truth about their stance.
Because if ethnicity isn't an issue but it's about religion, Jesus Christ, the apostles, the disciples, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Paul, Priscilla, Aquila, John the Baptist, Elizabeth, all of them, would have ended up in one of those camps had they been alive during Hitlers Reich.
So they obfuscate the entire picture, by claiming the Jews of 1940 weren't the same Jews as the Jews of 33 AD. By making ethnicity, rather than religion, the central issue.
Lets face it by 1940 there weren't pure anything in Germany, heck, by 1492 there weren't pure anything in that whole region, Germany and the surrounding countries having been the bridge from here to there, and the "lets fight here" spot, for all of Europe for centuries starting with Charlemange.
But that was Hitler's whole focus wasn't it? trying to make "pure" that which inherently wasn't and would never be again.
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Side note - WTH - it is spelled holocaust not holocost. Holocost it the price of a entry to the holodeck on the Enterprise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Woo Hoo!!!! Offshoots in the bible??? ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
holo cost lol
there is certainly something to using the holocaust for leverage politically, which leads to counter silly claims that it never happened, and so forth .... it was only 5 people, not 5.75 million, all the pics were staged ... blah blah
anyway ... 31 million civilians killed besides the 5.75 million jews ... holy crap
the axis suffered relatively few ... the nature of their war was to eradicate impurities, so civilians were targeted I think ... U.S. WW2 vets don't even like to talk about it ... yet the US came out relatively unscathed ... some countries lost 50 times as many people as we did, percentage wise. Thinking how a little thing like twi warped our minds, think how a thing like that warped theirs.
Unless we we there and directly saw the carnage ... I don't think any of us really have a clue ...
God Bless America ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
8 million live here ---- imagine this as a *ghost town*. :(
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oldies,
My retorts to CK and the like Nazi apologists is born out of frustration to the dishonest and selectful/distorted information that CK and the like pawn off as 'honest, intelligent debate'. Info that endeavor to justify Adolf Hitler's malvolence towards Jewish individuals, as well as his insane arguments against them.
An example of said info is the one you provide:
... which proves ... what? That the Simon Wiesenthal Center gets millions in assistance from not only private citizens, but also from government grants? ... And? How many other think tanks, charity foundations, and other organizations get like amount/percentage of funding? And he/you provide that as evidence of this supposed "Jewish-Zionist Corn-spiracy"?And here's another flawed jewel that further strengthens my argument/attitude.
And yet how many times have many, many revisionists deny that the Holocaust actually took place? He quotes various Jewish 'scholars' and like 'authorities' as tho' their testimony totally dismantles the Holocaust story. They don't. And whatever of their evidence/documentation that might, might mind you, put into question some specific detail that the Holocaust supporters convey, that is FAR more than offset by the sheer rank & stupid tirades about "Jewish control of the world banks", "Jewish-Zionist control of Hollywood", "Jews are trying to subjugate us all under Communism", etc., etc., &$*# like that. (Remember what I said about insane arguments against Jews?)
And as far as using the Holocaust for nothing more than a tool to 'control the world' so to speak, that is nothing more than propaganda born by ranting Neo-Nazis and whatever Jewish in-duh-viduals that happen to fall for their reverse guilt trip. Ie., there IS no law nor rule that call for the total non-criticism of jewish people or individuals (except only in the minds of those who whine and moan about Jewish control of our country). Hell, how many people, both Jew and non, have criticized the Isreali government for many trespasses (both real and imagined), and have not been dragged into court for some hate crime charge? PLENTY! Including yours truly.
So Oldies, maybe you should re-direct your 'concern' over civilized, intelligent discussion towards those who have such a rabid distaste and hatred for the Jews, ... even if it does agree with what your 'Father in the Word' says about Jews. Ie., in short, Wierwille was dead wrong. Period!
Like I (and so many other people) said before, all this push for the focus on the Holocaust is so that it never happens again!
Templelady, Goey,
Just a tidbit of information here. The term Jewish/Judaism can be used in a duel fashion. It can be used either in reference to the religion of Judaism, or it can be used in reference to the ethnic group that does have some form of genetic linkage throughout. Sometimes the mesh becomes difficult to discern between, but its there.
And heck, we're all homo sapiens, that is human beings, any way. ... That's all we really need to realize, isn't it? Which helps make Neo-nazi & revisionist arguments null and void.
:B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Garth, That's twice, in as many days, that I have whole heartedly agreed with you--We have to stop meeting like this!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I'd like 2 admission tickets to holodeck 7 please, featuring "The Klingons meet the nazis"
Now we'll see who the master race is!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Thanks for bringing that up again Garth. I am aware of the dual usage.
Mo seems to want to exclude/ignore the more common usage of the term "Jew" in favor of a singular usage where "Jew" ONLY means people identified with the religion of Judaism regardless of their ethnic or ancestral origins. It seems to me that the two are so closely interwoven, that such a narrow definintion muddies the waters in a discussion such as this. Even the Jews themselves struggle and debate as to what consititutes a Jew ... Yet Mo seems to have it settled for everyone now. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew
When Hitler persecuted the "Jews" it was not simply a religious persecution. While religion played a part, the persecution was just as much, if not more for ethnic and political reasons.
As far as the usage of "Jew" in the Bible goes, it seems to me to be used in a multiple sense of nationality, ancestry and religion - all very closely interwined.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I just checked the odds at The Venetian... there's a lot of heavy money going down on the Klingons...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
NuqDaH yuch daPol?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Okay I'm ready for more education
That said I need to ask a question -because maybe I have the wrong answer
How did the Third Reich ascertain who was Jewish?? Was it by ethnicity? I know they considered you a Jew if you were 1/4 or more. But was the foundational decision based on ethnicity or was it based on what religion you or said ancestor practiced? I always understood it was from synagogue records , but Lord knows , it won't be the first time I understood wrong So help me out here, any one know the right answer?
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Perhaps it was a combination of things, one of which was going by the last name, and how 'Jewish' it sounded. Another was by temple membership I think. Jewish family trees. A whole assortment of different methods. Keep in mind that sometimes folks were nailed for being Jewish, when they would simply be, just Polish for example.
Not that the Nazis would go "Ooops! So sorry! We were wrong for calling you Jewish and sending you to Auschwitz. We'll restore everything to you we took away."
Right! <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"How did the Third Reich ascertain who was Jewish?? Was it by ethnicity? I know they considered you a Jew if you were 1/4 or more. But was the foundational decision based on ethnicity or was it based on what religion you or said ancestor practiced? I always understood it was from synagogue records , but Lord knows , it won't be the first time I understood wrong So help me out here, any one know the right answer? "
There wasn't just one method, Mo, but a number of them.
Yes synagogue records was a part of that. And if my memory is correct, those records would have included family trees. Also, prior to the killings, Jews were required to register as being Jewish. Where one lived and worked would also have been a huge indicator - in that there would have been "Jewish communities" not unlike we have today with various ethnic groups. Then there would have been things like last names and even did one "look" Jewish.
As Garth pointed out, for the most part, the Nazi's weren't really overly concerned about being correct in their assessment as to whether or not one was really Jewish - if they thought you were, that was good enough for them. They really had no value on human life, so what difference would it make to them if they were wrong?
Here's some places where you argument/logic fails, Mo:
1. "Because early Christians were Identified with the Jews -just one more Jewish offshoot--It wasn't until Paul that the Gentiles were even preached to. Christ didn't preach to them --remember the Greek woman in Mark? Heck, remember the parable about the Good Samaritan? Samaritans were descended from Manasseh! There was a serious conflict between Paul and the apostles when he advanced the idea that in order to become Christian one didn't first have to accept Judaism (the circumcision issue) '
Yes, many early Christians were Jewish, but not all Jews became Christian. As it was while Christ was alive, so it was after his death that many did not believe he was the son of God. In addition, Many people from many ethnic groups converted to Christianity after Paul.
2. "Lets face it by 1940 there weren't pure anything in Germany, heck, by 1492 there weren't pure anything in that whole region, Germany and the surrounding countries having been the bridge from here to there, and the "lets fight here" spot, for all of Europe for centuries starting with Charlemange.
But that was Hitler's whole focus wasn't it? trying to make "pure" that which inherently wasn't and would never be again."
Yes, that was Hitler's whole focus, which is precisely why ethnicity did play a role. In fact, you sort of prove the point you are trying to disprove - because one could be "religously Jewish" but if one were NOT ethnically Jewish (as in did not have a Jewish sounding name or physically look Jewish) one could more easily deny their "faith" and sneak past the Natzis.
and here:
"Because if ethnicity isn't an issue but it's about religion, Jesus Christ, the apostles, the disciples, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Paul, Priscilla, Aquila, John the Baptist, Elizabeth, all of them, would have ended up in one of those camps had they been alive during Hitlers Reich."
I am entirely missing your point. Because had they been alive during WWII they would have been gonners either way - for being ethnically and religously Jewish.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, I would call it continuing use of the holocaust as propaganda to achieve the goals of today's Jewish Lobby in the U.S, which may put Israeli interests ahead of U.S. interests, depending on the circumstances.
I don't know that the people who print counter-arguments to the holocaust, are automatically Jew-haters, or should be blanketly labelled that way.
Some of them are even Jews themselves (accused of being self-hating Jews?).
Maybe it could simply be the revisionists want to get what they believe out there on the table, that they believe the facts they are presenting is the truth, or at least closer to the truth than what we have been continuously fed by some in the establishment media?
When one examines their stuff (and I have been reading some of it) they don't come off to me as Jew Haters.
Here's an article from today's paper from Molly Ivins of Creators Syndicate:
click here:
U.S. Policy on Israel Needs Frank Discussion
or read below:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Holy Crud Oldiesman! We may be close to agreeing or at least semi-agreeing twice in one morning!!!
"It seems to me the root of the difficulty has been Israel's inability first to admit the Palestinians have been treated unfairly and, second, to figure out what to do about it. Now here goes a big fat generalization, but I think many Jews are so accustomed (by reality) to thinking of themselves as victims, it is especially difficult for them to admit they have victimized others. "
I would take this a step further, It isn't just that Israel has treated the Palestinians unfairly, but so has the U.S., England, and the large number of middle eastern countries who refused to take in refugees way back when, when all of this began.
On the other hand, it does beg the question - - why would the middle easterners NOT come to the aide of their own? I have no idea - but in trying very hard to look at this issue objectively, I would say that often the Palestinians are also their own worst enemy.
"But the Mearsheimer-Walt paper is not about the basic conflict, but its effect on American foreign policy, and it appears to me their arguments are unexceptional. Israel is the No. 1 recipient of American foreign aid, and it seems an easy case can be made that the United States has subjugated its own interests to those of Israel in the past."
I don't know if this statement is true or false. But I would point out, because it is a piece of history/logic that I find very interesting - by and large it was the Christian ideology of who the Jews are and what the Bible says with regard to Israel and the future that had brought about this situation, at least back in the days following WWII.
"Whether you agree or not, it is a discussion well worth having and one that should not be shut down before it can start by unfair accusations of ''anti-Semitism.'' In a very equal sense, none of this is academic. The Israel lobby was overwhelmingly in favor of starting the war with Iraq and is now among the leading hawks on Iran. "
Of course they are - because they face the greatest risk of being attacked by these countries. If England were at the greatest risk, for example, then they would be the ones who were overwhelmingly in favor of starting the war - I see this as a no brainer statement that is somewhat misleading. But I would dare say the United States is perhaps a close second. In either case, I guess I feel that because the U.S. played such a HUGE role in creating this mess in the middle east in the first place, we are obligated to try to clean it up in some fashion. Not that I am a proponent of war mind you, as I was opposed to the war on Iraq in the first place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.