Judea Declares War on Germany [Archive]

Trojan

09-14-2006, 09:09 PM

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=10060&highlight=judea

Jewish “Declarations of War” against Germany

After the Reichstag elections of 5 March 1933 there began violent aggressions by the SA against Jewish lawyers, physicians and businessmen in several places [in Germany]. Frequently there were also boycott actions against Jewish businesses and warehouses. In Berlin and elsewhere the acts of violence also claimed several Jewish lives, and numerous Jews were arrested. The foreign press reported in detail about this, with occasional exaggerations, especially in anti-National Socialist articles written by German emigrants. Against such reports the National Socialist “Völkischer Beobachter” turned on 17 March 1933 with a polemic article under the heading “The Jewish war begins”. In the following weeks the anti-Jewish propaganda of National Socialist press and the anti-National Socialist polemic of certain English and American papers pulled each other up.
On 24 March 1933 the English boulevard paper “Daily Express” appeared with the headline “Judea declares War on Germany”. Thereunder, however, the paper merely provided reports about protests and threats of boycott measures by English and American Jews as a reaction to anti-Jewish actions of the National Socialists. On the National Socialist side these headlines and other, less spectacular reports were gladly picked up as a pretext for a huge boycott action against German Jews on 1 April 1933. The sensational report in the “Völkischer Beobachter” of 27 March 1933 that 200 cars with the letters “Juda declares war on Germany – boycott German goods” written on them had driven through London was nowhere confirmed and not proven by photographs either, however. On the contrary, the representation of the Jews residing in Great Britain, the Jewish Board of Deputies, declared that it did not wish to interfere with internal German matters (The Times of 27 March 1933). It made clear that boycott measures and protest gatherings were “spontaneous outbreaks of indignation” by individual persons, but not organized by the Board.
As is known, the anti-Jewish measures of the National Socialist leadership and the removal of Jews from German society increased in the following years and climaxed already before the war in the barbaric pogrom of the “Reichskristallnacht” on 8/9 November 1938.
Considering this obviously hostile attitude of the Hitler regime towards the Jews it is not surprising that the President of the Zionist World Congress and Head of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, Dr. Chaim Weizmann, told the British Prime Minister in August 1939, in view of the expectable outbreak of war, that in case of conflict the Jews would be on the side of Great Britain and the other democracies. Weizmann’s letter to Neville Chamberlain of 29 August 1939 had the following wording (it was published together with Chamberlain’s answer in the “Times” on 6 September 1939):
“Most Honored Mr. Prime Minister,
In this hour of utmost crisis the conscience that the Jews have a contribution to make to the defense of the holy values urges me to write you this letter. I wish to in the most express form reiterate the declaration that I and my co-workers have issued during the last months and especially in the past week: that the Jews stand by Great Britain and will fight on the side of the democracies.
It is our urgent wish to make these declarations effective. We would like to do this in a way that is fully in accordance with the British plans for actions and thus subordinate ourselves, in matters large and small, to the coordinating leadership of His Majesty’s government. The Jewish Agency is prepared to participate in immediate preparations for the use of Jewish labor, technical capacities, auxiliary means etc.
The Jewish Agency has lately had disputes with the mandate power in the political field. We would like to see these differences of opinion step back in the face of the current greater and more urgent requirements. We hereby ask you to receive this declaration in the spirit in which it was made.
I am, most honored Mr. Prime Minister,
Yours truly, Ch. W.”
With this letter Weizmann reinforced a declaration that the 25th Zionist Congress in Geneva (16 – 25 August, 1939) had issued and wherein it was stated that, notwithstanding all differences with the British government related to its mandate over Palestine, the Zionist organization would in these times of crisis stand by Great Britain and fight on the side of the democracies. A few days later, after Hitler had in fact unleashed the war and Great Britain entered it in compliance with its obligations, the Jewish Agency issued the slogan “This war is also our war”.
In his letter to Chamberlain, Weizmann could of course only speak on behalf of the organization that he represented. The Zionist World Organization in 1939 comprised slightly more than one million Jews (little more than 6 per cent of the whole Jewish world population) and only a fraction of the confessional Jews living at the time in Germany. It is therefore absurd to maintain that the Jews declared war on Hitler in 1939, as was done by the National Socialist propaganda and later by circles of the extreme right to justify the destruction of the Jews in the National Socialist area of domination. A “declaration of war” can only be issued by the government of a state, never by an organization under private law.
Besides, Hitler himself had in a speech before the Reichstag on 30 January 1939 (i.e. seven months before the beginning of the war) announced the destruction of the Jews of Europe. He said verbatim (Völkischer Beobachter, Munich issue, 31 January 1939):
“And one thing I would like to state on this day worth remembering perhaps not only for us Germans: I have in my life often been a prophet and mostly been laughed at. In the time of my struggle for power it was mostly the Jewish people who merely laughed at my prophecies that I would one day in take over the leadership of the state and thus of the whole people in Germany and then among many others also solve the Jewish problem. I believe that the Jews in Germany have in the meantime choked on their roaring laughter at that time.
I shall today again be a prophet: If international finance Jewry in and outside Europe should succeed in once again plunging the nations into a world war, then the result will not be the bolshevist rule of the earth and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.”
It would thus be more correct to say that Hitler declared war on the Jews and not the other way round.

Rusty Mason

09-14-2006, 10:17 PM

It sounds more like the Germans were acting in self-defense.

Globus

09-14-2006, 11:07 PM

It sounds more like the Germans were acting in self-defense.

Against what, their own antisemitic propaganda?

Rusty Mason

09-14-2006, 11:16 PM

"Anti-semitic." There you go, ya see? One cannot even hint that the Jews might have been at fault and already the name-calling starts. Well, that's really a good thing overall, I guess. It signals that the truth is coming out and that the losing side is out of ammo to defend its lies.

Sean

09-14-2006, 11:45 PM

Against what, their own antisemitic propaganda?

Against a couple boycotts (never mind that they were encouraged, it seems, by Nazi actions against Jews). It seems obvious from that essay that the Nazis seized on these opportunities to justify further measures against the Jews.

Rusty Mason

09-14-2006, 11:51 PM

Trojan

09-15-2006, 12:12 AM

Globus

09-15-2006, 12:20 AM

"Anti-semitic." There you go, ya see? One cannot even hint that the Jews might have been at fault and already the name-calling starts.

If you don't understand how bizarre it is to blame victims of genocide, then I can't help you.

And if it is not very odd to make the conclusion you did based on nothing at all, then again, I can't help you. It's not as if the racial antisemitism of Hitler and the Nazi party is not known by anyone who has read history, and that his desire to eliminate Jews in some fashion was not long held by Hitler.

Good God, where have you been?

Globus

09-15-2006, 12:23 AM

Against a couple boycotts (never mind that they were encouraged, it seems, by Nazi actions against Jews). It seems obvious from that essay that the Nazis seized on these opportunities to justify further measures against the Jews.

THen they weren't acting in self-defense.

And there was no declaration of war to begin with.

Rusty Mason

09-15-2006, 12:23 AM

Globus

09-15-2006, 12:28 AM

Aw, those poor Jews. No matter where they go, they are irrationally tricked and persecuted by mindless "haters." Every civilization they've ever settled in, for thousands of years, has just kicked them out or killed them for no good reason at all. :nopity:

Give it a rest.

I'm not the one pretending that Nazis had a good reason for committing genocide, or pretends to not understand that the Christian church largely ran the various dominions of Europe for more than a millenium and preached and enforced antisemitism of the most basic kind. There was neither then, and certainly not under Hitler, any morally defensible reason for the black mark against Chrisitianity which accrues because of their involvement in the unnecessary persecution of Jews.

All we need to do is get people like you to start mouthing your reasons that these things have happened to Jews, instead of just hinting that there are valid ones, to see the depths of the lies that have formed the core of historical demonization.

Trojan

09-15-2006, 12:28 AM

blah, blah,

Excellent retort - not sure how to respond to that. :deadhorse:

Globus

09-15-2006, 12:30 AM

Jews are always the victims, aren't they? Holocaust, holocaust, blah, blah, 6 million, 6 million, ovens, blah, blah. Jews are the only ones who ever suffer in war, yada, yada. Don't Jews ever stop lying? How you guys ever look yourselves in the mirror is beyond me. Oh, wait, vampires can't see themselves in the mirror.

I don't know who you're talking to, but I'm not Jewish.

And in case you suffer from some delusion, the views you express are persona non grata among almost all decent human beings, not just Jews.

Rusty Mason

09-15-2006, 12:37 AM

And in case you suffer from some delusion, the views you express are persona non grata among almost all decent human beings, not just Jews.
Thanks for the tip, Chief, I forgot I'm not allowed to criticize the Chosen Ones. Call me an anti-Semite again so I can remember; you know how dumb we goyim cattle are.

And I'm sure the civilized world is grateful you took the time to speak for them. Good work.

Starr

09-15-2006, 12:41 AM

If you don't understand how bizarre it is to blame victims of genocide, then I can't help you.

Does dislike or "hate" for people usually just spring up out of the blue or is there generally going to be a cause? Certain behaviors,etc. I am not asking this to place blame on any "victims" as a whole, since in certain instances innocent people are also going to be made to pay along with the guilty, which is not just. But it is important to understand that "hate" has a real source instead of just wanting to assume it is always irrational. Especially when looking at a people who have faced hostility from so many different sources and at so many different times.

Globus

09-15-2006, 12:46 AM

Does dislike or "hate" for people usually just spring up out of the blue

Just how would describe thousands of years of Church sponsored antisemitism as "just springing out of the blue"?

or is there generally going to be a cause?

Of course there is a cause. Learned hatred of people who are different. Combine that with a ruling authority with a reason to foster it which emanates from the very core of its power, and you have a lethal combination.

With Nazism you had a more modern version of the sickness attached to a totalitarian philosophy and brutal war which provided cover for the most extreme outgrowth of that cultivated hatred.

Commander

09-15-2006, 12:55 AM

I think Globus, & Trojan may be Goyophobes, who have an anti-gentile bias. They may even be borderline hate mongerers, as well as extremist supremacists? :bitchfight: :nopity: :rofl:

Starr

09-15-2006, 01:01 AM

Of course there is a cause. Learned hatred of people who are different. Combine that with a ruling authority with a reason to foster it which emanates from the very core of its power, and you have a lethal combination.

Isn't this learned hatred of people often going to be the result of certain behaviors(no doubt the behaviors can get exaggerated) of the people in question?

someone here once gave an example similar to this:

A guy walks into 50 different bars and is kicked out of each one(the jews have been expelled from many, many different nations in history). Isn't it a good assumption that this guy might be behaving in a certain way that is causing this, rather than just assuming all of the bartenders are just intolerant or whatever word you want to use?

Globus

09-15-2006, 01:20 AM

Isn't this learned hatred of people often going to be the result of certain behaviors(no doubt the behaviors can get exaggerated) of the people in question?

No, in fact it is often the result of lies constructed over time which develop a life of their own.

The Christian antipathy toward Jews began as a reaction to way Jews treated Christian Jews in the decades after the death of Jesus in Israel. Centuries later when Jews moved to Europe and when Christianity was much farther from its roots and Jewish memory that antipathy grew and was enlarged by the hateful, destructive and erroneous charge of Deicide which was used as a club for centuries.

No massive group of people based on ethnicity or culture have uniform behavior traits which are deserving of such hatred.

someone here once gave an example similar to this:

A guy walks into 50 different bars and is kicked out of each one(the jews have been expelled from many, many different nations in history). Isn't it a good assumption that this guy might be behaving in a certain way that is causing this, rather than just assuming all of the bartenders are just intolerant or whatever word you want to use?

The analogy breaks down on so many fronts it would take pages to analyze it. But just add the complicating factor of the group. Not one guy, but millions sharing the this fate of being kicked out of bars. Let's say Irishmen. Now is it likely do you think that there is something about Irishmen, present in millions of them, that cause them each and every time they went into a bar to behave in such a way as to be kicked out. Or is it more likely that all the non Irish who owned and populated those bars, many of whom had never met an Irishman, nor known one well, were simply acting as a mob, and acting based on some particularly virulent stereotype non Irishmen had been taught.

I think the concept of looking around this planet and adopting negative beliefs about a people based solely on them being different in some fundamental way not based on behavior is clearly a sickness.

Starr

09-15-2006, 01:38 AM

Globus

09-15-2006, 01:48 AM

The analogy breaks down on so many fronts it would take pages to analyze it. But just add the complicating factor of the group. Not one guy, but millions sharing the this fate of being kicked out of bars. Let's say Irishmen. Now is it likely do you think that there is something about Irishmen, present in millions of them, that cause them each and every time they went into a bar to behave in such a way as to be kicked out. Or is it more likely that all the non Irish who owned and populated those bars, many of whom had never met an Irishman, nor known one well, were simply acting as a mob, and acting based on some particularly virulent stereotype non Irishmen had been taught.

I would assume that it is the result of a behavioral pattern that the bartenders have detected in enough Irish patrons to come to the realization that this behavioral pattern is common to the Irish.

But you would be wrong. Many of the people of Europe, for example, did not come into contact with Jews, and when people do come into contact, when the Irish do go into those bars and met people they are discovered to be human beings just like anyone else. Your assumption rests on the truth of gross stereotypes and such gross stereotypes are not true. People who have been raised to hate will see the stereotype confirmed until experience overcomes it, it that much time can occur.

This is not to say that every individual Irish person who gets kicked out of the bar is going to fit this behavioral pattern. Bars, Irish, you have picked up a stereotype of your own here.

No, I have used a well known stereotype to show the false base of stereotypes.

I think the concept of looking around this planet and adopting negative beliefs about a people based solely on them being different in some fundamental way not based on behavior is clearly a sickness.

Is it a sickness to recognize those differences if those differences produce negative consequences for you?

If what is "recognized" is false stereotypes applied to someone just because they belong to a group then of course.

Starr

09-15-2006, 02:06 AM

If what is "recognized" is false stereotypes applied to someone just because they belong to a group then of course.

It is not sickness, but rather just stupid to believe that every jew,etc. is going to be a certain way. Most people who recognize group patterns of behavior can also recognize that not every member of that group is going to fit the pattern.

Stereotypes are often truth mixed in with some exaggerations. A stereotype is picked up on, believed, and held onto for a reason. Like with blacks, for example, and their having a higher crime rate. Because we could say not every black is a criminal, which would be completely true, does this cancel out the fact that blacks have a higher percentage of criminals among them, as a whole. is it a sickness to recognize this?

Globus

09-15-2006, 02:50 AM

It is not sickness, but rather just stupid to believe that every jew,etc. is going to be a certain way.

I don't want to get bogged down in semantics. But when false views of a people lead to action, to persecution, to violence, to ethnic cleansing and genocide that is more than just stupidity. That is an internalized hatred which bypasses all moral and religious teachings. And when that kind of hatred is passed down for millenia, you are talking about a much more dangerous phenomenon than low intelligence.

Most people who recognize group patterns of behavior can also recognize that not every member of that group is going to fit the pattern.

Himmler said in his famous speech on the Final Solution to officers at Pozen, something like, "now here comes every German with his good Jew who wonders why they must be killed." He goes to on to say more or less that these are exceptions to the rule and that the problem is very widespread and only a biological solution will work. That's the mind of a hater infected with the lies of stereotypes.

It isn't a matter of some claiming to recognize that the stereotypes don't describe everyone in a group. It involves the falseness of the group stereotype altogether because the stereotypes are lies built on tiny truths and in some cases totally removed from any reality whatsoever.

Stereotypes are often truth mixed in with some exaggerations.

Stereotypes are but the first step in the development of full fledged racist theories about a people. They soon become disconnected from an facts at all.

The Nazis didn't commit genocide based on some harmless stereotypes. They killed because they thought Jews were like a deadly bacillus that needed to be eradicated. The distance between that and a stereotype and the reasons for such a transformation is why the 2000 year history of antisemitism should be studied by all.

cyborg

09-15-2006, 04:15 AM

Who or what was responsible for conditions inside Germany deteriorating to the extent that nazism became popular enough to gain national power? Some people have reasoned that Jews had disproportionate influence in Weimar Germany at the time. Maybe they simply represented a group effect, distinctly adapted, as a people, to prosper within the decline of civilizations. WW I defeat and an overbearing League of Nations may have caused popular extremism to rise. The nazis probably sought to remove competing elements also sapping the strength of society. With the limits on mass distant transport imposed by wartime conditions, the elements had to instead be contained nearby in camps. Later harsh war conditions, common when supplies like food and medicines are routinely targeted for destruction, caused the effects we have been told are the holocaust of WW II.

Does unforgiving resentment and distrust represent irrational extremist hate?

Globus

09-15-2006, 04:21 AM

Who or what was responsible for conditions inside Germany deteriorating to the extent that nazism became popular enough to gain national power? Some people have reasoned that Jews had disproportionate influence in Weimar Germany at the time.

I haven't seen any "reasoning" applied to that. I've seen lots of antisemitic propaganda which claim that. Do you think the Jews arrived in Germany during the Weimar Republic?

Maybe they simply represented a group effect, distinctly adapted, as a people, to prosper within the decline of civilizations.

I see, so Germany had been in decline during the 400 years Jews had been in Germany?

Really now!

cyborg

09-15-2006, 04:29 AM

I haven't seen any "reasoning" applied to that. I've seen lots of antisemitic propaganda which claim that. Do you think the Jews arrived in Germany during the Weimar Republic?

I see, so Germany had been in decline during the 400 years Jews had been in Germany?

Really now!

This straw man form of argument belies an irrational defensiveness. There was no reason for it.

Starr

09-15-2006, 05:24 AM

What is not acceptable was that all Jews were held accountable for the actions of a few.

I would agree 100%

cyborg

09-15-2006, 05:28 AM

What is not acceptable was that all Jews were held accountable for the actions of a few.

We all routinely exclude others as individuals, using our own judgement. Societies exclude others using social pressure or legal means, by the judgement of society's people or rulers. It all sounds like Germany at the time wanted the Jews and other nice folks out - exclusion of like collections of people holding common ethnicity, religion, ideology and so on. We all have done so, societies do it to this day.

The Third Reich collected people into detention areas in and around the theater of war. This is probably how they best managed a program of exclusion given the conditions and limitations of the time and place. The Allies bombed supply convoys, trains, distribution centers and production facilities knowing full well that not all of the supplies were destined for only enemy armies. As a result of all these unfortunate circumstances, many people died.

We have at least one professor today who has called for a depopulation of the planet of 90% of its population, a dieoff of nearly 6 billion people. What's the big deal about all this genocide hysteria from many decades ago?

Petr

09-15-2006, 08:39 AM

Prof. Eric Pianka? His books are required reading material, the guy is a genius. The claim was all bullshit anyway, have a read of this:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/texas_academy_o.html
Have you ever heard about the difference between exoteric and esoteric statements? Pianka can now make all the "just kidding" denials he wants, but we won't trust him as far as we can throw him.

Petr

Basil Fawlty

09-15-2006, 08:52 AM

Have you ever heard about the difference between exoteric and esoteric statements? Pianka can now make all the "just kidding" denials he wants, but we won't trust him as far as we can throw him.

PetrIts called running the flag up the pole to see who salutes it.

Petr

09-15-2006, 08:56 AM

Its called running the flag up the pole to see who salutes it.
Could you clarify your statement? Just who you think is running the flag up?

Petr

Basil Fawlty

09-15-2006, 09:12 AM

Could you clarify your statement? Just who you think is running the flag up?Those who would like to carry out such a scheme.
Have you heard about the Lugano Report?

Petr

09-15-2006, 10:58 AM

Regardless, and in no defence of Prof. Pianka, do you want to guess how many people each day think that the world would be great if all humans were wiped out?
Quite a many, I would say. The thoughts of fallen men are wicked and murderous.

Petr

cyborg

09-15-2006, 12:01 PM

Whatever the case, we have a world of people with widely varying opinions about how to make better societies. Exclusion, mass murder and even genocide sometimes follow. A world with more open space, abundance and less people would reduce the frequency; less space, resource scarcity and overpopulation increases the frequency.

We have neoliberal capitalists who share the same goals with, but strangely oppose the methods applied by our neoliberal capitalist governments: eliminate opposition to opening new free markets. It is our own society that encourages resource scarcity and rapid population growth for fast profit, both of these together making a formula for more horror to come.

Globus

09-15-2006, 01:57 PM

This straw man form of argument belies an irrational defensiveness. There was no reason for it.

It actually pokes some holes in what was said.

Globus

09-15-2006, 01:58 PM

Were there Jews that should have been hung for their crimes at the end of WW1? Sure.

What Jews and what crimes?

Where there Jews should have been hung for destroying Germany with hyperinflation? Sure.

How did Jews do this?

Globus

09-15-2006, 02:04 PM

We all routinely exclude others as individuals, using our own judgement. Societies exclude others using social pressure or legal means, by the judgement of society's people or rulers. It all sounds like Germany at the time wanted the Jews and other nice folks out - exclusion of like collections of people holding common ethnicity, religion, ideology and so on. We all have done so, societies do it to this day.

Actually, the Nazis wanted Jews dead, not just out.

The Third Reich collected people into detention areas in and around the theater of war. This is probably how they best managed a program of exclusion given the conditions and limitations of the time and place.

Again, this is ahistorical. The Nazi sent Jews to death camps, and occasionally to work camps for a time first.

What right did Nazi Germany have to decide that there should be no Jews in Italy, Greece, Hungary, Belgium, France and numerous other countries? Characterizing what Nazis did to Jews as merely wanting them out of their country is false on two counts.

The Allies bombed supply convoys, trains, distribution centers and production facilities knowing full well that not all of the supplies were destined for only enemy armies. As a result of all these unfortunate circumstances, many people died.

A tiny fraction of Jews in camps died because of war bombing. Maybe hundreds. Most Jews were dead long before any bombing came anywhere near the death camps.

We have at least one professor today who has called for a depopulation of the planet of 90% of its population, a dieoff of nearly 6 billion people. What's the big deal about all this genocide hysteria from many decades ago?

Perhaps because there is a difference between consciously deciding to reproduce less and murdering millions of living humans?

Incitatus

09-15-2006, 03:51 PM

a) Claim that "the Jews" declared war on Hitler (whatever that means), and that anything he did to them was an act of self-defense
Sure, Hitler was antisemitic from the very beginning, there's no doubt about that. But like Starr stated, hate doesn't just arrive out of nowhere, there's always a reason for hate. The jews are not at all the eternal innocent victims they claim to be.

I'm not saying everything Hitler did was an act of self defense. But this movie states that the reason why jews were sent off to concentration camps is because of this international war declaration (which involved massive lobbying in other countries, economic boycotts etc.) of the jews: the jews in Germany were from then even more regarded as enemies of the German people... They opposed the national socialist state, so can you blame the Germans for seeing them as enemies of the Reich?

Again, I'm not saying national socialism wasn't antisemitic before this war declaration (which made front page news everywhere, just watch the video), I'm just saying that the presence of jews in Germany after this had happened had become practically impossible because of their hostility towards the Reich.

Globus

09-15-2006, 05:21 PM

Sure, Hitler was antisemitic from the very beginning, there's no doubt about that. But like Starr stated, hate doesn't just arrive out of nowhere, there's always a reason for hate. The jews are not at all the eternal innocent victims they claim to be.

All vicitms of genocide are innocent. And hatred of this sort is based on lies and bogeymen started and circulated by the haters to begin with. There is no rational, justifiable or even true reason for genocide or group hatred.

I'm not saying everything Hitler did was an act of self defense. But this movie states that the reason why jews were sent off to concentration camps is because of this international war declaration (which involved massive lobbying in other countries, economic boycotts etc.) of the jews:

Good God, that "movie" made by a bunch of amateur Holocaust deniers is a piece of crap. Read some history. And explain how the Jews of the ancient Jewish home in Salonica Greece, or in Italy, or Hungary, or Denmark- men,women and children- constituted any threat to Hitler, except as a member of a "race" he hated and wished to eliminate? There was no declaration of war, and placing credence in Hitler's overt propaganda decades after the history reveals what actually happened doesn't make any sense.

the jews in Germany were from then even more regarded as enemies of the German people

No they weren't. They were merely painted as such by the lies of the Nazi party. And many Germans understood that.

... They opposed the national socialist state, so can you blame the Germans for seeing them as enemies of the Reich?

The majority of Germans opposed the national socialist state. It seems you are desperately seeking a rationale for Nazi actions.

Again, I'm not saying national socialism wasn't antisemitic before this war declaration (which made front page news everywhere, just watch the video), I'm just saying that the presence of jews in Germany after this had happened had become practically impossible because of their hostility towards the Reich.

Rubbish. The Jews of Germany weren't so stupid as to express any hostility towards the Reich. They were busy trying to stay out of harms way. Jews had been present in Germany for 400 years and had made significant contributions to the society. The madness that was Nazism was an aberation.

Incitatus

09-15-2006, 05:41 PM

All vicitms of genocide are innocent.
Sure they are! First of all, not everybody here believes that this genocide you are talking about happened, and second of all: if someone calls another person's mother a whore and rapes his sister, and this guy beats him up, who's guilty then: only the guy who beat the other one up? It's the same thing here. Believing the jews are an innocent minority who has always been the victim of unprovoked hatred is RIDICULOUSLY NAIVE.

*personal opinions*
I as a racialist disagree. First of all it's impossible to look at every individual and rightly determine "who's good and who's bad", and second of all, if a certain foreign ethnic group causes significant problems in your country it's not more than logical that you want that group out off your country. The good ones are the victims of the bad ones then. Remember, that's like all those Lebanese civilians who had nothing to do with Hezbollah but still got killed by Israel.

Good God, that "movie" made by a bunch of amateur Holocaust deniers is a piece of crap. Read some history. And explain how the Jews of the ancient Jewish home in Salonica Greece, or in Italy, or Hungary, or Denmark- men,women and children- constituted any threat to Hitler, except as a member of a "race" he hated and wished to eliminate? There was no declaration of war, and placing credence in Hitler's overt propaganda decades after the history reveals what actually happened doesn't make any sense.
Are you besides ignorant also blind? Did I deny the fact that Hitler was a racist and hated the jewish race? Did I say that he wasn't antisemitic before this war declaration? NO, I STATED THE OPPOSITE. You're anti-national socialist tirades are completely based on blind rage (which I can only explain by agreeing with Rusty Mason that you are a vindicatory jew). This is not mere propaganda, not at all, this war declaration was front page news all over the world back then. That's not the reason of Hitler's antisemitism, but it made the jews' position in the Reich impossible because of their open hostility to national socialism.

No they weren't. They were merely painted as such by the lies of the Nazi party. And many Germans understood that.
First of all, you deny something without giving arguments, which reflects your ignorance. Then you post a wild, vague assumption about "many" Germans seeing the "obvious" propaganda through, again without anything backing your claims up. My God, Rusty Mason must be right, the more I study your behaviour the more I realize that you MUST be a blind nazi-hating jew. It's like the Nürnberg trials in here: hysterical vindicatory claims being made against the national socialists which apparently don't need any evidence whatsoever.

The majority of Germans opposed the national socialist state.
This is COMPLETE bullsh*t, this claim is so historically incorrect that I'm not even going to prove you wrong. Basic historical knowledge!

It seems you are desperately seeking a rationale for Nazi actions.
Well well well, pseudo-scientific psychologist crap in order to demonise your enemy... were have I seen this before? *jew radar alert*

Rubbish. The Jews of Germany weren't so stupid as to express any hostility towards the Reich. They were busy trying to stay out of harms way.
Some did, some didn't. The top zionists had good relations with the national socialists, who at first wanted to establish a jewish state in Palestine. But a lot of them made didn't keep their hostility towards Hitler a secret (which isn't illogical). You're telling me to read a book, you go read a book about this, for people who have some historical knowledge this is basic stuff as well.

Jews had been present in Germany for 400 years and had made significant contributions to the society.
Opinions, opinions. They did have some good contributions to German society, yes, but they also caused a lot of troubles, and what's more important is a matter of opinion. How long they have been there isn't relevant, since they were pretty much always persecuted, like they're constantly reminding us of themselves. And if you think hate just arrives without a reason, you're incredibly naive and blind. Are you an anti-racist btw, because that would perfectly explain your thinking.

The madness that was Nazism was an aberation.
To answer the way you usually do: no, it wasn't.

cyborg

09-15-2006, 05:52 PM

The Nazi sent Jews to death camps, and occasionally to work camps for a time first.

To date, this remains unsubstantiated biased opinion, unchallenged bigotry against people of German ancestry. People die in the world at large. The entire world is a death camp.

What right did Nazi Germany have to decide that there should be no Jews in Italy, Greece, Hungary, Belgium, France and numerous other countries? Characterizing what Nazis did to Jews as merely wanting them out of their country is false on two counts.

A people have a right to their ancestral land should they so decide. It is not functionally necessary for others to inhabit the same space. Everyone comes from somewhere and taking personal responsibility for local conditions needs to replace the passivity of asylum seeking or the self-centered opportunism all ultimately at the expense of a host people's prosperity. Parasitism is a conscious criminal act, not a human right.

A tiny fraction of Jews in camps died because of war bombing. Maybe hundreds. Most Jews were dead long before any bombing came anywhere near the death camps.

Its more likely that Allied bombing was thourough enough to not afford needed food and medicines at the camps. If photos are to be used as evidence, all we see is starvation and symptoms of disease. The photos do not reveal intentional starvation or intentional disease symptoms. Its also likely, as a commander, that if given a choice between limited supplies, he would send these to his fighting men and not to prisoner camps.

Trojan

09-15-2006, 06:05 PM

I think Globus, & Trojan may be Goyophobes, who have an anti-gentile bias. They may even be borderline hate mongerers, as well as extremist supremacists? :bitchfight: :nopity: :rofl:

Anyone see the irony in this statement by the Angry Aryan? :rofl:

cyborg

09-15-2006, 06:10 PM

The seething hatred and aggressive bigotry against white Western man is personally offensive to me. Semitic morality is hypocrisy. An equal right to peaceful separation solves this.

Watzy

09-15-2006, 06:11 PM

Trojan

09-15-2006, 06:12 PM

Sure, Hitler was antisemitic from the very beginning, there's no doubt about that. But like Starr stated, hate doesn't just arrive out of nowhere, there's always a reason for hate. The jews are not at all the eternal innocent victims they claim to be.

I'm not saying everything Hitler did was an act of self defense. But this movie states that the reason why jews were sent off to concentration camps is because of this international war declaration (which involved massive lobbying in other countries, economic boycotts etc.) of the jews: the jews in Germany were from then even more regarded as enemies of the German people... They opposed the national socialist state, so can you blame the Germans for seeing them as enemies of the Reich?

Again, I'm not saying national socialism wasn't antisemitic before this war declaration (which made front page news everywhere, just watch the video), I'm just saying that the presence of jews in Germany after this had happened had become practically impossible because of their hostility towards the Reich.

Paint us a picture of what Hitler's Germany would have been like in 1942 if the Jews had not "declared war".

Incitatus

09-15-2006, 06:15 PM

Did the Jews of the world "declare war on Germany"?

The word "war" means many things. In this case it meant planning to apply economic pressure.

But the IHR and Zündel want you to think it was a real declaration of war. How many divisions of troops did "Judea" have? How many tanks? How many planes? How many artillery shells?

The fact is that Germany started the real war, World War II, and started it by overrunning Poland with planes, bombs, tanks, and millions of infantrymen. To compare this to a planned economic boycott is ludicrous, but typical of "revisionist" trickery.
That's completely irrelevant. Nobody claims that the jews started an actual "war" as in an armed conflict, but they did declare a diplomatic war on Germany: economic boycotts, massive anti-German lobbying, etc.. This is about the jews being hostile towards the Reich and thus making their presence in the Reich impossible.

Incitatus

09-15-2006, 06:17 PM

Paint us a picture of what Hitler's Germany would have been like in 1942 if the Jews had not "declared war".
If you ask me, they would've continued searching for a place to establish a jewish homeland, like they did at first. A lot of jews would've been arrested for some kind of hostility towards the Reich, but jews who didn't oppose the national socialist state wouldn't have been sent off to camps, I think. Of course we can only speculate about what would've happened.

WFHermans

09-15-2006, 06:27 PM

The jews meant a real war when they declared war in 1933. Immediately targeted assassinations against Germans and a boycot of Germany started. I'm amazed that Hitler waited so long with rounding up jews. Compare that to the British who locked the Boers up in concentration camps, or the Yankees who arrested the Japanese immediately after the formal outbreak of the war against Japan.

Globus

09-15-2006, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Globus
All vicitms of genocide are innocent.

Sure they are! First of all, not everybody here believes that this genocide you are talking about happened,

Well, some people believe weird things, but that doesn't change reality, or history. And certainly their innocence isn't dependent on the difference between large slaughter and genocide.

and second of all: if someone calls another person's mother a whore and rapes his sister, and this guy beats him up, who's guilty then: only the guy who beat the other one up? It's the same thing here. Believing the jews are an innocent minority who has always been the victim of unprovoked hatred is RIDICULOUSLY NAIVE.

It is not naive in the least. "Believing" something about Jews is not the same as the fact of someone beating up someone. And Jews are hardly the only innocent group, minority or otherwise, which has felt the persecution of bigots. All are innocent. The bigot is to blame.

Quote:
*personal opinions*

Not in the least. The history of these persecutions and hate campaigns are replete with the lies and bogeymen they create.

[qouote]I as a racialist disagree. First of all it's impossible to look at every individual and rightly determine "who's good and who's bad",[/quote]

Racists don't do that, because by definition they are unconcerned about people's behavior, just their race.

and second of all, if a certain foreign ethnic group causes significant problems in your country

Jews were not a foreign ethnic group in Germany. A citizen of a country is a citizen. And the Jews weren't causing problems, the Nazis created lies that they were. Your problem is you accept the lies because you want to, even though if I offered you a thousand dollars you couldn't make a convincing case for these lies.

it's not more than logical that you want that group out off your country. The good ones are the victims of the bad ones then. Remember, that's like all those Lebanese civilians who had nothing to do with Hezbollah but still got killed by Israel.

Which is not at all analagous to your point. There is nothing logical about nations expelling people because of a spasm of bigotry.

Good God, that "movie" made by a bunch of amateur Holocaust deniers is a piece of crap. Read some history. And explain how the Jews of the ancient Jewish home in Salonica Greece, or in Italy, or Hungary, or Denmark- men,women and children- constituted any threat to Hitler, except as a member of a "race" he hated and wished to eliminate? There was no declaration of war, and placing credence in Hitler's overt propaganda decades after the history reveals what actually happened doesn't make any sense.

Are you besides ignorant also blind? Did I deny the fact that Hitler was a racist and hated the jewish race? Did I say that he wasn't antisemitic before this war declaration? NO, I STATED THE OPPOSITE. You're anti-national socialist tirades are completely based on blind rage

THen why does the rage seem to be coming from you? These pleadings you offer have nothing to do with the comments I was responding to, which are not in any way justfied by these admissions. The point you seem to miss is the Nazi claims were lies, not the logical consequence of understandable concerns.

(which I can only explain by agreeing with Rusty Mason that you are a vindicatory jew).

Thus revealing something about yourself, I would say.

Why is it that it always ends this way when you don't like the way the discussion is going?

This is not mere propaganda, not at all, this war declaration was front page news all over the world back then.

A flat out lie. There was no war declaration, and the headline of a single newspaper is the responsibility of the newspaper. What does it say when such flimsy non evidence leads you to state such an obvious historical falsehood?

That's not the reason of Hitler's antisemitism, but it made the jews' position in the Reich impossible because of their open hostility to national socialism.

Nonsense. It had nothing to do with it. What made their impossible was Hitler refusing to allow it.

No they weren't. They were merely painted as such by the lies of the Nazi party. And many Germans understood that.

First of all, you deny something without giving arguments,[/quote]

You didn't offer anything that was an argument,just a mistatement of the reality. If you wish to argue that the claims of the Nazis regarding Jews are true, support it.

which reflects your ignorance.

I would say you're suffering from a lack of argument.

Then you post a wild, vague assumption about "many" Germans seeing the "obvious" propaganda through, again without anything backing your claims up.

There is a considerable body of work on the the degree to which ordinary Germans accepted the stereotypes put out by the Nazis. You could read it. Why assumptions you disagree with are necessarily wild and unsupported when your own don't seem to cause you any concern is for you to answer.

My God, Rusty Mason must be right, the more I study your behaviour the more I realize that you MUST be a blind nazi-hating jew.

And the more you lose your cool the more you reveal about yourself and your argument.

The majority of Germans opposed the national socialist state.

This is COMPLETE bullsh*t, this claim is so historically incorrect that I'm not even going to prove you wrong. Basic historical knowledge!

LOL!

Do you have anything better than a national plebiscite?

It seems you are desperately seeking a rationale for Nazi actions.

Well well well, pseudo-scientific psychologist crap in order to demonise your enemy... were have I seen this before? *jew radar alert*

Why are all of your responses reducing to antisemitic acting out?

Rubbish. The Jews of Germany weren't so stupid as to express any hostility towards the Reich. They were busy trying to stay out of harms way.

Some did, some didn't.

No, Jews uniformly avoided confronting their persecutors, let alone fighting National Socialism. They continued far to long to believe in the enlightened worldview that had embraced Germany for some time.

The top zionists had good relations with the national socialists, who at first wanted to establish a jewish state in Palestine.

What German Zionists would that be?

But a lot of them made didn't keep their hostility towards Hitler a secret (which isn't illogical).

Who in the German Jewish community expressed publically hostility towards Hitler?

You're telling me to read a book, you go read a book about this, for people who have some historical knowledge this is basic stuff as well.

I'm still telling you to read a book.

Jews had been present in Germany for 400 years and had made significant contributions to the society.

Opinions, opinions.

So now you're going to deny this simple fact?

They did have some good contributions to German society, yes,

Lots.

but they also caused a lot of troubles,

Like what? And by the way, it is clear you do accept some of the Nazis claims about Jews which you got so upset about above!

and what's more important is a matter of opinion.

No, it is either true or it is not.

How long they have been there isn't relevant,

So you're not disputing this either!

And if this is the case what was all this talk about a foreign ethnic group above? Are they a foreign ethnic group after 400 years? Hmmm?

since they were pretty much always persecuted, like they're constantly reminding us of themselves. And if you think hate just arrives without a reason, you're incredibly naive and blind.

And if you think that has any relationship to what I have said repeatedly about that issue, you don't read well.

Are you an anti-racist btw, because that would perfectly explain your thinking.

I'm also anti-pedophile. Does that explain my thinking?

The madness that was Nazism was an aberation.

To answer the way you usually do: no, it wasn't.

So you believe as Goldhagen does that Germans are just antisemitic eliminationists!

Trojan

09-15-2006, 06:35 PM

If you ask me, they would've continued searching for a place to establish a jewish homeland, like they did at first. A lot of jews would've been arrested for some kind of hostility towards the Reich, but jews who didn't oppose the national socialist state wouldn't have been sent off to camps, I think. Of course we can only speculate about what would've happened.

Do you have any evidence that any action taken by Hitler was in response to this supposed declaration of war?

cyborg

09-15-2006, 06:40 PM

Really the some total so far:

Group #1: the nazis always lied, the jews never did anything wrong

Group #2: the nazis were right, the jews were always wrong

Social engineering has failed. Separation is needed.

Globus

09-15-2006, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by Globus
The Nazi sent Jews to death camps, and occasionally to work camps for a time first.

To date, this remains unsubstantiated biased opinion, unchallenged bigotry against people of German ancestry. People die in the world at large. The entire world is a death camp.[/quote]

It is no more unsubstantiated than the fact of the American Colonies obtaining independence from Great Britian. Or any other proven historical event.

Originally Posted by Globus
What right did Nazi Germany have to decide that there should be no Jews in Italy, Greece, Hungary, Belgium, France and numerous other countries? Characterizing what Nazis did to Jews as merely wanting them out of their country is false on two counts.

A people have a right to their ancestral land should they so decide.

Oh please! Which of those lands mentioned are ancestral lands of Germany?

It is not functionally necessary for others to inhabit the same space.

Is this the slogan for your political movement.

Originally Posted by Globus
A tiny fraction of Jews in camps died because of war bombing. Maybe hundreds. Most Jews were dead long before any bombing came anywhere near the death camps.

Its more likely that Allied bombing was thourough enough to not afford needed food and medicines at the camps.

Not more likely at all. The camps you were talking about were in Germany,right in the middle of German communities, where the citizens were doing fine.

If photos are to be used as evidence, all we see is starvation and symptoms of disease.

On the contrary, there are dozens of photos of mass shootings. And photos are but one type of evidence. You don't take photos inside a gas chamber.

The photos do not reveal intentional starvation or intentional disease symptoms.

Photos have nothing to do with determining intentionality.

The German myth of bombing causing starvation in the camps is just that, a myth.

Globus

09-15-2006, 06:42 PM

Really the some total so far:

[quote]Group #1: the nazis always lied, the jews never did anything wrong

So you propose a moral equivalence between Nazis and Jews?

cyborg

09-15-2006, 06:53 PM

So you propose a moral equivalence between Nazis and Jews?

Aside from manipulating the sentiment of morons, at what point does your moralizing get the rest of us to a shared objective truth?

Globus

09-15-2006, 06:55 PM

Aside from manipulating the sentiment of morons, at what point does your moralizing get the rest of us to a shared objective truth?

We begin by finding out what people really believe. I think progress, intentional or otherwise, has been made on this thread.

Now, are you suggesting a moral equivalence between Nazis and Jews?

cyborg

09-15-2006, 07:04 PM

Now, are you suggesting a moral equivalence between Nazis and Jews?

Do you refer to the whole of history of the two peoples as tribes? I would like to know which tribe today controls an exclusive homeland at the expense of other peoples, which includes many dead to date and which tribe has been denied an exclusive homeland, also with many dead. Let's take the moral argument to a higher level. Do the jewish people have a greater right than German people to an exclusive homeland?

Globus

09-15-2006, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by Globus
Now, are you suggesting a moral equivalence between Nazis and Jews?

[quote]Do you refer to the whole of history of the two peoples as tribes?

Why can't you just answer the question? What are you hiding? You're the one who posed the little silly.

I would like to know which tribe today controls an exclusive homeland at the expense of other peoples,

Virtually every tribe which has a homeland.

Including Germans, who after all are comprised of many tribes, many of whom are not indigenous.

But apparently you are trying desperately to focus on one, eh!

Just answer the question.

cyborg

09-15-2006, 07:12 PM

Do you refer to the whole of history of the two peoples as tribes? I would like to know which tribe today controls an exclusive homeland at the expense of other peoples, which includes many dead to date and which tribe has been denied an exclusive homeland, also with many dead. Let's take the moral argument to a higher level. Do the jewish people have a greater right than German people to an exclusive homeland?

How about affording everyone an equal right: a Scottish homeland, a French homeland, a Hawaiian homeland, homelands for African tribes on an entire continent, a homeland for the Chinese, for the Japanese, for the Polynesians in Tahiti. Do these people have an equal right or is this "hate"?

cyborg

09-15-2006, 07:13 PM

Including Germans, who after all are comprised of many tribes, many of whom are not indigenous.

I don't appreciate this hateful racist bigotry.

Globus

09-15-2006, 07:18 PM

How about affording everyone an equal right

How about answering the question? Are you suggesting a moral equivalence between Nazis and Jews?

And why do you consider musings about homelands a relevent response?

Hmmm?

cyborg

09-15-2006, 07:26 PM

How about answering the question? Are you suggesting a moral equivalence between Nazis and Jews?

Jews have committed the far greater portion of immoral acts than what was committed by nazis. Jews are not, however, more incorrect. They represent a collection of organisms using various means at their disposal to survive as a group. This is not immoral. Moral arguments are not useful. They lead us nowhere. If anything, immorality is failure to survive.

Basil Fawlty

09-15-2006, 07:30 PM

Jews have committed the far greater portion of immoral acts than what was committed by nazis. Jews are not, however, more incorrect. They represent a collection of organisms using various means at their disposal to survive as a group. This is not immoral. Moral arguments are not useful. They lead us nowhere. If anything, immorality is failure to survive.I would have thought the question of moral equivalence is inapplicable here as we are dealing with two groups with very different conceptions of morality. They are incommensurable.

Globus

09-15-2006, 07:33 PM

Jews have committed the far greater portion of immoral acts than what was committed by nazis.

What are some of these immoral acts of Jews?

Globus

09-15-2006, 07:35 PM

I would have thought the question of moral equivalence is inapplicable here as we are dealing with two groups with very different conceptions of morality. They are incommensurable.

Obviously when you ask someone if they are suggesting a moral equivalence you are asking it of a person with presumably one moral conception. You're asking for a judgement on that conception, not the conceptions of the things being compared.

cyborg

09-15-2006, 07:37 PM

I would have thought the question of moral equivalence is inapplicable here as we are dealing with two groups with very different conceptions of morality. They are incommensurable.

Most people seem to believe all humans are equally interchangeable, exactly compatible, while history and current events constantly tell us otherwise.

Helios Panoptes

09-15-2006, 07:42 PM

Obviously when you ask someone if they are suggesting a moral equivalence you are asking it of a person with presumably one moral conception. You're asking for a judgement on that conception, not the conceptions of the things being compared.

Why should the conception of the person being asked be priviledged over those of the things being compared? Why not judge the things being compared on their own terms?

cyborg

09-15-2006, 07:42 PM

What are some of these immoral acts of Jews?

Since all people err, and Jews having a much longer history than the nazi regime, say a thousand times longer, this question is rather silly.

Basil Fawlty

09-15-2006, 07:43 PM

Obviously when you ask someone if they are suggesting a moral equivalence you are asking it of a person with presumably one moral conception. You're asking for a judgement on that conception, not the conceptions of the things being compared.Yet that's an assumption that is contradicted by the existence of a plurality of responses to questions of morality.

There may indeed be such a thing as a universal moral law or principle, i.e. one that holds through time and space, but what is it?

Basil Fawlty

09-15-2006, 07:45 PM

Most people seem to believe all humans are equally interchangeable, exactly compatible, while history and current events constantly tell us otherwise.That's hardly any basis for establishing the truth of such a claim, or any claim for that matter other than ones that begin "Most people seem to believe . . ."

cyborg

09-15-2006, 07:48 PM

There may indeed be such a thing as a universal moral law or principle, i.e. one that holds through time and space, but what is it?

All I know is the impetus of life itself, to survive and evolve. Any more granularity and people lose objectivity.

Helios Panoptes

09-15-2006, 07:48 PM

Yet that's an assumption that is contradicted by the existence of a plurality of responses to questions of morality.

There may indeed be such a thing as a universal moral law or principle, i.e. one that holds through time and space, but what is it?

To make Globus' question worth answering, the participants in the discussion would not only have to agree to there being such a thing, but also to what it is. By means of argumentation, the true standard would need to be established, then the actions of particular groups could be judged by their degree of conformity. To just ask without going through this process omits the most important part.

cyborg

09-15-2006, 07:51 PM

That's hardly any basis for establishing the truth of such a claim, or any claim for that matter other than ones that begin "Most people seem to believe . . ."

Modern society operates on an ideal principle that humans are interchangeable and universally compatible. Reality has shown us otherwise.

Basil Fawlty

09-15-2006, 07:55 PM

To make Globus' question worth answering, the participants in the discussion would not only have to agree to there being such a thing, but also to what it is. By means of argumentation, the true standard would need to be established, then the actions of particular groups could be judged by their degree of conformity. To just ask without going through this process omits the most important part.Quite so. Having followed the thread up to now, I see that many people are talking past each other precisely because of these unexamined assumptions operating in the background. This is essentially the situation Alistair MacIntyre describes in After Virtue.

Globus

09-16-2006, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by Globus
Obviously when you ask someone if they are suggesting a moral equivalence you are asking it of a person with presumably one moral conception. You're asking for a judgement on that conception, not the conceptions of the things being compared.

Why should the conception of the person being asked be priviledged over those of the things being compared? Why not judge the things being compared on their own terms?

You seem confused. Let me try to explain.

I asked someone if the comment they made indicated a moral equivalency between A and B. Basil, apparently understanding no better than you wanted to know how moral equivalency could be pertinent since A and B could have different "conceptions" of morality. Of course that has nothing to do with the question I asked. I asked a person about his conceptions of the moral equivalence of A and B. There is only one "conception" to be applied, that of the person I questioned.

Sorry this had to be so tedious, but I assumed it was rather obvious.

Globus

09-16-2006, 02:31 AM

Since all people err, and Jews having a much longer history than the nazi regime, say a thousand times longer, this question is rather silly.

So you can't even produce any of these "sins"?

Globus

09-16-2006, 02:33 AM

Originally Posted by Globus
Obviously when you ask someone if they are suggesting a moral equivalence you are asking it of a person with presumably one moral conception. You're asking for a judgement on that conception, not the conceptions of the things being compared.

Yet that's an assumption that is contradicted by the existence of a plurality of responses to questions of morality.

I'll give you the same very simple explanation I gave Helios.

I asked someone if the comment they made indicated a moral equivalency between A and B. Basil, apparently understanding no better than you, wanted to know how moral equivalency could be pertinent since A and B could have different "conceptions" of morality. Of course that has nothing to do with the question I asked. I asked a person about his conceptions of the moral equivalence of A and B. There is only one "conception" to be applied, that of the person I questioned.

I hope that helps you.

Helios Panoptes

09-16-2006, 02:36 AM

You seem confused. Let me try to explain.

I asked someone if the comment they made indicated a moral equivalency between A and B. Basil, apparently understanding no better than you wanted to know how moral equivalency could be pertinent since A and B could have different "conceptions" of morality. Of course that has nothing to do with the question I asked. I asked a person about his conceptions of the moral equivalence of A and B. There is only one "conception" to be applied, that of the person I questioned.

Sorry this had to be so tedious, but I assumed it was rather obvious.

Unless there is agreement on a moral system, then your question serves little purpose. You might as well have asked him whether vanilla or chocolate ice cream is the superior flavour or they are, rather, equivalent. He might have an axiological system which makes Nazism and Judaism equivalent or one superior to the other, but what difference does it make if his system isn't right? None whatsoever.

Globus

09-16-2006, 02:41 AM

Originally Posted by Helios Panoptes
To make Globus' question worth answering, the participants in the discussion would not only have to agree to there being such a thing, but also to what it is.

Ah, no. One person was asked a question about their evaluation of moral equivalence of two groups. That involves only the questioned person's sense of morality, and that person didn't indicate there was no such thing.

Quite so. Having followed the thread up to now, I see that many people are talking past each other precisely because of these unexamined assumptions operating in the background. This is essentially the situation Alistair MacIntyre describes in After Virtue.

I took a course with Alisdair McIntyre, note the spelling. Your simple confusion does not rise to the level of any of his philisophical concerns. And I must say, he'd probably be appalled to have his name mentioned by someone of your views.

Helios Panoptes

09-16-2006, 02:43 AM

The correct spelling is Alasdair MacIntyre.

Ah, no. One person was asked a question about their evaluation of moral equivalence of two groups. That involves only the questioned person's sense of morality, and that person didn't indicate there was no such thing.

I understand. What I was saying is that it's a pointless question.

Globus

09-16-2006, 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by Globus
You seem confused. Let me try to explain.

I asked someone if the comment they made indicated a moral equivalency between A and B. Basil, apparently understanding no better than you wanted to know how moral equivalency could be pertinent since A and B could have different "conceptions" of morality. Of course that has nothing to do with the question I asked. I asked a person about his conceptions of the moral equivalence of A and B. There is only one "conception" to be applied, that of the person I questioned.

Sorry this had to be so tedious, but I assumed it was rather obvious.

Unless there is agreement on a moral system, then your question serves little purpose.

Nonsense. The question would elicit whether the person thought group A morally equivalent to group B.

The only moral system being examined is one person's.

Helios Panoptes

09-16-2006, 02:45 AM

And what difference would it make if his moral system is not superior to anyone else's?

Globus

09-16-2006, 02:46 AM

And what difference would it make if his moral system is not superior to anyone else's?

The question had nothing to do with superiority of his moral system.

Duh!

Helios Panoptes

09-16-2006, 02:47 AM

The question had nothing to do with superiority of his moral system.

Duh!

Who cares what his answer is, then?

Globus

09-16-2006, 02:47 AM

Who cares what his answer is, then?

Another question with an obvious answer.

Helios Panoptes

09-16-2006, 02:53 AM

Answer it, then.

cyborg

09-16-2006, 04:10 AM

Just how would describe thousands of years of Church sponsored antisemitism as "just springing out of the blue"?

It seems Irving and friends are not the only people involved in historical revisionism.

There is nothing logical about nations expelling people because of a spasm of bigotry.

Nations throughout history have expelled people from their boundaries for different reasons. The use of the word bigotry in this instance seems to be a failed attempt at some form of objective morality. The Nazis, right or wrong, perceived Jews as a problem for society and possessing the authority of national power, excluded them.

The question had nothing to do with superiority of his moral system.

My own moral standards are irrelevant when we are in the process of establishing what evaluates to true.

Globus

09-16-2006, 04:42 AM

Answer it, then.

Don't waste my time.

Globus

09-16-2006, 04:48 AM

Originally Posted by Globus
Just how would describe thousands of years of Church sponsored antisemitism as "just springing out of the blue"?

It seems Irving and friends are not the only people involved in historical revisionism.

The fact of Christian antisemitism is hardly revisionist.

Originally Posted by Globus
There is nothing logical about nations expelling people because of a spasm of bigotry.

Nations throughout history have expelled people from their boundaries for different reasons.

And lots of terrible things have been done throughout history. Doesn't make them logical.

The use of the word bigotry in this instance seems to be a failed attempt at some form of objective morality.

There is a fairly well accepted moral code in the western world, so citing it is hard a failed attempt at anything.

Nazi bigotry is an obvious fact and no accepted system of morality holds otherwise.

The Nazis, right or wrong, perceived Jews as a problem for society and possessing the authority of national power, excluded them.

You state the obvious. The Nazis were morally wrong, as just because a bigot has perceptions doesn't make his actions moral.

Originally Posted by Globus
The question had nothing to do with superiority of his moral system.

My own moral standards are irrelevant when we are in the process of establishing what evaluates to true.

Since it was my question, what you may have been establishing is irrelevant.

The question was simple. And the whining and intellectual obfuscation being employed to avoid answering it is quite telling.

cyborg

09-16-2006, 05:42 AM

You need to explain your motive for avoiding mutual agreement on discovered truths while favoring manipulation by way of moral argument.

What evaluates to true:

Nazis gained national authority
Nazis excluded Jews
People died during WW II
People were killed during WW II
Nazi regime defeated
Other than Nazi regime pays Jews restitution

What else can we discover?

Helios Panoptes

09-16-2006, 05:53 AM

Don't waste my time.

You are wasting time by asking pointless questions. The least you could do is provide answers to questions posed to you.

Helios Panoptes

09-16-2006, 06:04 AM

I will reiterate for you: if it is the case that any particular ethical statement is as true as any other, then why would anyone care what someone thinks about the moral equivalence of the Nazis and Jews, or the lack thereof?

Incitatus

09-16-2006, 10:46 AM

Do you have any evidence that any action taken by Hitler was in response to this supposed declaration of war?
I'll look for it, but seeing that historical books on national socialist Germany are most of the time written from an anti-national socialist statement and based on anti-national socialist books from just after the war, I don't know if it'll be easy. But I'll do my best.

And Jews are hardly the only innocent group, minority or otherwise, which has felt the persecution of bigots. All are innocent. The bigot is to blame.
This was the last time we've had a debate. Your complete lack of insight in reality and history keeps me from wasting my time trying to teach you a thing or too. You're too far gone, and I'm still convinced that you're either jewish or black.

Globus

09-16-2006, 01:44 PM

You need to explain your motive for avoiding mutual agreement on discovered truths while favoring manipulation by way of moral argument.

What in God's name are you talking about?

Globus

09-16-2006, 01:45 PM

You are wasting time by asking pointless questions.

The question is not pointless at all. I suspect that's why it's not being answered.

Globus

09-16-2006, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Trojan
Do you have any evidence that any action taken by Hitler was in response to this supposed declaration of war?

I'll look for it, but seeing that historical books on national socialist Germany are most of the time written from an anti-national socialist statement and based on anti-national socialist books from just after the war, I don't know if it'll be easy. But I'll do my best.

Your characterization of the historical works is self-serving and wrong.

Originally Posted by Globus
And Jews are hardly the only innocent group, minority or otherwise, which has felt the persecution of bigots. All are innocent. The bigot is to blame.

[quote]This was the last time we've had a debate. Your complete lack of insight in reality and history keeps me from wasting my time trying to teach you a thing or too.

You've exhibited no insight into history or the abililty to teach anything. You appear to be someone who thinks he turn the facts about Nazism and National Socialism on its head.

Helios Panoptes

09-16-2006, 02:22 PM

The question is not pointless at all. I suspect that's why it's not being answered.

I have been asking you what the point of it was for a page of one-liners to no avail. Stop beating around the bush and address the question. I am not going to go away...

cyborg

09-16-2006, 02:41 PM

Judea declared [race] war on the German people and this statement evaluates to true. We'll take careful note that Judea did not declare war on the nazionale socialiste regime of Germany, but rather on the whole people, after the fashion more resembling race war rather than contention with a regime.

cyborg

09-16-2006, 03:29 PM

Incitatus

09-16-2006, 03:37 PM

Judea at the time was not a country under a common regime. Judea was used for the purpose of self-identification as a collection of people, effectively a race. The Jews self-identified themselves as a separate people at war with Germany, not Nazis. It is the Indo-European race of people, through labor and taxes, over the span of four generations, who have paid restitution to self-identified Judea. The Nazi regime has not paid restitution to Judea. This is unwanted subjugation and enslavement, a violation of international law.
For those who are interested in that Judea, I'll give a link to Henry Ford's "The International Jew", which tells us something about the jews who'll never identify themselves as jewish Germans, jewish Poles or jewish Americans, but German/Polish/American jews. It tells us a lot about the way jews from all countries feel connected to eachother, especially because it's written in a time when Israel did not yet exist.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/intern_jew.htm

cyborg

09-16-2006, 03:54 PM

This is unwanted subjugation and enslavement, a violation of international law.

Judea owes restitution to four generations of innocent Indo-European people, none of whom owe restitution tribute to Judea for any reason whatsoever. Judea acquired restitution from innocents by way of graft: immoral or unscrupulous use of historic events to collect profit. The bill to date greatly exceeds $60 billion.

Basil Fawlty

09-16-2006, 05:37 PM

Judea owes restitution to four generations of innocent Indo-European people, none of whom owe restitution tribute to Judea for any reason whatsoever. Judea acquired restitution from innocents by way of graft: immoral or unscrupulous use of historic events to collect profit. The bill to date greatly exceeds $60 billion.Its a racket of world-historical proportions. Its called the Holocaust Industry (Finkelstein) or Shoah Business (Abba Eban).

Globus

09-16-2006, 05:39 PM

I have been asking you what the point of it was for a page of one-liners to no avail.

Then stop posting one liners. I could care whether you go away or not. The question stands and someone doesn't want to reveal how they feel about Nazi versus Jewish morality.

Globus

09-16-2006, 05:40 PM

Judea declared [race] war on the German people

No they didn't. Utter nonsense.

and this statement evaluates to true.

It "evaluates" to a figment of your imagination.

We'll take careful note that Judea did not declare war on the nazionale socialiste regime of Germany, but rather on the whole people, after the fashion more resembling race war rather than contention with a regime.

Judea did not declare war. Discover reality some day soon.

Globus

09-16-2006, 05:42 PM

For those who are interested in that Judea, I'll give a link to Henry Ford's "The International Jew", which tells us something about the jews who'll never identify themselves as jewish Germans, jewish Poles or jewish Americans, but German/Polish/American jews.

So in other words you'll post nonsense from a Jew hater because it conforms to your own antisemitism. You are all being cooperative in revealing that antisemitism has nothing to do with the behavior of Jews with a learned hatred composed of lies.

Globus

09-16-2006, 05:44 PM

Judea owes restitution to four generations of innocent Indo-European people,

Restitution for what?

none of whom owe restitution tribute to Judea for any reason whatsoever.

But Germany doesn't agree with you. You didn't let little facts interfere with your rants, do you?

Judea acquired restitution from innocents by way of graft:

A bald-faced lie.

Why don't you learn something about the reparation and restitution programs.

Globus

09-16-2006, 05:52 PM

Its a racket of world-historical proportions. Its called the Holocaust Industry (Finkelstein) or Shoah Business (Abba Eban).

You obviously don't have any idea what Eban was talking about.

He was hardly referring to reparations.

Helios Panoptes

09-16-2006, 07:34 PM

Then stop posting one liners.

Why? There is little more to add until you stop dodging and participate.

I could care whether you go away or not.

You mean that you "couldn't care less," no? If you could care less, you may care a lot.

The question stands and someone doesn't want to reveal how they feel about Nazi versus Jewish morality.

if it is the case that any particular ethical statement is as true as any other, then why would anyone care what someone thinks about the moral equivalence of the Nazis and Jews, or the lack thereof?

Globus

09-16-2006, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Globus
Then stop posting one liners.

Why?

Because it seems to bother you. And because you really haven't been able to contribute much to the topic of thread.

I could care whether you go away or not.

[quote]You mean that you "couldn't care less," no?

I mean what I said.

The question stands and someone doesn't want to reveal how they feel about Nazi versus Jewish morality.

if it is the case that any particular ethical statement is as true as any other,

It isn't.

Helios Panoptes

09-16-2006, 07:47 PM

Because it seems to bother you.

Not really. The responses bother me, but not that much, really.

And because you really haven't been able to contribute much to the topic of thread.

Well, I'm trying, but it's like pulling teeth.

I mean what I said.

No, I don't believe that you do. I take it you meant that you care very little, so what you intend is that you could not possibly care less. Of course, that's hyperbole because you could care less by not even being aware of my existence, but we've uncovered the gist of it. You said you could care less, but this says very little about how much you care. Let's say that I love my mother and I say I could care less that she died; that is true. The more I care, the more "less" there is.

It isn't.

Now we're getting somewhere. Are you prepared to demonstrate first the truth-aptness of ethical statements, then that subjectivism is false, and some statements are objectively, universally true? Then finish it off by showing which, okay?

Globus

09-16-2006, 08:13 PM

Because it seems to bother you.

Not really. The responses bother me, but not that much, really.

So you just like to whine.

And because you really haven't been able to contribute much to the topic of thread.

Well, I'm trying, but it's like pulling teeth.

The only one whose teeth you need to pull are your own. And perhaps you should check what the thread topic is.

Quote:
I mean what I said.

No, I don't believe that you do.

Your beliefs are you problem.

It isn't.

Now we're getting somewhere.[/quote]

LOL!

Are you prepared to demonstrate first the truth-aptness of ethical statements,

Why don't you stop playing silly games with pseudo-intelligent phrases and say what you want to say? I suspect we'd find it's not much.

Helios Panoptes

09-16-2006, 08:25 PM

Your beliefs are you problem.

That is not a response. It is clear that you misspoke and you are too intransigent and prideful to admit it.

Why don't you stop playing silly games with pseudo-intelligent phrases and say what you want to say? I suspect we'd find it's not much.

I have said what I want to say several times. If any ethical statement is as true as any other, then what is the point of asking someone about the moral equivalancy or lack thereof of two different entities? After much effort, I finally got you to address this question and you responded that the antecedent is false. That is a start, but you need to prove it.

Globus

09-16-2006, 08:29 PM

Your beliefs are you problem.

That is not a response.

Obviously it is.

Why don't you stop playing silly games with pseudo-intelligent phrases and say what you want to say? I suspect we'd find it's not much.

I have said what I want to say several times.

Really! Where is it?

If any ethical statement is as true as any other, then what is the point of asking someone about the moral equivalancy or lack thereof of two different entities?

You're premise is false and the entire statement irrelevant to the question asked.

Helios Panoptes

09-16-2006, 08:38 PM

Obviously it is.

Obviously, I meant that it's not a very good one.

Really! Where is it?

Read the thread. I do not provide summaries for the lazy or cognitively impaired.

You're premise is false and the entire statement irrelevant to the question asked.

No, it is true. It's a material conditional that can be written as follows "If any ethical statement is as true as any other, then there is no point to asking someone about the moral equivalency, or lack thereof, of two entities." The antecedent is false, in your estimation, so the conditional is true. It would only be false if the antecedent were true and the consequent false.

Anyway...my comments on your question weren't irrelevant. As I have said, if there is no standard priviliedged above others, I see no reason to care what he thinks about the morality of Nazis and Jews.

Basil Fawlty

09-16-2006, 09:22 PM

I took a course with Alisdair McIntyre, note the spelling. Your simple confusion does not rise to the level of any of his philisophical concerns. And I must say, he'd probably be appalled to have his name mentioned by someone of your views. Let's see what we have here.

1.) "I took a course with Alisdair McIntyre, note the spelling." = Pettyfogging + unverifiable claim.

2.) "Your simple confusion does not rise to the level of any of his philisophical concerns" = Personal abuse + evasion of substantive issue: complete failure to show how I do not "rise to the level of any of his philosophical concerns."

3.) "And I must say, he'd probably be appalled to have his name mentioned by someone of your views." = Ad hominem argument + more personal abuse.

You're a sad little man, Globus.

Globus

09-16-2006, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by Globus
I took a course with Alisdair McIntyre, note the spelling. Your simple confusion does not rise to the level of any of his philisophical concerns. And I must say, he'd probably be appalled to have his name mentioned by someone of your views.

Let's see what we have here.

1.) "I took a course with Alisdair McIntyre, note the spelling." = Pettyfogging + unverifiable claim.[/quote]

As is your contention to have read anything by. Double standard employed merely to be an ass.

2.) "Your simple confusion does not rise to the level of any of his philisophical concerns" = Personal abuse + evasion of substantive issue: complete failure to show how I do not "rise to the level of any of his philosophical concerns."

Nothing personal about the observation noted, nothing evasive about, and the comment was about your confusion, not you failing to rise to any level. Conclusion, doubtful you get through the work mentioned.

3.) "And I must say, he'd probably be appalled to have his name mentioned by someone of your views." = Ad hominem argument + more personal abuse.

Not ad hominem at all. A statement of simple fact. Face it, if you could actually every say something meaningful, rather than just throwing out such strained references to someone you've likely never read, let along understood, we'd now whether you could really defend a position.

You're a sad little man, Globus.

Don't like having your little pretensions pricked, eh!

Basil Fawlty

09-16-2006, 09:55 PM

As is your contention to have read anything by. Double standard employed merely to be an ass.Your claim to have taken a course with McIntyre is unverifiable whereas my claim to be familiar with his work is verified simply by discussing his thesis, something you refuse to do preferring to indulge in your usual venom-spew. I am happy to cite and discuss freely from After Virtue, a copy of which I have right here (contrary to your insinuations otherwise), in any discussion of that text you dare to enter.

You might also try and learn how to use the quote function - and that's not pettyfogging because its often difficult to work out who is saying what in your reply posts.

Globus

09-16-2006, 09:57 PM

Obviously it is.

Obviously, I meant that it's not a very good one.[/quote]

Good for you.

Quote:
Really! Where is it?

Read the thread. I do not provide summaries for the lazy or cognitively impaired.

You mean you weren't able to do so in the first place.

Quote:
You're premise is false and the entire statement irrelevant to the question asked.

No, it is true.

No, the premise is false.

It's a material conditional

And the whether a material conditional is true or not is determined partly by whether the antecedent is true or not. Your antecedent is false.

Anyway...my comments on your question weren't irrelevant. As I have said, if there is no standard priviliedged above others,

No one was talking about multiple standards, which is why your mewlings are irrelevant.

Globus

09-16-2006, 10:01 PM

Your claim to have taken a course with McIntyre is unverifiable whereas my claim to be familiar with his work is verified simply by discussing his thesis,

No, afraid not. What little you say about anything could be picked up off the internet. You demonstrated any understanding of much of anything, frankly.

something you refuse to do preferring to indulge in your usual venom-spew. I am happy to cite and discuss freely from After Virtue, a copy of which I have right here (contrary to your insinuations otherwise), in any discussion of that text you dare to enter.

Discuss away Basil, after all you raised it in reference to this thread.

Helios Panoptes

09-16-2006, 10:07 PM

Good for you.

I explained the reason why you misspoke very clearly. You have failed completely to counter my comments. It is not an important matter, but your refusal to just admit that you mangled the idiom and move on is very telling. It's pathetic.

You mean you weren't able to do so in the first place.

No, if I had meant that, then I would've said it.

No, the premise is false.

Prove it.

And the whether a material conditional is true or not is determined partly by whether the antecedent is true or not. Your antecedent is false.

Indeed, but it is false only if the antecedent is true and the consequent false. Draw a truth table if you have to.

No one was talking about multiple standards, which is why your mewlings are irrelevant.

You are clearly unable to grasp the nature of this problem. If there is a true standard, then we can compare the degree to which Nazis and Jews conform to it, but if there is not, I asked why the question was worth answering. You said that ethical statements are not all equally true(and are truth-apt), but have refused to discuss in greater detail.

P.S. There is not much more to say about this. You are incompetent, obdurate, and a complete waste of my time.

Basil Fawlty

09-16-2006, 10:16 PM

No, afraid not. What little you say about anything could be picked up off the internet. You demonstrated any understanding of much of anything, frankly.Interesting slip, another one for the Freudian slip thread.

Your bluff is easily called. I have a copy of After Virtue (2nd ed.) here. It is a simple matter for someone to post a page number of their choisng and I will type out the first line. You will then of course produce proof of your claim. :rofl:
Discuss away Basil, after all you raised it in reference to this thread.Certainly, tomorrow morning I shall be reviewing your earlier insolent attempted interrogation of Lupus and show how instead of discussing the underlying moral problem that Lupus hinted at and that MacIntyre analyses, you preferred to try and set him up for a barrage of ad hominem arguments blended with personal insults. Helios has already done a very good job in drawing out the vacuity of your stance, but there's no harm, in supplementing it.

Globus

09-17-2006, 02:03 AM

Good for you.

I explained the reason why you misspoke very clearly.

If you must say so yourself!

But like your understanding of logic, it was deficient.

You mean you weren't able to do so in the first place.

No, if I had meant that, then I would've said it.

If you'd known, you mean.

No, the premise is false.

Prove it.

It's your premise. It's your obligation to prove its validity. You won't, because you can't.

And the whether a material conditional is true or not is determined partly by whether the antecedent is true or not. Your antecedent is false.

[quote]Indeed, but it is false only if the antecedent is true and the consequent false.

No, it is false if either is false.

No one was talking about multiple standards, which is why your mewlings are irrelevant.

You are clearly unable to grasp the nature of this problem. If there is a true standard,

Please stop talking nonsense. A "true" standard is gibberish and has nothing to do with the very simple questions asked.

I don't know quite why you feel the need to make peope think you know anything about logic, but the fact is you don't appear to know anything about it. So stop wasting out time.

Globus

09-17-2006, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by Globus
No, afraid not. What little you say about anything could be picked up off the internet. You demonstrated any understanding of much of anything, frankly.

Interesting slip, another one for the Freudian slip thread.

So now you're going to reveal your ignornance about Freud!

Your bluff is easily called. I have a copy of After Virtue (2nd ed.) here.

Good for you. And your bluff is easily called, loudmouth. You raised it in reference to this thread. Do something other than mouthing the name.

Discuss away Basil, after all you raised it in reference to this thread.

Certainly, tomorrow morning I shall be reviewing your earlier insolent attempted interrogation of Lupus and show how instead of discussing the underlying moral problem that Lupus hinted at and that MacIntyre analyses,

Sure you will!!!!

How many examples of your threats to appear intelligent would this be?

Kriger

09-17-2006, 02:16 AM

If you must say so yourself!
But like your understanding of logic, it was deficient.

Please stop talking nonsense. A "true" standard is gibberish and has nothing to do with the very simple questions asked.

I don't know quite why you feel the need to make peope think you know anything about logic, but the fact is you don't appear to know anything about it. So stop wasting out time.

I am guessing you mean "our time".
Who is our?
You are the one who appears to know nothing of logic and scientific thought.
Your understanding of the topic is deficient, along with your grammar and confusion of thoughts.

Globus

09-17-2006, 03:20 AM

I am guessing you mean "our time".

Can't put something past you!

Helios Panoptes

09-17-2006, 04:17 AM

If you must say so yourself!

I do say so, because it is true. If you meant to say that you don't care, the correct phrasing is "could not care less," not "could care less."

But like your understanding of logic, it was deficient.

You are a joke.

It's your premise. It's your obligation to prove its validity. You won't, because you can't.

Your ignorance is boundless. An argument is valid or not, a premise is true or false.

No, it is false if either is false.

You are embarrassing yourself. Here is the truth table:
p l q l p → q
F l F l T
F l T l T
T l F l F
T l T l T

Please stop talking nonsense. A "true" standard is gibberish and has nothing to do with the very simple questions asked.

I have explained very clearly. Your intelligence or integrity is deficient, and I suspect both.

I don't know quite why you feel the need to make peope think you know anything about logic, but the fact is you don't appear to know anything about it. So stop wasting out time.

LOL! Go back to 9th grade and learn elementary logic.

Watzy

09-17-2006, 06:04 PM

...they did declare a diplomatic war on Germany: economic boycotts, massive anti-German lobbying, etc.. This is about the jews being hostile towards the Reich and thus making their presence in the Reich impossible.

You stated a motive for mass extermination without precedent, known to more recent historiography as THE Holocaust.

Incitatus

09-17-2006, 06:30 PM

You stated a motive for mass extermination without precedent, known to more recent historiography as THE Holocaust.
Well, if you have the time please watch the movies and tell me afterwards if you still think that really happened. :)

Basil Fawlty

09-17-2006, 09:47 PM

A summary of the 'moral' discussion so far.
The emboldened parts are those that the next poster quotes and comments on.
Back in post 59 Lupus posted the following:
Really the some total so far:

Group #1: the nazis always lied, the jews never did anything wrong

Group #2: the nazis were right, the jews were always wrong

Social engineering has failed. Separation is needed.Globus (post 61) responded with this question quoting only the highlighted part of Lupus' post above:
So you propose a moral equivalence between Nazis and Jews?How do we make sense of such a question? It implies that there is a single moral standard or principle under which we can make an evaluation. It would hardly advance the discussion if one were to reduce either side to the moral standards of the other, i.e. assess Judaism according to Nazi moral values or vice versa. Neither is it interesting to hear expressions of preference as if we were choosing new curtain material.

What is required is an independent and universal moral principle by which we measure both. Such a principle would give us the means by which we could evaluate the truth or falsity of ethical statements. This seems to be altogether lacking, certainly from the discussion as it develops. But this touches on a wider and deeper problem which Alasdair MacIntyre analyses in After Virtue and from which I will exceprt and discuss shortly.

On the one hand, morality is often seen to be relative to a specific time or culture, while on the other, many attempts have been made to adduce a universal moral principle from which a comprehensive morality or ethical system can be deduced. Hitherto none have been successful – satisfying the demands of universality. It’s probably important to note that it is generally believed to be highly desirable that there is such a principle, as opposed to the alternative which would have us living in a moral Babel in which anything goes.
Such an evaluation as implied by Globus' question to Lupus seems impossible unless such a principle can be found and agreed on. We must do this if we want to avoid leaving the field to the following statement: “it is the case that any particular ethical statement is as true as any other.”

Helios spells out what is at stake here. If it were true “then what is the point of asking someone about the moral equivalancy or lack thereof of two different entities?”
In post 116 Globus says that it is not true, i.e. “any particular ethical statement is as true as any other” is false. Great, I for one want to agree with that.
But that’s as far as we get for Globus then veers off into his characteristic thread-derailing tactics. One can only suspect that the reason he does this is because he is only too well aware of the frightful difficulties involved in trying to establish that universal principle which would thereby defeat the ethical relativist and demolish the ethical tower of Babel.

cerberus

09-17-2006, 11:12 PM

The Nazis used the Jews as phamtoms , the great enemy from within who stood against everything German - the hand which held the dagger of defeat in 1918 - the sum of all the ills which followed.

A great piece of mythical propaganda.

What did the Jews "do wrong" ?
As far as lies goes , the Nazis were very good at passing them off - they needed the Jews and required the fear and revulsion which their propaganda generated.

When you look at the range of propaganda employed to carry the message of "the party" , the comic book images , the use of moive news footage over cut with a " germanic" view of the Jew and what "the party" believed the Jew was doing and what good Germans should do about them you have to wonder o what basis can you actually give serious thought to the Nazi message.
Add to this a raft of racially driven laws to isloate , disposess , intimidate , bully and steal from.

Does all that came to pass justify the means ?

Trojan has posted up some info. which came from Axis History which gives some background on the " Judea declares war on Germany " myth , this declaration of war is nowt but a poor piece of race hate which was spun then and is still believed now by the gulible who cling to any half baked idea which might exonorate the nazis from the burden of their own guilt.

Can the means and the ends be justified , I think not. It is for each of us to decide if what took place in Germany and later throught out occupied Europe can be justified - making people stateless , denying them a right to live and work within society , stealing from them and eventually murdering them .
And all for what reason ?

Basil Fawlty

09-18-2006, 09:17 AM

What is required is an independent and universal moral principle by which we measure both. Such a principle would give us the means by which we could evaluate the truth or falsity of ethical statements. This seems to be altogether lacking, certainly from the discussion as it develops. But this touches on a wider and deeper problem which Alasdair MacIntyre analyses in After Virtue and from which I will exceprt and discuss shortly. So, below is a brief outline of how MacIntyre analyses the general situation of moral discourse in contemporary western society.

The most striking feature of contemporary moral utterance is that so much of it is used to express disagreements; and the most striking feature of the debates in which these disagreements are expressed is their interminable character. I do not mean by this just that such debates go on and on and on — although they do — but also that they apparently can find no terminus. There seems to be no rational way of securing moral agreement in our culture. Consider three examples of just such contemporary moral debate framed in terms of characteristic and well-known rival moral arguments: 1 (a) A just war is one in which the good to be achieved outweighs the evils involved in waging the war and in which a clear distinction can be made between combatants —whose lives are at stake —and innocent noncombatants. But in a modern war calculation of future escalation is never reliable and no practically applicable distinction between combatants and noncombatants can be made. Therefore no modern war can be a just war and we all now ought to be pacifists.
(b) If you wish for peace, prepare for war. The only way to achieve peace is to deter potential aggressors. Therefore you must build up your armaments and make it clear that going to war on any particular scale is not necessarily ruled out by your policies. An inescapable part of making this clear is being prepared both to fight limited wars and to go not only to, but beyond, the nuclear brink on certain types of occasion. Otherwise you will not avoid war and you will be defeated.
(c) Wars between the Great Powers are purely destructive; but wars waged to liberate oppressed groups, especially in the Third World, are a necessary and therefore justified means for destroying the exploitative domination which stands between mankind and happiness.
2 (a) Everybody has certain rights over his or her own person, including his or her own body. It follows from the nature of these rights that at the stage when the embryo is essentially part of the mother's body, the

mother has a right to make her own uncoerced decision on whether she will have an abortion or not. Therefore abortion is morally permissible and ought to be allowed by law.
(b) I cannot will that my mother should have had an abortion when she was pregnant with me, except perhaps if it had been certain that the embryo was dead or gravely damaged. But if I cannot will this in my own case, how can I consistently deny to others the right to life that I claim for myself? I would break the so-called Golden Rule unless I denied that a mother has in general a right to an abortion. I am not of course thereby committed to the view that abortion ought to be legally prohibited.
(c) Murder is wrong. Murder is the taking of innocent life. An embryo is an identifiable individual, differing from a newborn infant only in being at an earlier stage on the long road to adult capacities and, if any life is innocent, that of an embryo is. If infanticide is murder, as it is, abortion is murder. So abortion is not only morally wrong, but ought to be legally prohibited.
3 (a) Justice demands that every citizen should enjoy, so far as is possible, an equal opportunity to develop his or her talents and his or her other potentialities. But prerequisites for the provision of such equal opportunity include the provision of equal access to health care and to education. Therefore justice requires the governmental provision of health and educational services, financed out of taxation, and it also requires that no citizen should be able to buy an unfair share of such services. This in turn requires the abolition of private schools and private medical practice.
(b) Everybody has a right to incur such and only such obligations as he or she wishes, to be free to make such and only such contracts as he or she desires and to determine his or her own free choices. Physicians must therefore be free to practice on such terms as they desire and patients must be free to choose among physicians; teachers must be free to teach on such terms as they choose and pupils and parents to go where they wish for education. Freedom thus requires not only the existence of private practice in medicine and private schools in education, but also the abolition of those restraints on private practice which are imposed by licensing and regulation by such bodies as universities, medical schools, the A.M.A. and the state.
These arguments have only to be stated to be recognized as being widely influential in our society. They have of course their articulate expert spokesmen: Herman Kahn and the Pope, Che Guevara and Milton Friedman are among the authors who have produced variant versions of them. But it is their appearance in newspaper editorials and high-school debates, on radio talk shows and letters to congressmen, in bars, barracks and board-
rooms, it is their typicality that makes them important examples here. What salient characteristics do these debates and disagreements share?
They are of three kinds. The first is what I shall call, adapting an expression from the philosophy of science, the conceptual incommensurability of the rival arguments in each of the three debates. Every one of the arguments is logically valid or can be easily expanded so as to be made so; the conclusions do indeed follow from the premises. But the rival premises are such that we possess no rational way of weighing the claims of one as against another. For each premise employs some quite different normative or evaluative concept from the others, so that the claims made upon us are of quite different kinds. In the first argument, for example, premises which invoke justice and innocence are at odds with premises which invoke success and survival; in the second, premises which invoke rights are at odds with those which invoke universalizability; in the third it is the claim of equality that is matched against that of liberty. It is precisely because there is in our society no established way of deciding between these claims that moral argument appears to be necessarily interminable. From our rival conclusions we can argue back to our rival premises; but when we do arrive at our premises argument ceases and the invocation of one premise against another becomes a matter of pure assertion and counter-assertion. Hence perhaps the slightly shrill tone of so much moral debate.http://libnt4.lib.tcu.edu/staff/bellinger/60003/after_virtue-excerpts.htm

Trojan

09-18-2006, 08:51 PM

Well, if you have the time please watch the movies and tell me afterwards if you still think that really happened. :)

Anything specific you find truthful?

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#debuv

Debunking Ugly Voice videos at http://zamphir.litek.ws [permalink]
About the Ugly Voice: Master debater by Sergey Romanov (21/08/2006)
Clips no. 11, 12: Videos, a must see! by Roberto Muehlenkamp (23/06/2006)
Clip no. 14: Ugly Voice Productions and the Holocaust by Sergey Romanov (04/07/2006)
Clip no. 3: Ugly Voice is completely ignorant about documentary evidence by Sergey Romanov (06/07/2006)
Clips no. 4, 7, 8, 22, 27, 28: An Ugly Analysis by Sergey Romanov (21/08/2006)
Clip no. 18: Whining and Kvetching from the Ugly Voice Producer ... by Roberto Muehlenkamp (23/08/2006)
Clip no. 19: Shooting Mattogno in the foot ... by Roberto Muehlenkamp (29/08/2006)
Clip no. 19: The Soviets went over the top in their lies ... by Roberto Muehlenkamp (29/08/2006)
Clip no. 5: More Fun With Ugly Voice Productions (Part 1) by Roberto Muehlenkamp (17/09/2006)
Clip no. 5: More Fun With Ugly Voice Productions (Part 2) by Andrew Mathis (17/09/2006)
Clip no. 5: More Fun With Ugly Voice Productions (addendum) by Sergey Romanov (17/09/2006)
Clip no. 13: More of the same trash ... by Roberto Muehlenkamp (18/09/2006)
Correction Corner. [permalink]
#1: "Every Jew is a nationalist..." by Sergey Romanov(08/04/2006)
#2: Himmler's visit to Birkenau in 1942 by Sergey Romanov(30/04/2006)
#3: who was Pranaitis and what did he do? by Sergey Romanov(02/07/2006)