Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So he needed PEOPLE, namely Germans to run all these camps, all these ovens, all these "operations" of rounding people up, shooting them and so on.
How was it not possible to kill Otto Frank, Anne Frank's father? Why did Auschwitz have a sick barracks(where Otto Frank was) if the Nazis killed anyone who couldn't work? Why did that Polish woman deliver thousands of babies at Auschwitz?
I would bet my life that more people died in the allied bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki than all the Jews who died in WWII combined. The holocaust seems to be a way for the allies to atone for their crimes by diverting attention to Hitler.
I'm tired of debating people with extreme cognitive-dissonance who try to rationalize and make excuses for things that simply do not make sense. The official story cannot be true. There are just too many contradictions. And people like David Cole(a Jew) is a revisionist because after the Soviet Union dissolved, the Soviet Archives were opened up and many of the "truths" no longer held water. That is why the plaque at Auschwitz has been revised multiple times.
But again I really don't care to talk about the holocaust. That wasn't my purpose in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
That's remarkable to say the least, because in Russia/Soviet Union Jews were always blamed for Socialism/Communism ( whatever you call it.) For usury and banking - that too, but NEVER FOR CAPITALISM itself.
If you go back to the early middle-ages, power came mostly from the control of land. And the relative strength of a King/country was largely in his ability to feed an Army. Thus serfdom was a system that maximized food-production by guaranteeing sufficient labor to the land owners. And since most wars were local, you didn't need much "money" to wage war because you could supply your troops with your own production, and what money you did pay your soldiers stayed within your own realm.
By the late middle-ages, the Christian Kings were often fighting wars hundreds of miles away. In the case of the crusades, the crusaders didn't bring food with them to Anatolia and into Jerusalem, they brought gold and silver and bought goods from the Byzantine merchants. This caused large amounts of gold and silver to leave places like Britain and France to the East.
The Kings needed to bring gold back into their country. This is why the Kings brought in the merchants. And with merchants came bankers because you need loans to buy goods before you can resell them.
Britain needed something to sell, and it found it, wool. This is one of the things that kicked-off the "English enclosure acts". Where much of the land was sold off to investors to grow sheep. Thus the old "common land" farmed by peasants, had been bought by capitalists who grew sheep to sell their wool to other countries in Europe, to provide a favorable balance-of-trade, bringing large amounts of gold and silver into the British economy and into the British treasury. Allowing the King to not only hire large numbers of soldiers in England, but to bribe and extort other countries, to hire mercenaries, and to engage in warfare around the world.
The benefits of trade led to an economic system called "mercantilism". The best example is when the British and Dutch were fighting for control of the spice-trade in southeast Asia. If Britain could control the spice, and every country had to buy spice from England, then massive amounts of gold and silver would flood into Britain, and the English King would have the money to build a massive Navy, and to influence foreign governments.
The Jews didn't necessarily create the system of capitalism, the Kings did. But the Jews were whispering in his ear because they were and had always been the merchants and bankers. They were the backbone of the entire system.
"Your sheep that commonly are so meek and so little, now, as I hear, they have become so greedy and fierce that they devour men themselves. They devastate and depopulate fields, houses and towns. For in whatever parts of the land sheep yield the finest and thus the most expensive wool, there the nobility and gentry, yes, and even some abbots though otherwise holy men, are not content with the old rents that the land yielded to their predecessors. Living in idleness and luxury without doing society any good no longer satisfies them; they have to do positive evil. For they leave no land free for the plow: they enclose every acre for pasture; they destroy houses and abolish towns, keeping only the churches – and those for sheep-barns.
Thus one greedy, insatiable glutton, a frightful plague to his native country, may enclose many thousands of acres within a single hedge. The tenants are dismissed and compelled, by trickery or brute force or constant harassment, to sell their belongings. One way or another, these wretched people – men, women, husbands, wives, orphans, widows, parents with little children and entire families are forced to move out. They leave the only homes familiar to them, and can find no place to go. Since they must leave at once without waiting for a proper buyer, they sell for a pittance all their household goods. When that little money is gone, what remains for them but to steal, and so be hanged, or to wander and beg? And yet if they go tramping, they are jailed as vagrants. They would be glad to work, but they can find no one who will hire them. There is no need for farm labor when there is no land left to be plowed. One herdsman or shepherd can look after a flock of beasts large enough to stock an area that would require many hands if it were to be plowed and sowed.
This enclosing has led to sharply rising food prices in many districts. Also, the price of raw wool has risen so much that poor people who used to make cloth can no longer afford it, and so great numbers are forced from work to idleness.
To make this hideous poverty worse, it exists side by side with wanton luxury. Banish these blights, make those who have ruined farmhouses and villages restore them or rent them to someone who will rebuild. Restrict the right of the rich to buy up anything and everything, and then to exercise a kind of monopoly.
If you don’t try to cure these evils, it is futile to boast of your severity in punishing theft. Your policy may look superficially like justice, but in reality it is neither just nor practical."
Not only did the merchants need banks to finance their ships and to buy merchandise to sell later, but there were huge advantages to merchants who could get capital at low rates. If your business needs $1 million for operations, of which 90% goes to overhead costs, then your net profits are only $100,000. Thus the difference between borrowing money at 10% or at 0% is the difference between being profitable and being bankrupt. Thus, acquiring capital at below-market rates gives a massive advantage to any business. Trading governments established and protected these bankers to make sure there was always sufficient capital to finance their trade. And to use the Navy and Army to protect their businesses. And once the "Rothschild" fiat-banking system could be established, these merchants could create capital out of thin-air, allowing them to finance anything they wanted at below-market rates.
But certainly, the mechanisms which led to capitalism were independent of Jews, and moreover it wasn't only the Jews who were part of it. To the extent the Jews are "to blame" is more to do with the nature of Judaism, which is a far more "materialistic" religion than Christianity. Christianity is by its nature completely anti-materialism. The Jews are "natural merchants". Whereas Christian nature is more like primitive-communism.
Thus the true triumph of capitalism was its corruption of Christianity. Christianity had banned usury for nearly 2,000 years, but it was forced to embrace it. Why? Not for moral or theological reasons, but for reasons of practicality. Money is power. Thus Christian churches went from preaching asceticism to the prosperity-gospel.
"The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews." - Karl Marx
The problem with the Jews, is that Judaism is a Supremacist religion(Chosen people), and the Jews form a kind of separate nation which uses extreme nepotism to keep themselves in positions of power. And they use their power to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. This has at various times in history caused the Christian people(and Muslims) to throw them out of their countries. Which is basically what the Nazis did, or were trying to do.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 07-22-2020 at 07:33 AM..
do you know how many fake stories there are about the civil war?
I just figured out that means, it's all a plot, there was no civil war, just a glorified color war
Parts of the Civil War can be fake without the entire Civil War being fake. Just like parts of the Holocaust can be fake without the entire Holocaust being fake. I really don't get your analogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
Since you clearly hate Jews, are you speaking from personal experience, and you are really just a Communist?
I am not a communist, but my point was, the people who really love capitalism, have no quarrel with the Jews. Why? Because they are themselves Jews. Not in religion obviously, but in form. To them, the Jews are just successful capitalists, and the people who oppose them are merely envious of their success. The capitalist has no concept for things like exploitation or usury. A predatory loan isn't the fault of the bank, but of the customer. And exploitation cannot occur without force. Thus the free exchange of labor or goods cannot be exploitation.
On the contrary, the people critical of capitalism tend to be hostile towards the Jews. Socialism has a rich history of antisemitism. And there is a reason for it. What I was trying to do in this thread was explain why people associate Judaism with capitalism. And why so many people hate the Jews.
Parts of the Civil War can be fake without the entire Civil War being fake. Just like parts of the Holocaust can be fake without the entire Holocaust being fake. I really don't get your analogy.
Ok While the Civil War is true I guess the battle of Bull Run was a confederate myth to prove that 1 Southerner was worth 6 Northerners. There never was a Battle of Bull Run.
There is more evidence of Nazis murdering millions of Jews, than the battle of Bull Run.
If judging on historical merits, My argument is less of an assault on the historical record than yours.
Do you even read yourself the material you leave the links for?
Your article says that there were 1.1 million killed in Auschwitz, but 400, 000 Holocaust survivors that are "still around" - that's not survivors of the Auschwitz.
"The term "Holocaust survivor" clearly applies to Jews who managed to live through the mass exterminations which were carried out by the Nazis. However, the term can also be applied to those who did not come under the direct control of the Nazi regime in Germany or occupied Europe, but were substantially affected by it, such as Jews who fled Germany or their homelands in order to escape the Nazis, and never lived in a Nazi-controlled country after Adolf Hitler came to power but lived in it before the Nazis put the "Final Solution" into effect, or others who were not persecuted by the Nazis themselves, but were persecuted by their allies or collaborators both in Nazi satellite countries and occupied countries.[1]
Yad Vashem, the State of Israel’s official memorial to the victims of the Holocaust, defines Holocaust survivors as Jews who lived under Nazi control, whether it was direct or indirect, for any amount of time, and survived it. This definition includes Jews who spent the entire war living under Nazi collaborationist regimes, including France, Bulgaria and Romania, but were not deported, as well as Jews who fled or were forced to leave Germany in the 1930s. Additionally, other Jewish refugees are considered Holocaust survivors, including those who fled their home countries in Eastern Europe in order to evade the invading German army and spent years living in the Soviet Union.[2]"
So THIS should explain why there are 400, 000 of HOLOCAUST survivors are still around.
NOT Auschwitz survivors.
Judging by what Russians are saying ( since they were the ones who liberated that camp,) there were only 7 thousand people left there ( half of them died within the next few days.)
These 7 thousand were left behind, since they were too weak to move, the other 60 thousand survivors were taken elsewhere, and most of them died during that march.
So 67 thousand - that was all what was left ( hypothetically, since most part of them died anyways) - that was all that was left on the day of liberation.
That's out of over million people.
Any more questions?
What I find odd, is how do you manage to twist all these stories?
A simple check shows that Ann Frank ( and her sister) died in CONCENTRATION CAMP, most likely of typhus.
So they were all sent to Auschwitz first, where they've been separated ( a regular procedure in concentration camps.) The daughters then have been shipped to a different camp (Bergen Belsen) where they died most likely of typhus, their mother died in Auschwitz from starvation, and Otto Frank ( father of the girls) was the sole survivor of the family, when he was liberated by the Red Army.
Says who?
There were about 9 million of them in Europe before the war, and 6 million of them were destroyed by Hitler.
About 27 million total ( as far as I know,) - both military and civilian losses, but Wikipedia is putting the number at 40 million ( not sure why, may be they include the losses of unborn population, as Solzhenitzyn does?)
"Claimed" by WHOM?
The camps were different of course, built with different purpose in mind; for example;
"Bergen-Belsen[ˈbɛʁɡn̩.bɛlsn̩], or Belsen, was a Nazi concentration camp in what is today Lower Saxony in northern Germany, southwest of the town of Bergen near Celle. Originally established as a prisoner of war camp,[1] in 1943, parts of it became a concentration camp. Initially this was an "exchange camp", where Jewish hostages were held with the intention of exchanging them for German prisoners of war held overseas.[2]"
And since the biggest carnage was taking place IN THE EAST, ( not in Western part of Europe,) - that's why Soviets ended up with the worst kind of death camps on their hands.
Mhm.
You still couldn't answer a simple question however, what would have happened to Marx if he were to live in Hitler's Germany.
There is no "racial element" in Islam, since Islam is all-inclusive on a basis of religion alone.
But the Arabs are still regarded as superior to the rest.
And so is Arabic language, which is regarded as the only "true language of Koran."
You can believe whatever you like about Judaism.
However this is not the point.
Hitler was destroying Jews not on a basis of their religion, but on a basis of their bloodlines.
That means no "conversion" or non-affiliation with any religion at all, wouldn't have saved their lives.
That's why I specifically asked you about Karl Marx, and what would happen to him.
Now we are getting strictly into RELIGIOUS part of the subject, so I guess I will have to address it in a separate post.
I think you may be wrong about the survivors. The real term means "Anyone who was present in the countries that was under direct Nazi occupation or were enemies of Nazies from 1933 to 1945" . Reparations were paid to them. So if you were French and moved to USA in 1934, you are technically a Holocaust survivor.
Henry Kissinger and Madeline ALbright moved to US at that time as well, so they may well be so .
And another interesting point that Redshadowz raised in another thread" why is America great" . He points out at immigration numbers. From 1880 to 1930, 4 million Jews came to USA. This was even before any trace of Holocaust or Nazi german power.
Ok While the Civil War is true I guess the battle of Bull Run was a confederate myth to prove that 1 Southerner was worth 6 Northerners. There never was a Battle of Bull Run.
There is more evidence of Nazis murdering millions of Jews, than the battle of Bull Run.
If judging on historical merits, My argument is less of an assault on the historical record than yours.
I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Can you tell me specifically what I said that isn't historically accurate? I would be glad to discuss it.
I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Can you tell me specifically what I said that isn't historically accurate? I would be glad to discuss it.
Quote:
I would bet my life that more people died in the allied bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki than all the Jews who died in WWII combined
I would bet my life that more people died in the allied bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki than all the Jews who died in WWII combined.
I was originally going to write "in gas chambers", but I thought that would be a tacit recognition of their existence. Then I was going to say "in Auschwitz", but I thought that would be too specific and it would appear I was deflecting. Then I was going to say, "under Nazi control", which is probably closer to what I meant, but I didn't feel like it would properly make my argument. So I went a little bigger because I was trying to make a point. Allied "Total-War" bombings probably killed more than a million civilians, about 250,000 of those from nuclear bombs. And nearly everything the Nazis were accused of at the Nuremberg trials, the "Allies" were just as guilty of, especially our buddy Stalin.
I really don't find this conversation interesting. And I'm not a Nazi. I began posting in this thread because someone claimed that the Jews were used as scapegoats, and that the hatred of the Jews had to do with Christianity. I can only assume they frame the holocaust this way to absolve the Jews of any guilt. But there are perfectly good reasons people hate the Jews, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Hitler or Christianity. In fact, most of the people who hate the Jews aren't even Christian, or Nazis.
I was originally going to write "in gas chambers", but I thought that would be a tacit recognition of their existence. Then I was going to say "in Auschwitz", but I thought that would be too specific and it would appear I was deflecting. Then I was going to say, "under Nazi control", which is probably closer to what I meant, but I didn't feel like it would properly make my argument. So I went a little bigger because I was trying to make a point. Allied "Total-War" bombings probably killed more than a million civilians, about 250,000 of those from nuclear bombs. And nearly everything the Nazis were accused of at the Nuremberg trials, the "Allies" were just as guilty of, especially our buddy Stalin.
I really don't find this conversation interesting. And I'm not a Nazi. I began posting in this thread because someone claimed that the Jews were used as scapegoats, and that the hatred of the Jews had to do with Christianity. I can only assume they frame the holocaust this way to absolve the Jews of any guilt. But there are perfectly good reasons people hate the Jews, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Hitler or Christianity. In fact, most of the people who hate the Jews aren't even Christian, or Nazis.
If you were a BULL Run denier you would have more historical legitimacy.
"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.
Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time. An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society."
Quote:
"The devout and politically free inhabitant of New England is a kind of Laocoön who makes not the least effort to escape from the serpents which are crushing him. Mammon is his idol which he adores not only with his lips but with the whole force of his body and mind. In his view the world is no more than a Stock Exchange, and he is convinced that he has no other destiny here below than to become richer than his neighbor. Trade has seized upon all his thoughts, and he has no other recreation than to exchange objects. When he travels he carries, so to speak, his goods and his counter on his back and talks only of interest and profit. If he loses sight of his own business for an instant it is only in order to pry into the business of his competitors.
Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade, and the bankrupt trader deals in the Gospel just as the Gospel preacher who has become rich goes in for business deals.
Christianity sprang from Judaism. It has merged again in Judaism. From the outset, the Christian was the theorizing Jew, the Jew is, therefore, the practical Christian, and the practical Christian has become a Jew again. Christianity had only in semblance overcome real Judaism. It was too noble-minded, too spiritualistic to eliminate the crudity of practical need in any other way than by elevation to the skies."
I guess I really upset you didn't I? Did you not realize most of the world hates you? Even Karl Marx, himself a Jew, called you out.
Of course I realize that.
EVEN?
you can't separate Communism from Marx's hatred of Judaism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
