Nazism wasn't really socialism in the sense that had severe negative aspects of Marxism (money, state)
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.
Oh thanks, this helps, when you look at the picture percentage-wise.
So the biggest growth of Jewish population in US ( if you look at the table) happens between 1900 and 1930, which is consistent with mass immigration of Jews from the Russian Empire/Eastern Europe, between 1900-1914.
But then we know that in 1924 US curbed the immigration.
So this explains that in 1920 the increase of Jewish population in US is at 90 percent, while by 1930 it's already only at 24.
And by 1940 - it's at 12%.
So yes, I would think that you need to take already the younger generation born in the US in consideration as a reason for increase, and not the immigration ( from Eastern Europe at least.)
There are still of course the Sephardi Jews ( and they are the ones common in the Middle East,) but I would have hard time putting a finger on THEIR numbers in the US as well ( although interestingly enough, they were the majority in initial Jewish settlements in US.)
Their numbers however don't influence greatly the numbers of those destroyed during the Holocaust ( those were mostly Ashkenazi Jews,) but they DO add to the total tally however of all Jews living in US. ( Speaking of those 4+ million in 1940.)
Yes its good they found a home that would be free from oppression. And after 1924 , not only US, I have read that even Britain turned them away when they were trying to go there.
4 million" that Redshadowz mentioned somewhere was incorrect of course.
To be fair, I don't recall saying anything about 4 million Jews migrating. I only mentioned that if someone migrated they could have been considered part of the holocaust number, since holocaust estimates are based on the assumed prewar population compared to the post-war population. There aren't six-million names for the six-million claim, the six-million is an assumption.
There are a multitude of reasons why these numbers are unreliable, and further, there are reasons to believe that certain "interested" parties might want to inflate the numbers for political or even geopolitical reasons. And most of the numbers come from territories that fell under the control of the Soviet Union after WWII, and Stalin was a notorious liar.
The problem for people like myself is that the official holocaust story simply has too many contradictions to be true. And far too many things that were originally claimed turned out to be false. The holocaust has practically become a religious observance, you believe it on faith since there is virtually no evidence. No Nazi documents, no firsthand witnesses except people tortured by Stalin into fake confessions that were themselves disproved, and who were then executed by Stalin. Gas chambers that simply don't make any sense or were admitted to be re-creations. Polish women defying the Nazis and delivering thousands of babies at Auschwitz. Millions of holocaust survivors.
On top of all that, countries making it illegal to question the holocaust. And in countries where it isn't illegal, it is defacto illegal because you would be hounded out of office or out of business for daring to do so. The amount of censorship on google, youtube, and every other platform has gotten ridiculous. And the story of WWII has become so Jew-focused, most people really have no idea what was going on. It was almost like Hitler went to war just so he could kill Jews.
I have no idea how this thread became so focused on the holocaust. I was only trying to explain why socialists have a long history of antisemitism.
I don't think Christianity is noble, anything decent came from Judaism
What a surprise.
And what exactly is noble about Judaism? The feelings of superiority? The love of money? I guess that really would be noble in the historical sense. The medieval nobles were basically Jews. But noble? Never.
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?
I was always told that pregnant women and children were sent directly to the gas chambers. Anyone who couldn't work was sent directly to the gas chambers. And why wouldn't they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
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.
I did a little reading. The story is based on a report she wrote in 1965 about her memories from Auschwitz....
"Among all these ghastly memories there is one thought that lingers in my mind. All the babies were born alive. They all wanted to live. Only thirty survived. A few hundred were sent to Nakło for Germanisation. Klara and Pfani drowned over 1,500. Over 1,000 died of cold and hunger."
She says only 30 survived, but then says hundreds were sent for Germanization. And in the story, Sister Klara was sent to Auschwitz for having committed infanticide, and every single baby she delivered was born alive and all the thousands of mothers survived too.
Is her story true? Or just another holocaust story that makes no sense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Because if I could ever think about the living hell on Earth, this would be these concentration camps.
I wasn't arguing that the Jews weren't treated poorly. And certainly the mass-starvation and the disease ripping through killing people by the tens of thousands would be a nightmare. But did the Nazis intentionally starve anyone? And keep in mind the Russians and Ukrainians had been starving by the millions long before WWII began.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
So what this was all about then?
Someone came into the thread saying that Hitler used the Jews as scapegoats for Germany's economic failings after he took power in 1933. Which I found odd because Germany wasn't failing. And the whole Jews as a scapegoat thing ignores the more than 100 years of antisemitism by socialists like Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
That's precisely what the arrival of capitalism challenged
Once the capitalists became richer than the nobility, they overthrew the nobility and installed themselves as the new nobility. They called themselves the "Natural aristocracy".
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
No, it were not "the Kings" that created the system of capitalism
I used the word "King" as a kind of euphemism for "the state". What I mean is, the King passed laws which fostered certain types of industries which were useful to him. The King needs blacksmiths to make the weapons for his Armies. He also needs Iron, and coal, and roads, and money, etc. In essence, the "King"(IE the state) created and enforced the laws on which capitalism depends. One of those was the Enclosure of the land(IE property rights).
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Christians 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.
Is it a "responsibility"? Eh kinda. The Kings of Europe loved Jewish bankers and they were just fine with usury, they benefited from it. The Jews may have enriched themselves, but the King still got his cut.
The closest thing I can think of in our modern times is the lottery. Everyone jokes that the lottery is a "poor tax". My state resisted the lottery until about 15 years ago. But ultimately it gave in, not for moral reasons, or philosophical reasons, but for money, and because a lot of people were going to other states to buy lottery tickets anyway. If they brought the lottery here, then more of that money would stay here, and more money would be spent here.
Marijuana is becoming the same thing. Once Colorado legalized it, massive numbers of people from Oklahoma would go to Colorado to buy it. Now Oklahoma legalized marijuana, and from what I understand Oklahoma now has some of the most permissive laws in the country, at least for growers. Why? Money.
Now, imagine if the laws said that Christians couldn't operate the lottery or grow marijuana because of religious obligations, but non-Christians could because they have no religious obligations. Then the lottery and marijuana groweries would be completely dominated by non-Christians, and if they were the most-profitable industries, that would make the owners the richest men.
But these two activities at least suppose the Christians are the consumers of these products. But when the Kings invited in the Jews, the loans weren't made to "the people", but to the Kings, who used the loans to wage war, and then taxed "the people" to pay the loans. Thus the people were often completely separate from the usury operation but were forced to pay the interest.
I don't know if that means the Jews were "responsible" for such industries. But you could argue that, without the financing for the King, for the state, for the Army, for the Navy, for the merchants themselves, they would have been conquered by any other such King or state or Army. Thus in a sense you could argue that the financial power of the Jews protected the Kingdom and thus the people themselves. So does that make the Jews responsible men who form the backbone of the state? An Army in their own right? Sorta.
"Among savages, mere physical strength, on the part of one man, may enable him to rob, enslave, or kill another man. Among barbarians, mere physical strength, on the part of a body of men, disciplined, and acting in concert, though with very little money or other wealth, may, under some circumstances, enable them to rob, enslave, or kill another body of men, as numerous, or perhaps even more numerous, than themselves. And among both savages and barbarians, mere want may sometimes compel one man to sell himself as a slave to another. But with (so-called) civilized peoples, among whom knowledge, wealth, and the means of acting in concert, have become diffused; and who have invented such weapons and other means of defense as to render mere physical strength of less importance; and by whom soldiers in any requisite number, and other instrumentalities of war in any requisite amount, can always be had for money, the question of war, and consequently the question of power, is little else than a mere question of money. As a necessary consequence, those who stand ready to furnish this money, are the real rulers."
By this train of logic the Christians should be thankful to the Jews for using their financial power to make the Christian Kingdoms the commercial and industrial superpowers they are now. Without Jewish influence, the Christians would have remained mired in poverty and ignorance. The Europeans wouldn't have been the colonizers, but the colonized. Likely raped, pillaged, and sold into slavery by Muslims, or any other group who didn't worship poverty and disdain power.
But these two activities at least suppose the Christians are the consumers of these products. But when the Kings invited in the Jews, the loans weren't made to "the people", but to the Kings, who used the loans to wage war, and then taxed "the people" to pay the loans. Thus the people were often completely separate from the usury operation but were forced to pay the interest.
I'm frustrated that I can't find a link but before the expulsion in the middle ages, Jewish loaners in England helped financed some of the most magnificent churches in all of Europe.
There is a specific one I am thinking about but I just can't find any reference to it.
Suffice to say capital accumulation is needed to build wondrous forms of man made art that give humans a strong sense of identity.
The Egyptians could use slaves to build the pyramids, but by the 1100s you'd need money lenders to help allocate the capital which otherwise could not be made through profits (money you don't have). In that way its because of Jews that the English middle period had such great historical markers in the way of chapels and other buildings marked by their age.
The world would be very dull without these structures from both west or east, something sub-saharan Africa lacks.
Its ironic because one of the most upsetting things about capitalism today is how it value functionality over beauty, and homogenization over culture.
Most new art work is globalized and can be found anywhere in the world, as well as the buildings constructed. When building for religion or in honor of ancestral nobility or mysticism (or politics) the greatest structures are produced in honor of that time and place. Now with massive condos, work offices, and globalization their are less markers of what makes a country different or significant. And the street art or new 'artistic' structures could be placed as well in Tokyo, Sydney, Sao Paulo, or New York for all that mattered.
Suffice to say capital accumulation is needed to build wondrous forms of man made art that give humans a strong sense of identity.
The greatness of Rome.
Rome was able to organize massive amounts of people to erect great buildings, monuments, aqueducts, a coliseum, bread and circus. After the Roman Empire collapsed the tiny Kingdoms couldn't even maintain what Rome had already built.
But was Rome great? Was it better to be a Roman or a Goth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
The world would be very dull without these structures from both west or east, something sub-saharan Africa lacks.
"The Perception of Beauty is a Moral Test." - Henry David Thoreau
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Its ironic because one of the most upsetting things about capitalism today is how it value functionality over beauty, and homogenization over culture.
Not even functionality, more like cheapness, something to be discarded. Modern art isn't even art, it is politics with a side of consumerism.
When I was a young man I was something like a "futurist". I remember being so excited when they were totally redoing all the highways in Oklahoma City, and downtown, and the river... I remember seeing a rendering of what it was all going to look like, and I couldn't wait, I wished I could be transported through time.
Fast-forward 12 years, I wish they would rip it all out. It is all commercial BS, built and subsidized by my sales taxes. I literally never go there, and most people never go there. They've basically built a playground for the rich with the tax-dollars of the poor.
I know why they did it, they wanted to boost tourism, boost the economy, bring money into OKC. But from where?
Rome was able to organize massive amounts of people to erect great buildings, monuments, aqueducts, a coliseum, bread and circus. After the Roman Empire collapsed the tiny Kingdoms couldn't even maintain what Rome had already built.
But was Rome great? Was it better to be a Roman or a Goth?
"The Perception of Beauty is a Moral Test." - Henry David Thoreau
Not even functionality, more like cheapness, something to be discarded. Modern art isn't even art, it is politics with a side of consumerism.
When I was a young man I was something like a "futurist". I remember being so excited when they were totally redoing all the highways in Oklahoma City, and downtown, and the river... I remember seeing a rendering of what it was all going to look like, and I couldn't wait, I wished I could be transported through time.
Fast-forward 12 years, I wish they would rip it all out. It is all commercial BS, built and subsidized by my sales taxes. I literally never go there, and most people never go there. They've basically built a playground for the rich with the tax-dollars of the poor.
I know why they did it, they wanted to boost tourism, boost the economy, bring money into OKC. But from where?
We have natural beauty, but most of our physical structures are unimpressive.
State buildings are a lot of the time neo-roman, but the cities themselves are unimpressive. Even Boston or Philadelphia which are said to be nice are just urban junkyards.
The only exception is washington DC, or more specifically the mall. There are great memorials and statues along with fountains and cherry blossoms that give it some heightened feel. The rest of DC is just a place for more condos and office space. Georgetown isn't that great either.
We have natural beauty, but most of our physical structures are unimpressive.
If you're going to live in cities, cities need to be livable, and most of us have to live in cities. The rest is statecraft, glory of Rome, bread and circuses, etc.
And what exactly is noble about Judaism? The feelings of superiority? The love of money? I guess that really would be noble in the historical sense. The medieval nobles were basically Jews. But noble? Never.
medieval nobles were Jews?
which country?
which years?
names
medieval nobles were Jews?
which country?
which years?
names
I said "basically", meaning they behaved like them. Switzerland are the Jews of Europe. That doesn't mean they are Jews, it means they are basically Jews.
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.
