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.
But what did you think of those quotes from his essay?
When the "worldly Jew" is not the real "Sabbath Jew" and the real Sabbath Jew is not the "worldly Jew" then what?
He is basically saying turn all the "worldly Jew"/"everyday Jew" into universalists, the fact that the Sabbath Jew is the real Jew who has the Jewish Ideology and spirit, means that he is the first to be targeted when the revolution happens. This has nothing to to with economics. Marxisim used economics to advance an agenda that had nothing to do with economics.
This was true in 1844 france, 1919 Russia, 1933 Germany, and 2020 America.
BTW it is very clear what Marx is getting at, his mother who he hated was to him to much of a sabbath Jew to him, despite throwing away everything and converting. He was trying to create a system that would make Jews sell out their Judaism completely. He is trying to guide a system that would get rid of Judaism. The unspoken truth is that after winning over who ever he can win over, murder is the next step.
Honestly Marx entire world view is just to attack on his mother (who was too Jewish for him, and marx's personification of Jews who he knew nothing about) Thus every thing he said is just a spoiled brat complaining about his mother being a hypocrite for her "Judaism" and cutting him off.
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?
My guess was - because of his money and connections he got into the system of camps in the later phase and that's why he managed to survive. But the rest of his family died.
So what's your point - I have no idea. As I've said - you can't destroy six million people in one day. It takes time to even dispose of the bodies.
So Jews ( and the rest that were placed in the camps along with them) were destroyed gradually, in "segments."
That's how the system was set.
A diabolic system at that. I'm sure many of these people would have preferred to be finished off right away, instead of going through this prolonged agony.
And I suppose they always had this option of being electrocuted on the barbed wire that was surrounding these places.
Quote:
Why did that Polish woman deliver thousands of babies at Auschwitz?
Did it ever occur to you that these women were rounded up and brought to camps when they were already pregnant?
So what do you think was supposed to happen to them and their infants?
If you are still clueless, here is a good read for you.
The fact that only 30 infants out of 3,000 survived is yet another good indication that you know not what you are talking about.
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. 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.
If I were you, I wouldn't be betting my life so easily.
Because if I could ever think about the living hell on Earth, this would be these concentration camps.
I guess that's what experiencing god's wrath, full-blown, feels like.
Quote:
But again I really don't care to talk about the holocaust. That wasn't my purpose in this thread.
It wasn't?
Great.
So what this was all about then?
Quote:
If you go back to the early middle-ages, power came mostly from the control of land.
Well that, and being born into the privileged class of aristocracy.
THIS was supposedly coming from God himself and couldn't be challenged, yet that's precisely what the arrival of capitalism challenged, along with the "founding fathers" of American colonies, that claimed that "all men are born equal." ( As long as they were not people of color of course.)
Quote:
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.
God save me from all these "crash courses" and home-grown geniuses with diet Dr. Pepper in their hand.
No, it were not "the Kings" that created the system of capitalism, but the burgers - craftsmen and merchants that represented the future class of the bourgeoisie with capital, instead of the exclusive class of aristocracy with capital before them.
(And this was happening all over Europe, not just England by the way.)
( And no, they were not THE ONLY "merchants and bankers."
Every nation out there had its own craftsmen and merchants.
But you already confirmed yourself that Christians ( and church had A LOT of political power in Europe of those days) were not allowed to practice usury.
So this responsibility fell on Jews, who were not allowed to be land-owners anywhere.
So this way the hatred of the debtors was always turned against Jews and the debtors were ascribing to Jews all kind of negative features for obvious reasons.
( What do you think happens to you, what kind of crap, when God deprives you of your own land, even BEFORE you end up somewhere in concentration camp, with no ability to have army of your own to protect you.)?
Quote:
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
Yeah-yeah-yeah...
Now you can see why it would be *beneficial* for Jews to cancel out religion and to proceed to the "communism" theory instead.
Because under the secular theory of "communism," there was no more guilt placed upon Jews for rejection of Christ, there was no more Israel, there was no more of "promised land," and thus Stalin could create "Birobijan Jewish Republic" as a "Jewish homeland," instead of some "Palestine."
After all, it's only logical - if there is no God ( just "communism,") then there is no "Holy land" as well, and Jews should have their own "republic" as everyone else in the Soviet Union.
Quote:
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.
They ARE a separate nation, the nation that lost their land, and was "scattered among other nations" - precisely as Bible predicted.
What they think of themselves ("Chosen people" or not,) is irrelevant, because once you are deprived of your own land ( and army,) you are in dire straights and in a survival mode basically, with all fingers pointed at you for usury ( that other leave up to you to practice in the first place,) and for anything else that's wrong with the mankind.
I wouldn't advise to anyone to feel envious of their "success" ( perceived or real one,) or "supremacism," and even less so, to throw stones at them, even for a reason of that Holocaust alone.
But that's just me.
Quote:
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.
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 .
I quoted Wiki and I believe that the description they gave includes the cases you describe here.
Quote:
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.
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.
For whom?
For the outsiders only may be.
The insiders always knew the truth - with or without archives.
No, it were not "the Kings" that created the system of capitalism, but the burgers - craftsmen and merchants that represented the future class of the bourgeoisie with capital, instead of the exclusive class of aristocracy with capital before them.
(And this was happening all over Europe, not just England by the way.)
Now, I'm not a very smart person, and I'm sure erasure is smarter than me in matters of European history.
But I do remember writing a paper on feudalism in Europe, a very long one, and my understand was that neither the merchants or the kings reformed the system, nor the landed aristocracy/lordships, but the "petty producers" who started to use competitive leases to increase investment on the farmland rather than having it be managed by single peasants collectively.
Yeah, I know that's hard to believe since the peasants all seemed the same, but this is what my readings taught me (truthful or otherwise). The city merchants didn't seem to be a big motivating factor, nor were the crafters or the usage of monetary exchange. More than anything it was a rural evolution that upset the poorer farmers but lead to a new bourgeoisie from renters, from which the land became more commercialized. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt18...o_tab_contents
In another thread someone mentioned that the Nazi party were socialists but it needs to be pointed out that they were...
"National Socialists" and had a currency backed by labor. Everybody worked. They also forgave home loans/reduced loans for families having children.
The German government of that time wasnt like the deranged sick twisted Bolshevik scum in Russia that killed tens of millions and another 10 million in Ukraine during the 32-33 Holodomor planned famine.
Germany wanted to stop the filthy Satanic scourge of communism from coming to Germany.
The world is always spoon fed the Holocaust story yet the 60 to 100 million murdered by Bolshevik Scum is never talked about.
Wonder why?
Justifying one's affinity for alt-right philosophy and right-wing nationalism is an exercise in pretzel logic, ain't it?
Now, I'm not a very smart person, and I'm sure erasure is smarter than me in matters of European history.
But I do remember writing a paper on feudalism in Europe, a very long one, and my understand was that neither the merchants or the kings reformed the system, nor the landed aristocracy/lordships, but the "petty producers" who started to use competitive leases to increase investment on the farmland rather than having it be managed by single peasants collectively.
Yeah, I know that's hard to believe since the peasants all seemed the same, but this is what my readings taught me (truthful or otherwise). The city merchants didn't seem to be a big motivating factor, nor were the crafters or the usage of monetary exchange. More than anything it was a rural evolution that upset the poorer farmers but lead to a new bourgeoisie from renters, from which the land became more commercialized. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt18...o_tab_contents
Yes, the "petty producers" as you refer to them, (or "wealthy peasantry") became part of the nascent class of bourgeoisie as well.
( That's to make the long story short.
It was all about the arrival of this new class on the world scene, instead of the old class of aristocracy, that used to be the major land-owners.)
BTW it is very clear what Marx is getting at... Marxisim used economics to advance an agenda that had nothing to do with economics... Thus every thing he said is just a spoiled brat complaining about his mother being a hypocrite for her "Judaism" and cutting him off.
Yes, antisemitism is just a Freudian hatred of mother.
In all seriousness, what Marx is saying is, there is something about Judaism that explains Jewish behavior and even Jewish success. Just like there is something about Islam that explains Muslim behavior. And there is something about Christianity that explains Christian behavior.
He argues that Judaism is a more "practical" version of Christianity. Practical being more useful in our "material world". Which is why I enjoyed the last line so much... " 'Christianity' was too noble-minded, too spiritualistic to eliminate the crudity of practical need in any other way than by elevation to the skies."
Basically, the only answer the Christians have for the wickedness of the world, is that we will be rewarded in heaven. You don't need to fight against it, you don't need to win, you merely have to endure it long enough to escape to heaven. This is why Christians were so easily taken advantage of. They let themselves be taken advantage of. Nietzsche called it "slave-morality". Christianity was the religion of the weak/meek.
And possibly most importantly this quote from that essay...
"Judaism reaches its highest point with the perfection of civil society, but it is only in the Christian world that civil society attains perfection. Only under the dominance of Christianity, which makes all national, natural, moral, and theoretical conditions extrinsic to man, could civil society separate itself completely from the life of the state."
Basically, Christians are by their nature "anti-state". Jesus hated the state. The King may have ruled by divine right, but the King was not the church, and the church was not the King. Christianity does not establish a state, it merely tolerates the state(Romans 13). Even at the height of Christendom, the King was a secular authority who enforced secular laws. And that is why the Jews could take control of these countries politically and economically, the prerogatives of the King had nothing to do with Christianity. And if the Jews were useful to him, he embraced them, and placed them into positions of power.
The opposite of that is Islam. Islam is inseparable from the state. Islam creates a state, or at least it tries to. Islam even lays out how non-Muslims will be conquered and ruled over. What the laws shall be, taxes, obligations, etc. And in that way, Judaism is much closer to Islam than to Christianity.
Only under Christianity could Jews so thoroughly dominate. And the practical spirit of Judaism remade Christianity to be almost indistinguishable from Judaism. The Christians have become Jews. Money has corrupted everything. Mammon is the god of the world, the god of the Jews, and now the god of Christianity.
So in that, the Christians are guilty, and increasingly more-so with every passing day. I hold my greatest contempt for so-called "conservatives" because they are often the most corrupt of all, and too stupid to understand what they're doing. They place money before everything, and the only thing they want to conserve is their own money.
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.
