|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jul 18, 2005 10:07:29 GMT -5
Melnorme, It was on a news article from Yahoo News. Not the link you prvided. Thanks, though. P.S.--I hope Aldwinckle is NOT Jewish. I really do. It's sad that the Jewish people are so unpopular. 99.9% of them are just like anyone else. As with all groups, it's just that .1% that make everyone annoyed. I winced when the whole ten commandments issue came up in Alabama and the man persecuting the Christians was a Jewish lawyer from the ACLU named Cohen. Or when Emma Goldman went around in the late 19th- and early 20th centuries, preaching the assassination of all world leaders--with the result that President McKinley was gunned down . . . his assassin crediting Goldman and her speeches. Likewise with Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Austria. He was gunned down by an anarchist named Princip--who also turned out to be Jewish. They've wracked up a terrible reputation for going into countries and stirring up trouble. So I hope to God that this guy in Japan now is not Jewish, as was reported in the Yahoo News article. In the current geopolitical climate, Jews need this like a hole in the head. I guess that's what happens, though, when you're such an international people. No other ethnic group is in literally every country on Earth. Not Greeks, not Armenians, not Eskimos. Jews--because of different historical influences--are the exception. . . . and it lays them open to wider global criticism and expressions of annoyance. P.P.S.--Here's an article whose writer [like you] assumed initially that Aldwinckle was a Gentile. Recently, because of other reports, he was forced to add a footnote saying that he MAY actually be Jewish. (In most reports, he's euphemistically referred to as a liberal Democrat "New Yorker"--with all its associations with bagels and City Hall Yiddish.) But until anyone can clarify this definitively, here's the link: www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000756.html
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jul 18, 2005 10:20:01 GMT -5
Droperdoo: I don't think the problem is Jews stirring up trouble but people like you seeing Jews every time there is a trouble. Jews are overepresented in all influential activities, good and bad. The Jews "causing troubles" is one of the tritest antisemite stereotype ever. As the Kristallenacht, that was them causing troubles, I bet. Think all the troubles that were not caused by Jews. Was Hitler a Jew? and Caligola or Nero? Spartacus? Bin Laden, Bakunin, Stalin, Savonarola, Robespierre ...
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jul 18, 2005 10:23:53 GMT -5
Gavrilo Princip?...no way. And he was a Pan-Slavist/Serbian ultra-nationalist, not an anarchist, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jul 18, 2005 10:29:21 GMT -5
Nockwasright, I didn't invent that stereotype. And I don't endorse it: Re-read my post. I clearly--and unambiguously--said that 99.9% of Jews are just like anyone else. And I added that "due to the current geopolitical climate," Jews need news stories about activists stirring up trouble in Japan like a hole in the head. I don't see "Jews" everywhere there is trouble. But, because they're so overrepresented in the fields of media, banking and politics, they are closely associated with a lot that is going on--and rightfully so. I mean, even Winston Churchill observed in the 1920s that "bolshevism was largely a Jewish phenomenon". In fact, it was. About 85% of the first Soviet council was Jewish--in a nation where they were about 2% of the population. That's MASSIVE overrepresentation. So was Winston Churchill a bigot? Did he make up these facts? Of course not. But just because there's a little truth to some of these theories, doesn't mean that idiots should overreact.
P.S.--Krystallnacht was touched off when a Jewish lad named Herschel Grynszpan shot a German diplomat. Like all propaganda, you conveniently left that fact out. Objective reporting relies on context. The heart of propaganda is to remove context . . . as you did with the instance of Krystallnacht--implying [deceptively] that Germans, for no reason, broke the windows of Jewish shops. In fact, the reaction was similar to Arabs being beaten up [and in some instances killed] after 9-11 in America. Recently, in Britain a Muslim man was beaten to death after the bus bombing. . . . So please--in the future--if you relate an event, give context. Otherwise it's not worthy of you.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jul 18, 2005 10:56:18 GMT -5
But, because they're so overrepresented in the fields of media, banking and politics, they are closely associated with a lot that is going on--and rightfully so. Sorry, but I don't see you associating them to what of good is going on, only with the bad. Well I could say you too are leaving something out, as that Grynszpan act was a reaction to some small racial law, among them the ones pursuant to which the Polish Jews, as Grynszpan, were moved to the Polish border and robbed of all their properties by the state. This prompted the killing of a completely unknown to the public government officer. The Kristallnacht was not a spontaneous pogrom but a State organised propaganda operation, that ended with around 100 Jews dead and 2,000 deported. Spontaneous events do not end with the victims deported. Ali Agcà tried to kill the Pope (THE POPE) for no reason at all, and you don't see people going around smashing kebab joints.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jul 18, 2005 11:55:13 GMT -5
Nockwasright, Spontaneous events do not end with victims being deported? You say that since Krystallnacht ended in some Jews being deported that the government MUST have been behind it? Interesting. I believe that 9-11 [in the United States] ended in thousands of Muslims being deported. So, by your reasoning, the government of the United States was behind 9-11.
I see Krystallnacht as what it was: The inveitable result of building racial tension between two groups after terrorist acts. Herschel Grynszpan shot a German diplomat; before that, the burning of the Reichstag--whether real or not--was laid at the doorstep of Jewish communists; then before that communists took over the state of Bavaria for six days, with machine guns in the streets and bombs being hurled. And you forget that elephant in the living room that everyone is afraid to mention: The millions of Russian Gentiles purged after the bolsheviks took over Russia--and threatened to expand into Central Europe. The average German was terrified by what was continually being represented to him as "aliens in their nation, bent on subversion, revolution and purges." Was the threat real? Well, it REALLY happened in Russia. But does that mean that all Jews were conspiring together to actively take over Central Europe and murder all Gentiles? --Of course not. (There were some, of course--the lunatic fringe, the anarchists, communists, reactionaries. . . . A tiny, tiny percentage of the Jewish population--most of whom were normal citizens, who ran businesses, raised families and were assets to their communities.) I see what Hitler did as akin to what the Bush Administration has done, post 9-11: Demonize a convenient Semitic group, play up real acts of terror, mix in some phony ones and ride the crest of fear and xenophobia to political power.
P.S.--And you ignore one enormous social fact that effected the dynamics of deportation: Germany had a relatively small Jewish population. At the end of the 19th Century, with all the pogroms in Poland and Russia, tens of thousands of Jews poured over the border into Germany--which [like all nations in a similar situation] had trouble assimilating them. Even the older German-Jewish communities were antagonistic toward the Eastern European Jews--who tended to be poorer and less educated. Karl Kraus [an Austrian Jew] related his own shame at seeing these Eastern Jews panhandling in the streets and embarrassing their assimilated Jewish cousins. So this massive population of new Jews were regarded by Germans [and older Jewish communities alike] as how Americans view illegal Mexicans. You mention deportation--not realizing, perhaps, that the lion's share of these Jews were new to Germany in the first place, thousands and thousands having arrived a mere generation earlier.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jul 18, 2005 17:42:49 GMT -5
How can you seriously compare the Bush adminstration with Hitler? At the time of the Kristallnacht there were already racial laws in Germany, which limited the liberty of some Jews and confiscated the property and oredered the deporting of other Jews. This only on the account of them being Jews. Where is the same in the USA? Grynszpan had been robbed of all his own and deported just because he was a Jew, no other reason attached. Can you show me when did something of the kind happen in the USA? The Jews had to pay for all the damages to public property done by the perpetrators of the kristallnacht pogrom, because they were "legitimately enraged by Jewish behaviour". Now what's the equal of this in the USA? No historycian considers the kristallnacht a "spontaneous event". Btw, I never heard of this deported muslims in the USA. Who are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jul 18, 2005 19:27:44 GMT -5
Nockwasright, I'm not going to argue with you. You're clearly a good person, an intelligent debater and a deeply moral human being. So this is an argument that I don't care to pursue--because I don't want to attack a touching innocence I see in you. It's clean and shining and noble. It would be a crime against humanity to try and crush out something so beautiful. P.S.--As to your question about post 9-11 deportations--- An English proverb says, "When you go far enough east you're west". In other words, at the farthest extremes, both sides start to resemble each other. That's how I feel about both the ACLU and the rightwing neo-fascist groups. Liberal fascists, conservative fascists--both end up as Stalinists with too much power. . . . . So, now that you know my libertarian position, here's a link that says that thousands and thousands of Muslims have been deported since 9-11--just like how after Krystallnacht, Germany deported Jews who had NOTHING to do with terrorist acts perpetrated by Communists and anarchists [who coincidentally happened to be Jewish]. www.amperspective.com/html/aclu_report_12-2004.htmlP.P.S.--I know you'll hate me, curse me, consider me a lunatic, a psychotic, a delusional weirdo. But I *do* consider Bush on par with Hitler. According to the Red Cross, 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since our invasion. Our army didn't fight another army. Upon our arrival, Iraq's armed services disbanded--so our onslaught was focused on civilians. That's war crime. . . . 100,000 dead. [And more to come in our future wars with Syria and Iran.] I know that you'll repeat all the propaganda: Er . . . uh . . . 100,000 is a lie! The Red Cross is . . um . . . making it up for no reason. Or: All those people were terrorists--yeah, all those women and children . . . um . . . terrorists. Or: Our missiles are programmed to only kill insurgents. No one else has died. It's sad, seeing the same psychology all over again: If we were back in 1930s Germany, and I decried Hitler deporting Jews, the same people foaming at the mouth about Arabs would be saying, "What? --And you'd rather Hitler let those communists and terrorists kill more people here in the Fatherland?" Just today we call it the "Homeland" and the cartoonishly-evil people are another Semitic group. But I can't take it anymore. Bookmark this post. Refer back to it in a few months. Another staged terrorist attack will take place in a US city, Americans will be murdered by their own government--and the cartoonish case will be disseminated in the media that Iran was behind it. Iran will not have been behind it. But the murderers in this government will kill their own citizens ONCE AGAIN to justify yet another unprovoked attack on an oil-producing nation. Mark my words. (A CIA analyst has recently leaked a Pentagon plan to do just this.) But you won't believe it--or ever catch on that the evil isn't from without our nation, but from ruthless and lawless men WITHIN the government. It was just like this in Nazi Germany. No one would believe that their own government would murder its own citizens--until it was too late. They trusted blindly--and they paid the price. Americans will have a lot to answer for after all this is over . . . and after they are called to pay the enormous price of not standing up to the monsters with expensive suits and Ivy League diplomas. . . . Call me nuts. You'll doubtless do so. But mark June 6, 2006. On the calendar that's 6/6/6. These psychopaths seem to like dates that have cartoonish significance. It resonates in the public psyche. . . . Just my guess: a nuclear device going off on June 6, 2006 in a US city--most likely New York again. Bookmark this post.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jul 18, 2005 19:56:38 GMT -5
<<Liberal fascists, conservative fascists--both end up as Stalinists with too much power.>>
Droop,that doesnt even make sense... Fascism can never be Liberal or Stalinist,hahaha....thats hilarious!
Fascism is reacting against the far left which it hates Socialism/Communists/marxists/Liberals! Read up on real Fascism!
The faux-Fascism your using is the media's B.S spin on it.Its meaningless and wrong..Far to often does Fascism gets thrown around and equated with Socialism,Communism,Conservatism,Nationialism, Patriotism and various forms of totalitarian/Authorarian regimes ..this is done as slander and propaganda value by both the modern Left & Right against one another.
|
|
|
Post by Yankel on Jul 19, 2005 0:14:26 GMT -5
I mean, even Winston Churchill observed in the 1920s that "bolshevism was largely a Jewish phenomenon". In fact, it was. About 85% of the first Soviet council was Jewish--in a nation where they were about 2% of the population. That's MASSIVE overrepresentation. Are we using Henry Ford statistics? I hope not. That would be extremely lazy on your part. You're the only person who is overreacting here. You talk about the Bolshevik Revolution more than a disgruntled white nationalist. This isn't the first time you've used it to support a borderline anti-Semitic assertion. But I digress. Bolshevism wasn't as heavily Jewish as you claim. In fact, many Jewish Bolsheviks were former Mensheviks. After the Bolsheviks took power, they were invited to switch sides, and many did. It had more to do with avoiding full-blown surpression than anything else. Nock included said context when he mentioned it was concluded that the perpetrators of Krystallnacht were "legitimately enraged by Jewish behaviour". How bogus is that verdict, btw? Nock is right.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jul 19, 2005 0:21:37 GMT -5
Guys chill out.. PS **<<Bolshevism wasn't as heavily Jewish as you claim>> Come on now,if someone really wanted to,one could bring up Karl Marx ,Leon Trotsky,Julius Martov and Vladimir Lenin(think he was jewish?) who where JEWS and helped create the Red REVOLUTION!
|
|
|
Post by Yankel on Jul 19, 2005 1:23:51 GMT -5
Come on now,if someone really wanted to,one could bring up Karl Marx ,Leon Trotsky,Julius Martov and Vladimir Lenin(think he was jewish?) who where JEWS and helped create the Red REVOLUTION! Did you actually read what I said, or just that sentence? There were many Jews involved, but the figures are often exaggerated. Marx was born in Germany and died in London well before the Bolshevik era. Lenin was like me; he had a Jewish grandfather. That doesn't make him Jewish.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jul 19, 2005 5:28:23 GMT -5
The real problem with "Jews and Communism" isn't the fact that Jews were 'behind Communism'. I personally don't have a problem with recognizing that. Mistakes can be forgiven.
The problematic bit is the notion that the motivation of Jewish communists was not a misguided attempt to make the world a better place, but rather a covert/subconscious attempt to 'screw the gentiles', born out of malice or a desire for absolute cultural power. Adherents of this notion would argue that if Russian communism had not morphed into anti-Jewish Stalinism, that the Soviet regime ( ruled by Trotsky? ) would have become hypocritical, applying the destructive Marxist principles only to non-Jews.
I personally don't believe this - I don't doubt for a second the full capability of ideological fanatics to destroy their own kind.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jul 19, 2005 9:21:19 GMT -5
Crimson Guard, Fascism is a right-wing phenomenon. Mussolini said that fascism should rightly be called "corporatism" because it's when corporations work in lockstep with the government. We're seeing this play out in the United States right now, the government working on behalf of the corporations rather than for the people. It leads to the same government-friendly media, celebration of militarism, the philosophy of the jackboot. [After all, war is lucrative. And who's to question what a government does, when all the media are owned by the same people who bankroll the politicians?] There's no separation of powers. Government and corporations become one and the same. But there is something just as evil at the other end of the spectrum--liberal totalitarianism. But if you don't like the term "fascism," then call it totalitarianism. For the evil of the Left is suppression of free speech, political correctness, prosecution for thought-crime. I remember under Clinton a professor losing his job because he used the word "niggardly" and black groups protested. He wasn't even talking about blacks. He used the very real word "niggardly" [meaning stingy, cheap, parsimonious]. The college board of directors reviewed the case, saw that he in fact said "niggardly" and not another word--but upheld his termination because he SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that it sounded like another word. It's that kind of evil that comes from the Left. And as I quoted the old English saying, "If you go far enough east, you're west". In other words, the totalitarianism of the Left BECOMES just as evil and oppressive as the totalitarianism of the right. In a gruesome kind of way they both start to resemble each other. Like Black Nationalists who want all blacks to go back to Africa--and become identical in their desires to White Nationalists, who want the same thing. Or like the Zionists who collaborated with the Nazis, because they had the same goals: To get all Jews out of Europe. At the extremes, seemingly opposed groups start to resemble each other. "If you go far enough east, you're west".
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jul 19, 2005 9:34:32 GMT -5
Flowin Prose, I hope you're not missing the whole point of what I was saying: I have to keep repeating it, because everyone seems to ignore it--but I wrote that 99.9% of Jews are normal, ordinary people with no ties to extremists. But that .1% are evil--just like in all other nations and races. That .1% was responsible for Communism, purges, the murders of millions. Voltaire wrote that to deny the truth because someone might make a bad use of it is as silly as refusing to eat because one day something you consume might be poisoned. So, even though "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," as Alexander Pope wrote, intelligent adults--when speaking to other grown-ups worthy of respect--can venture to speak plainly, without all the cant. And that's what I attempted: I simply said that the Nazis didn't fabricate everything against the Jews. There were some real atrocities that they were responsible for. [Bolshevism is a good example.] But the Nazis manipulated the situation by adding to the real list of evils by making stuff up, too. They took a very real concern, and turned it into an imminent threat by exaggerating, twisting--lying. That's all I said.
It's childish--and intellectually disingenuous--to pretend that Jewish intellectuals didn't play a large role in 19th Century anarchism and 20th Century Communism. An adult can assimilate that fact and come away, saying that--for all that--99.9% of Jews had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with these evil institutions. And that was the crime of Hitler--making the 99.9% responsible for the evils of the .1% That would be akin to making Australians [who are Anglo-Saxon] pay for the sins of the British [who are also Anglo-Saxon]. To make some bogus connection based on "race" is evil--and never addresses the real perpetrators of these acts: Individuals.
|
|